Long-Term Bridge Performance High 

Priority Bridge Performance Issues 

PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-HRT-14-052 OCTOBER 2014

Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296
FOREWORD

This study was conducted as part of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Long-Term 

Bridge Performance (LTBP) Program. The LTBP Program is a minimum 20-year research effort, 

authorized by the U.S. Congress, to collect high- quality bridge data from a representative 

sample of highway bridges nationwide, that will help the bridge community better understand 

bridge deterioration and performance. The products from this program will be a collection of 

data-driven tools, including predictive and forecasting models that will enhance the abilities of 

bridge owners to optimize their management of bridges. 

One of the first needs identified for LTBP Program development was to determine what specific 

bridge performance issues should be studied under the program. This would lead the way to 

identifying bridge data needs for the program, designing necessary data infrastructure, selecting 

bridges for the program, and designing effective experiments. This report documents the process 

used in the LTBP Program for identifying high priority bridge performance issues. Fifteen State 

departments of transportation participated in a series of focus group meetings and provided input 

on high priority bridge performance issues. Input was also solicited from the bridge community 

at large. The list of issues was periodically refined, evaluated, and described in detail. This report 

provides the results of that effort: 22 high-priority performance issues and a short list of six 6 

issues that will be the initial focus of the LTBP Program. This report will be of interest to bridge 

program personnel from Federal, State, and local agencies as well as to parties engaged in 

bridge-related research and the practicing bridge engineering community.

Jorge E. Pagán-Ortiz

Director, Office of Infrastructure

Research and Development

Notice

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

in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of 

the information contained in this document.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards 

and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to 

ensure continuous quality improvement.
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No.

FHWA-HRT-14-052

2. Government Accession No.

N/A

3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

N/A

4. Title and Subtitle

Long-Term Bridge Performance High Priority Bridge 

Performance Issues

5. Report Date

October 2014

6. Performing Organization Code: 

N/A

7. Author(s)

Michael C. Brown, Jose P. Gomez, Maureen L. 

Hammer—Virginia Department of Transportation

John M. Hooks—J.M. Hooks & Associates

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

N/A

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

The Center for Advanced Infrastructure and 

Transportation

100 Brett Road

Piscataway, NJ 08854-8058

10. Work Unit No.

N/A

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-08-C-00005

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of Infrastructure Research and Development

Federal Highway Administration

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

HRDI-60

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA Contracting Officer’s Technical Contact: Susan Lane (HRDI-60)

16. Abstract

Bridge performance is a multifaceted issue involving performance of materials and protective systems, 

performance of individual components of the bridge, and performance of the structural system as a whole. The 

Long-Term Bridge Performance (LTBP) Program was initiated to collect, store, and analyze the data necessary to 

better understand high priority bridge performance issues. The success of the program depends on first being able 

to identify the most important performance issues bridge owners face. To identify these issues, input from those 

bridge owners and other key stakeholders was sought. As part of this outreach, bridge experts in 15 State

transportation departments were interviewed and asked to name the performance issues in their bridge inventory 

that are most common and/or most difficult to solve. The findings of these interviews are included in this report. 

To supplement these interviews and identify high priority issues related to bridge substructures, a workshop on 

substructure performance issues was held. The findings from the interviews and the substructure workshop were 

used to develop a list of 22 high priority performance issues. From this list, a shorter list of six bridge 

performance issues was recommended as the first group of issues for study under the LTBP Program.

17. Key Words

LTBP Program, bridge performance, bridge 

testing, bridge inspection

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available through the 

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 

22161.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

98

22. Price

N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm 

ft feet 0.305 meters m 

yd yards 0.914 meters m 

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km 

AREA 

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2

ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2

yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha

mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2

VOLUME 

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL 

gal gallons 3.785 liters L 

ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 

yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t") 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius o

C 

or (F-32)/1.8 

ILLUMINATION 

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N 

lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH mm millimeters 0.039 inches in 

m meters 3.28 feet ft 

m meters 1.09 yards yd 

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi 

AREA mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 

VOLUME 

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz 

L liters 0.264 gallons gal 

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 

MASS 

g grams 0.035 ounces oz

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb

Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit o

F 

ILLUMINATION 

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc 

cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf 

kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2

*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. 

(Revised March 2003)

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW............................................................... 1

LTBP PROGRAM OVERVIEW .......................................................................................... 3

GENERAL DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LTBP PROGRAM............................ 4

CHAPTER 2. STAKEHOLDER INPUT—STATE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 

FOCUS GROUPS ................................................................................................................... 5

FOCUS GROUP OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................... 5

PROCESS ................................................................................................................................ 5

KEY FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................... 8

Performance Measures...................................................................................................... 13

CHAPTER 3. OTHER STAKEHOLDER INPUT.................................................................. 15

FHWA LTBP WORKSHOP................................................................................................ 15

FHWA SUBSTRUCTURES WORKSHOP ....................................................................... 15

STATE LTBP COORDINATORS...................................................................................... 16

TRB LTBP COMMITTEE.................................................................................................. 16

CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.............................................................................. 19

COMMON PERFORMANCE ISSUES THAT NEED RESEARCH.............................. 19

Decks................................................................................................................................. 19

Joints................................................................................................................................. 19

Jointless Bridges ............................................................................................................... 20

The Bump at the End of the Bridge .................................................................................. 21

Scour ................................................................................................................................. 21

DESIRED OUTCOMES OF THE LTBP PROGRAM..................................................... 22

RECOMMENDATIONS ON LTBP PROGRAM PRIORITIES..................................... 23

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................. 29

APPENDIX A—FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS............................................ 31

QUESTIONS FOR LTBP FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS ........................................... 31

APPENDIX B—FOCUS GROUP SUMMARIES ................................................................... 33

APPENDIX C—INITIAL RATING AND RANKING OF BRIDGE PERFORMANCE 

ISSUES................................................................................................................................... 89

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 91

iii
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Illustration. Categories of bridge performance issues. .................................................... 2

Figure 2. Map. Participating State transportation departments....................................................... 6

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Categories of bridge performance and influencing factors............................................... 3

Table 2. List of focus group States by region. ................................................................................ 6

Table 3. State transportation department bridge inventory and management structure. ................ 9

Table 4. State transportation department reported issues related to decks. .................................. 10

Table 5. State transportation department reported issues related to superstructures. ................... 11

Table 6. State transportation department reported issues related to substructures. ...................... 12

Table 7. State transportation department reported issues related to functional issues.................. 13

Table 8. Performance measures identified by focus groups. ........................................................ 13

Table 9. Ratings and rankings of proposed study topics by stakeholders. ................................... 24

Table 10. Long-term bridge performance suggested study topics................................................ 26

Table 11. Initial study topics for LTBP Program. ........................................................................ 27

Table 12. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Alabama........................... 34

Table 13. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in California......................... 37

Table 14. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Florida.............................. 41

Table 15. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Illinois.............................. 47

Table 16. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Iowa. ................................ 50

Table 17. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Kansas.............................. 53

Table 18. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Minnesota. ....................... 57

Table 19. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Montana........................... 60

Table 20. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in New Jersey....................... 63

Table 21. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in New York. ....................... 66

Table 22. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Ohio. ................................ 70

Table 23. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Oregon. ............................ 73

Table 24. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Texas................................ 77

Table 25. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Utah. ................................ 80

Table 26. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Virginia............................ 84

Table 27. External stakeholders.................................................................................................... 89

Table 28. FHWA bridge experts................................................................................................... 89

iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ABC Accelerated Bridge Construction

ABIMS Alabama Bridge Information Management System

ADOT Alabama Department of Transportation

ADT Average Daily Traffic

ASR alkaline silica reactivity

BAMS Bridge Analysis & Monitoring 

Caltrans California Department of Transportation

CoRe elements Commonly Recognized elements

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation

GASB Government Accounting Standards Bulletin

GPR Ground-Penetrating Radar

HI Health Index

HPC High Performance Concrete

IADOT Iowa Department of Transportation

IDOT Illinois Department of Transportation

KDOT Kansas Department of Transportation

LTBP Long-Term Bridge Performance 

MDOT Montana Department of Transportation

Mn/DOT Minnesota Department of Transportation

MOT Maintenance of Traffic

MSE Mechanically Stabilized Earth

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

NBI National Bridge Inventory

NBIS National Bridge Inspection Standards

NDE/NDT Nondestructive Evaluation/Nondestructive Testing

NHS National Highway System

NJDOT New Jersey Department of Transportation

NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation

ODOT-OH* Ohio Department of Transportation

ODOT-OR* Oregon Department of Transportation

OPI Operational Performance Indicator

PE Professional Engineer

PLAT Project-Level Analysis Tool

QA Quality Assurance

QC Quality Control

SHM Structural Health Monitoring

STIP State Transportation Improvement Program

TRB Transportation Research Board

TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation

* The Ohio and Oregon State transportation departments both use the formal abbreviation ODOT. This abbreviation was modified for purposes of 

this report by appending the standard State abbreviation.

v

 
UDOT Utah Department of Transportation

UT Ultrasonic Testing

VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation

vi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

The U.S. infrastructure is aging and deteriorating, while public State transportation departments 

are struggling to keep pace using limited resources. Bridges are critical components of the 

highway infrastructure; a bridge that is in poor condition or one that has inadequate functional 

capacities can cause a reduction in the operating capacity of the highway system. The problem is 

compounded when work is necessary to properly maintain, rehabilitate, or replace an existing 

structure or a series of structures. Bridge work sites usually involve one or more conditions that 

result in disruptions to safe, efficient, and economical traffic flow. These include lanes that are 

narrowed, shifted, or closed; live load restrictions; speed reductions; detours; and work zone 

related safety hazards. These conditions often result in moderate to severe impacts on local and 

regional economies and environments, such as loss of productive time because of traffic delays 

and detours, increased consumption of fuel, and increased engine emissions.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) initiated the Long-Term Bridge Performance 

(LTBP) Program as authorized in the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,” signed into law in August 2005. The LTBP Program is a 

20-year (minimum), multifaceted research effort that is strategic in nature. It is similar to the 

Long-Term Pavement Performance Program that has been under way for more than 20 years.

Critical aspects of bridge performance will be studied to better understand those issues and to 

improve performance related to those issues. This report describes how the high priority bridge 

performance issues to be studied under the program were identified and prioritized with the 

assistance of bridge owners and other key stakeholders in the bridge community.

Bridge performance is a multifaceted issue involving performance of materials and protective 

systems, performance of individual components of the bridge, and performance of the structural 

system as a whole. The performance of any single bridge or element of a bridge is dependent on 

multiple factors, many of which are closely linked. They include the original design parameters 

and specifications (bridge type, materials, geometries, load capacities); the initial quality of 

materials and quality of the as-built construction; varying conditions of climate, air quality, and 

soil properties; and corrosion and other deterioration processes. Other factors influencing

performance include traffic volumes, counts and weights of truck loads, truck live load impacts,

and damage sustained as a result of scour, seismic events, wind, etc. A final critical factor

influencing performance is the type, timing, and effectiveness of preventive maintenance, of 

minor and major rehabilitation actions, and ultimately of replacement actions applied to the 

bridge. All of these factors combine to affect the condition and operational capacities of the 

bridge and its various structural elements at any given point in the life of the bridge. Currently, 

some important aspects of bridge performance are not well understood, and some of the main 

factors related to bridge performance are not well documented. Often, attempts at assessment of 

how bridges are performing are partly based on expert opinion and/or on analyses that are 

hampered by lack of crucial data and thus are dependent on one or more assumptions or 

generalizations. 

Optimal performance of bridges is of paramount importance to support the fundamental mission 

of State transportation departments to provide the best service to the traveling public and 

commercial interests. It is also vital for minimizing the overall (lifecycle) costs of keeping 

bridges in service. Understanding bridge performance is a key factor in a State transportation 

1
department’s ability to address current bridge deficiencies (functional as well as structural) and 

to design and build better performing bridges for the future. Understanding performance is 

critical to the planning, design, and construction processes that lead to bridges that are easier, 

faster, and less costly to build and maintain, including the use of new and innovative bridge 

materials. More information on bridge performance can be found in the FHWA publication 

LTBP Bridge Performance Primer (FHWA-HRT-13-051).

(1)

To achieve a better understanding of bridge performance, it is necessary to examine bridge 

performance as a broad spectrum concept in which multiple issues sometimes compete and often 

are interrelated. A primary objective of the LTBP Program is to collect data, information, and 

knowledge on bridges. It is important to collect and prioritize the issues to be studied and the 

data items according to feasibility and economics, as well as relevance and value to gain a better 

understanding of bridge performance.

To assist with this challenge, the possible performance issues and the parameters influencing 

performance were first classified into four broad categories. This is the starting point for 

beginning to identify the performance issues that are most important to owners. As figure 1

shows, the primary issues in bridge performance are the following: 

• Structural condition—durability and serviceability (including fatigue).

• Functionality—user safety and service.

• Costs (State transportation department and users).

• Structural integrity—safety and stability in failure modes.

Figure 1. Illustration. Categories of bridge performance issues.

Many of the important parameters that influence these four categories of bridge performance are 

listed in table 1.

2
Table 1. Categories of bridge performance and influencing factors.

Category Influencing Factors

Structural Condition—

Durability and 

Serviceability (including 

fatigue) 

• Structure type.

• Structural materials and material specifications.

• As-built material qualities and current conditions.

• As-built construction qualities and current conditions.

• Truck loads and other live loads.

• Environment—climate, air quality, marine atmosphere.

• Snow and ice removal operations.

• Type, timing, and effectiveness of preventive maintenance.

• Type, timing, and effectiveness of restorative maintenance, 

minor and major rehabilitation.

• Flooding, hydraulic design, and scour mitigation measures.

• Soil characteristics—settlement.

Functionality—User 

Safety and Service

• Structure geometry—clear deck width, skew, approach 

roadway alignment.

• Skid resistance and ride quality of riding surface vertical 

clearances—over and under.

• Traffic volumes and percentage of trucks.

• Posted speed.

• Postings and load ratings—restrictions on use.

Costs (user and State 

transportation 

department)

Users

• Accident costs.

• Detour and delay costs.

State Transportation Department

• Initial construction costs.

• Maintenance, repair and rehabilitation costs.

• Costs for maintenance of traffic.

Structural Integrity—

Safety and Stability in 

All Failure Modes

• Seismic performance

• Hurricane and flood resistance.

• Collision and blast impacts.

• Fire resistance.

• Structural redundancy and load redistribution.

LTBP PROGRAM OVERVIEW

The overall objective of the LTBP Program is to inspect, evaluate, and periodically monitor 

representative samples of bridges nationwide to collect, document, maintain, and manage highquality quantitative performance data over an extended period of time. This will require taking 

advantage of sensing technologies and nondestructive evaluation and testing tools in addition to 

typical bridge inspection approaches. It will also require close collaboration among stakeholders, 

State transportation departments, academia, and industry to gather data that are available but not 

currently gathered into a single database by anyone in the bridge community. The LTBP 

Program is designed in part to collect critical performance data that is not available elsewhere 

and merge it with data gathered from available sources.

It is anticipated that the LTBP Program will provide a better understanding of bridge 

deterioration, focusing on its numerous causes, including loads, environment, and de-icing 

chemicals. The program will also collect information regarding the effectiveness of current 

maintenance and improvement strategies. It is envisioned that data on bridges will be stored in 

3
the Bridge Portal, a new tool developed for the LTBP Program, and will be used to solve a 

variety of bridge condition assessment and management problems, to develop new tools, and to 

advance the state-of-the-knowledge of bridge management, design, maintenance, and 

preservation.

GENERAL DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LTBP PROGRAM

An early requirement during the development of the program was to establish what specific 

aspects of bridge performance are most critical to FHWA, State transportation departments, and 

other public bridge-owning State entities. Following this, these aspects of bridge performance 

were evaluated to determine whether they could be adequately studied with the available LTBP 

Program resources. Finally, the issues were ranked in priority order to determine which issues 

would be addressed first.

The selection of performance issues to study under LTBP is intrinsically linked to the feasibility 

of collecting the data necessary to study the issues. In addition to owner input on the priority for 

performance issues, input from the owners on data to collect, and that could feasibly be 

collected, was critically important. The owners know what types of data are already being 

collected by their State transportation departments, as well as how it is stored and how accessible 

it is for transfer to the LTBP Program database. With regard to field inspection data to be 

collected, the owners must approve and allow all aspects of field testing on their bridges.

Another reason for owner input on data needs is that the owners know what types of decision 

support tools would be most useful in their decisionmaking processes. This also helps define the 

LTBP data needs.

The issue of data to be collected was an important part of the discussions with owners about the 

performance issues to be studied and was included in the objectives of the focus group meetings 

described in chapter 2. It is the subject of the upcoming FHWA report Identifying Long-Term 

Bridge Performance Data Needs.

4
CHAPTER 2. STAKEHOLDER INPUT—STATE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT

FOCUS GROUPS

Early and continual involvement by bridge owners in the development and implementation of the 

LTBP Program was deemed to be critically important to the success of the program. At an early 

stage in the development phase, three issues were identified for which input from bridge owners 

was important to the pursuit of the development phase tasks. First was the need to determine 

what aspects of bridge performance were most important to the owners and then to determine 

what gaps existed in their understanding of these aspects of bridge performance. That 

information is the focus of this report. Second was the need to examine what information and 

data owners currently had for use in their decisionmaking processes and to identify where there 

were critical gaps. Third was to understand their decisionmaking process and business practices 

to help identify what products the LTBP Program could develop that would best assist bridge 

owners in managing their bridge programs. That information was used internally by FHWA.

The approach selected to collect this information was to hold a series of focus groups across a 

number of geographically distributed States. The best source of the required information was 

deemed to be the State transportation departments. Therefore, focus group meetings were 

designed to allow interviews with a group of bridge inspectors, engineers, and managers from 

each of the selected States. As a result of the meetings, valuable information was obtained on 

performance issues of concern, data needs, performance measures that the transportation 

departments currently use, and what those departments saw as desired outcomes of the program.

Detailed records of the meeting discussions are included in appendix B.

FOCUS GROUP OBJECTIVES

A focus group interview process was adopted to assist the team in achieving the following 

objectives:

1. Develop an understanding of how representative States manage and track bridge 

performance.

2. Identify the most common concerns and the most costly activities of the representative 

States in maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating, and replacing bridges.

3. Determine what data the States currently collect and use for their decisionmaking

processes and what gaps they see in their currently available data.

4. Identify the aspects of bridge performance on which the States would like the program to 

focus.

PROCESS

The first step was to develop a practical process to solicit the assistance of State transportation 

department bridge personnel (experts in bridge design, inspection, maintenance, preservation,

and management) in gathering information about the processes they use and the activities they 

carry out related to bridge performance. To develop a program that is grounded in the real world 

of bridge engineering, input was needed from experienced bridge practitioners. State 

5
transportation department input was obtained to help ensure that the LTBP Program would 

provide practical data and results that practitioners could use in managing the performance of 

bridge inventories and to allow State transportation departments to share with the FHWA what 

they believe is needed.

It was agreed that the focus groups should represent owners of a geographically, economically,

and environmentally diverse cross section of State transportation departments because they 

represent a majority of the custodians of the national bridge inventory. Six regions were 

designated across the continental United States; table 2 presents the list of State transportation 

departments ultimately selected from each region.

Table 2. List of focus group States by region.

Region States

Northwest Montana, Oregon, Utah

Southwest California, Texas

North Central Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota

South Central Alabama

Northeast New Jersey, New York, Ohio

Southeast Virginia, Florida

Figure 2 presents the geographic distribution of State transportation departments identified for 

focus group participation.

Figure 2. Map. Participating State transportation departments.

6
In 2008, focus group meetings were conducted in Virginia, California, New Jersey, New York, 

and Florida. In 2009, focus group meetings were conducted in Minnesota, Utah, Texas, Iowa, 

Montana, Oregon, Ohio, Alabama, Illinois, and Kansas. State transportation department bridge 

personnel were asked to come to the meetings ready to discuss the following:

• Organizational structure and processes within the transportation department relative to 

bridge funding, design, management, inspection, and maintenance programming.

• The 5 to 10 most common forms of deterioration, damage, or functional issues faced in 

maintaining, repairing, or rehabilitating highway bridges.

• The 5 to 10 most common bridge maintenance, repair, or rehabilitation activities on 

which the State transportation department expends the most resources, with estimates of 

man-hours and funds spent on each annually.

The focus groups discussed specific modes of deterioration for bridge decks, superstructures, 

substructures, and ancillary systems, as well as functional and operational aspects of bridge 

management. Focus group meetings concentrated on the following:

• State transportation department organizational structure relative to bridge management

and bridge maintenance, the roles of the relevant groups or divisions within their 

department, and how those groups made decisions and shared information.

• Each group discussed State transportation department bridge management systems, 

including the policies, processes, and procedures for program-level management of the 

bridge inventory within its organization. This included overviews of the system(s) in 

place for collecting, housing, and reporting bridge inventory, condition, activities, and 

expenditures. In general, each group was asked to identify the information and sources 

transportation departments perceived as most useful for program-level decision support.

• Performance measures used by the State transportation department to gauge the success 

of the bridge management program and at what levels.

• The most common forms of deterioration and damage on the transportation department’s 

bridges, what information the department used to evaluate condition(s) and what 

information it used to develop feasible solutions. Generally, the responses were grouped 

into categories by general structural components of the bridge, including decks, 

superstructure, substructure, ancillary systems, and also a nonstructural functional 

category.

• The most common maintenance activities the State transportation department performed

and the information they had to base their choice of feasible solutions. 

• Innovative policies, or new techniques or tools, that had been implemented and that the 

State transportation department felt had been successful.

• Outcomes the State transportation department would like to see from the LTBP Program.

7
Appendix A contains the specific questions asked of the focus groups. Interviews were taped and 

transcribed and notes were summarized. The information gathered served as a guide in 

identifying high priority performance issues.

KEY FINDINGS

Appendix B outlines the detailed results from the respective focus group interviews.

Representatives of 5 transportation departments indicated that their departments had a 

centralized organizational structure for managing the bridge inventory, whereas 10 indicated 

such operations were distributed among operating districts or other decentralized units. 

An National Bridge Inventory (NBI) bridge is defined as any structure on a public highway that 

meets the NBI definition of a bridge: A structure including supports erected over a depression or 

an obstruction, such as water, highway, or railway, and having a track or passageway for 

carrying traffic or other moving loads, and having an opening measured along the center of the 

roadway of more than 20 ft between undercopings of abutments or spring lines of arches, or 

extreme ends of openings for multiple boxes; it may also include multiple pipes, where the clear 

distance between openings is less than half of the smaller contiguous opening.(1) At the time the 

interviews were conducted, representatives of 12 State transportation departments indicated that 

they collect AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software element-level condition information 

during their periodic inspections of NBI bridges, and 3 transportation departments did not. The 

representative of one transportation department indicated that the department was awaiting the 

release of the new national bridge elements definitions, which were expected to replace the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Commonly 

Recognized (CoRe) element definitions.

(2) The other three States collect NBI condition ratings 

but do not collect element-level condition information.(3)

Table 3 provides information regarding the bridge inventories in the focus group States and 

whether they collect element-level inspection data on their bridges.

Each transportation department was asked to identify bridge performance issues it experienced 

on decks, superstructures, and substructures. Table 4 indicates which transportation departments 

experienced certain performance issues related to bridge decks. The Alabama Department of 

Transportation (ADOT) did not report any performance issues with decks.

Table 5 indicates the transportation departments that experienced certain performance issues 

related to bridge superstructures. All of the transportation departments that were interviewed

reported at least one performance issue with superstructures.

Table 6 indicates the transportation departments that experienced certain performance issues 

related to bridge substructures. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT-OR) did not 

identify any specific performance problems related to substructures. (Note that the Ohio and 

Oregon State transportation departments both use the formal abbreviation ODOT. To avoid 

confusion, this report uses the abbreviation ODOT-OR for the Oregon agency.)

8
Table 3. State transportation department bridge inventory and management structure

Characteristic AL CA FL IA IL KS MN MT NJ NY OH OR 

Structure

Management 

Department 

Transportation 

D C D C D C D C C D D D 

No. of NBI 

State

Bridges in the 16,070 24,807 10,845 24,495 26,056 24,812 13,121 5,120 5,391 16,473 26,573 7,631 

No. of Bridges 

Responsibility

under State 5,738 12,180 5,414 4,071 7,740 4,976 3,615 2,488 2,371 7,460 10,345 2,706 

No. of Bridges 

Responsibility

Other 

under Local or 10,332 12,627 5,431 20,424 18,316 19,836 9,506 2,632 3,020 9,013 16,228 4,925 

Management

Bridge 

AASHTOWare 

Collect 

® 

Software Data

Pending Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes 

D = Decentralized

C = Centralized
Table 4. State transportation department reported issues related to decks. 

Issue

Total 

States CA FL IA IL KS MN MT NJ NY O

Spalling 9         

Cracking 8        

Delamination 8       

Sealing 4    

Overlays 3   

Patches 2  

Delamination of polymers overlays 2  

Carbonation of older concrete decks 2  

Fatigue cracking 1 

Soffit spalling 1 

Studded tires 1 

Construction related issues, e.g., deck curing procedures 1 

Timber replacement 1 

Ingress of chlorides 1 

All blank cells indicate that no issues of this type were reported by the given State transportation department. 

10 
Table 5. State transportation department reported issues related to superstructures. 

Issue States

Total 

AL CA FL IA IL KS MN MT NJ NY OH 

on steel bridge superstructure members

Coating system failures, steel corrosion

11         

Joint deterioration, leakage 11          

Impact damage; steel and/or concrete 

beams 9       

Deterioration of concrete and steel girder 

ends under joints 4    

Prestressed concrete beams—difficulty 

of inspecting condition of strands 2  

Steel fatigue 3   

Drainage off the deck 3   

Cracked girders 2  

Spalling of beams 1 

Excessive rusting of weathering steel 1 

Concrete pop-outs due to freezing 1 

Rusting/freezing of box girder hinges 1 

Cracks in elements—impact or 

construction related 1 

Alkaline Silica Reactivity (ASR) 1 

Added inspection needs for fracture 

critical bridges 1 

Parapet spalling 1 

Deterioration of concrete in box beams 1 

Corrosion at construction joint between 

rail and deck 1 

All blank cells indicate that no issues of this type were reported by the given State transportation department. 
Table 6. State transportation department reported issues related to substructures. 

Issue

Total 

States AL CA FL IA IL KS MN MT NJ NY 

Scour 13          

Cracking, spalling, or delaminations of 

components 9       

Corrosion of steel pile bents 4    

Bearing corrosion or malfunction 7       

Approach slab settlement 3 

Corrosion of mild steel reinforcing in components 2  

Leaking joints 2  

Seismic 2  

Leaking joints 2  

ASR 1 

Beam locking on steel bridges 1 

Corrosion of strands in pre-stressed piling 1 

Erosion under approach slabs 1 

Splash zone issues 1 

Timber piles 1 

Settlement 1 

Cathodic protection 1 

Beam locking describes a situation on a simple-span steel girder bridge where one bearing is frozen and all of the expansion must be ac

bearing; in some cases, clearance between the beam end and the abutment backwall is too small to allow full expansion and so the beam 

sometimes damages the abutment backwall.

All blank cells indicate that no issues of this type were reported by the given State transportation department. 

12 
Each State transportation department was asked to identify any issues related to functional 

performance of their bridges. As table 7 shows, only five State transportation departments 

identified any specific performance problems related to functional issues.

Table 7. State transportation department reported issues related to functional issues.

Issue Total States FL MT NJ NY TX

Load ratings 3   

Approach versus bridge width 2  

Traffic service 2  

High mast illumination poles 1 

Impact damage from barges 1 

Railings and transitions 1 

Vertical clearance 1  

All blank cells indicate that no issues of this type were reported by the given transportation department.

Functional issues represent a safety hazard (such as a narrow bridge or a poor alignment between 

bridge and approach roadway) or affect traffic capacity (such as insufficient lanes).

Performance Measures

Many of the State transportation departments interviewed use performance measures by which to

evaluate the effectiveness of their bridge programs. These performance measures generally fall 

into one of three types. The first type of measure counts the number of bridges or total deck area 

of bridges that meet a defined standard such as “structurally deficient.” Alternatively, the 

measure may be number of bridges or total deck area of bridges that are rated to be in “good,”

“fair,” or “poor” condition. In this rating system “good” usually means bridges with an NBI 

condition rating of 9, 8, or 7; “fair” means bridges with an NBI condition rating of 6 or 5; and 

“poor” means bridges with an NBI condition rating of 4 or below.

A second approach is to count the number of bridges or total deck area of bridges that have a 

defined minimum value on a defined index such as the Federal Sufficiency Rating. A third 

approach tracks completion of items that have been identified as needing maintenance or repair.

Several States use multiple measures. Note that these measures do not, by and large, directly 

measure the performance of individual bridge engineering, maintenance, and management 

actions or strategies. Some of the program performance measures in use are listed in table 8.

Table 8. Performance measures identified by focus groups.

Type Measure

No. of Transportation 

Departments Using

Defined Status or 

Condition

Load posted bridges 2

Structurally deficient bridges 5

Functionally obsolete bridges 3

Bridges rated good, fair, poor 3

Defined Index Federal Sufficiency Rating 4

Health Index for the whole bridge 4

Custom rating systems for bridges and components 3

Status of 

Maintenance Needs

Actual versus desired maintenance response time 3

“Percentage of deficiencies ‘flagged’ for maintenance items that 

have been fixed” 1

No. of critical findings resolved 1

13

CHAPTER 3. OTHER STAKEHOLDER INPUT

During the development phase of the LTBP Program and even prior to its start, FHWA and the 

research team sought input on critical aspects of bridge performance from key stakeholders and 

strived to maintain a continuing dialogue with members of the bridge community. An important 

element of that dialogue was the discussion of the bridge performance issues that the program 

could and should study. This dialogue was carried on in workshops and technical conference 

sessions devoted to long-term bridge performance, in briefings and discussions with bridgerelated technical committees (for example, AASHTO and Transportation Research Board 

(TRB)), and in informal meetings with State transportation department bridge personnel. 

FHWA LTBP WORKSHOP

In January 2007, FHWA, the National Science Foundation, and the University of Nevada—Reno 

cosponsored a workshop in Las Vegas to develop initial strategies and recommendations for 

implementing the LTBP Program. The workshop was attended by 46 professionals from State 

transportation departments, FHWA, industry, and academia. The purpose of the workshop was to 

gather the collective advice of these experts on how to implement the program and, most 

important, what they would suggest for the priorities for collection of bridge data. The workshop 

did not produce recommendations on performance issues to study but did generate a 

comprehensive list of data that could be collected on the properties and conditions of bridge 

elements and materials. The data needs identified are the subject of the upcoming FHWA report 

Identifying Long-Term Bridge Performance Data Needs. However, the lists of data 

recommended for collection clearly indicate an emphasis on the condition of the major elements 

of the bridge as a key issue.

FHWA SUBSTRUCTURES WORKSHOP

Based on the conclusions reached from the first 15 focus group meetings, several of the issues 

identified were ones in which geotechnical factors were of potential importance. These issues are 

the following:

• Direct, reliable, timely methods to measure scour.

• Scour countermeasures.

• Structure foundation types.

• Unknown foundation types.

• Bridge bearings (all types).

• Jointless structures (integral, semi-integral, continuous for live load).

Within this range of topics, FHWA research and management personnel were concerned that 

geotechnical, foundation, and substructure concerns may not have been adequately captured.

Therefore, FHWA, as part of the LTBP initiative, hosted a Workshop to Identify Bridge 

Substructure Performance Issues in Orlando, FL, in March 2010. FHWA personnel, the LTBP 

Program research team, and approximately 30 invited attendees representing State transportation 

departments; FHWA headquarters, Federal aid, and Federal lands and research; academia; and 

consultants met to consider overall bridge performance and identify geotechnical performance 

metrics that may correspond to good and poor performance. Attendance at the workshop was by 

15
invitation from FHWA so that an effective mix of backgrounds and perspectives would be 

represented. The core of the workshop comprised breakout sessions to discuss three key elements 

of the program: bridge performance issues (affected by geotechnical factors); data needs and 

gaps (related to the issues identified); and tools, technology development, and monitoring

(related to the data gaps).

Based on the brainstorming of the three groups and from the post-workshop discussions, the 

following short-term bridge performance priorities emerged (not in ranked order):

• Approach and bridge interface issues.

• Material degradation, corrosion, and deterioration issues.

• Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall material degradation and assessment of wall 

integrity.

• Hydraulics, scour, and erosion.

From the results of this workshop and other available information, these issues are being 

considered and refined for inclusion in the LTBP Program list of study topics.(4,5)

STATE LTBP COORDINATORS

FHWA has established an LTBP State Coordinators Group with one key bridge person from 

each State in the Nation, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. The 

inaugural meeting of the LTBP State coordinators was held September 13–14, 2011, to 

familiarize the State representatives with the scope and goals of the program, summarize the 

anticipated role of the coordinators, and solicit their ideas and feedback on the conduct of the 

program and planning for the broader execution phase of the program. The list of high priority 

performance issues that was current at the time was presented to the group, and the coordinators 

endorsed the list.

One additional meeting was held with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation in 

January 2012 to familiarize its representatives with the program and general findings of the 

development phase and solicit their comments. They identified some of the same issues as the 

focus group States, such as performance of deck joints and verification of the condition of 

embedded prestressing strands in prestressed concrete. They also identified the wear and tear that 

trucks used for fracking have caused to bridges along a specific highway in their State, early age 

cracking of high-performance concrete decks, and the uncertainty of how much that cracking 

might decrease the life of the deck as important issues to address.

TRB LTBP COMMITTEE

Under contract with the National Academy of Sciences, FHWA has coordinated with TRB to 

organize and facilitate a TRB LTBP Committee composed of members from government, 

industry, consultants, and academia to annually provide feedback on the progress of the LTBP 

Program and provide recommendations on strategies for the Program.

16
At the first meeting of the TRB LTBP Committee in November 2011, the members reviewed the 

high priority performance issues being recommended for study and subsequently informed 

FHWA of their concurrence with the proposed list.(6,7)

17

CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

COMMON PERFORMANCE ISSUES THAT NEED RESEARCH

The LTBP Program is to be a long-term program to collect comprehensive information on bridge 

performance issues that will support improvements to bridge management practice and lead to 

improvements in bridge performance. However, a clear message is being received from many 

stakeholders that the program must provide early results and clear benefits in the near term. The

issues most often identified by the focus groups and other stakeholders were related to

preservation of bridges and performance improvements that would show great promise for 

service life extension, increase in safety, or reduction of user and State transportation department

costs relative to maintenance and operation of the structures. Focusing efforts early on these 

issues can pay swift dividends and pave a clear path toward longer term gains. The performance 

issues most frequently cited by the State transportation departments during the focus group

meetings are described below. It is recommended that these items become the key topics that the 

LTBP Program addresses.

Decks

In middle and northern latitudes of the United States, degradation of reinforced concrete bridge 

decks is a widespread problem. Cracking, spalling, and delaminations were common results 

requiring maintenance and rehabilitation. Indeed, all of the focus groups, with the exception of 

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), noted that repair and rehabilitation of decks 

accounts for more than half of the maintenance expenditures on their bridges and represent the 

highest priority issues for performance. Hence, significant benefits can be gained from better 

characterization of deck performance and prevention of deterioration of decks. Performance 

concerns cover both bare (untreated) concrete decks and concrete decks treated with sealers and 

overlays. These State transportation departments are seeking methods to diagnose problems 

early, accurately, and with minimal traffic impact. Further, these departments expressed a need 

for the following:

• Better predictions of the time when deck repair or rehabilitation will be needed.

• Better tools to rapidly and accurately quantify the extent and severity of damage to decks 

without requiring lane closure to support detailed visual surveys or sounding.

• Better information about which treatments perform the best and the optimum time that 

each should be applied.

Joints

Almost hand-in-hand with decks is the problem with joints; some State transportation 

departments report very limited service life of most available joint systems and difficulty in 

monitoring joint conditions. Often, joints have completely failed and remained so for a period of 

time before they can be resealed or replaced. Joint failures can lead to corrosion-induced 

deterioration of bearings, abutment bridge seats, pier caps, and the ends of beams, especially in 

regions with significant de-icing operations. A practice that is becoming more common is to 

19
design and build bridges that do not have joints in the deck, thereby eliminating the need for joint 

maintenance to protect bearings, bridge seats, girder ends, etc.

Jointless Bridges

As noted above, when bridge joints fail and potentially corrosive materials are allowed to contact 

other elements of the bridge, significant corrosion-induced deterioration of other critical 

elements of the bridge can result. A good practice that can serve as an alternative to open or 

sealed joints on a bridge is to design and build a bridge without joints in the deck. Some of these 

jointless bridges are designed to have a fully integral abutment that allows thermally induced 

changes in the bridge superstructure to be taken up by movement of the abutment. Other jointless 

bridges are designed with semi-integral abutments, i.e., with integral superstructure/backwall 

connections that move according to the thermal demands but are independent of the vertical load 

support system. This practice eliminates the necessity for maintenance of the joint material or 

assembly and helps prevent corrosion-induced deterioration of bearings, abutment bridge seats, 

pier caps, and the ends of beams.

Bearings

Types of bridge bearings range from fixed to those that allow rotation and longitudinal 

movement, such as simple steel rollers and rockers, to unreinforced and reinforced elastomeric 

pads, to sophisticated high load multirotational bearings. Some are intended to allow expansion 

and rotation of the girders under live loading and as the ambient temperature changes. Bearing 

performance can degrade, as corrosion or other forms of deterioration occur, deleterious 

materials build up at the bearings, unanticipated movements occur, etc. These conditions may 

lead to unanticipated stresses in superstructure and substructure components. Long-term studies

are needed to investigate and evaluate how different types of bearings perform in the field under 

various conditions and over an extended time. Changes in structural behavior of the bridge that 

may be caused by bearings not performing as designed may also be investigated.

Coatings for Steel Superstructure Elements

Protective coatings have served as the primary corrosion protection system for steel bridges for 

many decades. Coating technology has progressed from the lead-based paint era to the current 

era of environmentally compliant, high-performance coating materials. However, many of the 

focus groups identified performance of coatings for steel bridges as an area where further 

improvements would be beneficial. Some needs expressed included the following:

• More effective methods to assess and predict coating system performance under various 

field conditions.

• Methods to predict the optimum time for maintenance painting operations so that 

maintenance is performed before the critical point when the coating system deteriorates 

beyond repair.

• Strategies for protection of ends of beams where concentrations of chloride-laden 

moisture result in a more aggressive environment for corrosion.

20
Identification of the Condition of Embedded Prestressing Strands and Post-tensioning

Tendons

Bridges that use prestressed concrete girders to support the bridge deck are more commonly used 

in today’s infrastructure. In the early 1950s, prestressed girder bridges made up roughly 

2.5 percent of the total bridge inventory, whereas in 2007, 40 percent of the newly constructed 

bridges were made with prestressed concrete girders. A critical factor influencing the long-term 

performance of these types of bridge superstructure systems is the performance of prestressing 

strands and tendons both in pretensioned (embedded) and post-tensioned (ducted) applications. It 

is important to verify the condition of prestressing strands to determine whether they are 

performing well. Visual inspection is the most common approach for inspecting prestressed 

concrete girders but signs of early corrosion activity and damage to the prestressing are difficult 

to detect. Long-term field studies are needed to investigate and examine the performance of 

embedded or ducted prestressing wires and tendons in bridges in various service environments 

and under various traffic loadings and service conditions. An important element of the studies 

will be investigating and evaluating methods for early assessment of the condition of 

pretensioned and post-tensioned strands and tendons in prestressed concrete.

The Bump at the End of the Bridge

A common issue at many bridges occurs when differential settlement at the roadway/bridge 

interface causes a change in elevation between pavement and bridge. This difference in elevation 

can be a hazard to driver safety and can cause undue impact loads on the deck and superstructure 

when heavy truck vehicles cross the bump. Most bridges are designed to have a concrete 

“approach slab” that is intended to minimize the differential settlement. In many cases, however, 

the final magnitude of settlement exceeds the capacity of the approach slab, and costly and 

sometimes repetitive repairs are necessary. Thus many State transportation departments regard 

the settlement of bridge approach slabs as a substantial maintenance problem.

Scour

Most of the focus groups identified scour as a significant safety concern and ranked it high 

among substructure performance issues. For example, the California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans) takes a proactive approach to scour, including the following:

• A specific program group actively works to identify scour-susceptible structures and 

takes preemptive action where possible.

• Monitoring is in place in a number of locations, with a variety of instrumentation.

Critical needs identified by several State transportation departments included the following:

• Direct, reliable, timely methods of measuring scour.

• Evaluation of the effectiveness of different scour countermeasures.

21
DESIRED OUTCOMES OF THE LTBP PROGRAM

Each State transportation department was asked what it would most desire as an outcome or 

multiple outcomes from the LTBP Program. The numerous suggestions covered many different 

aspects of bridge engineering. As an illustration of the different desired outcomes, suggestions 

included the following:

Better forecasting of bridge conditions and need for actions.

• Methods to accurately forecast the remaining life of a bridge.

• Refined deterioration models.

• Determination of the lifecycle of a bridge and what repair needs will be encountered 

during that life.

Best practices for preserving bridges and bridge components in satisfactory condition.

• Value and relative effectiveness of different protective/preservation actions.

o How much added life results from sealers and overlays?

o What is the best material for deck patching?

o How long will bridges with epoxy-coated rebar last?

• Optimum time and/or condition for preservation actions. Examples include the following:

o Should sealers be applied to new decks?

o Protection of beam ends.

o Sealing of joints.

• Accurate data on costs of preservation actions and benefit- cost ratios.

• Balancing of bridge preservation and environmental stewardship.

An effective risk-based prioritization or ranking process or a better classification system to 

rank structures in an inventory according to overall risk. Currently, New York State 

Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) has defined six basic failure modes of vulnerability: 

• Hydraulic.

• Overload.

• Steel Details.

• Collision.

• Concrete Details.

• Seismic.

Best practices for inspection and evaluation of bridges.

• Practical, successful and durable health monitoring technologies.

• Practical, real-time processing of structural health monitoring (SHM) data.

• Tests for proper weathering of weathering steel.

• Data for risk-based inspection frequencies.

• Evaluation of prestressed concrete for early identification of strand corrosion.

22
• More efficient methods of detecting/monitoring the following:

o Frozen bearings or excessive movement of bearings.

o Leaking or failed joints.

o Fatigue crack initiation and growth.

o Chloride content and corrosion potential/rate.

o Concrete deck cracking frequency and severity.

o Accurate quantities of deck delaminations.

o Deck condition beneath overlays.

o Corrosion/breaks in beam prestressing strands.

o Magnitude and frequency of truck loads, axle weights.

o Direct, real-time effects of scour.

RECOMMENDATIONS ON LTBP PROGRAM PRIORITIES

The identification of the high priority bridge performance issues to be studied under the LTBP 

Program has been an ongoing process that began at the earliest stages of the program. As early as 

February 2008, the LTBP research team had identified a list of high priority research topics 

related to various aspects of bridge performance. The list was compiled and supplemented with 

some background information and the general scope of possible research study. The team then 

proceeded to rate each topic on a scale from 0 to 3 with respect to perceived importance and 

urgency relative. A rating of 0 meant least important or least urgent, and a rating of 3 meant most 

important or most urgent. The team discussed each topic and arrived at consensus on the 

perceived importance and relative urgency of the topic. The two ratings were then added to 

arrive at an overall rating for each topic that could range from 0 to 6. Table 9 shows the ratings 

assigned by the LTBP team.

The list—without any ratings—was then shared with a select working group of experts in 

government, academia, and industry who were thoroughly familiar with bridge design, 

construction, management, and maintenance practices. The list was also shared with an internal 

steering group of FHWA bridge experts. Each of the members of both groups was asked to 

individually rate the topics according to urgency and importance. Group members were also 

invited to submit comments regarding the topics or scope of the program and to suggest 

additional topics that might have been addressed in the presented list. Table 9 also presents a 

summary of ratings of each topic by the external stakeholders and by the FHWA internal steering 

group. In both of these cases, the ratings for each topic were calculated by averaging the ratings 

of all the members in each group. Again, the two ratings were then added to arrive at an overall 

rating for each topic that could range from 0 to 6. Appendix C provides a list of the members of 

the select working group and FHWA internal steering group.

Table 9 is arranged so that the topics are listed in order, from high to low, by the overall rating 

from the external stakeholders. 

23
Table 9. Ratings and rankings of proposed study topics by stakeholders.

Proposed Study 

Topic

External Technical 

Working Group LTBP Team FHWA Steering Committee

Imp. Urg. Total Rank Imp. Urg. Total Rank Imp. Urg. Total Rank

Performance of 

Untreated 

Concrete Bridge 

Decks

2.9 2.8 5.6 1 

(Tie) 3 3 6 1

(Tie) 3.0 3.0 6.0 1

Performance of 

Bridge Deck 

Treatments

2.8 2.9 5.6 1 

(Tie) 3 3 6

1 

(Tie) 2.8 2.3 5.2 3

Performance, 

Maintenance and 

Repair of Bridge 

Deck Joints

2.8 2.5 5.3 3 3 3 6

1 

(Tie) 2.7 2.0 4.7 4

(Tie)

Performance of 

Coatings for Steel 

Superstructure 

Elements

2.4 2.1 4.5 4

(Tie) 3 2 5 5 

(Tie) 2.3 2.0 4.3 6

(Tie)

Performance of 

Bare/Coated 

Concrete Superand Substructures

2.5 2.0 4.5 4 

(Tie) 2 1 3 13 

(Tie) 2.3 2.0 4.3 6

(Tie)

Performance of 

Innovative Bridge 

Designs and 

Materials

2.3 2.1 4.4 6 1 1 2 17 

(Tie) 1.8 1.6 3.4 15

Performance of 

Embedded 

Prestressing 

Wires and 

Tendons

2.1 2.1 4.3 7 2 3 5

5 

(Tie)

2.3 2.0 4.3 6 

(Tie)

Performance of 

Bridge Bearings 2.1 2.0 4.1 8 3 2 5 5 (Tie) 2.7 2.0 4.7 4 (Tie)

Performance of 

Precast 

Reinforced 

Concrete Deck 

Systems

2.1 1.9 4.0 9

(Tie) 2 1 3 13 

(Tie) 2.0 2.0 4.0 13

Performance of 

Jointless 

Structures

2.1 1.9 4.0 9 

(Tie) 2 1 3 13 

(Tie) 1.3 1.0 2.3 19

(Tie)

Performance of 

Alternative 

Reinforcing 

Steels

2.1 1.8 3.9 11 2 2 4 9

(Tie) 2.3 2.0 4.3 6

(Tie)

Direct, Reliable, 

Timely Methods 

to Measure Scour

1.8 1.8 3.5 12

(Tie) 3 3 6 1(Tie

) 1.8 1.8 3.5 14

Performance of 

Weathering 

Steels

1.8 1.8 3.5 12 

(Tie) 1 1 2 17 

(Tie) 1.7 1.7 3.3 16

(Tie)

24
Proposed Study 

Topic

External Technical 

Working Group LTBP Team FHWA Steering Committee

Imp. Urg. Total Rank Imp. Urg. Total Rank Imp. Urg. Total Rank

Serviceability of 

Cracked HPC 

Decks

1.9 1.5 3.4 14 2 2 4 9

(Tie) 3.0 2.7 5.7 2

Performance of 

Scour 

Countermeasures

1.7 1.6 3.3 15 

(Tie) 2 1 3 13 

(Tie) 2.5 1.8 4.3 6 

(Tie)

Risk and 

Reliability 

Evaluation for 

Structural Safety 

Performance

1.7 1.6 3.3 15 

(Tie) 3 2 5 5 

(Tie) 1.7 1.7 3.3 16

(Tie)

Performance of 

Prestressed 

Concrete Girders 

1.6 1.6 3.3 15 

(Tie) 2 2 4 9 

(Tie) 1.7 1.7 3.3 16

(Tie)

Unknown 

Foundation Types 1.6 1.6 3.1 18 - - - 20 2.3 2.0 4.3 6 (Tie)

Performance of 

Structure 

Foundation Types

1.5 1.5 3.0 19 1 1 2 17 

(Tie) 2.3 2.0 4.3 6 

(Tie)

Criteria to 

Classify 

Functional 

Performance

1.1 1.1 2.3 20 2 2 4 9 1.3 1.0 2.3 19

Imp. = Important

Urg. = Urgent

HPC = High performance concrete

The members of the external review group individually offered additional topics for 

consideration under the program. These are summarized as bullets, in no particular order, below:

• Loss of longitudinal post-tensioning over time in precast decks.

• Performance of connection details in prefabricated bridges.

• Distinguishing damage due to live load versus environmental factors in concrete bridges.

• Effect of overloads on bridge durability.

• Durability of repairs done to prestressed concrete girders.

• Fatigue of concrete bridges.

• Increasing truck weights and frequencies.

• Inspection methods (visual and nondestructive evaluation (NDE)/nondestructive testing 

(NDT)).

• Security.

• Bridge funding.

• Preventative bridge maintenance.

• Vulnerability.

• Deck shear capacity.

Many of these suggested topics overlap or complement topics within the ranked list, while others 

may deserve consideration for future implementation within the program. Table 10 presents the 

25
comprehensive list of topics after considering all input from stakeholders. This list was derived 

from a sequence of steps as follows:

1. Develop preliminary list of performance topics.

2. Gather input from internal and external stakeholders.

3. Evaluate the list of potential topics and prepare a brief literature review and background 

summary for each.

4. Revise this list based on input derived from the focus group meetings and periodic 

feedback from discussions with other stakeholders as previously described.

Table 10. Long-term bridge performance suggested study topics.

Category LTBP Bridge Performance Topic

Decks

Performance of Untreated Concrete Bridge Decks

Performance of Bridge Deck Treatments

Performance of Precast Reinforced Concrete Deck Systems

Performance of Alternative Reinforcing Steels

Influence of Cracking on the Performance of High-Performance Concrete Decks

Joints

Performance of Bridge Deck Joints

Performance of Jointless Structures

Bearings Performance of Bridge Bearings

Concrete Bridges

Performance of Bare/Coated Concrete Super- and Substructures

Performance of Embedded Prestressing Wires and Tendons

Performance of Prestressed Concrete Girders 

Performance of Impact-Damaged Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Beams

Steel Bridges

Performance of Coatings for Steel Superstructure Elements

Performance of Weathering Steels

Performance of Impact-Damaged Steel Beams

New Construction Performance of Innovative Bridge Designs and Materials

Foundations and

Scour

Performance of Scour Countermeasures

Performance Issues at the Bridge Approach-Abutment Interface 

Performance of Substructure Components

Performance of MSE Walls

Risk Risk and Reliability Evaluation for Structural Safety Performance

Functional Performance of Functionally Obsolete Bridges

MSE = mechanically stabilized earth

After discussions among the research team, FHWA, State coordinators, and the TRB LTBP 

Committee, it was recognized that all topics could not be addressed immediately, and the number 

of topics to be addressed would likely be constrained by program resources. Therefore, the 

research team, in conjunction with the FHWA LTBP staff, developed a short list of top priority 

topics for immediate consideration. Table 11 presents the six top priority topics recommended 

for immediate study in the execution phase of the program. This list was refined based on 

discussions with the TRB LTBP Committee. As time and resources permit, additional topics may 

be incorporated into the program.

26
Table 11. Initial study topics for LTBP Program.

Category Issue

Decks Untreated Concrete Bridge Decks

Decks Treated Concrete Bridge Decks

Joints Bridge Deck Joints

Bearings Bridge Bearings

Steel Bridges Coatings for Steel Superstructure Elements

Prestressed Concrete 

Bridges

Detection of Condition of Embedded Pretensioned Strands and Post-Tensioning 

Tendons

27

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS

Bridge performance is a multifaceted issue involving performance of materials and protective 

systems, performance of individual components of the bridge, and performance of the structural 

system as a whole. Bridge performance is influenced by many different factors. Some are static 

or fixed (for example, design type); others are variable (for example, live loadings). The LTBP 

Program’s resources may be inadequate to study every aspect of bridge performance. A basic 

principle governing the program is that it should serve the needs of bridge owners across the 

nation as identified by those bridge owners. Thus, considerable effort was undertaken to solicit 

input from bridge owners as well as from the bridge community at large on what high priority 

bridge performance issues should be addressed by the LTBP Program. The State transportation 

departments, bridge technical committees, and other individuals interviewed also provided input 

on the types of data that should be collected by the program and on the types of decision support 

tools that the program should deliver.

The result of the focus group meetings and other interviews is a list of 22 high priority bridge 

performance issues recommended for study under the LTBP Program. The initial priorities for 

study under the program are the following six issues:

• Untreated concrete bridge decks.

• Treated concrete bridge decks.

• Bridge deck joints.

• Bridge bearings.

• Coatings for steel superstructure elements.

• Detection of condition of embedded pretensioned strands and post-tensioning tendons.

These 6 issues and the majority of the other issues in the list of 22 are all related primarily to the 

physical condition and the structural integrity of bridges. They represent issues that bridge 

owners most commonly face in maintaining, repairing, or rehabilitating their bridges and involve

the most common maintenance, repair, or rehabilitation activities they need to perform. These 

performance issues may arise because of certain design and/or construction details or may be the 

result of or be aggravated by service conditions and loadings.

Each of the high priority performance issues will be examined in detail and the specific data 

necessary to study the issues will be identified. The results will be published in the upcoming 

FHWA report Identifying Long-Term Bridge Performance Bridge Data Needs.

29

APPENDIX A—FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Focus group interviews were conducted with individuals involved in bridge asset management at 

each participating State transportation department ranging from the system-wide to individual 

structure levels. Accordingly, a series of structured questions were used to guide the discussion 

and to elicit details about the perceptions, policies and practices that influence the State 

transportation department’s bridge management program, and perceived needs for improvement.

QUESTIONS FOR LTBP FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS

1. Explain your organizational structure, as it pertains to bridge management and maintenance.

2. Please review your inspection processes. Who performs inspections? Qualifications? Quality 

assurance/quality control (QA/QC)? Localities?

3. What sources of information are most useful to you for program-level decision support? 

a. Does your State have a formal bridge management system? Is it useful?

b. Do you use it to just archive data or use it to make system-level decisions? And if you use 

it to what extent?

c. Does the system track maintenance, repair and rehabilitation actions?

d. Does your system capture and report cost information?

e. What additional capabilities do you wish you had?

4. What sources of information are most useful to you for project-level decision support? 

a. In addition to inspection reports (NBIS) what other information do you base these 

decisions on?

b. What non-structure specific data sources do you use to support project selection? (traffic 

data, environmental, truck data, corridor or multi-asset project planning)

c. Do you perform element-level inspection or to what level of detail do your inspections 

document condition?

d. What supplemental testing do you do? Do you use nondestructive methods? Are the NDE 

results maintained in a central database?

e. Have you used health monitoring instrumentation as a supplement to your inspection 

program? If so, how?

f. What data/information would help you more accurately define the extent of repairs and 

make your estimate better?

g. How do you go from inspection report to a contract to get a job done?

i. Identify problem

ii. Generate suggested methods of repair

iii. Generate costs of repairs

iv. In order to achieve efficiency, cost effectiveness, safety and minimize user impacts, 

what are some contracting methods you employ? 

h. Are you capturing actual repairs performed versus specified repairs? How? Do you 

record where the repair was actually performed?

31
5. What performance measures do you use to gauge the success of your bridge management 

system?

a. What is the most useful information you get out of the process? 

b. How do you utilize that information in your decisionmaking process?

c. What are the weaknesses in the data for your performance measure process?

d. Do you monitor your bridge maintenance program for performance?

e. If you use a system-level performance measure, can you separate the impacts of 

replacement construction versus maintenance on system-level performance?

f. How do you measure the effectiveness of particular maintenance activities?

i. What data do you have

ii. What data do you think you need?

6. We intend to pose questions to elicit the most common forms of deterioration and damage on 

your bridges, what information you use to evaluate the condition and what information you 

use to develop a feasible solution. What are the five to ten most common forms of 

deterioration or damage you face in maintaining, repairing or rehabilitating your bridges? )

a. What do you consider to be the three most critical to address and why?

b. What processes do you consider to be the causes of the deterioration or damage?

c. What inspection and/or test data do you currently use that enables you to estimate the 

severity and the extent of the deterioration or damage?

d. What parameters that you do not currently measure would improve your ability to 

estimate the severity and the extent of the deterioration or damage?

e. What factors are preventing you from collecting the desired data?

7. We intend to pose questions to elicit the most common maintenance, repair or rehabilitation 

activities you perform and what information you have to base your choice of feasible 

solutions on. On what 5 to 10 maintenance, repair, or rehabilitation activities do you expend 

the most resources (time or money) to address?)

a. What are the three most critical to address and why?

b. What inspection and/or test data do you use that enables you to develop a feasible and 

economical solution?

c. What parameters that you do not currently measure would improve your ability to 

develop a feasible and economical solution?

d. What factors are preventing you from collecting the desired data?

8. What does long-term bridge performance mean to you? What suggestions do you have?

9. Tell us some things you’ve done in your program that you consider successes or clear 

improvements.

32
APPENDIX B—FOCUS GROUP SUMMARIES

Summaries of the focus group interviews are presented in this section in the order of occurrence,

and a summary of responses and discussion is given for each general area of questioning. Each 

State transportation department was requested to identify the forms of bridge deterioration that 

were most common on the bridges in their State and the maintenance and repair activities 

requiring the most resources. These were classified as being related to decks, superstructure 

elements or substructure elements. The transportation department was also requested to identify 

any functional issues that were prevalent on/at its bridges. The typical functional issues identified 

included the following:

• Insufficient vertical clearance over the roadway that the bridge crosses.

• Inadequate capacity for existing traffic volumes.

• Impact damage.

• Poor performance of deck drains.

• Poor performance of railing and transitions.

• Settlement and shifting of slope paving.

• Damage of approach slab where it is tied in with joints.

• Bridge width not matching road width.

• Utilities under structures—corrosion of straps and hangars.

• Settlement of MSE walls.

• Slope protection—loss of protective materials and sloughing of backfill.

33
ALABAMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Alabama Department of Transportation (ADOT) focus group meeting was conducted at an 

ADOT facility in Montgomery on December 2, 2009. Focus group interviewees included the 

following:

• John Black, Bridge Office, ADOT.

• George Conner, Bridge Office, ADOT.

• Robert King, Division Bridge Engineer, FHWA Alabama Division.

• Tim Colquett, Bridge Office, ADOT.

Organizational Structure

ADOT has a decentralized structure comprising nine divisions, some of which have bridge

maintenance crews, along with three statewide bridge maintenance crews; the central office 

provides oversight and support. Table 12 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of 

agencies in the State.

Table 12. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Alabama.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned

State transportation department 5,738

Other State agency 38

Local agency 10,098

Federal agency 165

Toll authority 0

Railroad company 24

Private 7

Total 16,070

Program-Level Decision Support

ADOT has a bridge maintenance system called Alabama Bridge Information Management 

System (ABIMS), which has been in place since 1995.(8) ADOT has deferred implementation of 

AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software until the upcoming changes to AASHTO CoRe

elements are in place. The ABIMS module for maintenance needs summary is completed by the 

inspectors who identify and document the maintenance need, determine necessary quantities of 

work items, attach the cost from the cost table in a database, and then classify it as emergency, 

priority, routine, or monitoring. Inspectors and superintendents can mark work completed, but 

most of the data are in the maintenance management system, which is not integrated with the 

bridge management system.

The central bridge maintenance office determines bridge replacement needs. In making 

decisions, the primary tool is an assessment called a deficiency algorithm (developed by the 

University of Alabama) that ranks structures on how well they meet targets.(9) During the 

selection process, each division has input on its bridges.

34
All State inspections are done by ADOT employees with the exception of specialty cases. ADOT 

has an underwater unit that performs inspections and assists in construction. The emergency 

bridge inspection team includes a designer.

Project-Level Decision Support

Each division has authority to determine how to spend its budget dollars. The budget is 

distributed proportionately based on asset needs. Bridge painting is funded separately.

When an inspector finishes the inspection (items BI5—element-level inspection and BI9—

maintenance needs), the recommendations are reviewed by someone who can make decisions on 

prioritization of work (could be bridge operations engineer/manager or division maintenance 

engineer or his assistant). BI5—element-level inspection and BI9—maintenance needs are 

examples of inspection reporting items on the ADOT Structure Inventory and Inspection Menu 

as described in the Alabama ABIMS User Guide.(8)

What ADOT would like to see is the changeover to AASHTOWare Bridge Management®

software CoRe element, which will better capture quantity, and the project development 

modules, which will address many of the issues.

Additional testing includes load-rating analysis, dye penetrant, ultrasonic testing (UT), and 

magnetic particle testing. ADOT employs ground-penetrating radar (GPR) occasionally.

Performance Measures

• Sufficiency rating—track for better roads annual survey, how many deficient bridges.

(These have gone down every year, but Alabama has interstate bridges reaching 50 years 

old, so problems are anticipated.).

• Deficiency algorithm—a deficiency algorithm of 100 is bad. It looks at target level of 

service, geometrics, vertical clearance, load carrying capacity, and condition.(8)

• Government Accounting Standards Bulletin (GASB) 34 index—aggregated number, i.e., 

a weighted average based on deck area on the deck (20 percent), super (40 percent), sub 

(40 percent), and culvert (100 percent) condition ratings—NBI ratings).

(10)

The GASB 34 index refers to an Asset Sustainability Index and its related ratios that are used in 

reporting transportation asset management needs and issues. The Asset Sustainability Index and 

its related ratios are considered in GASB 34 as evolutionary next steps to further enhance the 

reporting of transportation asset management needs and issues. For bridges, the sum of the 

weighted ratings for deck, superstructure, and substructure equates to 100; for culverts, the index 

value is based 100 percent on the culvert condition rating.

35
Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure: 

• Scour.

• Section loss of substructure elements (primarily steel but some timber).

Superstructure: 

• Section loss and fatigue issues in steel members.

• Deterioration of concrete girder ends as joints are filled with debris.

• Joint deterioration.

Deck: (none cited).

Functionality: (none cited).

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: 50 percent of budget.

Superstructure: 50 percent of budget.

Deck: (none cited).

Functionality: (none cited).

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

• Anything on the design side that pays off over the life of the bridge.

• Benefits of general experience and guidance and ability to consider options not being 

used now.

36
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) focus group was conducted on 

September 17, 2008, at the Caltrans headquarters in Sacramento, CA. Caltrans interviewees 

included the following:

• Denix Anbiah, Central Office Division of Local Assistance, Caltrans.

• Nick Burmas, Central Office Materials and Infrastructure, Caltrans.

• Anthony Gugino, Central Office Bridge Engineering, Caltrans.

• Pat Hipley, Central Office Earthquake Engineering (Strong Motion Instrumentation 

Program), Caltrans.

• Michael Johnson, Central Office Maintenance, Caltrans.

• Michael Keeve, Central Office Earthquake Engineering, Caltrans.

• Greg Kolle, Structural Engineer, FHWA California Division.

• Wes Lum, Central Office Division of Research, Caltrans.

• Steve Mitchell, Central Office Earthquake Engineering (Toll Bridge Post-EQ Analysis),

Caltrans.

• Barton Newton, Central Office Maintenance, Caltrans.

• Steve Ng, Central Office Division of Engineering Services, Structures Hydraulics and 

Hydrology, Caltrans.

• Cliff Roblee, Central Office Division of Research, Caltrans.

• Li-Hong Sheng, Central Office Earthquake Engineering, Caltrans.

• Charly Sikorsky, Central Office Earthquake Engineering, Caltrans.

• Phil Stolarski, Caltrans Transportation Laboratory, Caltrans.

2

• Pete Whitfield, Central Office Maintenance, Caltrans.

• Ray Wolfe, Central Office Bridge Design, Caltrans.

Organizational Structure

Caltrans has a centralized structure, divided into two Regions with bridge staff primarily located 

in either the Sacramento Headquarters office or in southern California (Los Angeles). Table 13

shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 13. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in California.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned

State transportation department 12,180

Other State agency 167

Local agency 11,881

Federal agency 563

Toll authority 5

Railroad company 9

Private 6

Total 24,811

 2The Caltrans Transportation Laboratory is the central research facility of Caltrans.

37

 
Program-Level Decision Support

Caltrans has a formal bridge management system built on AASHTOWare Bridge Management®

software and augmented with additional data including the following:

• Hydraulics.

• Steel fatigue.

• Steel fracture.

• Other issues on steel bridges.

• Work recommendations that cover crew work and major maintenance contracts and 

rehabilitative work.

Caltrans maintains a complete archive of plans and inspection reports, to which it is adding 

photos, information on emergency response for large-scale and significant seismic and flood 

events, and information on encroachments (for which it is electronically collecting data on 

utilities such as high pressure water, gas, and anything flammable that can fill up the box and 

potentially cause an explosion). The State does track maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation 

actions and cost information, which is kept in a work management system, although it does not 

include the cost of maintenance of traffic.

Project-Level Decision Support

At Caltrans, bridge needs are identified through the following:

• Inspection.

• Risk-based prioritization or ranking process for maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation 

actions.

• Analysis (hydraulic analysis for scour or seismic analysis).

• Changing standards (for example, barrier rails or crash testing standards) that are 

introducing whole new classes of work not previously done.

• Goods movement needs (generate strengthening and/or bridge raising needs). 

These needs are kept in a centralized location and are filed under each bridge.

The State performs both NBI safety and element-level inspection (AASHTOWare Bridge

Management® software). Additional testing, i.e., sounding, may be performed by the material 

engineering testing group. Its greatest difficulties are access to the decks because of traffic and 

the need for lift equipment to get to areas of the bridge.

Reliance is placed on inspector recommendations when determining needed repairs. (All 

inspectors have Professional Engineer (PE) licenses and are encouraged to determine the reason 

for problems and deterioration.) The Division of Engineering Services provides districts with 

recommendations of how to spend resources, but districts determine actual actions with the 

38
exception of very low sufficiency rating or critical issues such as scour. They track 

55 maintenance actions.

Performance Measures

Caltrans stated that it needs performance metrics that will tell why a bridge fails. It would like to 

see different performance measures that could be linked to ones previously or currently used, 

such as structurally deficient.

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure: Scour, ASR, seismic.

Superstructure: Steel fatigue, corrosion of steel girders and resulting protective coating systems 

for steel girders, box girder hinges, cracking.

Deck: Cracking, delaminations, spalling.

Functionality: Lack of capacity for traffic.

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: None explicitly identified.

Superstructure: Bridge painting, structural steel painting.

Deck: Joint seals, deck seals.

Functionality: Lack of capacity for traffic.

State Transportation Department Successes

Caltrans has supplemented AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software with the following 

other significant sources of information: 

• The database captures information about hydraulics, steel fatigue, and fracture. 

• The system tracks issues on work recommendations that cover crew work and major 

maintenance contracts and rehabilitative work.

• Associated with the database is a complete archive of plans and inspection reports, with 

photos, and supporting data for emergency response for large-scale seismic and flood 

events where a significant response is required.

• There is a module for encroachments (wherein Caltrans electronically tracks the presence 

of utilities in the structure right-of-way—high pressure water, gas, anything flammable.

39
Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

Caltrans wants data that will help determine the lifecycle of a bridge and what repair needs will 

be encountered during that life. However, Caltrans is more concerned with the “why” (source of 

problem) than the “what” of deterioration—something emphasized with its inspectors.

40
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) focus group meeting was conducted at the 

FDOT maintenance yard in Jacksonville, FL, on November 13, 2008. Focus group interviewees 

included the following:

• Keith Campbell, FDOT District 2, Jacksonville.

• John Clark, FDOT Central Office, Tallahassee.

• Richard Kerr, FDOT Central Office, Tallahassee.

• Will Watts, FDOT District 2, Jacksonville.

Organizational Structure

FDOT has a decentralized structure comprising seven geographical districts, plus the Florida 

Turnpike, with bridge maintenance staff for each (Districts 1 and 7 share an office). The central 

office provides planning and support, establishes policy, and conducts QA. Table 14 shows the

number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 14. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Florida.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned

State transportation department 5,414

Other State agency 157

Local agency 5,078

Federal agency 140

Toll authority 1,137

Railroad company 0

Private 56

Total 11,982

Program-Level Decision Support

State-owned bridges are primarily inspected by in-house personnel, although larger structure 

inspections may be outsourced. Local governments generally have their structures inspected by 

consultants.

FDOT uses a customized version of the AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software for its 

bridge management system. FDOT has customized AASHTOWare Bridge Management®

software probably more extensively than any other State. Some of the modifications include the 

following:

• Administration.

• Element-level bridge data collected according to the element definitions and condition 

State definitions.

• Collection of additional data.

• Customized handling of bridge inspection reports.

41
• Financial data.

• Miscellaneous bridge data.

• Load rating data.

• Truck data—truck traffic counts as well as vehicle classifications and/or weight-inmotion data if available.

• Scour information.

• Track warranties.

• Utility to plot channel cross section over time to monitor scour to see whether there is a 

change in the channel.

• Inspection-related information that allows FDOT to add more than one inspector, as well 

as the supervisor and the PE who review the report for each inspection.

• Customized reports that include the following:

o Standard inventory reports: for example, lists of moveable, structurally deficient, 

posted, or closed bridges.

o Management reports: a bridge replacement ranking report to influence local 

government prioritization of replacement projects, compliance reports to track 

whether inspections are completed on time and according to standard (used to report 

to FHWA), inspection schedule, load rating report, and critical deficiencies.

o Work order reports: Recommended work reviewed and prioritized by a Feasible 

Action Review Committee composed of engineering department, maintenance, and 

inspections group representatives. 

• Security for bridge data: restricts access according to district, bridge owner, local 

government, or bridge group; often used for contracts; can restrict data to a specific 

bridge, or various combinations.

• Multimedia support: allows users to add images, videos, and drawings, which can be 

selectively included in inspection reports when printed out.

Example: Planning Division makes video logs of State highways. It now has a system to 

access video through AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software by entering the 

bridge number, calling up that section of the bridge, and “driving” down the road. 

FDOT has integrated AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software with the following other 

systems: 

• Roadway Characteristics Inventory: allows download of traffic data (automatic update to 

AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software once a year)—State system.

42
• Load Rating information extracted to support routing of overweight trucks (permitting 

reports in the bridge management section in the FDOT Central Office).

• Daily extract to the Financial Management System.

FDOT has been integrating more between maintenance and financial management—it previously 

had to physically make a file and send, but now the systems are increasingly tied together 

electronically. The maintenance office, the planning office, the work program office and the 

district bridge inspection offices all have ad hoc reporting capability. Report access is read-only.

For security reasons, FDOT developed a front-end for AASHTOWare Bridge Management® 

software to code the password so users cannot use that system directly to run reports; thus, ad

hoc reporting is accomplished through an Oracle database queried by Microsoft® Access, 

FoxPro, or Infomaker® software.

When asked whether FDOT tracks costs of specific types of maintenance or repair activities, 

representatives indicated FDOT’s asset maintenance process tracks in-house man-hours and 

equipment, but because contractors are not required to give actual costs, it is not possible to 

record actual contracted repair costs.

Project-Level Decision Support

AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software database is used to support a custom projectlevel analysis tool (PLAT). One example is a desktop PC Microsoft® Excel program that can 

pull up a specific bridge and allow users to look at it to project future deterioration. This program 

is currently in the development stage. The intent is to help districts in planning for maintenance 

and preservation projects at the bridge level.

FDOT’s collection of AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software data started in 

November 1998. FDOT has been using the PLAT for only the last 3 to 4 years because it 

required a lot of outside data, including user costs, State transportation department costs, and 

other data AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software normally did not collect.

Despite their use of AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software, the engineers at FDOT feel 

they often operate in reactive mode, wherein most work is based on needs identified at the time 

of inspections or as a result of unpredicted incidents. Because the overall inventory is in good 

condition, they generally build a 2- to 3-year program that includes the most important priorities

and then revise it each year based on inspection reports.

In addition to structural considerations, bridge engineers also consider traffic levels, maintenance 

of traffic (MOT), environmental factors (for example, bats’ nesting season), and public events 

(for example, tourist season, major sporting events) that can affect when it is best to do bridge 

work. They tend to do more maintenance and repair work when the winter tourists leave (i.e., 

when traffic counts go down) and try to finish before tourist season starts.

With regard to routine inspection procedures, they rely primarily on visual inspection; they do 

not perform chain drags because decks are not often a maintenance issue in Florida—primarily 

they have problems with substructure deterioration in marine environments. For inspections, 

43
additional testing often includes UT for pin-and-hangar assemblies, magnetic particle, and dye 

penetrant. FDOT has a special contract for NDT.

Performance Measures

FDOT identifies priorities from field inspections or response to incidents, according to the 

following scale:

• Priority 1—emergency (address within no more than 60 days; usually field crews are 

working to address the problem before the work order is issued).

• Priority 2—urgent (within 180 days).

• Priority 3—routine (within 1 year).

• Priority 4—informational work order (no deadline), i.e., small repairs that may be 

grouped for efficiency or convenience. This category is used for identifying general work 

program issues and for tracking purposes.

Performance measures are part of an annual quality assessment review—each year the Central 

Office makes an oversight visit to every district. It assesses compliance or noncompliance with 

regard to whether or not there has been any delinquency in addressing Priority 1 or 2 work 

orders. The Central Office may have findings on priorities review as well. The performance 

criterion for Priority 1 and 2 work orders is that 95 percent of the work orders must be completed 

on time. (Most districts are generally running at 100 percent.)

As a statewide performance measure, FDOT has established a goal that 90 percent of State

bridges will meet State standards of being in good or excellent condition (using NBIS 1–9 

condition ratings, where excellent is 8–9, good is 6–7, fair is 5, and poor is 4 or below).

Currently, 93 percent of statewide bridges are in the good or excellent categories.

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure: The most common forms of substructure deterioration are the following:

• Prestressed concrete piling with corrosion of prestressing strands.

• Steel piling—concrete jackets are installed during construction for the purpose of 

corrosion protection and to protect the painting system where the steel piles interface 

with the concrete bent and the concrete jacket.

• Cathodic issues with corrosion on reinforced concrete piles.

• Exposed reinforcing steel, cracked piles, and cracked pipe piles due to construction.

• Cracking of concrete substructure exposing steel.

44
Superstructure: The most common forms of superstructure deterioration are the following:

• Deterioration of bearings—primarily from leakage of joints and corrosion.

• Impact loading.

• Deterioration between bearing and masonry joint.

• Deteriorated joints.

• Spalls in concrete beams (the reinforcement was too shallow and the State patches to 

protect reinforcing).

• Cracks due to impact and construction problems (these will be sealed).

Deck: The most common forms of deck deterioration are the following:

• Cracks due to poor curing (these will be sealed).

• Spalls (these will be repaired).

Functionality: The most common are the following:

• Impact damage from barges—these can be expensive and significant.

• Impact damage from over-height trucks.

• Damage from heavy loads.

• Issues arising from design.

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: 

• Cathodic protection—most money is spent here.

• Mechanical and electrical rehabilitation of moveable bridges—done on a 10-year cycle.

• Shoring up bents—crutch bent (a crutch bent is an extra bent added to the bridge to shore 

up the superstructure, but FDOT does not use them very often; when they do, it is very 

expensive).

Superstructure: 

• Beams and bearings.

• Painting.

o Prior to 10 years ago, spot painting was the favored practice.

o During the last 10 years, the practice has been full removal to surface preparation 

level SP-10 then spot paint to extend life—for example, spot painting on a bridge that 

received a full paint job 6 years earlier.

45
Deck: (none cited).

Functionality: (none cited).

State Transportation Department Successes

The elimination of deck joints on bridges up to 120 ft.

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

• Joints that will not leak.

• Help with substructures in marine environments (FDOT’s greatest concern).

• Moveable bridges are also a concern to FDOT).

• More data on painting existing bridges: Is service life better when they have to sandblast 

and repaint? Need some proof. Is workmanship more critical than the paint system 

materials?

46
ILLINOIS STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) focus group meeting was conducted at the 

IDOT facility in Springfield, IL, on December 9, 2009. Focus group interviewees included the 

following:

• Bill Kramer, Geotechnical Engineer, IDOT.

• Dan Brydl, Division Bridge Engineer, FHWA Illinois Division.

• Ralph Anderson, State Bridge Engineer, IDOT.

• Todd Ahrens, Bridge Planning Engineer, IDOT.

• Carl Puzey, Structural Services, IDOT.

Organizational Structure

The central office for IDOT provides technical expertise and manages the big investment bridges 

but IDOT is otherwise decentralized; the nine districts (transitioning to five regions) handle 

maintenance and inspection. Most districts still have bridge maintenance crews, and IDOT does

have regional bridge engineers. Table 15 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of 

agencies in the State.

Table 15. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Illinois.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned

State transportation department 7,740

Other State agency 44

Local agency 18,125

Federal agency 43

Toll authority 458

Railroad company 71

Private 33

Total 26,514

Program-Level Decision Support

IDOT has a system for bridge management that was developed specifically for it. Most projects 

are scheduled in conjunction with roadway projects, and roadway projects are first determined on 

the basis of pavement needs, with bridge needs then added into the project. IDOT does use 

AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software but not to generate projects. IDOT uses a 

system, Bridge Analysis & Monitoring System (BAMS), developed in-house, to plan and 

program bridge projects. BAMS separates bridges into 16 tables based on the type of bridge 

deficiency and the severity of the deficiency. For example, bridges that are structurally deficient 

with an NBI deck rating of 0–3 are placed in table 2. The other 15 tables are related to different 

deficiencies (structural or functional) or the same deficiency with a higher or lower NBI 

condition rating. For example, bridges that have a deck with an NBI deck rating of 5 are placed 

in table 10. The lower number tables are for bridges with the most urgent needs. So, bridges that 

fall into tables 1 through 4 are considered urgent, those that fall into tables 5 through 10 are 

considered short-term needs, and those that fall into tables 11 through 16 are considered longterm needs.

47
Maintenance activities are recorded in the maintenance management system, which is currently 

being rewritten.

District IDOT personnel perform modified AASHTO CoRe element-level inspections for State

bridges, while special inspections, such as underwater or fracture critical, are outsourced. 

Inspections for about half of the major bridges managed by the Central Office are outsourced.

(So, every other cycle, a bridge is inspected by a consultant.) Additional testing includes: dye 

penetrant, magnetic particle testing, UT, and GPR. 

The preventive maintenance program for major bridges is a line item in the programming 

process, so it is funded separately from the rest of the system.

Project-Level Decision Support

The Central Office does make recommendations, but the districts make decisions on their bridge 

maintenance. If repairs are within a contract maintenance project, the local district bridge 

maintenance engineer for IDOT reviews the reports and makes the plan. If repairs are more 

significant, a bridge condition report is prepared to identify project scope and cost. In addition to 

structural deficiencies, IDOT also considers roadway needs and load capacity. 

Performance Measures

• Goal of having 93 percent of bridges at acceptable rating.

• Informally, how does IDOT stand when compared with its neighboring States?

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure: 

• Surface spalling on concrete substructure elements.

• Seismic damage.

• Occasional scour.

Superstructure: 

• Expansion joint damage.

• Beam end deterioration for precast I-beams.

• Corrosion and/or peeling paint on steel members.

Deck: 

• Ingress of chlorides.

• Leaking joints.

Functionality: Deterioration of approach slabs.

48
Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: (none cited).

Superstructure: (none cited).

Deck: Most of the money is spent here, with MOT being the biggest cost factor.

Functionality: (none cited).

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

• Get the same type of data on bridges with span length less than 20 ft as IDOT gets for

bridges with span lengths greater than 20 ft.

• Support for defining maintenance needs and management.

• How to encourage preventive maintenance so IDOT can avoid bridge rehabilitations and 

replacements (IDOT has an issue that pavements drive work, and the pavement lasts

longer than bridge decks)—what is good practice? 

• Best practices for sealers, overlays, and coatings.

• How to deal with concrete structures that need to be sealed in joint areas.

• Better inspection techniques for prestressed concrete members and verification of the 

condition state of strands and tendons in prestressed concrete members.

• What to do with deteriorated concrete or steel beam ends.

• Innovative materials such as fiber reinforced polymer superstructures—how does one

inspect it in-service—what does one look for to take action? 

• Use of alternative reinforcing steels—what are the performance results? How are they 

performing?

49
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

The Iowa Department of Transportation (IADOT) focus group meeting was conducted at the 

IADOT bridge office in Ames, IA, on April 17, 2009. Focus group interviewees included the 

following:

• Jan Wiley, Bridge Management Engineer, IADOT. 

• Sandra Larson, Research and Technology Bureau Director, IADOT. 

• Bruce Brakke, Bridge Maintenance Engineer, IADOT.

• Ahmad Abu-Hawash, Chief Structural Engineer, IADOT. 

• Scott Neubauer, Bridge Rating Engineer, IADOT. 

• Norm McDonald, Bridge Office Director, IADOT. 

• Mark Dunn, Operations Research Director, IADOT.

• Max Grogg, Technical Programs Team Leader, FHWA Iowa Division. 

• Tom Owen, Co-op Student, FHWA Iowa Division. 

Organizational Structure

IADOT has two units, bridge design and bridge maintenance and inspection. Bridge inspection is 

centralized. There are six districts, and each has a district bridge repair specialist. Table 16 shows

the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 16. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Iowa.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned

State transportation department 4,071

Other State agency 22

Local agency 20,366

Federal agency 33

Toll authority 1

Railroad company 1

Private 2

Total 24,496

Program-Level Decision Support

IADOT uses AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software-based element-level inspection but 

does not use AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software for network budgeting and 

programming. IADOT performs dual inspection using AASHTO CoRe elements and has 

collected element-level inspection data since 1994. It uses the Bridge Electronic Records 

Management System to track maintenance recommendations and when these recommendations 

have been performed. 

Project-Level Decision Support

IADOT uses a Microsoft Access® database (named BRIDGE CAN) to accumulate and prioritize 

maintenance and preservation work on bridges for development of a 5-year program before 

putting out to contract. There must be agreement between the districts and the central office 

before a bridge is put into the program.

50
Performance Measures 

IADOT tracks the percentage of structures with Structure Inventory and Appraisal/NBI condition 

ratings and sufficiency ratings that meet the previous year’s values. The annual target is 

95 percent. Bridges for which the sufficiency rating falls simply because of increased traffic are 

not deemed to have missed the previous year’s value. IADOT is currently reviewing its 

performance measures. 

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure: 

• Corrosion of reinforced concrete piers.

• Settlement and exposure of steel abutment piles.

• Scour.

Superstructure: 

• Chloride ingress.

• Deterioration of glands in expansion joints (maintaining and replacing glands).

• Corrosion of prestressed beam ends.

• Damage due to traffic impact. 

Deck: 

• Corrosion of deck reinforcement.

• Delaminations of deck concrete.

• Soffit spalling.

Functionality: Corrosion at construction joint between rail and deck.

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

The majority of bridge maintenance expenditures were noted to be on deck repair and 

maintenance. IADOT has concerns about future needs related to deterioration of prestressed 

concrete beams.

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

• Better tools to track the effectiveness of repair strategies.

• More accurate mapping of deterioration and delaminations of bridge decks and overlays, 

providing an accurate picture of the delaminations so that an overlay can be placed in 

time and delay a full deck replacement.

• A test to determine whether weathering steel is weathering/performing properly.

• An understanding of the frequency and benefits of bridge washing.

51
• An understanding of how to resolve aggregate problems in reinforced concrete.

• An understanding of the effectiveness of electro-chemical chloride removal.

52
KANSAS STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

The Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) focus group meeting was conducted at the 

KDOT facility in Topeka, KS, on December 10, 2009. Focus group interviewees included the 

following:

• Kenneth Hurst, State Bridge Engineer, KDOT.

• John Patrick Jones, Bridge Manuals, Modeling and Policy, KDOT.

• Calvin Reed, Bridge Maintenance Plans, KDOT.

• Don Whisler, Bridge Management Engineer, KDOT.

• Loren Risch, Bridge Design Engineer, KDOT.

• Randy Leonard, Local Project Engineer, KDOT.

• Brad Rognlie, Bridge Engineer (Design/Scour), KDOT.

• Jim Brennan, Geotechnical Engineer, KDOT.

• Mike Orth, Bridge Engineer (Scour), KDOT.

• Steve Toillion, Division Bridge Engineer, FHWA Kansas Division.

Organizational Structure

KDOT has six districts, two of which have bridge maintenance crews although the heavy 

maintenance crews in each district do bridge work. The central office handles design and 

contract maintenance while districts are responsible for in-house maintenance and bridge 

inspection. Table 17 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the 

State.

Table 17. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Kansas.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned

State transportation department 4,976

Other State agency 41

Local agency 19,673

Federal agency 115

Toll authority 364

Railroad company 3

Private 4

Total 25,176

Program-Level Decision Support

KDOT personnel perform routine element-level inspections using AASHTOWare Bridge 

Management® software, based on AASHTO CoRe elements and supplemented with other 

custom elements. Localities only provide NBI data. Additional tests that may be performed as 

conditions indicate include the following:

• Ultrasound for crack detection.

• Magnetic particle testing for crack detection in steel members.

• Dye penetrant for crack detection in steel members.

53
• GPR for post-tensioned duct inspection and scour detection.

• Bathometric surveys for riverbed profiles.

The State transportation department contracts out inspections on eight bridges in Kansas City 

and the turnpike bridges, as well as fracture-critical, pin-and-hangar structures, and underwater 

inspections.

Bridge replacement recommendations are prioritized by applying the following:

• A formula that uses economic impact, condition, roadway widths, and traffic volumes as 

input.

• AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software and Health Index (HI).

(11)

• Application of sound engineering judgment.

KDOT is now tracking a performance measure called the HI, which is part of the AASHTOWare 

Bridge Management® system. The HI of any particular structure is calculated by dividing the 

sum of the current value of all the structure’s components by the sum of the failure values

(replacement or repair) of all components. An HI of 100 percent indicates that all of the 

components of the structure are in the best possible condition state. An HI of 0 percent indicates 

that all of the components are in the worst possible condition state.

The State transportation department is also creating a spreadsheet-based bridge management 

system to supplement AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software. The HI is used to 

prioritize work, but KDOT has found AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software to be 

effective for forecasting no more than 3 years ahead. Detailed cost information is lacking on the 

maintenance side because work is contracted out or combined with road repairs. Bridge funding 

and prioritization decisions are influenced by which corridor is involved, traffic data, truck data, 

other programmed roadway work (associated work), and economic impact.

Project-Level Decision Support

Decisions are based on inspection reports. Bridge work is also tacked onto road work. Priority 

authorizations from the legislature also guide decisions. 

Performance Measures

• The major bridge performance measure is the HI—KDOT seeks an average HI in the 

high 80s to meet Federal guidelines. (Internally, KDOT targets to have no more than 

5 percent of structures rated with HI below 80 and shoots for 90s on average.)

• On-budget, on-time is the primary measure for the major projects, as required by 

legislators.

54
Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure: 

• Pier cap deterioration.

• Cracking and spalling.

• Concrete riprap deterioration.

• Scour.

• Settlement of substructure elements.

• Inadequate isolation of integral abutments and MSE walls.

Superstructure: 

• Deterioration of joints.

• Out-of-plane bending and fatigue of steel members.

• Rocker bearing corrosion.

• Frozen sliding-plate bearings.

• Anchor bolt corrosion of bearings.

Deck: 

• Deterioration of joints.

• Ingress of chlorides.

• Deterioration of concrete deck owing to the influence of poor quality aggregates.

• Damage to deck owing to freeze-thaw cycles.

Appurtenances: 

• Corrosion of shear ties that connect cathedral rails (at 1-ft intervals) to concrete box 

bridges.

• Noise walls hanging on rails.

• Damage from signing structures attached to bridges.

• Clogged bridge drains or deteriorated drain hardware.

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: (none cited).

Superstructure:

• Joints are major problem (expansion joints).

• Painting and lead-abatement for steel structures.

Deck: Polymer overlays.

55
Functionality: (none cited).

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

• Better forecasting tools.

• Better inspection cycles that make sense—risk associated with structure type should be 

attached to inventory.

• Guidance on sound and reasonable environmental policy—how to logically balance 

bridge preservation and environmental stewardship. Currently environmental reviews 

take inordinately long to complete, and regulations are a major constraint.

56
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) focus group meeting was conducted at 

the Mn/DOT Bridge Office in St. Paul, MN, on February 19, 2009. Focus group interviewees 

included the following:

• Dan Dorgan, State Bridge Engineer, Mn/DOT.

• Gary Peterson, State Bridge Construction & Maintenance Engineer, Mn/DOT.

• Duane Green, Metro Maintenance Operations Engineer, Structures, Mn/DOT.

• Dustin Thomas, Bridge Designer, Mn/DOT.

• Jim Pierce, Bridge Management Engineer, Mn/DOT.

• Chris Cromwell, Assistant Bridge Engineer, FHWA Minnesota Division.

Organizational Structure

Mn/DOT has a decentralized structure comprising eight geographical districts with the 

seven-county Metro district around the Twin Cities accounting for nearly half the bridge 

network. There are bridge maintenance staffs for each district. The central office establishes 

bridge policy, houses the bridge management systems, provides construction planning and 

support, processes load rating and permitting, conducts training and QA of district and county 

inspection programs, and does specialty (fracture critical) inspections. Mn/DOT directly 

manages bridges on the county and local systems. Table 18 shows the number of bridges owned 

by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 18. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Minnesota.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned

State transportation department 3,615

Other State agency 61

Local agency 9,330

Federal agency 78

Toll authority 0

Railroad company 19

Private 18

Total 13,121

Program-Level Decision Support

Mn/DOT conducts most inspections with State forces on State bridges, employing some 

consultants on occasion to help with fracture-critical structures or as QA/QC support. A 

significant number of inspections were outsourced temporarily following the I-35W bridge 

collapse in 2007 because the Governor called for re-inspection of all bridges in the State in a 

very short time window. Many counties with small staffs or few bridges hire consultants for 

inspections. Inspector qualifications follow NBIS guidelines and required proficiency tests.

Mn/DOT uses AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software with modifications that allow the 

documentation of more details about particular elements. The department has added some 

custom elements, such as smart flags for deck cracking, strip seal and/or joint seals, and some 

57
additional deck types, to document conditions that are not adequately represented in the basic 

AASHTO CoRe elements.

Mn/DOT does not directly use AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software for 

decisionmaking but does employ the system for limited forecasting. Mn/DOT has found 

AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software useful for maintenance planning, using elementlevel data to identify needs. Data are pulled from AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software 

and provided along with other information, such as past maintenance records, to districts to set 

up maintenance work plans. Maintenance is tracked through time sheets and a spreadsheet 

developed in-house. Mn/DOT use estimated costs from prior years to determine costs for 

preventive maintenance items. However, for recent years, much of the information is no longer 

captured in one central location so there is a gap. Money is allocated to districts based on a 

formula that is heavily driven by average daily traffic (ADT) and vehicle miles traveled, while a 

portion of money is managed centrally for major bridge work. Districts use a spreadsheet tool to 

record and prioritize maintenance actions with data drawn from bridge inspections. Districts take 

suggested work plans developed by central office personnel to assist in making decisions on 

specific activities.

For considerations of replacement or new construction, primarily NBI inventory and condition 

data, and ADT are used as planning inputs. Mn/DOT did establish a “Major Bridge Program” for 

very large bridges that would otherwise consume a disproportionate share of resources within the 

districts. Also, at the time of the interview in 2009, MnDOT had a bridge preservation program 

that was funded separately from the regular bridge maintenance program.

Project-Level Decision Support

Most bridge preservation projects are scheduled in conjunction with roadway projects, and 

roadway projects are first determined on the basis of pavement needs with bridges needs then 

added into the project. Work is prioritized (high, medium, and low) on inspection reports. 

Nondestructive testing (GPR and infrared thermography) is contracted out as needed although 

experience with NDT has been minimal.

Performance Measures

Mn/DOT primarily tracks bridge performance based on general condition ratings, by trying to 

limit the number of bridges in fair or poor condition (NBI condition rating of 5 or less) to less 

than 16 percent. The primary measure used is the number of bridges in poor condition (NBI 

condition rating of 4 or less) with a goal of 2 percent. There is a goal of 16 percent for bridges in 

fair condition (NBI condition rating of 5 or less on deck condition rating, superstructure 

condition rating, or substructure condition rating). The number of good bridges (NBI rating 

of 7 and above) is tracked for informational purposes.

Mn/DOT has tracked goals on bridge performance for 10 years and used that to drive investment 

in bridge replacements and improvements.

All maintenance is recorded in spreadsheets so that Mn/DOT can track and report annually

the percentage of work performed. Four years ago, it started tracking preventive maintenance 

measures.

58
Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure

• Concrete spalls primarily under joints or pier column faces where salt spray gets on them.

• Leaking under girders.

• Scour.

Superstructure 

• Leaking joints.

• Bearings.

• Damage from traffic impacts.

Deck 

• Cracking.

• Corrosion of decks with black bars (top or bottom) due to de-icing chemicals.

• Spalls along edges of bridge joints.

Functionality

• Spalls on the traffic side of bridge railings.

• Settlement and shifting of slope paving.

• Damage of approach slab where it is tied in with joints.

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: (none cited).

Superstructure: 10 percent of budget spent here.

Deck: 90 percent of budget spent here (including deck patching, deck joints, railings, driving 

surface and approach slabs).

Functionality: (none cited).

State Transportation Department Successes

Mn/DOT has district bridge maintenance crews that have been valuable particularly in 

preventative maintenance work.

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

Mn/DOT wants well-established cost-benefit relationships for the various maintenance actions 

that it employs on bridges. In particular, Mn/DOT would like better prediction of paint life.

59
MONTANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Montana Department of Transportation (MDOT) focus group meeting was conducted at the 

MDOT facility in Helena, MT, on October 19, 2009. Focus group interviewees included the 

following

• Paul Jensen, Bridge Management Engineer, MDOT.

• Kent Barnes, State Bridge Engineer, MDOT.

• Mike Murphy, Bridge Maintenance Office, MDOT.

• Bob Burkhart, Division Bridge Engineer, FHWA Montana Division.

• Amanda Jackson, Bridge Engineer, MDOT.

Organizational Structure

MDOT has a centralized structure with five districts and a central office. Design is done within 

the central office while districts are responsible for inspection. Maintenance is under the central 

office personnel who are assigned maintenance crews in each district to assist with the work. 

Table 19 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 19. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Montana.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned

State transportation department 2,488

Other State agency 0

Local agency 1,930

Federal agency 702

Toll authority 0

Railroad company 0

Private 0

Total 5,120

Program-Level Decision Support

MDOT uses AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software along with post-processing to 

manage goals and objectives. Network-level indices (structurally deficient or functionally 

obsolete, HI, Sufficiency Rating, and eligibility status) are used to help in prioritization. Indices 

are also used to help prioritize off-system bridges. Maintenance data are entered into the 

maintenance management system but cost and work performed are not captured with 

recommendations/work request on specific structures.

MDOT has a capital program for rehabilitation and replacement. The preventive maintenance 

program is mill and fill (peel off riding system and fix joints and bearings) or healer/sealer to fill 

voids in cracks. 

Additional functionality in AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software desired includes the 

following:

• Cost.

• Deterioration models.

60
• Four condition states for AASHTO CoRe elements.

• Separation of structural versus functional element levels.

• End of functional service level rather than saying failure.

• Fewer elements.

MDOT employees conduct routine biennial bridge inspections, while underwater and hangar and 

pin inspections are outsourced. Additional testing includes GPR and chloride testing.

Project-Level Decision Support

Maintenance decisions are made based on NBIS and the vulnerabilities index from the National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 590—Multi-Objective Optimization 

for Bridge Management Systems, along with bridge inspection report recommendations.(12)The 

five major vulnerabilities are seismic, scour, ADT, overloads, and condition. Actions are 

prioritized high, medium, and low, but they do not have timeframes associated with them. 

Maintenance work is performed by MDOT road crews and captured in a system designed for 

road maintenance, so captured information is incomplete for bridges.

Performance Measures

• Number of structurally deficient bridges.

• Number of functionally obsolete bridges.

• Sufficiency rating and eligibility status.

• Modified HI.

• Off-system index to prioritize bridge work that adds in other factors (age, size, priority) 

and plan to have this system for State bridges.

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure: 

• Settlement of substructure.

• Scour.

• Deterioration of timber piling.

Superstructure: 

• Damage from over-height vehicles.

• Deterioration of paint on steel girders.

• Displaced or lost bearings.

• Debris in bearings.

Deck: 

• Damage from studded tires.

• Ingress of chlorides.

61
• Improper construction techniques, such as poor curing of deck concrete resulting in 

bridge deterioration.

Functionality: 

• Lack of traffic capacity.

• Deterioration of approaches.

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: (none cited).

Superstructure: (none cited).

Deck: Majority of resources expended on the deck.

Functionality: (none cited).

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

• Check the NBI Translator to see whether Sufficiency Rating is calculated accurately—if 

not, what should it be?

• New computation of Sufficiency Rating based on element-level inspection.

• What is the value of preventative maintenance over reactive maintenance?

• A construction practice to relieve cracking and stress on the deck without building a joint.

• What is the relationship between traffic and bridge service life and the resulting impact 

on design and the functionally obsolete rating? 

• Bridge design with maintenance in mind—need to give MDOT solutions for anticipated 

maintenance (such as what Europe has done, for example, an access in the pier wall to fix 

a joint from the other side or a set of stairs to get down the side of bridge).

• Waterproofing systems to use during construction process.

62
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) focus group meeting was held at the 

Rutgers University Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation on 

September 24, 2008. Focus group interviewees included the following:

• Helene Bowman Cook, FHWA New Jersey Division.

• Richard Dunne, Central Office Bridge, NJDOT.

• Amad Ghorbani, Central Office Maintenance, NJDOT.

• Greg Renman, Central Office Inspections, NJDOT.

Organizational Structure

NJDOT has a centralized structure. Although there are three geographic regions in the 

transportation department, bridge staff are located in two central office groups: design and 

inspection resides under Capital Project Management, and bridge maintenance resides under 

Operations and Maintenance. 

NJDOT owns about 2,500 bridges for which it has design, construction, inspection, and 

maintenance responsibility. Table 20 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of 

agencies in the State.

Table 20. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in New Jersey.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned

State transportation department 2,371

Other State agency 214

Local agency 2,637

Federal agency 30

Toll authority 1,163

Railroad company 2

Private 17

Total 6,434

Program-Level Decision Support

NJDOT uses AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software for its bridge management system 

to archive data. At the time of the interview in 2008, NJDOT had not had sufficient funds to 

customize the software. 

Decisions regarding maintenance activities are based on inspections and identification of priority 

repairs: emergency (within 3 days), priority 1 (within 1 month), and priority 2 (within 3 months). 

A log in the maintenance office is kept to track actual activities; this log is separate from the 

bridge management system. Cost data are kept within the contracts and are not part of the 

system. NJDOT shares information with the New Jersey Turnpike Authority because it faces

several of the same issues, such as truck traffic volume.

63
Project-Level Decision Support

NJDOT performs AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software CoRe element and NBI 

inspections. It uses a capital investment strategy to help prioritize activities. The State looks at 

bridges and prioritizes them based on condition, which is determined by the sufficiency rating.

NJDOT does not capture actual repairs performed versus those recommended from inspections.

Performance Measures

NJDOT inspects all bridges in the State, with the exception of those owned by toll authorities 

and one county. The department monitors inspection records for all structures to ensure 

compliance with the inspection cycles. NJDOT has a performance measure to reduce scour 

critical bridges by 20 structures per year. It focuses on decks because that is where its customers 

are focused. It tracks the priority log to ensure action is taken within the designated time period 

(emergency within 3 days, priority 1 within 30 days, and priority 2 within 90 days).

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure: Spalling, pier cap deterioration, rusted and/or frozen bearings, scour.

Superstructure: Bearing misalignment or failure, joint deterioration, impact damage 

deterioration of paint systems, cracking of steel beams, rust and corrosion of steel superstructure 

members.

Deck: Spalling, cracking.

Functionality: Lack of capacity for traffic volumes, impact damage, poor performance of deck 

drains.

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: Approximately 20 percent of funds.

Superstructure: Approximately 20 percent of funds.

Deck: 60 percent of funds.

Functionality: Impact damage, lack of capacity for traffic volumes.

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

• NJDOT wants the ability to do deterioration modeling in support of making the “when”

decision for repair or rehabilitation.

• If one seals and overlays a bridge deck, how much life does one get?

• Which is better—a bare or covered bridge?

• What is the value of preventative maintenance?

64
• What is the best material for deck patching?

• How can one tell if a deck joint is working?

• New Jersey representatives said that one reason NJDOT went to overlays was because it 

feels there is impact loading when trucks hit potholes or approaches, and that impact load 

is not measured. They want to know what the effect is on the rest of the deck when a 

truck impact load is incurred. This may also apply to uneven approaches or joints. They 

do not have specific data on this but think it contributes to deterioration of decks, so their 

policy is to put overlays in place to reduce the impact.

65
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) focus group meeting was 

conducted at Parsons Brinkerhoff offices in Penn Plaza, New York, NY, on October 6, 2008.

Focus group interviewees included the following:

• Sreenivas Alampalli, Bridge Office, NYSDOT.

• George Christian, Bridge Office, NYSDOT.

• Earl Dubin, FHWA New York Division.

• Harold Fink, Region 11 (New York City), NYSDOT.

• Ron Kudla, Region 10 (Long Island), NYSDOT.

Organizational Structure

NYSDOT has a decentralized structure comprising 11 regions with bridge maintenance staff in 

each; the central office provides oversight and support. Table 21 shows the number of bridges 

owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 21. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in New York.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned

State transportation department 7,460

Other State agency 212

Local agency 8,646

Federal agency 115

Toll authority 364

Railroad company 3

Private 4

Total 17,420

Program-Level Decision Support

NYSDOT does not currently use a formal bridge management system, but it does have extensive 

bridge management tools that were developed in-house and that are used to do various levels of 

bridge management analysis—forecasting, needs, and inventory—and these tools interface to 

various degrees. NYSDOT does not use AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software on a 

production basis, although NYSDOT owns a license and has a small group investigating future 

options. The program development unit at headquarters, along with the planning division,

assesses programs and needs (for example, recently completed a 20-year needs assessment) and 

have developed a tool that extracts data from the inventory and the program support systems. 

NYSDOT has a tool that predicts deterioration rates of bridge elements and a cost estimating 

tool.

NYSDOT personnel and consultant inspectors perform element-level (using customized 

elements, not CoRe elements) and NBI inspections and collect more data than required by NBI.

They use a span-by-span method of rating the elements of the bridge. They have approximately 

20 years of maintenance data, although the level of quality of maintenance varies for data older 

than 5 years. There is a maintenance management system that tracks work and resources. The 

bridge foreman enters data and the system also serves as a time and attendance system. The

66
accuracy of hours spent on an action is limited, because, for example, an emergency call has a 

minimum 4-hour charge per worker even if actual work only took 1 hour. Thus, the system 

shows maintenance activity that was done even if time estimates are sometimes inflated. 

Currently, the inspection and maintenance systems do not interface.

Decisions regarding maintenance activities are related to regional goals, but goals vary across the 

State. NYSDOT has good core data and deterioration modeling that is used. Cost estimates are 

good for replacement but not as accurate for rehabilitation and repair. NYSDOT can forecast 

costs inventory-wide and forecast element-level deterioration.

Project-Level Decision Support

The maintenance engineer makes the decision(s) on individual projects, giving equal weight to 

bridge inventory data, recommendations of bridge crews, and the engineer’s experience and 

knowledge. Maintenance engineers track needed work and trends separately. They use the 

database of bridge conditions and emergency response history in their decisionmaking. 

NYSDOT has its own definition of “deficient,” which is different from the Federal definition.

NYSDOT reports inspection data to the FHWA in the 0 to 9 format required by the NBIS.

NYDOT also defines deficient bridges using the Federal criteria according NBIS. When 

prioritizing, they look at Federal sufficiency ratings, NYSDOT condition ratings, geometric 

dimensions, and eligibility for Federal funds. The Regional offices have all the condition lists,

and the main office provides them with a priority list that takes into consideration all of the 

following:

• Bridge condition.

• ADT data.

• Traffic problems.

• Vertical clearance.

• Highway system—the National Highway System (NHS) has priority because truck traffic

causes them to suffer more damage.

Testing to supplement the routine inspections may include indepth load rating analysis, magnetic 

particle testing, ultrasonic testing, thermographic camera when further testing is needed, UT, and 

dye penetrant. NYSDOT clarified that “visual” inspection actually employs sight, sound, and 

touch. If an inspector rates something 4 or less, that inspector must document this with written 

notes, photo, and test data and add that to the inspection report. NYSDOT employs GPR on 

many bridges now.

Performance Measures

NYSDOT uses its own custom bridge condition rating system to determine whether a bridge 

should be classified as deficient. The NYSDOT condition rating scale ranges from 1 to 7, 

with 7 meaning in new condition, no deterioration, and 1 meaning the element is in a totally 

deteriorated or failed condition. A rating of 3 means an element has serious deterioration or is 

67
not functioning as designed. The several different elements on the bridge are each rated 

between 1 and 7, and different weights are assigned to the different element ratings. Bridges with 

a calculated rating of less than 5.000 are deficient. NYSDOT recognizes that using a 

performance measure that quantifies just the number of bridges produces skewed results when 

considering long span (high deck area) bridges (such as the Brooklyn Bridge). Thus, NYSDOT 

tabulates performance data both for number of bridges and for deck area of bridges. NYSDOT 

looks at critical components—it does not want certain critical elements to be less than 3 and has

tools that will list these elements. 

NYSDOT looks at posted bridges—load-posted and permit-posted bridges on the network (and 

where these bridges are located on network). It tracks flagged work needs and resolution of the 

flagged needs—the number of overdue flagged work needs has increased in the last couple of 

years, and NYSDOT is not keeping up as well as it did previously. This may be the result of 

economics, age of bridges, increase in traffic, or increase in heavy loads. The number of flags 

indicates how well NYSDOT is maintaining its structures for each region. The goal is to 

minimize flagged work needs, but NYSDOT tries to correct all the problems on a bridge rather 

than just fixing the flagged item, i.e., if the structure has another condition looming while 

workmen are fixing a flagged item, they should try to spend more time to correct all the pending 

problems. NYSDOT feels this might prevent a flagged item down the road; however, resources

become an issue.

NYSDOT has had a robust preventive and corrective maintenance program for the last 10 years 

and has seen positive changes in deterioration rates.

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure: Spalling, rusting and exposed rebar, delaminations, scour, corrosion, deterioration 

of steel piles.

Superstructure: Girder end deterioration, impact damage, paint chalking, peeling, leaking joints.

Deck: Spalling, pot holes, cracking.

Functionality: Bridge width not matching road width, vertical clearance.

Structural capacity: Load rating.

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: 50 percent of budget expended, including scour.

Superstructure: (none cited).

Deck: (none cited).

Functionality: (none cited).

68
Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

• What is the most reliable way to predict the life of a bridge?

• Does one need to look at fracture critical bridges every 2 years?

• How long will the bridges with epoxy-coated rebar last?

• When will a bridge start to punch through? Are there reliable tools to help predict this 

condition?

• Is sealing a deck worth it? How much more life does one get? Should it be done on new 

decks?

• Will New York have problems with its 1960s prestressed beams? NYSDOT has observed 

some deterioration.

• Evaluation of prestressed concrete to identify any corrosion in the strand early.

69
OHIO STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT, presented as ODOT-OH for the purposes of

this report) focus group meeting was conducted at the ODOT-OH facility in Columbus, OH, on 

December 1, 2009. Focus group interviewees included the following:

• Michael Loeffler, Bridge Operations, ODOT-OH.

• Matt Shamis, Division Bridge Engineer, FHWA Ohio Division.

• Jeff Crace, Review Engineer, ODOT-OH.

• Jawdat Siddiqi, Review Engineer, ODOT-OH.

• Mike Brokaw, Bridge Inspection, ODOT-OH.

Organizational Structure

ODOT-OH has a decentralized structure with 12 districts. The central office manages contracts, 

while districts handle design, maintenance, and inspection. ODOT-OH does have district bridge 

maintenance crews although the dollars are limited, and ODOT-OH contracts out much of the 

maintenance work. Table 22 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in 

the State.

Table 22. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Ohio.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned

State transportation department 10,345

Other State agency 11

Local agency 16,140

Federal agency 11

Toll authority 472

Railroad company 32

Private 34

Total 27,045

Program-Level Decision Support

ODOT-OH does not use AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software. It has its own bridge 

management/inspection system—each bridge has a unique structural number and shows 5 years 

of ratings—so ODOT-OH has a history of needs that includes recommended actions with status 

(new, recurring, completed). Decisions are based on bridge condition, or the operational 

performance indicator (OPI), as listed in the bridge management system.

3 The inspection is 

emailed to the bridge engineer for review, and it automatically populates the bridge maintenance 

system. ODOT-OH employees perform element-level (not per span) inspections on all bridges in 

the State and comply with NBIS. Underwater bridge inspections are outsourced. Localities and 

 3

The organizational performance index monitors the monthly performance of all 12 districts in several key areas of construction management, 

contract administration, equipment and facilities, finance, information technology, plan delivery, quality and human resources, system conditions, 

traffic safety, and highway maintenance. These scores are used to monitor several programs and to standardize services across districts. OPI 

exception reports and action plans are discussed during monthly executive management meetings. Many of these performance measures are used 

to annually evaluate management and staff.

70

 
turnpikes conduct their own bridge inspections. Additional testing included in some State bridge 

inspections is limited GPR, UT, and magnetic particle testing. ODOT-OH does use SHM (longterm instrumentation) on some major structures.

Repair information is kept in a Web portal. ODOT-OH does have archived cost information. It 

needs better document handling (for example, photos are all in separate folders and drives) and is

planning a geotechnical document database and has scanned old bridge plans, aperture cards, etc. 

ODOT-OH has multiple systems that currently are not linked.

Project-Level Decision Support

Districts make decisions—some bridge repair work is done in-house, but a lot of bridge repair 

work is contracted out to the private sector. At the time of the interview in 2009, if the cost of 

repair on a bridge was more than $50,000, then the repair was contracted out. Central office 

planning provides oversight. Decisions are based on inspection reports, safety, and congestion.

Performance Measures 

No performance measures were captured.

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure: Scour.

Superstructure: 

• Deterioration of joints.

• Peeling paint.

• Deterioration of prestressed concrete adjacent box beams.

Deck: 

• Cracking.

• Ingress of chlorides.

Functionality: 

• Deterioration of approach slab.

• Poor drainage.

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: (none cited).

Superstructure: Painting.

Deck: Overlays—the majority of the funds are spent on decks.

71
Functionality: (none cited).

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

• Detailed guidance on locating, measuring, and describing deterioration such as cracked 

areas on a deck; the problem with high-performance concrete (HPC) cracks—how much 

does that affect deterioration (accelerate corrosion) and needs to be noted in condition 

rating?

• How does one differentiate between the cracks with different types of concrete such as 

HPC?

• How is design playing into the performance of various elements?

• More methods of nondestructive testing.

• Sealing and coatings of concrete surfaces—is there an economically good return; is it 

effective?

• A target value for permeability of concrete to prevent water from getting through and 

having corrosion.

• Joints that do not leak.

• Reduction in deck cracking.

• Degradation rates.

• Quantifying costs for preventative maintenance to help determine how they compete 

against each other (for example, bridge treatments that would be cost effective).

• Lifecycle cost recommendations.

72
OREGON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT, presented as ODOT-OR for the purposes of

this report) focus group meeting was conducted at the ODOT-OR facility in Salem, OR, on 

October 20, 2009. Focus group interviewees included the following:

• Bruce Johnson, State Bridge Engineer, ODOT-OR.

• Gary Bowling, Bridge Operations Engineer, ODOT-OR.

• Bert Hartman, Bridge Preventive Maintenance Engineer, ODOT-OR.

• Richard King, Major Bridge Management Engineer, ODOT-OR.

• Mike Gehring, District 2A Bridge Maintenance Engineer, ODOT-OR.

• Ronald Kroop, District Manager, ODOT-OR.

• Jeff Norman, District 4 Bridge Manager, ODOT-OR.

• Tim Rogers, Division Bridge Engineer, FHWA Oregon Division.

• Ray Bottenberg, Corrosion Engineer, ODOT-OR.

• Steve Lovejoy, Senior Bridge Engineer, ODOT-OR.

• Bruce Novakovich, Senior Bridge Engineer, ODOT-OR.

• Dawn Mach, Bridge Financial Analyst, ODOT-OR.

Organizational Structure

ODOT-OR is decentralized, with five regions that are primarily responsible for delivering 

projects. Within the 5 regions is a total of 15 districts that are responsible for maintaining 

infrastructure and providing oversight of the region for the capital program. Headquarters has a 

technical services group (bridges included) that is responsible for inspection and that manages 

standards and funding for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the major 

maintenance program. Eleven bridge maintenance crews are shared across the districts. Table 23

shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 23. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Oregon.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned

State transportation department 2,706

Other State agency 54

Local agency 4,074

Federal agency 790

Toll authority 2

Railroad company 5

Private 7

Total 7,638

Program-Level Decision Support

ODOT-OR uses AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software to store inventory, inspectors’

data and reports, and condition ratings. It also uses the software for external processing of NBI 

data. ODOT-OR collects additional data in 13 categories to supplement the NBI data (for 

example, widening). Additional information is used in developing the capital program and stored 

external to AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software. ODOT-OR has a strategy to focus on 

73
structurally deficient bridges or bridges with an NBI rating of 5 on NHS and on State freight 

routes. At the time of the interview in 2009, ODOT-OR had set aside $7-8 million for major 

maintenance to target critical deficiencies it could not develop into STIP or could not be done by 

maintenance forces by supplementing their budget on specific projects . This program is 

managed statewide. Maintenance activity is captured in the maintenance management system.

ODOT-OR is working on coming up with project costs—it is considered a major need for the 

information technology and bridge groups to develop a system to tie maintenance costs to 

individual tasks within AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software and to bridges and 

elements.

Headquarters manages the capital program and identifies needs, working with regions for 

prioritization and programming in the STIP. About one-third of the capital program is spent on 

preserving high-cost structures and moveable bridges, one-third is spent on strengthening and 

freight movement, and one-third is spent on safety or Federal requirements. ODOT-OR would 

also like to have a program focused on retrofit of bridges with known seismic vulnerabilities.

AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software element-level inspections are performed by State

employees and include an underwater crew as well as management of the consultant program for 

inspecting major bridges and local bridges. ODOT-OR has a rigorous QA/QC program that 

requires inspector ratings to be within plus or minus 1 of the QA rating. The QA rating is the 

NBI condition rating assigned by experienced ODOT-OR inspectors to deck, superstructure, or 

substructure. During training of new inspectors, the trainees must inspect the bridge components

and independently arrive at a rating that is plus or minus 1 of the QA rating.

Additional testing includes magnetic particle testing, timber boring, UT, and, rarely, impact 

echo. ODOT-OR has SHM (long-term instrumentation) on about a dozen bridges, including

strain gauges, corrosion surveys, cathodic protection, and load testing.

Project-Level Decision Support

In addition to NBIS, ODOT-OR looks at the following:

• Restricted bridge list.

• Load rating information.

• Scour information from hydraulics.

• Maintenance recommendations from inspection reports.

• Remarks from bridge inspectors—sometimes all the data are not in the sufficiency 

rating—particularly data on decks.

If maintenance crews are spending a lot of recurring time on a bridge, it may not show in the

data, but ODOT-OR would get that data through the feedback loop when sending out the bridge 

priority list. From the field, ODOT-OR is trying to link projects with road crews/field 

coordination.

74
Performance Measures

The only items ODOT-OR routinely reports on are structurally deficient and functionally 

obsolete; the goal is to have 75 percent of structures rated good or better. ODOT-OR is moving 

from performance measures to return on investment at the commission level.

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure: 

• Shear cracking of cross beams between pier columns.

• Shear cracking of pier caps.

• Scour.

• Timber pile deterioration.

• Cracking in abutment walls.

• Spalling in columns.

• Settlement.

• Poor drainage.

Superstructure: 

• Bridge joints deterioration.

• Pack rust on steel members.

• Peeling paint on steel members.

• Deterioration of steel bearings.

• Distortion induced fatigue on steel beams and in steel floor systems.

• Shearing on steel structures (excessive loads and age of bridges).

• Shear cracks on concrete bridges.

• Spalling concrete on coastal structures.

Deck: 

• Cracking.

• Rutting in asphalt overlays.

• Damage from use of studded tires.

• Ingress of chlorides.

Functionality: Functional obsolescence.

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: (none cited).

Superstructure: Most of capital program maintenance funds are spent on paint, cathodic 

protection, and repairing cracked girders.

Deck: Sealing decks, repairing joints, and replacing timber elements.

75
Functionality: (none cited).

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

• Ideally having results, findings, and conclusions from LTBP Program that ODOT-OR

could apply in 20 years that address types of bridges that have to be kept in service for 

some undetermined number of years—it is looking for a proactive rather than a reactive

approach.

• SHM—ODOT-OR needs an interface between data on the bridge and the computer, and 

the ability/mechanism to process the data and make them useful (ways to communicate

between the bridge and the computer such as radio frequency, cellular telephone, and/or 

hard-wired lines; ODOT-OR wants it to be more cost effective).

• Wireless sensors that are independent and powered by batteries, solar, or other source to 

reduce the expense of an SHM system.

• Forward-looking and reliable maintenance program, including what treatments are useful 

and when they might be applied.

• At the program level—what is the optimum level of maintenance funding to maintain 

bridges at the optimum level and extend service life? (For a given bridge inventory with 

specific structure types and environment, what is needed to maintain optimum 

performance?)

76
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) focus group meeting was conducted at the 

TxDOT facility in Austin, TX, on April 29, 2009. Focus group interviewees included the 

following:

• David Hohmann, Director, TxDOT Bridge Division.

• Tom Yarbrough, Bridge Management Engineer, TxDOT Bridge Division.

• Keith Ramsey, Director of Field Operations Section, TxDOT Bridge Division.

• Brian Merrill, Manager, Bridge Construction and Maintenance, TxDOT Bridge Division.

• Alan Kowalik, Inspection Supervisor, TxDOT Bridge Division.

• Hector Garcia, Assistant Bridge Engineer, FHWA Texas Division.

Organizational Structure

TxDOT has a decentralized structure. There is a central Bridge Division, and each district has a 

Bridge Engineer. The central Bridge Division provides support for construction and design. It 

oversees design, field operations, administration, special inspections, and project development. 

Districts perform inspection and bridge management. There are 25 districts. Maintenance is run 

from the maintenance division at headquarters. Table 24 shows the number of bridges owned by 

various types of agencies in the State.

Table 24. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Texas.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned

State transportation department 33,513

Other State agency 34

Local agency 17,663

Federal agency 227

Toll authority 793

Railroad company 3

Private 10

Total 52,243

Program-Level Decision Support

There is a dedicated bridge preventive maintenance fund. TxDOT has enhanced AASHTOWare 

Bridge Management® software for data entry that has decreased entry errors. It would like to 

enhance the software for use as a planning tool but needs to develop a deterioration model to use 

for running scenarios. Data records only go back to 2000. TxDOT has developed its own 

inspection module, currently being piloted by one district because TxDOT wants to collect more 

information than AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software requires. The maintenance 

division tracks cost according to broad work categories, but cost is not tied to specific bridges. 

TxDOT is building a new maintenance system. 

77
Project-Level Decision Support

Maintenance recommendations are made at the district level (ranked list based on condition 

ratings) and passed to area offices where the recommendations are implemented. There is little 

corridor planning although TxDOT is promoting it.

Performance Measures

The fundamental performance measure used by TxDOT for bridges is the percentage of bridges 

that are rated good or better. The State transportation department set a goal of having 80 percent

of structures rated good or better by 2011.

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure: 

• Corrosion of reinforcing elements of concrete substructure.

• Corrosion of steel piling in salt water.

• Scour.

Superstructure: 

• Corrosion of reinforcing steel in reinforced concrete girders.

• Damage due to traffic impact.

• Deterioration of steel bearings on older bridges.

• Added inspection requirements for fracture critical bridges as well as risk of failure and 

repair work.

• ASR issues with prestressed concrete members.

Deck: High levels of carbonation of materials used from 1950s through the 1970s.

Functionality: 

• Insufficient compaction behind abutments.

• Performance of railing and transitions.

• Deterioration of high mast illumination poles.

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: 50 percent of budget.

Superstructure: (none cited).

Deck: 50 percent of budget.

78
Functionality: (none cited).

State Transportation Department Successes

TxDOT has revised its inspection processes, now based on rotating assignments within a pool of 

inspection consultants. This centralized process has improved compliance, QA, and consistency.

TxDOT designed a Web-enabled interface to AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software, 

called Pontis, which is used by inspection consultants to submit inspection results and by 

TxDOT personnel to review and analyze the bridge management information.

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

• Better documentation to emphasize the importance of preventive bridge maintenance.

• Asset management tools to assist in dividing and prioritizing maintenance funds among 

disparate asset types.

• Development of a guide that explains the importance of bridge maintenance, particularly 

for audiences such as policymakers and managers who are not trained or practiced in 

bridge engineering or maintenance.

• Integrated systems to manage bridges.

• Greater integration of information tools and systems, emphasizing the use and integration 

of relational database structures.

• Research and documentation to support risk-based scheduling of inspections, rather than 

prescriptive 2-year increments, which are perceived as wasteful when applied to newer 

structures in excellent condition.

79
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) focus group meeting was conducted at the 

UDOT Central Office in Salt Lake City, UT, on March 5, 2009. Focus group interviewees 

included the following:

• Stan Burns, Director of Engineering Services, UDOT.

• Fred Doehring, Deputy Bridge Engineer, UDOT.

• Mike Ellis, Structural Maintenance Coordinator, UDOT.

• Jim McMinimee, Director of Project Development UDOT.

• Chris Potter, Deputy Bridge Operations Engineer, UDOT.

• Jason Richins, Senior Design Engineer, UDOT.

• Russ Robertson Bridge Engineer, FHWA Utah Division.

Organizational Structure

UDOT has a decentralized project management organization, so project managers and roadway 

design staff are located in four regions. Supervisors help manage bridge maintenance projects in 

their regions of the State. The central design unit oversees consultant design, inspections, and 

technical specialties. Table 25 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies 

in the State.

Table 25. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Utah.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned

State transportation department 1,773

Other State agency 0

Local agency 1,029

Federal agency 145

Toll authority 0

Railroad company 0

Private 0

Total 2,947

Program-Level Decision Support

UDOT uses a modified version of AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software in an Oracle 

database (a customized module for UDOT data was added). UDOT has bridge files dating back 

to the 1920s and is scanning archived bridge plans to create electronic files. It does not use 

AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software for projecting or planning. UDOT has requested 

linking databases (materials, construction bid with cost, project management, and 

AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software) across the State transportation department.

Currently, pre-1999 records are hard copy only. UDOT uses a spreadsheet developed in-house to 

plan for every bridge project. The spreadsheet tracks every bridge in the STIP and indicates 

whether the bridge is approved for concept and development phase and whether a project is 

approved for funding. Using this spreadsheet, along with a similar one for projects on pavement 

sections, the main office and the regional offices work together to schedule bridge projects and,

when possible, link them to roadway projects to minimize the disruption of traffic.

80
Project-Level Decision Support

Information was requested from district engineers on where they perceived needs on bridges. (At 

the time of the interview in 2009, 50 percent of the budget funds were allocated to preservation 

and 50 percent to maintenance.) Inspection data feeds into STIP. Public perception and safety 

feed into decisionmaking. 

Performance Measures

UDOT has established a goal to eliminate bridges rated structurally deficient (currently 

2.5 percent of the inventory is rated structurally deficient).

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure: 

• Deterioration of concrete in the splash zone.

• Cracking of backwalls.

• Spalls of substructure concrete close to beams.

• Erosion under abutments and approach slabs.

• Beam locking on steel bridges—bearing at one ends freezes and all expansion occurs at 

opposite end; can impact and crack concrete backwall.

Superstructure: 

• Water leaking from deck joints over beams and bearings.

• Damage of beams from traffic impact.

• Deterioration due to drainage problems on deck.

• Joint deterioration in simple spans.

• Rusting of weathering steel.

• Peeling of paint on steel girders.

• Delaminations.

Deck:

• Potholes.

• Deterioration of deck joints.

• Settlement of approach slabs.

• Cracking.

• Delamination of polymer overlays.

81
Functionality: 

• Interaction of pavement and approach slab—vertical displacement.

• Parapet spalls.

• Utilities under structures; corrosion of hangars.

• Settlement of MSE walls.

• Slope protection—loss of protective materials and sloughing of fill material.

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: 25 percent of budget.

Superstructure: 25 percent of budget.

Deck: 50 percent of budget.

Functionality: (none cited).

State Transportation Department Successes

UDOT is a leader in using Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) to minimize the impact of 

bridge construction on the public. UDOT is dedicated to its initiative to replace conventional 

construction techniques with ABC, wherein the State transportation department is able to build 

new structures while minimizing the impact to the public and increasing worker safety. Utah 

representatives admit that this is in an early stage—durability of the structures is still unknown.

The program has evolved over the last 10 years, starting with partial-depth precast decks, 

progressing to full-depth precast decks, and then migrating to construction of bridges onsite or 

offsite and moving them into position using sliding or self-propelled modular transports. Many 

details evolved during this time; for example, (prefabricated) decks migrated from welded tie to 

post-tensioning. Changes in connection details on bent caps (constructability issue) are another 

example. UDOT set the policy that, as of fiscal year 2010, it will use ABC exclusively on new 

construction. Examples of structures with details that may affect long-term durability and 

maintenance include the following:

• Pre-assembled bridges that did not seat cleanly when moved into place, thus requiring 

shims.

• Some fully precast bridges containing considerable post-tensioning in the abutments.

• Corrugated steel girders, constructed on a reversing s-curve, with two-dimensional panels 

on girders attached using welds and grouted pockets and with a polymer overlay.

Use of geofoam instead of lightweight fill has been implemented to counter the effects of 

prolonged settlement of lake bed silt and other materials.

Contrary to prior practice, UDOT now designs the exterior girders of bridges to carry full lane 

loads in anticipation of future expansions needed to address capacity issues.

82
Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

Despite expressing confidence in the benefits of the ABC process, UDOT does want to know 

what implications for long-term bridge life may exist for using precast decks and other elements 

and what that means for preservation and maintenance efforts in 10 to 15 years.

Utah representatives expressed a desire for a uniform resource to identify and document best 

practices in bridge preservation. They would also like a resource that identifies design details 

that help ensure durable structures. For example, UDOT has experimented with moving 

expansion joints off of structures to approaches and feels this has been a successful practice. Do 

other States have similar or contrasting experience? There should be a clearinghouse for such 

information.

Regarding health monitoring concepts, UDOT would like to know what instrumentation is most 

successful, durable, and applicable to assessing condition and structural performance.

83
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) focus group interview was held at the 

Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research in Charlottesville, VA, on 

August 13, 2008. VDOT interviewees included the following:

• Anwar Ahmad, Assistant State Structure & Bridge Engineer for Maintenance, VDOT 

Central Office.

• Garry Lovins, Structure and Bridge Engineer, VDOT Bristol District.

• David Pearce, Structure and Bridge Engineer, VDOT Culpeper District.

• Nicholas Roper, Structure and Bridge Engineer, VDOT Northern Virginia District.

• Keith Weakley, Structure and Bridge Engineer, VDOT Staunton District.

Organizational Structure

VDOT is decentralized, made up of nine engineering districts with bridge offices in each and a 

central office division that provides planning, design, and bridge management support.

Table 26 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 26. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Virginia.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned

State transportation department 11,892

Other State agency 9

Local agency 1,934

Federal agency 340

Toll authority 74

Railroad company 50

Private 10

Total 17,420

Program-Level Decision Support 

VDOT has a formal bridge management system composed of the AASHTOWare Bridge

Management® software and the Highway Traffic Record Information System. However, in 

practice, these are primarily used to archive data and are more for information management than 

bridge management. The State is using AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software to 

perform network-level analysis, to determine statewide needs, and as a guide in allocating 

funding to the districts. VDOT currently tracks maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation actions 

through manual inspection reports although efforts to streamline retrieval of information are 

under way. At the time of the interview in 2008, cost information was tracked separately by each 

district. 

VDOT would like to have these additional capabilities: 

• Accurate cost data.

• Risk-based prioritization or ranking process.

84
• Accurate and current (real-time) unit costs.

• Ability to accurately and currently forecast the life of the bridge.

• Historical data on structurally deficient bridges so VDOT can do trending/plotting of 

deterioration trends, including the non-NBI data and at the individual bridge level.

• Refined deterioration models.

Project-Level Decision Support

In making decisions, VDOT relies on element-level inspection data along with NDE and other 

test data, traffic data, flood risk, environmental needs, local transportation needs, information 

provided by the trucking industry and other interest groups, public involvement, the known and 

acceptable options available to them, and funding availability. 

VDOT performs both NBI safety and element-level inspections, and uses AASHTOWare Bridge 

Management® software. In addition, it performs the following supplemental testing:

• UT of structural steel.

• Underwater inspection.

• Ultrasound on pins and links.

• NDE methods as needed.

o Magnetic particles.

o Dye penetrant.

o X-ray.

o Ultrasound.

• Visual inspection.

Results are kept in individual inspection records. 

In determining repairs, the State considers the prioritization of needs and funding allocations, 

condition ratings, and appraisal ratings. To more accurately define the extent of repairs and 

improve cost estimating, the following nonstructural data would be useful:

• Accurate load data.

• Information that helps define the scope of work, such as type and extent of damage.

• Updated data on quantities of work items needed at the time bidding documents are 

prepared.

VDOT does not capture actual repairs performed versus specified repairs.

85
Performance Measures

For performance measures, VDOT tracks the following:

• Condition of structures over time.

• NBI condition ratings.

• Number of posted and functionally obsolete structures.

• Maintenance backlog.

• Federal sufficiency rating.

• HI.

VDOT is now tracking HI, which is part of the AASHTOWare Bridge Management® system.(10)

The HI of any particular structure is calculated by dividing the sum of the current value of all 

structure’s components by the sum of the failure value (replacement or repair) of all components. 

An HI of 100 percent indicates that all of the components of the structure are in the best possible 

condition state. An HI of 0 percent indicates that all of the components are in the worst possible 

condition state.

The State uses a dashboard that shows the number of structures and their condition (functionally 

deficient, structurally deficient, and OK). 

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure: Scour, cracking, spalling, and delamination.

Superstructure: Corrosion, age and deterioration with time of the existing paint system, parapet 

repair; bearing pedestals deterioration, and concrete pop-outs due to freezing.

Deck: Spalling, fatigue cracks, weathering as well as decay, splitting and insect damage in 

timber decks.

Functionality: No specific forms noted.

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: Shotcrete/pneumatic concrete repair of concrete spalls, scour countermeasures, 

and blocking and jacking/installation of temporary supports.

Superstructure: Complete painting, repair/replace due to impact damage, complete 

superstructure replacement.

Deck: Patching, thin overlay, rigid overlay, full or partial deck replacement.

Functionality: No specific forms noted.

86
Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

• Use of and access to accurate cost data.

• Prioritization or ranking process for maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation actions.

• Use of and access to accurate, current (real-time) unit costs.

• Methods to accurately and currently forecast the remaining life of a bridge.

• Use of and access to historical data on structurally deficient structures so VDOT can plot 

deterioration trends, including non-NBI structures and trends at the individual bridge 

level.

• Refined deterioration models.

87

APPENDIX C—INITIAL RATING AND RANKING OF BRIDGE PERFORMANCE 

ISSUES

As discussed in chapter 4 and shown in Table 9, an initial list of high priority bridge performance 

issues was created. Two groups, one of external stakeholders and one of FHWA bridge experts,

were asked to rate the issues for importance as well as for urgency. Table 27 and table 28 list 

these two groups.

Table 27. External stakeholders.

Board Member Affiliation Contact Information

Dr. Sreenivas Alampali, (Chair) NYSDOT salampalli@dot.state.ny.us

Richard (Dick) Dunne, PE NJDOT richard.dunne@dot.state.nj.us

Mary Lou Ralls, PE Ralls Newman, 

LLC

ralls-newman@sbcglobal.net

Bojidar Yanev, PhD, PE New York City

Department of 

Transportation

byanev@dot.nyc.gov

Barton Newton, PE Caltrans barton_newton@dot.ca.gov

Dr. Herbert Wiggenhauser BAM/Germany herbert.wiggenhauser@bam.de

Marja-Kaarina Söderqvist Finnra/Finland marja-kaarina.soderqvist@tiehallinto.fi

Malcolm T. Kerley VDOT mal.kerley@vdot.Virginia.gov

Bruce Johnson ODOT-OR bruce.v.johnson@odot.state.or.us

Professor Dan M. Frangopol Lehigh University dan.frangopol@lehigh.edu

Table 28. FHWA bridge experts.

Name Office Contact Information

Hamid Ghasemi Infrastructure R&D hamid.ghasemi@dot.gov

Tom Everett Bridge thomas.everett@dot.gov

John Penrod Infrastructure R&D john.penrod@dot.gov

Larry O’Donnell Infrastructure R&D larry.o’donnell@dot.gov

Paul Virmani Infrastructure R&D paul.virmani@dot.gov

89

REFERENCES

1. Office of Research and Technology (2013). LTBP Bridge Performance Primer, Report 

FHWA-HRT-13-051, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1998). AASHTO 

Guide to Commonly Recognized Structural Elements, 1st Edition, Washington, DC.

3. Office of Engineering (1995). Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory 

and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges, Report No. FHWA-PD-96-001, Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC.

4. Schaefer, V., Maher, A., Hooks, J. and Foden, A. (2013). Summary Report on the FHWA 

LTBP Workshop to Identify Bridge Substructure Performance Issues: March 4–6, 2010, 

in Orlando, FL, Report No. FHWA- HRT-11-037, Federal Highway Administration, 

McLean, VA.

5. Hooks, J. (2013). TechBrief: Summary Report on the FHWA LTBP Workshop to Identify 

Bridge Substructure Performance Issues: March 4–6, 2010, in Orlando, FL, 

Report No. FHWA- HRT-13-049, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA.

6. First Letter Report of the TRB Long-Term Bridge Performance (LTBP) Committee, 

March 16, 2012.

7. FHWA Response to First Letter Report of the TRB Long-Term Bridge Performance 

(LTBP) Committee, May 30, 2012.

8. ADOT, Maintenance Bureau (2006). ABIMS User Guide, Montgomery, Alabama.

9. Hale, D., Haynie, J., Turner, D., and Richardson, J. (2010). Bridge Deficiency Metric 

Refinement: Longer Term Planning for State- and Locally-Owned Bridges. Alabama 

DOT Report AL 930-742, Tuscaloosa, AL.

10. Governmental Accounting Standards Board of the Financial Accounting Foundation.

(1999). Statement No. 34 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board Basic 

Financial Statements—and Management’s Discussion and Analysis—for State and Local 

Government. Norwalk, CT.

11. Shepard, R.W. and Johnson, M.B. (1999). California Bridge Health Index. Presented at 

the 8th International Bridge Management Conference, Transportation Research Board, 

Washington, DC.

12. Patidar, V., Labi, S., Sinha, K.C., and Thompson, P. (2007). NCHRP Report 590: MultiObjective Optimization for Bridge Management Systems, Transportation Research Board, 

National Research Council, Washington, DC.

91


HRDI-60/10-14(750)E Recycled

Recyclable