1.1-i

Table of Contents

Section 1 ..................................................................................................................................................

Bridge Inspection 

Programs 

 1.1 History of the National Bridge Inspection Program .............................. 1.1.1 

 

1.1.1 Introduction............................................................................... 1.1.1 

 1.1.2 History of the National Bridge Inspection Program ................. 1.1.2 

 Background ........................................................................ 1.1.2 

 The 1970’s.......................................................................... 1.1.3 

 The 1980’s.......................................................................... 1.1.4 

 The 1990’s.......................................................................... 1.1.4 

 The 2000’s.......................................................................... 1.1.6 

 1.1.3 Today's National Bridge Inspection Program ........................... 1.1.6 

 FHWA Training ................................................................. 1.1.7 

 Current FHWA Reference Material ................................... 1.1.9 
1.1-ii

Abbreviations Used in this Section 

AASHO - American Association of State Highway Officials (1921 to 1973) 

AASHTO - American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1973 to 

present) 

AASHTO Manual - Manual for Maintenance Inspection of Bridges 

BIRM - Bridge Inspector’s Reference Manual 

BMS - Bridge Management System 

Coding Guide - FHWA Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of 

the Nation’s Bridges 

DOT - Department of Transportation 

FCM - fracture critical member 

FHWA - Federal Highway Administration 

HBRR - Highway Bridge Replacement & Rehabilitation 

HEC - Hydraulic Engineering Circular 

ISTEA - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 

Manual 70 - Bridge Inspector’s Training Manual 70

Manual 90 - Bridge Inspector’s Training Manual 90 

MR&R - maintenance, repair and rehabilitation 

NBI - National Bridge Inventory 

NBIS - National Bridge Inspection Standards 

NCHRP - National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

NDT - nondestructive testing 

NHI - National Highway Institute 

NHS - National Highway System 

NICET - National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies 

TEA-21 - Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century 

TRB - Transportation Research Board 

TWG - Technical Working Group 
1.1.1 

Section 1 

Bridge Inspection Programs 

Topic 1.1 History of the National Bridge 

Inspection Program 

1.1.1 

Introduction In the years since the Federal Highway Administration's landmark publication, 

Bridge Inspector’s Training Manual 90 (Manual 90), bridge inspection and 

inventory programs of state and local governments have formed an important basis 

for formal bridge management programs. During the 1990’s, the state DOT’s 

implemented comprehensive bridge management systems, which rely heavily on 

accurate, consistent bridge inspection data. 

This manual (Bridge Inspector’s Reference Manual) updates Manual 90 and

reflects over ten years of change. 

Advances in technology and construction have greatly enhanced current bridge 

design. However, the emergence of previously unknown problem areas and the 

escalating cost of replacing older bridges make it imperative that existing bridges 

be evaluated properly to be kept open and safe. 

There are four letters that define the scope of bridge inspections in this country: 

NBIS, meaning National Bridge Inspection Standards. The National Bridge 

Inspection Standards (NBIS) are Federal regulations establishing requirements 

for: 

3⁄4 Inspection Procedures 

3⁄4 Frequency of Inspections 

3⁄4 Qualifications of Personnel 

3⁄4 Inspection Reports 

3⁄4 Maintenance of Bridge Inventory 

The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) is the aggregation of structure inventory 

and appraisal data collected by each state to fulfill the requirements of NBIS. 

To better understand the National Bridge Inventory Program, it is helpful to review

the development of the program. 
SECTION 1: Bridge Inspection Programs 

TOPIC 1.1: History of the National Bridge Inspection Program 

1.1.2 

Table 1.1.1 Number of Bridges Built since 1900

1.1.2 

History of the 

National Bridge 

Inspection Program 

Background During the bridge construction boom of the 1950’s and 1960’s, little emphasis was 

placed on safety inspection and maintenance of bridges. This changed when the 

681 m (2,235-foot) Silver Bridge, at Point Pleasant, West Virginia, collapsed into 

the Ohio River on December 15, 1967, killing 46 people (see Figure 1.1.1). 

 

Figure 1.1.1 Collapse of the Silver Bridge 

Bridges built by Year

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

1900-10 1911-20 1921-30 1931-40 1941-50 1951-60 1961-70 1971-80 1981-90 1991-00

10 year Increments

Number

Non FA FA
SECTION 1: Bridge Inspection Programs 

TOPIC 1.1: History of the National Bridge Inspection Program 

1.1.3 

This tragic collapse aroused national interest in the safety inspection and 

maintenance of bridges. The U.S. Congress was prompted to add a section to the 

“Federal Highway Act of 1968” which required the Secretary of Transportation to 

establish a national bridge inspection standard. The Secretary was also required to 

develop a program to train bridge inspectors. 

The 1970’s Thus, in 1971, the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) came into being. 

The NBIS established national policy regarding: 

3⁄4 Inspection procedures 

3⁄4 Frequency of inspections 

3⁄4 Qualifications of personnel 

3⁄4 Inspection reports 

3⁄4 Maintenance of state bridge inventory (NBI) 

Three manuals were subsequently developed. These manuals were vital to the 

early success of the NBIS. The first manual was the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) Bridge Inspector’s Training Manual 70 (Manual 70). 

This manual set the standard for inspector training. 

The second manual was the American Association of State Highway Officials 

(AASHO) Manual for Maintenance Inspection of Bridges, released in 1970. This 

manual served as a standard to provide uniformity in the procedures and policies 

for determining the physical condition, maintenance needs and load capacity of 

highway bridges. 

The third manual was the FHWA Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure 

Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges (Coding Guide), released in July 

1972. It provided thorough and detailed guidance in evaluating and coding 

specific bridge data. 

With the publication of Manual 70, the implementation of national standards and 

guidelines, the support of AASHO, and a newly available FHWA bridge 

inspector’s training course for use in individual states, improved inventory and 

appraisal of the nation’s bridges seemed inevitable. Several states began in-house 

training programs, and the 1970’s looked promising. Maintenance and inspection 

problems associated with movable bridges were also addressed. In 1977, a 

supplement to Manual 70, the Bridge Inspector’s Manual for Movable Bridges, 

was added. 

However, the future was not to be trouble free. Two predominant concerns were 

identified during this period. One concern was that bridge repair and replacement 

needs far exceeded available funding. The other was that NBIS activity was 

limited to bridges on the Federal Aid highway systems. This resulted in little 

incentive for inspection and inventory of bridges not on Federal Aid highway 

systems. 

These two concerns were addressed in the “Surface Transportation Assistance Act 

of 1978.” This act provided badly needed funding for rehabilitation and new 
SECTION 1: Bridge Inspection Programs 

TOPIC 1.1: History of the National Bridge Inspection Program 

1.1.4 

construction and required that all public bridges over 20 feet (6.1 m) in length be 

inspected and inventoried in accordance with the NBIS by December 31, 1980. 

Any bridge not inspected and inventoried in compliance with NBIS would be 

ineligible for funding from the special replacement program. 

In 1978, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO) revised their Manual for Maintenance Inspection of Bridges (AASHTO 

Manual). In 1979, the NBIS and the FHWA Coding Guide were also revised. 

These publications, along with Manual 70, provided state agencies with definite 

guidelines for compliance with the NBIS. 

The 1980’s The National Bridge Inspection Program was now maturing and well positioned 

for the coming decade. Two additional supplements to Manual 70 were published. 

First, culverts became an area of interest after several tragic failures. The 1979 

NBIS revisions also prompted increased interest in culverts. The Culvert 

Inspection Manual was published July 1986. Then, an emerging national emphasis 

on fatigue and fracture critical bridges was sharply focused by the collapse of 

Connecticut’s Mianus River Bridge in June 1983. Inspection of Fracture Critical 

Bridge Members was published in September 1986. These manuals were the 

products of ongoing research in these problem areas. 

With the April 1987 collapse of New York’s Schoharie Creek Bridge, national 

attention turned to underwater inspection. Of the over 593,000 bridges in the 

national inventory, approximately 86% are over waterways. The FHWA 

responded with Scour at Bridges, a technical advisory published in September 

1988. This advisory provided guidance for developing and implementing a scour 

evaluation program for the: 

3⁄4 Design of new bridges to resist damage resulting from scour 

3⁄4 Evaluation of existing bridges for vulnerability to scour 

3⁄4 Use of scour countermeasures 

3⁄4 Improvement of the state-of-practice of estimating scour at bridges 

Further documentation is available on this topic in the Hydraulic Engineering 

Circular No. 18 (HEC-18). 

In September 1988, the NBIS was modified, based on suggestions made in the 

“1987 Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act,” to require 

states to identify bridges with fracture critical details and establish special 

inspection procedures. The same requirements were made for bridges requiring 

underwater inspections. The NBIS revisions also allowed for adjustments in the 

frequency of inspections and the acceptance of National Institute for Certification 

in Engineering Technologies (NICET) Level III and IV certification for inspector 

qualifications. 

In December 1988, the FHWA issued a revision to the Coding Guide. This time 

the revision would be one of major proportions, shaping the National Bridge 

Inspection Program for the next decade. The Coding Guide provided inspectors 

with additional direction in performing uniform and accurate bridge inspections. 

The 1990’s The 1990’s was the decade for bridge management systems (BMS). Several states, 
SECTION 1: Bridge Inspection Programs 

TOPIC 1.1: History of the National Bridge Inspection Program 

1.1.5 

including New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Alabama and Indiana, had 

their own comprehensive bridge management systems. 

In 1991, the FHWA sponsored the development of a bridge management system 

called “Pontis” which is derived from the Latin word for bridge. The Pontis system 

has sufficient flexibility to allow customization to any agency or organization 

responsible for maintaining a network of bridges. 

Simultaneously, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 

of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) developed a BMS software called 

“Bridgit.” Bridgit is primarily targeted to smaller bridge inventories or local 

highway systems. 

As more and more bridge needs were identified, it became evident that needed 

funding for bridge maintenance, repair and rehabilitation (MR&R) far exceeded 

the available funding from federal and state sources. Even with the infusion of 

financial support provided by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act (ISTEA) of 1991, funding for bridge MR&R projects was difficult to obtain. 

This was due in part to the enormous demand from across the nation. An October 

1993 revision to NBIS permitted bridge owners to request approval from FHWA 

of extended inspection cycles of up to four years for bridges meeting certain 

requirements. 

In 1994, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO) revised their Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges (AASHTO 

Manual). In 1995, the FHWA Coding Guide was also revised. These 

publications, along with Manual 90, Revised July 1995, provided state agencies 

with continued definite guidelines for compliance with the NBIS and conducting 

bridge inspection. 

Although later rescinded in the next transportation bill, the ISTEA legislation 

required that each state implement a comprehensive bridge management system by 

October 1995. This deadline represented a remarkable challenge since few states 

had previously implemented a BMS that could be considered to meet the definition 

of a comprehensive BMS. In fact, prior to the late 1980’s, there were no existing 

management systems adaptable to the management of bridge programs nor was 

there any clear, accepted definition of key bridge management principles or 

objectives. 

This flexibility in the system was the result of developmental input by a Technical 

Working Group (TWG) comprised of representatives from the FHWA, the 

Transportation Research Board (TRB) and the following six states: California, 

Minnesota, North Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont and Washington. The TWG 

provided guidance drawing on considerable experience in bridge management and 

engineering. 

The National Highway System (NHS) Act of 1995 rescinded the requirement for 

bridge management systems. However, many of the states continued to implement 

the Pontis BMS. 

The Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21) was signed into law 

in June 1998. TEA-21 built on and improved the initiatives established in ISTEA 
SECTION 1: Bridge Inspection Programs 

TOPIC 1.1: History of the National Bridge Inspection Program 

1.1.6 

and, as mentioned earlier, rescinded the mandatory BMS requirement. 

The 2000’s In 2002, Manual 90 was revised and updated as a part of a complete overhaul of 

the FHWA Bridge Safety Inspection training program. The new manual was 

named the Bridge Inspector’s Reference Manual (BIRM) and incorporated all of 

Manual 90. The BIRM also incorporates manual 70 Supplements for culvert 

inspection and Fracture Critical Members. 

On December 14, 2004, the revised NBIS regulation was published in the Federal 

Register. The updated NBIS took affect January 13, 2005. Implementation plans 

were to be developed by April 13, 2005 to be fully implemented by January 13, 

2006. 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 

for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was signed into law in August 2005. SAFETEA-LU 

represents the largest surface transportation investment in our Nation’s history. 

SAFETEA-LU builds on and improves the initiatives established in ISTEA and 

TEA-21. 

Over the years, varying amounts of federal funds have been spent on bridge 

projects, depending on the demands of the transportation infrastructure. Table 

1.1.2 illustrates the fluctuations in federal spending and shows current trends. 

Table 1.1.2 Federal Funding Levels (1979 – 2003) 

1.1.3 

Today's National 

Bridge Inspection 

Program 

Much has been learned in the field of bridge inspection, and a national Bridge 

Inspection Training Program is now fully implemented. State and federal 

inspection efforts are more organized, better managed and much broader in scope. 

The technology used to inspect and evaluate bridge members and bridge materials 

has significantly improved. 

Areas of emphasis in bridge inspection programs are changing and expanding as 

new problems become apparent, as newer bridge types become more common, and 

as these newer bridges age enough to have areas of concern. Guidelines for 

inspection ratings have been refined to increase uniformity and consistency of 

inspections. Data from bridge inspections has become critical input into a variety 

of analyses and decisions by state agencies and the Federal Highway 

Administration. 

Federal Funding Levels - Highway Bridge Replacement & 

Rehabilitation (HBRR) Program

$4.2 billion

$6.9 billion

$8.13 billion

$16.1 billion

$20.4 billion

$. billion $5. billion $10. billion $15. billion $20. billion $25. billion

1979 - 1982

1983 - 1986

1987 - 1991

1992 - 1997

1998 - 2003

As of December 2000, approximately 59,000 bridges have been replaced or rehabilitated 

under this Federal Program.
SECTION 1: Bridge Inspection Programs 

TOPIC 1.1: History of the National Bridge Inspection Program 

1.1.7 

The NBIS has kept current with the field of bridge inspection. The 2005 National 

Bridge Inspection Standards appear in Appendix A. The standards are divided into 

the following sections: 

3⁄4 Purpose 

3⁄4 Applicability 

3⁄4 Definitions 

3⁄4 Bridge inspection organization 

3⁄4 Qualifications of personnel 

3⁄4 Inspection frequency 

3⁄4 Inspection procedures 

3⁄4 Inventory 

3⁄4 Reference manuals 

The FHWA has made a considerable effort to make available to the nation’s bridge 

inspectors the information and knowledge necessary to accurately and thoroughly 

inspect and evaluate the nation’s bridges. 

FHWA Training The FHWA has developed and now offers the following training courses relative 

to structure inspection through the National Highway Institute (NHI): 

3⁄4 “Bridge Inspection Refresher Training” (NHI Course Number FHWANHI-130053) 

This three-day course provides a review of the National Bridge Inspection 

Standards (NBIS) and includes discussions on structure inventory items, 

structure types, and the appropriate codes for the Federal Structure, 

Inventory and Appraisal reporting. 

3⁄4 “Bridge Inspector’s Training Course, Part I - Engineering Concepts for 

Bridge Inspectors” (NHI Course Number FHWA-NHI-130054) 

This one-week course presents engineering concepts, as well as inspection 

procedures and information about bridge types, bridge components, and 

bridge materials. The one-week course is for new inspectors with little or 

no practical bridge inspection experience. 

3⁄4 “Bridge Inspector’s Training Course, Part II - Safety Inspection of InService Bridges” (NHI Course Number FHWA-NHI-130055) 

This two-week course is for experienced inspectors or engineers who 

perform or manage bridge inspections. Emphasis is on inspection 

applications and procedures. The uniform coding and rating of bridge 

elements and components is also an objective of the two-week course. A 

unique feature of this course allows for customization of the course 

content by the host agency. Some states use component rating based on 

NBIS while some states use element condition level based on Pontis. 

Optional topics can be scheduled, and their level of coverage can be 
SECTION 1: Bridge Inspection Programs 

TOPIC 1.1: History of the National Bridge Inspection Program 

1.1.8 

selected. These topics include identification and inspection of fracture 

critical members (FCM’s), underwater inspection, culverts, field trips, 

case studies, and coatings. Several special bridge types may also be 

discussed at the host agency’s request. 

3⁄4 “Fracture Critical Inspection Techniques for Steel Bridges” (NHI Course 

Number FHWA-NHI-130078) 

This three and one-half day course provides an understanding of fracture 

critical members (FCM’s), FCM identification, failure mechanics and 

fatigue in metal. Emphasis is placed on inspection procedures and 

reporting of common FCM’s and nondestructive testing (NDT) methods 

most often associated with steel highway bridges. 

3⁄4 “Stream Stability and Scour at Highway Bridges for Bridge Inspectors” 

(NHI Course Number FHWA-NHI-135047) 

This one-day course concentrates on visual keys to detecting scour and 

stream instability problems. The course emphasizes inspection guidelines 

to complete the hydraulic and scour-related coding requirements of the 

National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). 

3⁄4 “Bridge Coatings Inspection” (NHI Course Number FHWA-NHI-130079)

This four-day course provides information on the inspection of surface 

preparation and application of protective coating systems for bridge and 

highway structures. The course provides a basic overview of the theory of 

corrosion and its control and the characteristics of various bridge coating 

types. 

3⁄4 “Inspection and Maintenance of Ancillary Highway Structures” (NHI 

Course Number FHWA-NHI-130087) 

This two-day course provides training in the inspection and maintenance 

of ancillary structures, such as structural supports for highway signs, 

luminaries, and traffic signals. Its goal is to provide agencies with 

information to aid in establishing and conducting an inspection program in 

accordance with the FHWA “Guidelines for the Installation, Inspection, 

Maintenance, and Repair of Structural Supports for Highway Signs, 

Luminaries, and Traffic Signals”. 

3⁄4 “Underwater Bridge Inspection” (NHI Course Number FHWA-NHI130091) 

This three-day course provides an overview of diving operations that will 

be useful to agency personnel responsible for managing underwater bridge 

inspections. This course also fulfills the requirement due to the latest 

changes of the National Bridge Inspection Standards, which require bridge 

inspection training for all divers conducting underwater inspections. 

3⁄4 “Inspection of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil 

Slopes” (NHI Course Number FHWA-NHI-132080) 

This three-day course is part of a series to develop a training and 
SECTION 1: Bridge Inspection Programs 

TOPIC 1.1: History of the National Bridge Inspection Program 

1.1.9 

qualification/certification program for field inspectors. A partial list of 

topics addressed in the course are MSE wall and RSS types and durability; 

construction methods and sequences; alignment control; methods of fill 

and compaction control; plans, specifications, and the geotechnical report; 

shop drawings; and safety. 

Throughout all the expansions and improvements in bridge inspection programs 

and capabilities, one factor remains constant: the overriding importance of the 

inspector’s ability to effectively inspect bridge components and materials and to 

make sound evaluations with accurate ratings. The validity of all analyses and 

decisions based on the inspection data is dependent on the quality and the 

reliability of the data collected in the field. 

Across the nation, the duties, responsibilities, and qualifications of bridge 

inspectors vary widely. The two keys to a knowledgeable, effective inspection are 

training and experience in performing actual bridge inspections. Training of bridge 

inspectors has been, and will continue to be, an active process within state 

highway agencies for many years. This manual is designed to be an integral part 

of that training process. 

Current FHWA 

Reference Material 

3⁄4 NBIS. Code of Federal Regulations. 23 Highways Part 650, Subpart C –

National Bridge Inspection Standards. 

3⁄4 AASHTO. LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 3rd Edition. Washington, 

D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, with 2005 and 2006 Interims. 

3⁄4 FHWA. Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and 

Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges. Washington, D.C.: United States 

Department of Transportation, 1995, Errata Sheet 03/ 2004. 

o http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/mtguide.pdf

3⁄4 FHWA. Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual. Washington, D.C.: United 

States Department of Transportation, 2002, Revised 2006. 

3⁄4 AASHTO. Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges, 2nd Edition.

Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, with 2005 Interims. 

3⁄4 AASHTO. Guide for Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Structural Elements.

Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, 1998, with 2002 interims. 
SECTION 1: Bridge Inspection Programs 

TOPIC 1.1: History of the National Bridge Inspection Program 

1.1.10

This page intentionally left blank. 
1.2-i

Table of Contents

Section 1 ..................................................................................................................................................

Bridge Inspection 

Programs 

 1.2 Responsibilities of the Bridge Inspector ................................................ 1.2.1 

 

 1.2.1 Introduction............................................................................... 1.2.1 

 1.2.2 Responsibilities of the Bridge Inspector and Engineer............. 1.2.1 

 Maintain Public Safety and Confidence ............................. 1.2.1 

 Protect Public Investment................................................... 1.2.2 

 Provide Bridge Inspection Program Support...................... 1.2.2 

 Provide Accurate Bridge Records ...................................... 1.2.3 

 Fulfill Legal Responsibilities ............................................. 1.2.4 

1.2.3 Qualifications of Bridge Inspectors .......................................... 1.2.4 

 1.2.4 Consequence of Irresponsibility................................................ 1.2.5 

 1.2.5 Quality Control and Quality Assurance.................................... 1.2.6 

 
SECTION 1: Bridge Inspection Programs 

 TOPIC 1.2: Responsibilities of the Bridge Inspector 

1.2-ii

This page intentionally left blank 
1.2.1 

Topic 1.2 Responsibilities of the Bridge 

Inspector 

1.2.1 

Introduction Bridge inspection has played, and will continue to play, an increasingly important 

role in providing a safe infrastructure for our nation. As our nation's bridges 

continue to age and deteriorate, an accurate and thorough assessment of each 

bridge’s condition is critical in maintaining a safe, functional and reliable highway 

system. 

This section presents the responsibilities of the bridge inspector. It also describes 

how the inspector can prepare for the inspection and some of the major inspection 

procedures. 

1.2.2 

Responsibilities of 

the Bridge 

Inspector and 

Engineer 

There are five basic responsibilities of the bridge inspector and engineer: 

3⁄4 Maintain public safety and confidence 

3⁄4 Protect public investment 

3⁄4 Provide bridge inspection program support 

3⁄4 Provide accurate bridge records 

3⁄4 Fulfill legal responsibilities 

1. Maintain Public 

Safety and 

Confidence 

The primary responsibility of the bridge inspector is to maintain public safety and 

confidence. This is also a prime concern to everyone in the highway agency. The 

general public travels our highways and bridges without hesitation. However, 

when a bridge fails, the public’s confidence in our bridge system is violated (see 

Figure 1.2.1). 

The engineer’s role is: 

3⁄4 To incorporate safety factors. 

3⁄4 To provide cost-effective designs. 

Engineers provide a margin of safety to compensate for a lack of precise 

calculations, variations in the quality of material, erection loading 

conditions, and uncertain maintenance. This is particularly evident in 

older bridges, especially those designed prior to the use of computers. The 

bridge design engineer must be as confident as possible that the bridge 

will never fail under natural or man-made loads. 

The inspector’s role is: 

3⁄4 To provide thorough inspections identifying bridge conditions and defects.

3⁄4 To prepare condition reports documenting these deficiencies and alerting 

supervisors or engineers of any findings which might impact the safety of 

the roadway user or the integrity of the structure. 
 SECTION 1: Bridge Inspection Programs 

 TOPIC 1.2: Responsibilities of the Bridge Inspector 

1.2.2 

Figure 1.2.1 Mianus Bridge Failure 

2. Protect Public 

Investment 

Another responsibility is to protect public investment in bridges. The inspector 

must be on guard for minor problems that can be corrected before they lead to 

costly major repairs. The inspector must also be able to recognize bridge elements 

that need repair in order to maintain bridge safety and avoid replacement costs. 

As stated before, the funding available to rehabilitate and replace deficient bridges 

is not adequate to meet all of the needs. It is important that preservation activities 

be a part of the bridge program to extend the performance life of as many bridges 

as possible and minimize the need for costly repairs or replacement. 

The engineer’s role is: 

3⁄4 To continually upgrade design standards to promote longevity of bridge 

performance. 

The inspector’s role is: 

3⁄4 To continually be on guard for minor problems that can become costly 

repairs. 

3⁄4 To recognize bridge components that need repair in order to maintain 

bridge safety and avoid the need for costly replacement. 

3. Provide Bridge 

Inspection Program 

Support 

Subpart C of the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) of the Code of

Federal Regulations, 23 Highways Part 650, mandates: 

3⁄4 Purpose 

3⁄4 Applicability 

3⁄4 Definitions 

3⁄4 Bridge inspection organization 

3⁄4 Qualifications of personnel 

3⁄4 Inspection frequency 
 SECTION 1: Bridge Inspection Programs 

 TOPIC 1.2: Responsibilities of the Bridge Inspector 

1.2.3 

3⁄4 Inspection procedures 

3⁄4 Inventory 

3⁄4 Reference manuals 

Bridge Inspection Programs are funded by public tax dollars. Therefore, the 

bridge inspector is financially responsible to the public. 

The “Surface Transportation Act of 1978” established the funding mechanism for 

providing federal funds for bridge replacement. The Act also established criteria 

for bridge inspections and requirements for compliance with the NBIS. 

The “Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act” (ISTEA) of 1991 and the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) of 1998 establish funding 

mechanisms for tolled and free bridges for bridge maintenance, rehabilitation and 

replacement to adequately preserve the bridges and their safety to all users. 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 

for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was signed into law in August 2005. SAFETEA-LU 

represents the largest surface transportation investment in our Nation’s history.

SAFETEA-LU builds on and improves the initiatives established in ISTEA and 

TEA-21.

4. Provide Accurate 

Bridge Records 

There are three major reasons why accurate bridge records are required: 

a. To establish and maintain a structure history file. 

For example, two bridge abutments are measured for tilt during several 

inspection cycles, and the results are as follows: 

Year Abutment A Abutment B

2006 106 mm (4-3/16”) 89 mm (3-1/2”) 

2004 106 mm (4-3/16”) 57 mm (2-1/4”) 

2002 105 mm (4-1/8”) 29 mm (1-1/8”) 

2000 102 mm (4”) 25 mm (1”) 

Looking at year 2006 measurements only would indicate that Abutment A 

has a more severe problem. However, examining the changes each year, it 

is noted that the movement of Abutment A is slowing and may have 

stopped, while Abutment B is changing at a faster pace each inspection 

cycle. At the rate it is moving, Abutment B will probably surpass 

Abutment A by the next inspection. 

b. To identify and assess bridge deficiencies and to identify and assess bridge 

repair requirements. An individual should be able to readily determine, 

from the records, what repairs are needed as well as a good estimate of 

quantities. Maintain reports on the results of the bridge inspection 

together with notations of any action taken to address the findings of such 

inspections. 

c. To identify and assess minor bridge deficiencies and to identify and assess 

bridge maintenance needs in a similar manner to the repair requirements.

Maintain relevant maintenance and inspection data to allow assessment of 

current bridge condition. 
 SECTION 1: Bridge Inspection Programs 

 TOPIC 1.2: Responsibilities of the Bridge Inspector 

1.2.4 

To ensure accurate bridge records, proper record keeping needs to be maintained. 

A system must be developed to review bridge data and evaluate quality of bridge 

inspections. Bridge files are to be prepared as described in the AASHTO Manual 

for Condition Evaluation and Load and Resistance Factor Rating. Record the 

findings and results of bridge inspections on standard State or Federal agency 

forms. 

5. Fulfill Legal 

Responsibilities 

A bridge inspection report is a legal document. Descriptions must be specific, 

detailed, quantitative (where possible), and complete. Vague adjectives such as 

good, fair, poor, and general deterioration, without concise descriptions to back 

them up, should not be used. To say “the bridge is OK” is just not good enough. 

Example of inspection descriptions: 

Bad description: “Fair beams” 

Good description: “Reinforced concrete tee-beams are in fair condition with light 

scaling on bottom flanges of Beams B and D for their full length” 

Bad description: “Deck in poor condition” 

Good description: “Deck in poor condition with spalls covering 50% of the deck as 

indicated on field sketch, see Figure 42” 

Any visual assessments should include phrases such as “no other apparent defects” 

or “no other defects observed.” 

Original inspection notes should not be altered without consultation with the 

inspector who wrote the notes. 

A bridge inspection report implies that the inspection was performed in accordance 

with the National Bridge Inspection Standards, unless specifically stated otherwise 

in the report. Proper equipment, techniques, and personnel must be used. If the 

inspection is a special or interim inspection, this must be explained explicitly in 

the report. 

1.2.3 

Qualifications of 

Bridge Inspectors 

The NBIS are very specific with regard to the qualifications of bridge inspectors. 

The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Part 650, Subpart C, Section 650.309, 

(23 CFR 650.309), lists the qualifications of personnel for the National Bridge 

Inspection Standards (Appendix B of this Manual). These are minimum standards; 

therefore, state or local highway agencies can implement higher requirements. 

Inspection Program Manager 

(a) The individual in charge of the organizational unit that has been delegated 

the responsibilities for bridge inspection, reporting, and inventory shall 

possess the following minimum qualifications: 

1) Be a registered professional engineer, or have ten years bridge 

inspection experience; and 

2) Successfully complete a Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) approved comprehensive bridge inspection training 

course. 
 SECTION 1: Bridge Inspection Programs 

 TOPIC 1.2: Responsibilities of the Bridge Inspector 

1.2.5 

Inspection Team Leader 

 (b) An individual in charge of a bridge inspection team shall possess the 

following minimum qualifications: 

1) Have the qualifications specified in paragraph (a) of this section; 

or 

2) Have five years bridge inspection experience and have 

successfully completed an FHWA approved comprehensive 

bridge inspection training course; or 

3) Be certified as a Level III or IV Bridge Safety Inspector under the 

National Society of Professional Engineer's program for National 

Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET) and have 

successfully completed an FHWA approved comprehensive 

bridge inspection training course, or 

4) Have all of the following: 

i) A bachelor's degree in engineering from a college or 

university accredited by or determined as substantially 

equivalent by the Accreditation Board for Engineering 

and Technology; 

ii) Successfully passed the National Council of Examiners 

for Engineering and Surveying Fundamentals of 

Engineering examination; 

iii) Two years of bridge inspection experience; and 

iv) Successfully completed an FHWA approved 

comprehensive bridge inspection training course, or 

5) Have all of the following: 

i) An associate's degree in engineering or engineering 

technology from a college or university accredited by or 

determined as substantially equivalent by the 

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology; 

ii) Four years of bridge inspection experience; and 

iii) Successfully completed an FHWA approved 

comprehensive bridge inspection training course. 

1.2.4 

Consequence of 

Irresponsibility 

The dictionary defines tort as “a wrongful act for which a civil action will lie 

except one involving a breach of contract.” 

In the event of negligence in carrying out the basic responsibilities described 

above, an individual, including department heads, engineers, and inspectors, is 

subject to personal liability. An inspector should strive to be as objective and 

complete as possible. Accidents that result in litigation are generally related, but 

not necessarily limited, to the following: 

3⁄4 Deficient safety features 

3⁄4 Failed members 

3⁄4 Failed substructure elements 

3⁄4 Failed joints or decks 
 SECTION 1: Bridge Inspection Programs 

 TOPIC 1.2: Responsibilities of the Bridge Inspector 

1.2.6 

3⁄4 Potholes or other hazards to the traveling public 

3⁄4 Improper or deficient load posting 

Anything said or written in the bridge file could be used in litigation cases held 

against you. In litigation involving a bridge, the inspection notes and reports may 

be used as evidence. A subjective report may have negative consequences for the 

highway agency involved in lawsuits involving bridges. The report will be 

scrutinized to determine if conditions are documented thoroughly and for the 

“proper” reasons. An inspector should, therefore, strive to be as objective and 

complete as possible. State if something could not be inspected.

Example of liabilities: 

In a recent case, a consulting firm was found liable for negligent inspection 

practices. A tractor-trailer hit a large hole in a bridge deck, swerved, went through 

the bridge railing, and fell 9.1 m (30 feet) to the ground. Ten years prior to the 

accident, the consulting firm had noted severe deterioration of the deck and had 

recommended tests to determine the need for replacement. Two years prior to the 

accident, their annual inspection report did not show the deterioration or 

recommend repairs. One year before the accident, inspectors from the consultant 

checked 345 bridges in five days, including the bridge on which the accident 

occurred. The court found that the consulting firm had been negligent in its 

inspection, and assessed the firm 75% of the ensuing settlement. 

In another case, four cars drove into a hole 3.7 m (12 feet) deep and 9.1 m (30 feet) 

across during the night. Five people were killed and four were injured. The hole 

was the result of a collapse of a multi-plate arch. Six lawsuits were filed and, 

defendants included the county, the county engineer, the manufacturer, the 

supplier, and the consulting engineers who inspected the arch each year. The arch 

was built and backfilled, with mostly clay, by a county maintenance crew 16 years 

prior to the accident. Three years later, the county engineer found movement of 75 

to 100 mm (3 to 4 inches) at one headwall. The manufacturer sent an inspector, 

who determined that the problem was backfill-related and recommended periodic 

measurements. These measurements were done once, but the arch was described 

as “in good condition” or “in good condition with housekeeping necessary” on 

subsequent inspections. Inspection reports documented a 150 mm (6 inch) gap 

between the steel plate and the headwall. A contractor examined the arch at the 

county engineer’s request to provide a proposal for shoring. The county engineer 

discussed the proposal with the consulting engineers a month before the accident. 

Thirteen inspections in all were conducted on the structure. An engineering report 

accuses the county engineer of poor engineering practice. 

1.2.5 

Quality Control and 

Quality Assurance 

The NBIS requires Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) procedures 

to maintain a high degree of accuracy and consistency in the highway bridge 

inspection program. Accuracy and consistency are important since the bridge 

inspection process is the foundation to the bridge management systems. FHWA 

has developed a recommended framework for a bridge inspection QC/QA program 

(see Topic 1.3). 
1.3-i

Table of Contents

Section 1 ..................................................................................................................................................

Bridge Inspection 

Programs 

 1.3 Quality Control and Quality Assurance ................................................. 1.3.1 

 

 1.3.1 Introduction............................................................................... 1.3.1 

 1.3.2 Quality Control ......................................................................... 1.3.1 

 

1.3.3 Quality Assurance..................................................................... 1.3.1 

 

1.3.4 Quality Control and Quality Assurance Framework................. 1.3.2 
SECTION 1: Bridge Inspection Programs 

TOPIC 1.3: Quality Control and Quality Assurance 

1.3-ii

This page intentionally left blank 
1.3.1 

Topic 1.3 Quality Control and Quality 

Assurance 

1.3.1 

Introduction Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 650, Subpart C, Section 313, 

paragraph (g), Quality Control and Quality Assurance, requires each state to assure 

that systematic Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) procedures are 

being used to maintain a high degree of accuracy and consistency in their 

inspection program. The FHWA has developed a recommended framework for a 

bridge inspection QC/QA program to assist bridge owners in developing their QC / 

QA programs. 

Accuracy and consistency of the data is important since the bridge inspection 

process is the foundation of the entire bridge management operation and bridge 

management systems. Information obtained during the inspection is used for 

determining needed maintenance and repairs, for prioritizing rehabilitations and 

replacements, for allocating resources, and for evaluating and improving design 

for new bridges. The accuracy and consistency of the inspection and 

documentation is vital because it not only impacts programming and funding 

appropriations, it also affects public safety. 

1.3.2 

Quality Control Quality Control (QC) is the establishment and enforcement of procedures that are 

intended to maintain the quality of the inspection at or above a specific level. If an 

inspection program is decentralized, the state program manager is still responsible 

for QC. 

1.3.3 

Quality Assurance Quality Assurance (QA) is the use of sampling and other measures to assure the 

adequacy of quality control procedures in order to verify or measure the quality 

level of the entire bridge inspection and load rating program. This is accomplished 

by the re-inspection of a sample of bridges by an independent inspection team. 

For decentralized state inspections or delegated inspection programs, the QA 

program can be performed by the central staff or their agent (e.g., consultants). If 

the inspections are centralized within the state, then the QA program should be 

performed by consultants or a division separate and independent of the inspection 

state organization. 

The quality of the inspection and reports rests primarily with the inspection team 

leaders and team members and their knowledge and professionalism in developing 

a quality product. A QC/QA program is a means by which periodic and 

independent inspections, reviews, and evaluations are performed in order to 

provide feedback concerning the quality and uniformity of the state’s or agency’s 

inspection program. The feedback is then used to enhance the inspection program 

through improved inspection processes and procedures, training, and quality of the 

inspection report. 
 SECTION 1: Bridge Inspection Programs 

TOPIC 1.3: Quality Control and Quality Assurance 

1.3.2 

1.3.4 

Quality Control and 

Quality Assurance 

Framework

The FHWA has developed the following recommended framework for a bridge 

inspection QC/QA program. 

A. Documentation of QC/QA Program: 

1. Develop, document, and maintain a bridge inspection 

manual that contains Quality Control/Quality Assurance 

(QC/QA) procedures in accordance with this recommended 

framework. 

2. Elaborate on the purpose and benefits of the QC/QA 

program. 

3. Provide appropriate definitions. 

B. Quality Control (QC) Procedures 

1. Define and document QC roles and responsibilities. 

2. Document qualifications required for Program Manager, 

Team Leader, Inspection Team Member and Load Rater. 

3. Document process for tracking how qualifications are met, 

including: 

a. Years and type of experience. 

b. Training completed. 

c. Certifications/registrations. 

4. Document required refresher training, including: 

a. NHI training courses, other specialized training 

courses, and/or periodic meetings. 

b. Define refresher training content, frequency, and 

method of delivery. 

5. Document special skills, training, and equipment needs for 

specific types of inspections. 

6. Document procedures for review and validation of 

inspection reports and data. 

7. Document procedures for identification and resolution of 

data errors, omissions and/or changes. 

C. Quality Assurance (QA) Procedures 

1. Define and document QA roles and responsibilities. 

2. Document procedures for conducting office and field QA 

reviews, including: 

a. Procedures for maintaining, documenting, and 
 SECTION 1: Bridge Inspection Programs 

TOPIC 1.3: Quality Control and Quality Assurance 

1.3.3 

sharing review results; including an annual report. 

b. Establish review frequency parameters. Parameters 

should include: 

i. Recommended review frequency for 

districts/units to be reviewed (e.g. review 

each district once every 4 years). Or 

establish number of districts/units to be 

reviewed annually. 

ii. Recommended number of bridges to review.

c. Procedures and sampling parameters for selecting 

bridges to review. Procedure should consider: 

i. Whether the bridge is or is not posted. 

ii. Bridge's deficiency status. 

iii. Whether the bridge is programmed for rehab 

or replacement. 

iv. Whether the bridge has had critical findings 

and the status of any follow-up action. 

v. Bridges with unusual changes in condition 

ratings (e.g. more than 1 appraisal rating 

change from previous inspection). 

vi. Bridges that require special inspections 

(underwater, fracture critical, other special). 

vii. Location of bridge. 

d. Procedures for reviewing current inspection report, 

bridge file, and load rating. 

e. Procedures to validate qualifications of inspector and 

load rater. 

f. Define "out-of-tolerance" for condition rating and 

load rating. (e.g. rating of +/- 1 or load ratings that 

differ by more than 15%) 

g. Checklists covering typical items to review as part of 

QA procedures. 

i. Bridge file. 

ii. Field inspection. 

iii. Load rating analysis. 

h. Others. 

3. Document disqualification procedures for team leaders and 
 SECTION 1: Bridge Inspection Programs 

TOPIC 1.3: Quality Control and Quality Assurance 

1.3.4 

consultant inspection firms that have continued record of 

poor performance. 

4. Document re-qualification procedures for previously 

disqualified team leaders and consultant inspection firms that 

demonstrate they have acceptable performance. 

5. Document procedures for conducting inspections on a 

“control” bridge. 

6. Document procedures to validate the QC procedures. 

Examples of Commendable State practices and additional resources regarding 

QC/QA programs are available at the following link: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbis/nbisframework.cfm