4.1-i

Table of Contents

Section 4 ..................................................................................................................................................

Bridge Inspection 

Reporting System 

4.1 Structure Inventory ................................................................................ 4.1.1 

 4.1.1 Introduction............................................................................... 4.1.1 

 

 4.1.2 FHWA Structure Inventory, Appraisal and 

Condition Ratings ..................................................................... 4.1.1 

 Substitutes for the SI&A Sheet........................................... 4.1.2 

 Data Entry Requirements ................................................... 4.1.2 

 4.1.3 Inventory Items ....................................................................... 4.1.11 

 

 4.1.4 Appraisal Items ....................................................................... 4.1.11 

 4.1.5 The Role of Inventory Items in Bridge 

Management Systems ............................................................. 4.1.12 
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.1: Structure Inventory 

4.1-ii

This page intentionally left blank
4.1.1 

Section 4 

Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

Topic 4.1 Structure Inventory 

4.1.1 

Introduction A good bridge inspection reporting system is essential to document bridge 

conditions and to protect the public’s safety and investment in bridge structures. It 

is, therefore, essential that bridge inspection data be clear, accurate, and complete, 

since it is an integral part of the lifelong record file of the bridge. 

Because of the requirements that must be fulfilled for the National Bridge 

Inspection Standards (NBIS), it is necessary to employ a uniform bridge inspection 

reporting system. A uniform reporting system is essential to evaluate the condition 

of a structure correctly and efficiently. It is a valuable aid in establishing 

maintenance priorities and replacement priorities, and in determining structure 

capacity and the cost of maintaining the nation’s bridges. Consequently, 

importance of the reporting system cannot be overemphasized. Success of any 

bridge inspection program is dependent upon its reporting system. 

4.1.2 

FHWA Structure 

Inventory, 

Appraisal and 

Condition Ratings 

The FHWA Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and 

Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges (Coding Guide) is used for establishing the 

bridge inventory and the overall condition of the deck, superstructure, 

substructure, and channel. The data must be reported using FHWA established 

procedures as outlined in the Coding Guide. It is not an inspection guide. Each 

state may use its own coding scheme, provided that the data is directly translatable 

into the format of the Coding Guide. In other words, the states are responsible for 

having the capability to obtain, store, and report certain information about bridges, 

for collection by FHWA as requested. 

The Structure Inventory and Appraisal (SI&A) sheet is a tabulation of information 

that must be submitted for each individual structure (see Figure 4.1.1). Any 

requests by the FHWA for submittals of SI&A data will be based on the 

definitions, explanations, and codes supplied in this manual, its supplements, and 

the Coding Guide with interim changes or the most recent version. 

Sometimes inventory data is not available for new or small bridges and culverts. 

For the small bridges and culverts that are less than 20 feet, some states still collect 
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.1: Structure Inventory 

4.1.2 

the inventory information and generate a “local” database. The inspector must 

gather enough information in order to establish inventory data. 

It is important to note that the SI&A sheet is not an inspection form. Rather, it is a 

summary sheet of bridge data required by the FHWA to effectively monitor and 

manage the National Bridge Inspection Program and the Highway Bridge 

Program. 

Substitutes for the SI&A 

Sheet

NBIS allows the use of suitable substitutes for the SI&A sheet. The only 

requirement is that the forms must be standardized. Some states simply reprint the 

federal form with the same items and item numbers. A few states have elaborate 

Bridge Management Systems (BMS) with different item numbers that collect all 

the data listed on the SI&A form plus additional items not reported to the FHWA 

(see Figures 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3). 

Data Entry Requirements For routine, in-depth, fracture critical member, underwater, damage and special 

inspections enter the SI&A data into the State or Federal agency inventory within 

90 days of the date of inspection for State or Federal agency bridges and within 

180 days of the date of inspection for all other bridges. 

For existing bridge modifications that alter previously recorded data and for new 

bridges, enter the SI&A data into the State or Federal agency inventory within 90 

days after the completion of the work for State or Federal agency bridges and 

within 180 days after the completion of the work for all other bridges. 

For changes in load restriction or closure status, enter the SI&A data into the State 

or Federal agency inventory within 90 days after the change in status of the 

structure for State or Federal agency bridges and within 180 days after the change 

in status of the structure for all other bridges. 
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.1: Structure Inventory 

4.1.3 

Figure 4.1.1 FHWA SI&A Sheet with Element Level Data 
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.1: Structure Inventory 

4.1.4 

Figure 4.1.2 FHWA SI&A Sheet with NBI Data Only 
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.1: Structure Inventory 

4.1.5 

Figure 4.1.3 Arizona Structural Inventory and Appraisal Sheet 
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.1: Structure Inventory 

4.1.6 

Figure 4.1.4 Florida Structural Inventory and Appraisal Sheet 
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.1: Structure Inventory 

4.1.7 

Figure 4.1.4 Florida Structural Inventory and Appraisal Sheet (Continued)
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.1: Structure Inventory 

4.1.8 

Figure 4.1.4 Florida Structural Inventory and Appraisal Sheet (Continued)
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.1: Structure Inventory 

4.1.9 

Figure 4.1.4 Florida Structural Inventory and Appraisal Sheet (Continued)

Some agencies furnish standardized sketch sheets and photo sheets to inspectors 

for report generation. Some agencies have developed their forms on software 

packages for use on portable computers or wearable computers (see Figures 4.1.5 

and 4.1.6). 
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.1: Structure Inventory 

4.1.10

Figure 4.1.5 Wearable Computer with Case 

Figure 4.1.6 Inspector Using Wearable Computer
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.1: Structure Inventory 

4.1.11

The data and information required of states by the FHWA is listed on the SI&A 

sheet. It is important to note that the items listed on this sheet apply to both the 

field and office personnel responsible for bridge inspections. The bridge inspector 

is not required to obtain the data for all the items during every inspection of a 

bridge. Once a bridge has been inventoried, the majority of the SI&A items will 

remain unchanged. The inspector should spot check to see if inventoried items are 

consistent with findings from the bridge site. 

4.1.3 

Inventory Items Inventory items pertain to a bridge’s characteristics. For the most part, these items 

are permanent characteristics, which only change when the bridge is altered in 

some way, such as reconstruction or load restriction. Inventory items include the 

following SI&A items: 

3⁄4 Identification – Identifies the structure using location codes and 

descriptions. 

3⁄4 Structure Type and Material – Categorizes the structure based on the 

material, design and construction, the number of spans, and wearing 

surface. 

3⁄4 Age and Service – Information showing when the structure was 

constructed or reconstructed, features the structure carries and crosses, and 

traffic information. 

3⁄4 Geometric Data – Includes pertinent structural dimensions. 

3⁄4 Navigation Data – Identifies the existence of navigation control, pier 

protection, and waterway clearance measurements. 

3⁄4 Classification – Classification of the structure and the facility carried by 

the structure are identified. 

3⁄4 Load Rating and Posting – Identifies the load capacity of the bridge and 

the current posting status. 

3⁄4 Proposed Improvements – Items for work proposed and estimated costs

for all bridges eligible for funding from the Highway Bridge Program, and 

other structures the highway agency chooses to include. 

3⁄4 Inspection – Includes latest inspection dates, designated frequency, and 

critical features requiring special inspections or special emphasis during 

inspection. 

All inventory items are explained in the Coding Guide. Although inventory items 

are usually provided from previous reports, the inspector must be able to verify 

and update the inventory data needed. See Topic 4.2 for condition and appraisal 

rating items. 

4.1.4 

Appraisal Items Appraisal items are a judgment of a bridge component condition in comparison to 

current standards. Appraisal items are used to evaluate the structure based on the 

level of service it provides on the highway system. Appraisal rating items include 

the following SI&A items: 

3⁄4 Condition Rating Items – Current physical state compared to what it was 

the day it was built. The ability of the element, member or component to 
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.1: Structure Inventory 

4.1.12

carry legal loads is not to be considered. 

3⁄4 Structural Evaluation – Overall condition of the structure based on all 

major deficiencies, and its ability to carry loads. 

3⁄4 Deck Geometry – Evaluates the curb-to-cub bridge roadway width and the 

minimum vertical clearance over the bridge roadway. 

3⁄4 Under-clearances, Vertical and Horizontal – The vertical and horizontal 

under-clearances from the through roadway under the structure to the 

superstructure or substructure units. 

3⁄4 Waterway Adequacy – Appraises waterway opening with respect to 

passage of flow under the bridge. 

3⁄4 Approach Roadway Alignment – Comparing the alignment of the bridge 

approaches to the general highway alignment of the section of highway 

that the structure is on. 

3⁄4 Traffic Safety Features – Record information on bridge railings, 

transitions, approach guiderail, approach guiderail ends, so that evaluation 

of their adequacy can be made. 

3⁄4 Scour Critical Bridges – Identify the current status of the bridge regarding 

its vulnerability to scour. 

4.1.5 

The Role of 

Inventory Items in 

Bridge 

Management 

Systems 

Inventory items are an important part of an owner’s Bridge Management System 

(BMS). Bridge owners use the inventory items to help plan inspection, 

maintenance, and reconstruction of their bridges, as well as sort their bridges. 

There have been times when there has been a problem on a particular bridge and 

the owners used the inventory items of that bridge to search for the same potential 

problems that might exist on other bridges. 
4.2-i

Table of Contents

Section 4 ..................................................................................................................................................

Bridge Inspection 

Reporting System 

 4.2 Condition and Appraisal ........................................................................ 4.2.1 

 4.2.1 Introduction............................................................................... 4.2.1 

 

 4.2.2 Condition Rating Items ............................................................. 4.2.1 

 Bridge Components and Elements ..................................... 4.2.1 

 Evaluating Elements........................................................... 4.2.1 

 Evaluating Components...................................................... 4.2.1 

 Condition Rating Guidelines .............................................. 4.2.2 

 Condition State Assessment ............................................... 4.2.6 

 4.2.3 Appraisal Rating Items.............................................................. 4.2.6 

 Appraisal Rating Guidelines............................................... 4.2.6 

 

 4.2.4 Maintenance Rating Guidelines................................................ 4.2.9 

 

 4.2.5 Overall Culvert Ratings .......................................................... 4.2.11 

 General ............................................................................. 4.2.11 

 Overall Condition............................................................. 4.2.11 

 Load-carrying Capacity.................................................... 4.2.11 

 Remaining Life................................................................. 4.2.11 

 4.2.6 Functionally Obsolete and Structurally Deficient................... 4.2.12 

 Definitions........................................................................ 4.2.12 

 General Qualifications...................................................... 4.2.12 

 4.2.7 Sufficiency Rating .................................................................. 4.2.13 

 Definition.......................................................................... 4.2.13 

 Sufficiency Rating Formula ............................................. 4.2.13 

 Uses .................................................................................. 4.2.13 
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.2: Condition and Appraisal 

4.2-ii

This page intentionally left blank
4.2.1 

Topic 4.2 Condition and Appraisal 

4.2.1 

Introduction The reported condition of an element or component is an evaluation of its current 

physical state compared to what it was on the day it was built. Appraisal rating 

items are used to evaluate a bridge in relation to the level of service it provides on 

the highway system of which it is a part. 

4.2.2 

Condition Rating 

Items 

Bridge Components 

and Elements 

Accurate assignment of condition ratings is dependent upon the bridge inspector’s 

ability to identify the bridge components and their elements. Bridge components 

are the major parts comprising a bridge including the deck, superstructure, 

substructure, channel and channel protection, and culverts. Bridge elements are 

individual members comprised of basic shapes and materials connected together to 

form bridge components. 

The overall condition rating of bridge components is directly related to the 

physical deficiencies of bridge elements. 

 

Evaluating Elements The inspector should evaluate each element of a each component and assign to it a 

descriptive condition rating of “good,” “fair,” or “poor,” based on the physical 

deficiencies found on the individual element. The following guidelines should be 

used in establishing an element’s condition rating: 

3⁄4 Good - element is limited to only minor problems. 

3⁄4 Fair - structural capacity of element is not affected by minor deterioration, 

section loss, spalling, cracking, or other deficiency. 

3⁄4 Poor/Critical - structural capacity of element is affected or jeopardized by 

advanced deterioration, section loss, spalling, cracking, or other 

deficiency. 

To ensure a comprehensive inspection and as a part of the requirements of record 

keeping and documentation, an inspector should record the location, type, size, 

quantity, and severity of deterioration and deficiencies for each element of a given 

component. 

Evaluating Components The following Structure Inventory and Appraisal (SI&A) items receive an overall 

condition rating: 

3⁄4 Item No. 58 – Deck 

3⁄4 Item No. 59 – Superstructure 

3⁄4 Item No. 60 – Substructure 

3⁄4 Item No. 61 – Channel and Channel Protection 

3⁄4 Item No. 62 – Culverts 

Items 58 through 60 are major components of bridges. Item 62 and the inspection 

of culverts is discussed in Topics 7.12, 12.3, and 12.4. Item 61 is used only for 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.2: Condition and Appraisal 

4.2.2 

structures over waterways. 

Condition Rating 

Guidelines 

Numerical condition ratings should characterize the general condition of the entire 

component being rated. They should not attempt to describe localized or 

nominally occurring instances of deterioration or disrepair. Correct assignment of 

a condition rating must, therefore, consider both the severity of the deterioration or 

disrepair and the extent to which it is widespread throughout the component being 

rated. Condition ratings assigned to elements of a component must be combined 

to establish the overall component condition rating. 

If the bridge has multiple spans, the inspector must evaluate all elements both 

quantitatively and qualitatively. However, in some cases, a deficiency will occur 

on a single element or in a single location. If that one deficiency reduces the load 

carrying capacity or serviceability of the component, the element can be 

considered a "weak link" in the structure, and the rating of the component should 

not be reduced. If there is a localized occurrence of deterioration, the bridge 

owner should be contacted. The localized defect could be described to the owner 

with possible retrofit or repair actions. 

The following general condition rating guidelines (obtained from the 1995 edition 

of the Coding Guide) are to be used in the evaluation of the deck, superstructure, 

and substructure: 

Code Description

N NOT APPLICABLE 

9 EXCELLENT CONDITION 

8 VERY GOOD CONDITION - no problems noted. 

7 GOOD CONDITION - some minor problems. 

6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - structural elements show some minor 

deterioration. 

5 FAIR CONDITION - all primary structural elements are sound but may 

have minor section loss, cracking, spalling, or scour. 

4 POOR CONDITION - advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling, or 

scour. 

3 SERIOUS CONDITION - loss of section, deterioration, spalling, or scour 

have seriously affected primary structural components. Local failures are 

possible. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be 

present. 

2 CRITICAL CONDITION - advanced deterioration of primary structural 

elements. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be 

present or scour may have removed substructure support. Unless closely 

monitored it may be necessary to close the bridge until corrective action is 

taken. 

1 “IMMINENT” FAILURE CONDITION - major deterioration or section 

loss present in critical structural components, or obvious vertical or 

horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Bridge is closed to

traffic but corrective action may put bridge back in light service. 

0 FAILED CONDITION - out of service; beyond corrective action. 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.2: Condition and Appraisal 

4.2.3 

The condition rating guidelines presented above are general in nature and can be 

applied to all bridge components and material types. Additional component 

specific condition rating guidelines are provided for Item 61, Channel and Channel 

Protection, and for Item 62, Culverts. (These component specific guidelines are 

shown below.) Rate and code the condition for Item 61 and Item 62 using the 

specific condition rating guidelines in accordance with the previously noted 

general condition rating guidelines. 

Item 61 – Channel and Channel Protection 

This item describes the physical conditions associated with the flow of water

through the bridge such as stream stability and the condition of the channel, riprap, 

slope protection, or stream control devices, including spur dikes. The inspector 

should be particularly concerned with visible signs of excessive water velocity 

which may cause undermining of slope protection, erosion of banks, and 

realignment of the stream. Accumulation of drift and debris on the superstructure 

and substructure should be noted on the inspection form but not included in the 

condition rating. 

Rate and code the condition in accordance with the previously described general 

condition ratings and the following descriptive codes: 

Code Description

N Not applicable. Use when bridge is not over a waterway (channel). 

9 There are no noticeable or noteworthy deficiencies which affect the 

condition of the channel. 

8 Banks are protected or well vegetated. River control devices such as spur 

dikes and embankment protection are not required or are in a stable 

condition. 

7 Bank protection is in need of minor repairs. River control devices and 

embankment protection have a little minor damage. Banks and/or channel 

have minor amounts of drift. 

6 Bank is beginning to slump. River control devices and embankment 

protection have widespread minor damage. There is minor streambed 

movement evident. Debris is restricting the channel slightly. 

5 Bank protection is being eroded. River control devices and/or 

embankment have major damage. Trees and brush restrict the channel. 

4 Bank and embankment protection is severely undermined. River control 

devices have severe damage. Large deposits of debris are in the channel. 

3 Bank protection has failed. River control devices have been destroyed. 

Streambed aggradation, degradation, or lateral movement has changed the 

channel to now threaten the bridge and/or approach roadway. 

2 The channel has changed to the extent the bridge is near a state of 

collapse. 

1 Bridge closed because of channel failure. Corrective action may put 

bridge back in light service. 

0 Bridge closed because of channel failure. Replacement necessary. 

Item 62 - Culverts 

This item evaluates the alignment, settlement, joints, structural condition, scour, 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.2: Condition and Appraisal 

4.2.4 

and other items associated with culverts. The rating code is intended to be an 

overall condition evaluation of the culvert. Integral wingwalls to the first 

construction or expansion joint should be included in the evaluation. 

Item 58 – Deck, Item 59 – Superstructure, and Item 60 – Substructure should be 

coded N for all culverts. 

Rate and code the culvert condition in accordance with the previously described 

general condition ratings and the following descriptive codes: 

Code Description

N Not applicable. Use if structure is not a culvert. 

9 No deficiencies. 

8 No noticeable or noteworthy deficiencies which affect the condition of the 

culvert. Insignificant scrape marks caused by drift. 

7 Shrinkage cracks, light scaling, and insignificant spalling which does not 

expose reinforcing steel. Insignificant damage caused by drift with no 

misalignment and not requiring corrective action. Some minor scouring 

has occurred near curtain walls, wingwalls, or pipes. Metal culverts have 

a smooth symmetrical curvature with superficial corrosion and no pitting. 

6 Deterioration or initial disintegration, minor chloride contamination, 

cracking with some leaching, or spalls on concrete or masonry walls and 

slabs. Local minor scouring at curtain walls, wingwalls, or pipes. Metal 

culverts have a smooth curvature, non-symmetrical shape, significant 

corrosion, or moderate pitting. 

5 Moderate to major deterioration or disintegration, extensive cracking and 

leaching, or spalls on concrete or masonry walls and slabs. Minor 

settlement or misalignment. Noticeable scouring or erosion at curtain 

walls, wingwalls, or pipes. Metal culverts have significant distortion and 

deflection in one section, significant corrosion or deep pitting. 

4 Large spalls, heavy scaling, wide cracks, considerable efflorescence, or 

opened construction joint permitting loss of backfill. Considerable 

settlement or misalignment. Considerable scouring or erosion at curtain 

walls, wingwalls, or pipes. Metal culverts have significant distortion and 

deflection throughout, extensive corrosion or deep pitting. 

3 Any condition described in Code 4 but which is excessive in scope. 

Severe movement or differential settlement of the segments, or loss of fill. 

Holes may exist in walls or slabs. Integral wingwalls nearly severed from 

culvert. Severe scour or erosion at curtain walls, wingwalls, or pipes. 

Metal culverts have extreme distortion and deflection in one section, 

extensive corrosion, or deep pitting with scattered perforations. 

2 Integral wingwalls collapsed, severe settlement of roadway due to loss of 

fill. Section of culvert may have failed and can no longer support 

embankment. Complete undermining at curtain walls and pipes. 

Corrective action required to maintain traffic. Metal culverts have 

extreme distortion and deflection throughout with extensive perforations 

due to corrosion. 

1 Bridge closed. Corrective action may put bridge back in light service. 

0 Bridge closed. Replacement necessary. 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.2: Condition and Appraisal 

4.2.5 

Structural capacity is defined as the designed strength of the member. However, 

structural capacity is different than load-carrying capacity. Load-carrying capacity 

refers to the ability of the member to carry the legal loads of the highway system 

of which the bridge is a part. Therefore, a bridge could possibly have good 

structural capacity yet be load posted because it is unable to carry the legal loads. 

A bridge’s load-carrying capacity is not to influence condition ratings. The fact 

that a bridge was designed for less than current legal loads, and may even be 

posted, should have no influence upon condition ratings. 

The load-carrying capacity of a bridge is reflected in the Structural Evaluation 

appraisal rating. A bridge’s structural capacity is reflected in the condition ratings 

of the bridge components. Component ratings are determined by applying 

condition descriptions, which are general in nature, covering a broad array of 

bridge components and material types. The inspector must be familiar with 

terminology concerning material types and associated deterioration to utilize 

condition descriptions for accurately assigning condition ratings. The following 

illustrates several common deterioration terms found in condition descriptions and 

their associated material types: 

 

3⁄4 Section loss usually applies to steel members or reinforcing steel 

3⁄4 Fatigue crack applies to steel members 

3⁄4 Cracking/spalling usually are used to describe concrete 

3⁄4 Shear crack usually applies to concrete but may apply to timber as well 

3⁄4 Checks/splits applies to timber members 

3⁄4 Scour can apply to substructure or channels 

Establishing a link between material type and deterioration allows for accurate 

component ratings determined by utilizing condition descriptions for ratings 9 

through 1 found in the general condition rating guidelines. 

Supplemental rating guidelines, which may be developed by individual states, are 

intended to be used in addition to the Coding Guide to make it easier for the 

inspector to assign the most appropriate condition rating to the component being 

considered and improve uniformity. 

Using the material and component specific supplemental rating guidelines (found 

in the 1995 edition of the Coding Guide) helps to clarify how each type of defect 

affects the condition rating. Care must be taken not to “pigeonhole” the rating 

based on only one word or phrase. The following is one suggested method for 

determining proper condition ratings: 

 

3⁄4 Identify phrases that describe the component 

3⁄4 Read through the rating scale until encountering phrases that describe 

conditions that are more severe than what actually exists 

3⁄4 Be sure to read down the ratings list far enough 

3⁄4 Correct rating number then is one number higher 

This procedure should generally work with all of the condition rating guidelines. 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.2: Condition and Appraisal 

4.2.6 

Condition State 

Assessment 

A narrative description with quantities is required in the first part of the inspection. 

Condition state summaries are then developed for the bridge element. The 

information from the narrative and condition state summaries are then used to 

complete the element level condition report showing quantities at the correct rating 

value. Smart Flags are also used to specifically describe deck cracking (top and 

underside), fatigue cracking, pack rust, settlement, and scour. Refer to Topic 4.5

for a more detailed explanation of the Element Level Bridge Management System.

4.2.3 

Appraisal Rating 

Items 

Appraisal Rating 

Guidelines 

The following SI&A items are known as appraisal rating items: 

3⁄4 Item No. 67 – Structural Evaluation 

3⁄4 Item No. 68 – Deck Geometry 

3⁄4 Item No. 69 – Underclearances, Vertical and Horizontal 

3⁄4 Item No. 71 – Waterway Adequacy 

3⁄4 Item No. 72 – Approach Roadway Alignment 

Appraisal rating items are used to evaluate a bridge in relation to the level of 

service it provides on the highway system of which it is a part. The level of 

service for a bridge describes the function the bridge provides for the highway 

system carried by the bridge. The structure should be compared to a new one that 

is built to current standards for that particular class of road. The exception is Item 

72, Approach Roadway Alignment. Rather than comparing the alignment to 

current standards, it is compared to the general existing alignment of the roadway 

approaches to the bridge compared to the general highway. 

The level of service goals used to appraise bridge adequacy vary depending on the 

highway functional classification, traffic volume, and other factors. The goals are 

set with the recognition that widely varying traffic needs exist throughout highway 

systems. Many bridges on local roads can adequately serve traffic needs with 

lower load capacity and geometric standards than would be necessary for bridges 

on heavily traveled main highways. 

If national uniformity and consistency are to be achieved, similar structure, 

roadway, and vehicle characteristics must be evaluated using identical standards. 

Therefore, tables and charts have been developed which must be used to evaluate 

the appraisal rating items for all bridges submitted to the National Bridge 

Inventory, regardless of individual State criteria used to evaluate bridges. 

The following general appraisal rating guidelines (obtained from the 1995 edition 

of the Coding Guide) are used to evaluate structural evaluation, deck geometry, 

underclearances, waterway adequacy, and approach roadway alignment. 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.2: Condition and Appraisal 

4.2.7 

Code Description

N Not applicable 

9 Superior to present desirable criteria 

8 Equal to present desirable criteria 

7 Better than present minimum criteria 

6 Equal to present minimum criteria 

5 Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as 

is 

4 Meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is 

3 Basically intolerable, requiring high priority of corrective action 

2 Basically intolerable, requiring high priority of replacement 

1 This value of rating code not used 

0 Bridge closed 

The specific tables for Items 67 through 69, 71 and 72 appear in the Coding Guide

and are detailed enough that several states now program their computerized bridge 

management system to automatically calculate several of the appraisal rating 

items. Thus, some inspectors may not be responsible for coding these items. 

Inspectors may be asked to field verify the computed appraisal ratings. 

Item 67 - Structural Evaluation - The item description and procedures used to 

determine the Structural Evaluation Appraisal Rating are located in Item 67 of the 

Coding Guide. The correct way to evaluate this item for bridges is to consider the 

following factors: 

 

3⁄4 The lowest rating dictated by Item 59 - Superstructure, Item 60 -

Substructure or Comparison of Item 29 - ADT and Item 66 - Inventory 

Rating. 

3⁄4 For culverts, the lower of Item 62 - Culverts or Comparison of 

Item 29 - ADT and Item 66 - Inventory Rating. 

Item 68 - Deck Geometry - The deck geometry appraisal evaluates the curb to curb 

bridge roadway width and the minimum vertical clearance over the bridge 

roadway. This item is coded by determining two appraisal ratings, one for bridge 

roadway width and one for the minimum vertical clearance. The lower of these 

two is the appraisal rating. The Coding Guide includes the following scenarios to 

choose from for the bridge roadway width appraisal: 

3⁄4 Bridges with two lanes carrying two-way traffic. 

3⁄4 Bridges with one lane carrying two-way traffic. 

3⁄4 All other two-way traffic situations. 

3⁄4 Bridges with one-way traffic. 

Item 69 - Underclearances, Vertical and Horizontal - This item refers to the 

vertical and horizontal underclearances from the through roadway under the 

structure to the superstructure or substructure units. The item description and 

coding guidelines, which are located in Item 69 of the Coding Guide, are used to 

determine the Underclearance Appraisal Rating. This item is similar to Item 68 in 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.2: Condition and Appraisal 

4.2.8 

that two different ratings are developed: one for vertical underclearance and one 

for horizontal underclearance. The lower of these two is the appraisal rating. 

Item 71 - Waterway Adequacy - Waterway adequacy is appraised with respect to 

passage of flow through the bridge. The rating is tied to flood frequencies and 

traffic delays. Appraisal ratings are assigned by the table contained in Item 71 of 

the Coding Guide and are based on the functional classification of the road carried 

by the structure, hydraulic and traffic data for the structure, and site conditions. 

Item 72 - Approach Roadway Alignment – This appraisal is based on comparing 

the alignment of the bridge approaches to the general highway alignment of the 

section of roadway on which the structure is located. The rating guidelines are 

correctly applied by determining if the vertical or horizontal curvature of the 

bridge approaches differs from the section of highway the bridge is on, resulting in 

a reduction of vehicle operating speed to cross the bridge. The guidelines for 

FHWA Item 72, Appraisal or Approach Roadway Alignment, are as follows: 

3⁄4 If no reduction in the operating speed of a vehicle is required compared to 

the highway, code Item 72 as an “8.” 

3⁄4 If only a very minor reduction in the operating speed of a vehicle is 

required compared to the highway, code Item 72 as a “6.” 

3⁄4 If a substantial reduction in the operating speed of a vehicle is required 

compared to the highway, code Item 72 as a “3.” 

The following guidelines indicate a means of determining the difference between a 

minor reduction and substantial reduction of operating speed: 

3⁄4 Minor reduction in operating speed - ≤ 9 mph 

3⁄4 Substantial reduction in operating speed - ≥ 10 mph 

 

The remaining codes between these general values should be applied at the 

inspector’s discretion. 

A narrow bridge does not affect the Approach Roadway Alignment Appraisal. 

The narrow bridge would be accounted for in Item 68, Deck Geometry. 

Items affecting sight distance at the bridge, unrelated to vertical and horizontal 

curvature of the roadway, such as vegetation growth and substructure units of 

overpass structures do not affect the Approach Roadway Alignment Appraisal. 

Item 36 - Traffic Safety Features - For structures on the National Highway System 

(NHS), this appraisal is based on comparing the traffic safety features in place at 

the bridge site to current national standards set by regulation, so that an evaluation 

of their adequacy can be made. For structures not on the National Highway 

System (NHS), the procedure is the same, however, it shall be the responsibility of 

the highway agency (state, county, local, or federal) to set standards. The item 

description and procedures used to determine the Traffic Safety Feature Appraisal 

Rating are located in Item 36 of the Coding Guide. The following are the traffic 

safety features to be coded: 

 

3⁄4 Bridge Railings 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.2: Condition and Appraisal 

4.2.9 

3⁄4 Transitions 

3⁄4 Approach Guiderail 

3⁄4 Approach Guiderail Ends 

Item 113 - Scour Critical Bridges – This item is used to identify the current status 

of the bridge regarding its vulnerability to scour. A scour critical bridge is one 

with abutment or pier foundations that are rated as unstable due to observed scour 

at the bridge site, or a scour potential as determined form a scour evaluation study 

including a scour analysis made by hydraulic, geotechnical, or structural engineers. 

The item description, procedures, and code descriptions are located in Item 113 of 

the Coding Guide. 

4.2.4 

Maintenance Rating 

Guidelines 

It is usually necessary to evaluate the condition of more items than those rated on 

the SI&A forms, because the SI&A condition items cover such broad components. 

For example, SI&A Item 62 covers all structural components of a culvert. 

Additionally, the SI&A numerical rating system is not well suited for evaluating 

minor items. Minor items are essentially limited to ratings of “N”, “9”, “8”, or “7” 

since the other rating numbers imply a significant impact on the overall integrity or 

safety of the structure. Therefore, a modified rating system should be used for 

rating the condition of items added to supplement the SI&A items. Since items are 

added primarily to identify potential maintenance problems, the modified rating 

scale should be oriented toward maintenance. 

A sample maintenance rating system is shown in Table 4.2.1. The rating system 

shown provides a numerical scale that is related to the urgency of maintenance 

action required, as well as the action which should be taken by the inspector. 

It is important to note that the inspector basically has three courses of action, 

depending on the severity of conditions found. Each of these actions involves 

noting the condition of the components in the inspection report. When no 

immediate maintenance actions are required, the note in the report is all that is 

necessary. When a high priority should be assigned for correcting problems found 

during the inspection, some type of special notification to maintenance personnel 

is recommended. When immediate action is required to address a hazardous 

situation or preserve the integrity of the structure, maintenance personnel should 

be notified on an emergency basis. 

Care must be exercised when using different rating systems, particularly when 

combining the ratings given to supplemental items to arrive at ratings for SI&A 

items. SI&A item ratings usually represent a composite rating of a group or broad 

category of supplemental items. The SI&A ratings should not merely be an 

average of the ratings assigned to the supplemental items but should be based on 

the inspector’s judgement. A low rating in one supplemental item will usually 

control the composite rating. 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.2: Condition and Appraisal 

4.2.10

 Maintenance Maintenance Inspection Course of 

Urgency Index Immediacy of Action Action 

 9 No repairs needed. 

 

8 No repairs needed. List specific items for 

special inspection during next regular 

inspection. 

 Note in inspection 

 7 No immediate plans for repair. Examine report only. 

 possibility of increased level of inspection. 

6 Repair by end of next season – add to 

scheduled work. 

 5 Place in current schedule – current season, 

 first reasonable opportunity. 

4 Priority – current season, review work plan 

for relative priority, adjust schedule if Special notification 

possible. to superior is warranted. 

 3 High priority – current season, as soon as can 

 be scheduled. 

 2 Highest priority – discontinue other work if 

 required, emergency basis or emergency sub- 

 sidiary actions if needed (post, one-lane Verbally notify 

 traffic, no trucks, reduced speed, etc.). superiors immediately 

 and confirm in writing. 

 1 Emergency actions required – reroute traffic 

 and close. 

 0 Facility is closed for repairs. 

Table 4.2.1 Maintenance Rating Scale 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.2: Condition and Appraisal 

4.2.11

4.2.5 

Overall Culvert 

Ratings 

General Topics 7.12, 12.3, and 12.4 address the individual components of various culverts. 

Overall ratings consider all of the components which make up a culvert and are 

useful in establishing maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement programs and 

priorities. 

Some of a culvert’s individual components are not rated in the SI&A sheet. 

However, they are useful supplemental items in defining the condition and in 

determining the overall ratings. The SI&A sheet has several items that require 

evaluation of the culvert as a whole. The SI&A items can be divided into three 

categories: overall condition, load-carrying capacity, and remaining life. 

Overall Condition Two items on the SI&A sheet pertain to the overall condition of culverts. Item 62, 

Culverts, covers the condition of the culvert’s structural and hydraulic components 

(alignment, settlement, culvert barrel, end treatment, and embankment). Item 67, 

Structural Evaluation, covers the evaluation of the structural components and the 

load-carrying capacity. 

Overall ratings must not be an average of the ratings assigned to individual 

components. Very often a low rating for one component will control the overall 

rating, but when assigning an overall rating, the inspector should consider each 

component and its possible effect on the culvert. The inspector should consider 

whether the component is functioning properly, whether it could pose a threat to 

safety or cause property damage, whether it could cause more extensive damage if 

not repaired, and whether the repairs represent rehabilitation or maintenance. 

Load-carrying Capacity SI&A Items 64, 66, and 70 are based on the loads which the structure can carry. 

Item 64, Operating Rating, is the maximum load the structure can carry. Item 66, 

Inventory Rating, is the load which can be carried repeatedly for an indefinite 

period of time. Item 70, Bridge Posting, is a rating based on an evaluation of the 

culvert’s load-carrying capacity and the state’s legal load limits. The procedures 

used for determination of these capacity ratings should take into account the 

condition of the culvert at the time of the inspection. 

Remaining Life The inspector estimates the number of years that remain before major rehabilitation 

or replacement of the culvert is required. The estimate should be based on the 

design life of the barrel material, the years of service prior to the inspection, and 

the condition of the culvert at the time of the inspection. The current condition and 

the performance of the culvert material under similar conditions are the key 

considerations. Where durability is a problem, electrical resistivity and pH 

measurements of the surrounding soil and the stream may be helpful in estimating 

the remaining life. 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.2: Condition and Appraisal 

4.2.12

4.2.6 

Functionally 

Obsolete and 

Structurally 

Deficient 

Definitions A bridge is considered to be functionally obsolete if it has deck geometry, load 

carrying capacity, clearance or approach roadway alignment that no longer meets 

the criteria for the system of which the bridge is a part. 

One in seven bridges in the United States is functionally obsolete. Functionally 

obsolete bridges are those that do not have adequate lane widths, shoulder widths, 

or vertical clearances to serve the traffic demand or those that may be occasionally 

flooded. 

Bridges are considered to be structurally deficient where 1) significant load 

carrying elements are found to be in poor or worse condition due to deterioration 

and/or damage or, 2) the adequacy of the waterway opening provided by the bridge 

is determined to be extremely insufficient to the point of causing intolerable traffic 

interruptions 

Any bridge classified as structurally deficient is excluded from the functionally 

obsolete category. 

General Qualifications In order to be considered for either the structurally deficient or functionally 

obsolete classification, a highway bridge must meet the following: 

Structurally Deficient - 

1. A condition rating of 4 or less for 

 Item 58 - Deck; or 

 Item 59 - Superstructures; or 

 Item 60 - Substructures; or 

 Item 62 - Culvert and Retaining Walls.(1) or 

2. An appraisal rating of 2 or less for 

 Item 67 - Structural Evaluation; or 

 Item 71 - Waterway Adequacy.(2) 

Functionally Obsolete - 

1. An appraisal rating of 3 or less for 

 Item 68 - Deck Geometry; or 

 Item 69 - Underclearances;(3) or 

 Item 72 - Approach Roadway Alignment. or 

2. An appraisal rating of 3 for 

 Item 67 - Structural Evaluation; or 

 Item 71 - Waterway Adequacy.(2)

1. Item 62 applies only if the last digit of Item 43 (Structure Type) is coded 19. 

2. Item 71 applies only if the last digit of Item 42 (Type of Service) is coded 0, 5, 

6, 7, 8 or 9. 

3. Item 69 applies only if the last digit of Item 42 is coded 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 or 8. 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.2: Condition and Appraisal 

4.2.13

4.2.7 

Sufficiency Rating 

Definition Sufficiency rating (S.R.) is a calculated numeric value used to indicate the 

sufficiency of a bridge to remain in service. The rating is calculated using the 

sufficiency rating formula. Sufficiency rating is discussed in detail in Appendix B 

of the Coding Guide. 

Sufficiency Rating 

Formula 

S.R. = S1 + S2 + S3 - S4

 0% ≤ S.R. ≤ 100% 

 (entirely (entirely 

 deficient) sufficient) 

where: S1 = 55% max.; based on structural adequacy and safety (i.e., 

superstructure or substructure condition and load capacity). 

 S2 = 30% max.; deals with serviceability and functional 

obsolescence (items such as deck condition, clearances, 

roadway alignment and width, etc.). 

 S3 = 15% max.; concerns essentiality for public use (items such 

as detour length, average daily traffic, and defense highway 

designation). 

 S4 = 13% max.; deals with special reductions based on detour 

length, traffic safety features, and structure type. 

Eighteen SI&A sheet items are used to calculate these four factors which therefore 

determine the sufficiency rating. Sufficiency rating is not normally calculated 

manually. Usually, it is included in the agency’s inventory computer program and 

is calculated automatically by the computer based upon the inventory data collected 

by the bridge inspector. 

Uses Sufficiency Rating (SR) is used by the federal and state agencies to determine the 

relative sufficiencies of all of the nation’s bridges. In the recent past, eligibility for 

federal funding with Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program 

funds has been determined by the following criteria: 

 S.R. ≤ 80 Eligible for rehabilitation 

 S.R. < 50 Eligible for replacement 

Some states use the sufficiency rating as the basis for establishing priority for 

repair or replacement of bridges; the lower the rating, the higher the priority. 

Several states are developing specific bridge management procedures with priority 

guidelines for repair or replacement of bridges. By using these types of 

procedures, priority ratings can be established by considering the significance or 

impact of such level-of-service parameters as traffic volume and class of highway. 

 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.2: Condition and Appraisal 

4.2.14

This page intentionally left blank. 
4.3-i

Table of Contents

Section 4 ..................................................................................................................................................

Bridge Inspection 

Reporting System 

 4.3 Record Keeping and Documentation ..................................................... 4.3.1 

 4.3.1 Introduction............................................................................... 4.3.1 

 4.3.2 Methods of Record Keeping ..................................................... 4.3.1 

 Traditional .......................................................................... 4.3.1 

 Electronic Data Collection ................................................. 4.3.2 

 4.3.3 General Items in the Bridge Record.......................................... 4.3.3 

 Plans ................................................................................... 4.3.3 

 Specifications ..................................................................... 4.3.4 

 Correspondence.................................................................. 4.3.4 

 Photographs........................................................................ 4.3.4 

 Photo Log..................................................................... 4.3.4 

 Materials and Tests............................................................. 4.3.5 

 Maintenance and Repair History........................................ 4.3.5 

 Coating History .................................................................. 4.3.5 

 Accident Records................................................................ 4.3.5 

 Posting................................................................................ 4.3.5 

 Permit Loads....................................................................... 4.3.6 

 Flood Data .......................................................................... 4.3.6 

 Traffic Data ........................................................................ 4.3.6 

 Inspection History .............................................................. 4.3.7 

 Inspection Requirements .................................................... 4.3.7 

 Structure Inventory and Appraisal Sheets .......................... 4.3.7 

 Inspection Forms.......................................................... 4.3.7 

 Inventories and Inspections .............................................. 4.3.19 

 Rating Records ................................................................. 4.3.19 

 Inspection Notes and Sketches ......................................... 4.3.19 

 Summary of Findings ....................................................... 4.3.23 

 

 4.3.4 Documentation........................................................................ 4.3.23 

 Element Identification ...................................................... 4.3.23 

 Orientation........................................................................ 4.3.24 

 Element Dimensions......................................................... 4.3.26 

 Defect Identification......................................................... 4.3.27 

 Defect Qualification ......................................................... 4.3.28 

 Defect Quantification ....................................................... 4.3.28 

 Defect Location ................................................................ 4.3.29 
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3-ii

Abbreviations for Field Inspection Notes 

Abut. = Abutment 

Adj. = Adjacent 

B. = Bent 

Btw. = Between 

Bot. = Bottom 

B.S. = Both Sides 

[ = Channel (Steel Shape) 

cm = Centimeter 

Col. = Column 

Conc. = Concrete 

Cond. = Condition 

Conn. = Connection 

Cr. = Crack 

Delam. = Delamination, Delaminated 

Deter. = Deterioration 

Diag. = Diagonal 

Diam. = Diameter 

Diaph. = Diaphragm 

D.S. = Downstream 

E = East 

Eff. = Efflorescence 

Elev. = Elevation 

Exp. = Expansion 

F.B. = Floorbeam 

F.L. = Full Length 

Flg. = Flange 

F.S. = Far Side 

Ft. = Feet 

Gus. = Gusset 

H.L. = Hairline 

Horz. = Horizontal 

Hvy. = Heavy 

Int. = Interior 

Lac. = Lacing 

Lat. = Lateral 

Lat. Br. = Lateral Brace 

Lgth. = Length 

Low. = Lower 

Lt. = Light 

M = Meters 

Med. = Medium 

Mid. = Middle 

N = North 

No Vis. Def. = No Visible Defects 

N.S. = Near Side 

P = Pier 

Pl. = Plate 

S = South 

S.I.P. = Stay-in-Place Forms 

SF = Square Feet 

Stiff. = Stiffener 

Str. = Stringer 

T. Welds = Tack Welds 

Typ. = Typical 

U = Upper 

U.S. = Upstream 

Vert. = Vertical 

Vis. = Visible 

Vis. S. = Visible Signs 

W = West 

W = Wide Flange (Steel Shape) 

L = Angle (Steel Shape) 

 

 
4.3.1 

Topic 4.3 Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.1 

Introduction While the inspection of small bridges usually only requires the use of the standard 

inspection form, the inspection of large or complex bridges requires the use of an 

inspection notebook, in addition to any standard inspection forms. The inspection 

notebook should contain: 

3⁄4 A standard notation system for indicating the condition of the elements or 

members 

3⁄4 Sketches of elements or members showing typical and deteriorated 

conditions (some of these can be pre-made to allow more expediency 

during the inspection) 

3⁄4 Standard nomenclature and abbreviations for the elements of members and 

the components made up of these members 

3⁄4 A log or index for photographs 

3⁄4 Brief narrative descriptions of general and component conditions 

When the notebook format is selected for recording bridge inspection results, the 

information should be recorded systematically. However, many bridge owners

differ significantly in their required format. Most of the above information, if not 

provided on the inspection report, should be available in the bridge record. 

4.3.2 

Methods of Record 

Keeping 

Traditional All signs of distress and deterioration should be noted with sufficient precision so 

that future inspectors can readily make a comparison of conditions. The most 

commonly used method for record keeping is pencil and paper. The inspector 

writes findings on forms, sketches, and notebooks (see Figure 4.3.1). This method 

is extremely flexible in that the inspector can draw whatever configurations are 

necessary to best describe and document deficiencies. 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.2 

Figure 4.3.1 Inspector Taking Notes 

Electronic Data 

Collection 

Another method of record keeping is electronic data collection (see Figure 4.3.2). 

This technology provides a significant advantage in a number of areas. With all 

the bridge data available at the site, the inspector can retrieve and edit previous 

records. This not only saves time but eliminates the need for reentering data. 

Also, it eliminates errors that can occur when transferring the inspector’s field 

notes to the computer back at the office. Electronic data collection provides a 

logical and systematic sequence of inspection, ensuring that no bridge elements are 

overlooked. It also allows the inspector to compare the current deficiencies with 

previous reports and note if any deterioration has gotten worse. 

Figure 4.3.2 Electronic Data Collection 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.3 

4.3.3 

General Items in 

the Bridge Record 

Bridge records are used to maintain detailed information on each important 

structure. A thorough study of the available historical information can be 

extremely valuable in identifying possible critical areas of structural or hydraulic 

components and features. Because this information may require considerable 

effort to assemble, a separate file should be established for each structure. 

The contents of any particular file may vary depending upon the size and age of 

the structure, the functional classification of the road carried by the structure, and 

the informational needs of the agencies responsible for inspection and 

maintenance. A very small structure may be documented in an inventory listing or 

with a file that contains little more than an inventory card plus dates and comments 

of previous inspections. For larger structures, it is recommended that the 

following types of information be assembled when possible. 

According to the AASHTO Manual for the Condition Evaluation of Bridges, the 

bridge record should contain the following information: 

3⁄4 Plans: including construction plans, shop and working drawings, “as-built”

drawings, rehabilitation drawings 

3⁄4 Specifications 

3⁄4 Correspondence 

3⁄4 Photographs 

3⁄4 Materials and tests including material certification, material test data, load 

test data 

3⁄4 Maintenance and repair history 

3⁄4 Coating history 

3⁄4 Accident reports 

3⁄4 Posting 

3⁄4 Permit loads 

3⁄4 Flood data 

3⁄4 Traffic data 

3⁄4 Inspection history 

3⁄4 Inspection requirements 

3⁄4 SI&A sheets 

3⁄4 Inventories and inspections 

3⁄4 Rating records 

Plans “As built” or design plans should be included in a bridge record. If plans are not 

available, the following types of construction information should be determined: 

date built; type of structure, including size, shape, and material; design capacity; 

and design service life. Hydraulic data should also be assembled where available, 

including structure profile gradeline, elevation of inverts or footings, stream 

channel and water surface during normal and high flows, design storm frequency, 

drainage area, design discharge, date of design policy, flow conditions, limits of 

flood plain, type of energy dissipaters (if present), cut-off wall depth, channel 

alignment, and channel protection. 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.4 

Specifications The bridge record should contain a complete copy of the technical specifications 

used to design and build the bridge. When a general specification was used, only 

the special provisions need to be included in the file. The edition and date of the 

general specifications should be noted in the bridge record. 

Correspondence The bridge record should include any applicable letters, memorandums, and 

notices of project completion, construction diaries, telephone logs and any other 

information directly concerning the bridge in chronological order. 

Photographs Photographs are used to supplement the inspection notes and sketches. A 

minimum of two photographs should be included in the bridge record. A topside 

view of the bridge roadway and at least one elevation view of the bridge need to be 

included. Photographs showing major defects, or other features, such as utility 

attachments or channel alignment, should also be included. Also include 

photographs that show any load posting signs. 

Photo Log 

A photo log should also be kept during the inspection. The photo log should 

include the date, roll or disk number, photo number, and description of each 

photograph. It is best to be very specific when describing the photos (see Figure 

4.3.3). Descriptions should include both the location of the member and a brief 

description of any deficiencies. 

Figure 4.3.3 Sample Photo Log 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.5 

Materials and Tests Certificates for type, grade and quality of materials used in construction of the 

bridge should be included in the bridge record. Examples include steel mill 

certificates, concrete delivery slips, and any other manufacturer’s certificates. The 

certificates should be retained in accordance with Bridge Owner policy and statute 

of limitations. 

Reports for any non-destructive or laboratory testing either during or after 

construction should be included. If any field load testing is performed, reports 

should also be included in the bridge record. 

Maintenance and Repair 

History 

Information about repairs and rehabilitation activities should be collected. This 

chronological record should include details such as the date, project description, 

contractor, cost, contract number and any other related data. The types and 

amount of repairs performed at a bridge or culvert site can be extremely important. 

Frequent roadway patching due to recurring settlement over a culvert or approach 

roadway for a bridge may indicate serious problems that are not readily apparent 

through a visual inspection of the structure itself. 

Coating History This information in the bridge record should document the surface protective 

coatings used including surface preparation, application method, dry film paint 

thickness, and types of paint, concrete and timber sealants, and other protective 

membranes. 

Accident Records Include details of accidents or damage to the bridge in the bridge record (see 

Figure 4.3.4). This information should include the date of the occurrence, 

description of the accident, member damage and repairs, and any investigative 

reports. 

Figure 4.3.4 Accident Involving Construction Equipment and a Bridge 

Posting Each bridge record should include load capacity calculations and any required 

posting arising from the load ratings. The summary of posting actions should 

include the date of posting and a description of the signing used (see Figure 4.3.5). 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.6 

Figure 4.3.5 Posted Bridge 

Permit Loads A record of the most significant single-trip permit loads using the bridge should be 

included in the bridge record. This information is to include any applicable 

documentation and computations. 

Flood Data A chronological history of major flooding events should be included for bridges 

over water (see Figure 4.3.6). This history should include high water marks at the 

bridge site and scour activity. 

Figure 4.3.6 Flood Event 

Traffic Data When available, the bridge record should contain a history of the variations in 

Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and Average Daily Truck Traffic (ADTT) including 

the frequency and types of vehicles using the bridge. ADT and ADTT are 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.7 

important factors in determining fatigue life and should be monitored for each 

bridge and each traffic lane on the bridge. If available, weights of the vehicles 

using the bridge should also be included in the bridge record. 

Inspection History Data from previous inspections can be particularly useful in identifying specific 

locations that require special attention during an inspection. Information from 

earlier inspections can be compared against current conditions to estimate rates of 

deterioration and to help judge the seriousness of the problems detected and the 

anticipated remaining life of the structure. 

This chronological record of inspections performed on the bridge should include 

the date and type of inspection. The initial inspection report should be part of the 

bridge record. Scour evaluations, earthquake data, fracture critical information, 

deck evaluations, and corrosion studies should also be included when available. 

Inspection Requirements A list of specialized tools and equipment, descriptions of unique bridge details or 

features needing non-routine inspection procedures, and access requirements 

should be noted to help in planning the bridge inspection. Any special 

requirements to ensure inspector and public safety, including a traffic management 

plan, should also be included as part of the bridge record. 

Structure Inventory and 

Appraisal Sheets 

A chronological record of SI&A forms used by the Bridge Owner should be 

included in the bridge record. Refer to Topic 4.1 for a complete description of 

SI&A sample forms. 

Inspection Forms 

Many bridge owners have standard inspection forms. These forms are used for 

each bridge in their system and give the inspector a checklist of items that are to be 

reviewed. Another benefit of standardized forms is that it organizes all bridge 

reports into a consistent format (see Figures 4.3.7 and 4.3.8). 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.8 

Figure 4.3.7 Example Inspection Form – PADOT Form D-450 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.9 

Figure 4.3.7 Example Inspection Form – PADOT Form D-450 (continued)
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.10 

Figure 4.3.7 Example Inspection Form – PADOT Form D-450 (continued) 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.11 

Figure 4.3.7 Example Inspection Form – PADOT Form D-450 (continued)
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.12 

Figure 4.3.7 Example Inspection Form – PADOT Form D-450 (continued)
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.13 

Figure 4.3.7 Example Inspection Form – PADOT Form D-450 (continued)
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.14 

Figure 4.3.7 Example Inspection Form – PADOT Form D-450 (continued)
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.15 

Figure 4.3.7 Example Inspection Form – PADOT Form D-450 (continued)
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.16 

Figure 4.3.7 Example Inspection Form – PADOT Form D-450 (continued)
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.17 

Figure 4.3.7 Example Inspection Form – PADOT Form D-450 (continued)
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.18 

Figure 4.3.8 Core Element Example Inspection Form – Michigan Department of Transportation 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.19 

Inventories and 

Inspections 

Inspection reports are included as part of the bridge record. This information 

should include the results of all inventories and bridge inspections such as 

construction and repair inspections. 

Rating Records A complete record of the determination of the bridge’s load-carrying capacity 

should also be included in the bridge record. This information will include the 

design load to indicate the live load the bridge was designed for, the analysis 

methods used to determine the inventory and operating ratings, and the inventory 

and operating ratings for the bridge. 

If the maximum legal load permitted in the state exceeds the load permitted under 

the operating rating, then the bridge must be posted according to NBIS. The actual 

operational status of the bridge must also be indicated in the bridge record. 

Inspection Notes and 

Sketches 

In most cases, it will be possible to insert reproductions of portions of the plans in 

the inspection notes. However, in some instances, sketches will have to be drawn. 

The inspector may be able to pre-draw the sketches in the office and fill them out 

in the field (see Figures 4.3.9 through 4.3.11). 

Figure 4.3.9 Framing Plan 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.20 

Figure 4.3.10 Girder Elevation 

Figure 4.3.11 Typical Prepared Culvert Sketches 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.21 

The first sketch in the field inspection notes should schematically portray the 

general layout of the bridge and site information, illustrating the structure plan and 

elevation data (see Figures 4.3.12 and 4.3.13). The immediate area, the stream or 

terrain obstacle layout, major utilities, and any other pertinent details should also 

be included. 

Figure 4.3.12 Sample General Plan Sketch 

Figure 4.3.13 Sample General Elevation Sketch 

Deck sketches should include the condition of deck and haunch, expansion joints, 

construction joints, curbs, sidewalks, parapets, and railings (see Figure 4.3.14). 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.22 

Figure 4.3.14 Sample Deck Inspection Notes 

Superstructure units should be sketched in cross section, plan, and elevation views. 

Items to be inspected include bearings, main supporting members, floorbeams, 

stringers, bracing, and diaphragms (see Figure 4.3.15). 

Figure 4.3.15 Sample Superstructure Inspection Notes 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.23 

Sketches or drawings to describe the condition of each substructure unit should be 

included (see Figure 4.3.16). In many cases, it is sufficient to draw typical units 

that identify the principal elements and defects of the substructure. Each of the 

elements of a substructure unit should be identified so that they can be cross 

referenced to notes or sketches. Items to be identified include piling, footings, 

vertical supports, lateral bracing of members, and caps. 

Figure 4.3.16 Sample Substructure Inspection Notes 

Summary of Findings All deficiencies should be reported, no matter how minor they may seem. The 

inspector should be as descriptive as necessary to report not only the severity of 

the defect but the location as well. This will be described in further detail later in 

this topic. When reporting defects, be objective and do not use terms such as 

“Dangerous” or “Hazardous”. 

4.3.4 

Documentation 

Element Identification Elements should be identified by the type of material, construction method, and by 

the function that each element performs. 

Some material types and construction methods employed include: 

3⁄4 Timber 

Solid sawn 

Laminated: glue-lam or stress laminated 

3⁄4 Concrete 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.24 

Cast-in-place 

Precast: regular reinforcement or prestressed 

3⁄4 Steel 

Rolled 

Fabricated: welded or riveted or bolted 

Some examples of element functions and the abbreviations used with them are: 

3⁄4 Multi-beam (B1 – B6) 

3⁄4 Deck or slab 

3⁄4 Stringer (S1 – S4) 

3⁄4 Floorbeam (FB0 – FB15) 

3⁄4 Girder (G1, G2) 

3⁄4 Truss chord (U0U1 – U.S.) 

3⁄4 Truss diagonal (U0L2 – D.S.) 

3⁄4 Secondary bracing (Top Lat. Br. U0 U.S. to U1 D.S.) 

3⁄4 Arch 

3⁄4 Spandrel column (Col. 1 – Col. 14 – U.S.) 

3⁄4 Spandrel wall (U.S., D.S. or N, S, E, W) 

3⁄4 Abutment (Abut. 1, Abut. 2) 

3⁄4 Pier (P1 – P4) 

Verify any element descriptions or abbreviations are consistent with bridge owner 

typical nomenclature. 

Orientation Structure orientation is normally established according to highway direction of 

inventory, mile markers, or stationing. It is important that the orientation of each 

element be clearly established. The following are some examples: 

3⁄4 Number the substructure units (e.g., Abutment 1 and Pier 3) 

3⁄4 Identify ends of floorbeams with left/right (e.g., north/south or east/west) 

designations. 

3⁄4 Sides of members can be identified by direction (e.g., “south side of 

Floorbeam 2” or “northeast elevation of Beam 4”). 

3⁄4 Span numbers and bay numbers should be used to identify general areas 

on the bridge (see Figure 4.3.17). 

3⁄4 Individual beams or stringers should be numbered left to right, looking in 

the direction of inventory (see Figure 4.3.18). 

3⁄4 Upstream or downstream designations can be assigned to structures over 

waterways (e.g., “upstream truss”, “downstream girder”, or “upstream 

arch”) (see Figure 4.3.19). 

3⁄4 For truss elements, identify the member with joint designations and 

specify if it is an upstream/downstream or north/south truss (see Figure 

4.3.20). Number floorbeams in accordance with the panel point numbers. 

If the orientation used during the inspection differs in any way with that used in 

existing documents, these differences should be clearly stated in the inspection 

notes. 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.25 

Span 1 Span 2 Span 3 Span 4 Span 5

Pier 2 Pier 3

Abutment 

1

Bent 1

or

Pier 1

Abutment

2

Bent 4

or

Pier 4

ELEVATION VIEW

Figure 4.3.17 Sample Span Numbering Scheme 

West

Parapet

East

Parapet

Beam # 1 2 3 4 5

Figure 4.3.18 Sample Typical Section Numbering Scheme 

Figure 4.3.19 Sample Structure Orientation Sketch 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.26 

U 0 U U UUU U U U U U 123456789 1

0

M 1 M 3 M 5 M 7 M 9

L 0 LL L L LL L 12 4 6 89 1

0

ELEVATION VIEW

Span 3

Figure 4.3.20 Sample Truss Numbering Scheme 

Element Dimensions Sufficient dimensions must be documented to establish the cross section and other 

pertinent dimensions of elements. These should include: 

3⁄4 Deck elements: length, width, and thickness 

3⁄4 Superstructure elements (beam, girder, floorbeam, stringer, and truss 

member): length, depth, width, flanges and webs (see Figures 4.3.21 and 

4.3.22) 

3⁄4 Substructure elements (abutment, columns and caps): width and depth (for 

rectangular shapes), diameter (for round columns), length, spacing, and 

pile batter and spacing (for pile bents) 

Figure 4.3.21 Steel Superstructure Dimensions 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.27 

Figure 4.3.22 Truss Member and Field Splice Dimensions 

Defect Identification Material defects should be identified. See Topic 2.1 – Timber, Topic 2.2 –

Concrete, Topic 2.3 – Steel, Topic 2.4 – Masonry for detailed descriptions of 

material defects. 

Defects that are likely to occur in timber elements include: 

3⁄4 Natural defects 

3⁄4 Fungi 

3⁄4 Insects 

3⁄4 Marine borers 

3⁄4 Chemical attack 

3⁄4 Delaminations 

3⁄4 Loose connections 

3⁄4 Surface depressions 

3⁄4 Fire 

3⁄4 Impact or collision 

3⁄4 Weathering 

3⁄4 Protective coating 

3⁄4 Failure 

Typical concrete defects to look for include: 

3⁄4 Structural cracks 

3⁄4 Non-structural cracks 

3⁄4 Scaling 

3⁄4 Delamination 

3⁄4 Spalling 

3⁄4 Chloride contamination 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.28 

3⁄4 Efflorescence 

3⁄4 Ettringite formation 

3⁄4 Honeycombs 

3⁄4 Pop-outs 

3⁄4 Wear 

3⁄4 Collision damage 

3⁄4 Abrasion 

3⁄4 Overload damage 

3⁄4 Reinforcing steel corrosion 

3⁄4 Prestressed concrete deterioration 

Some of the defects that may be encountered on steel and iron elements include: 

3⁄4 Corrosion 

3⁄4 Fatigue cracking 

3⁄4 Overloads 

3⁄4 Collision damage 

3⁄4 Heat damage 

3⁄4 Paint failures 

Some of the defects that may be encountered on masonry elements include: 

3⁄4 Weathering 

3⁄4 Spalling 

3⁄4 Splitting 

3⁄4 Fire 

3⁄4 Chemicals 

3⁄4 Volume changes 

3⁄4 Frost and freezing 

3⁄4 Abrasion 

3⁄4 Plant growth 

3⁄4 Marine growth 

Defect Qualification Documenting of defects by the inspector must describe the seriousness of a defect. 

For example: 

3⁄4 Crack sizes – record lengths, widths, and depth 

3⁄4 Section loss – record the remaining section dimensions (when reporting 

section loss, it is important to document the section remaining rather than 

trying to estimate the percentage of section loss) 

3⁄4 Deformation – record amount of misalignment 

Defect Quantification The inspector must also describe the quantity of a defect. For example: 

3⁄4 Spalling – 610 mm (2') x 915 mm (3') x 50 mm (2") deep 

3⁄4 Scaling – 1220 mm (4') high by full abutment width 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.29 

3⁄4 Delamination – 305 mm (1') x 150 mm (6") 

3⁄4 Decay – 610 mm (2') x 610 mm (2') x 75 mm (3") deep 

Defect Location The exact position of the defect on the element or member is required if load 

capacity analysis is to be performed. For example: 

3⁄4 Left side of web, top half, 3 feet from north bearing 

3⁄4 Top of top flange, from 3 feet to 6 feet west of Pier 2 

The accuracy of the load capacity analysis depends on precise location information 

for defects: 

3⁄4 Bending moment – Maximum positive moment occurs at or near midspan. 

Maximum negative moment occurs at the intermediate supports if the 

structure is continuous. 

3⁄4 Shear/bearing – Shear is maximum at or near the supports. Bearing is 

maximum at the supports. 

3⁄4 Axial compression members – The capacity of the member to resist 

compressive forces is reduced by any deformation or change in cross 

section. The potential capacity reduction is not dependent on where on the 

member the defect is located. All segments are critical. 

3⁄4 Axial tension members – These members experience a reduction in 

capacity through loss of section or from cracking. As with the axial 

compressive members, tensile members are equally susceptible regardless 

of the location of the defect. 

3⁄4 Combinations – While axial members are critical at all locations, it is not 

always apparent which members are loaded only in an axial direction. In 

fact, due to the dead load of the member itself, most are not. Other factors

can also contribute to bending forces that will create varying moments, 

shears, compression, and tension areas within a member that is primarily 

axial. Because of this, inspectors should identify the exact position of 

defects in all members using reference points, regardless of the forces 

acting on the member. 

Locating a defect may include tying it to an established permanent reference. 

Avoid using references that can change over time. 

Some examples of proper referencing include: 

3⁄4 2210 mm (7'-3") from fixed bearing on Beam 3 at Abutment 1 

3⁄4 940 mm (3'-1") from west corner of Abutment 2 

3⁄4 760 mm (2'-6") below bridge seat on south face of Column 1, Pier 2 

Reference points to avoid: 

3⁄4 Expansion rocker faces 

3⁄4 Ground levels, especially those that may be exposed to water 

3⁄4 Water levels 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.3: Record Keeping and Documentation 

4.3.30 

This page intentionally left blank
4.4-i

Table of Contents

Section 4 ..................................................................................................................................................

Bridge Inspection 

Reporting System 

 4.4 The Inspection Report............................................................................ 4.4.1 

 4.4.1 Introduction............................................................................... 4.4.1 

4.4.2 Basic Components of a Comprehensive Bridge 

 Inspection Report..................................................................... .4.4.1 

 Table of Contents ............................................................... 4.4.1 

 Location Map ..................................................................... 4.4.1 

 Bridge Description and History.......................................... 4.4.1 

 Design Data.................................................................. 4.4.1 

 Construction Data ........................................................ 4.4.2 

 Service Data................................................................. 4.4.2 

 Executive Summary............................................................ 4.4.2 

 Inspection Procedures......................................................... 4.4.2 

 Inspection Results............................................................... 4.4.3 

 Load Rating Summary........................................................ 4.4.3 

 Conclusions and Recommendations................................... 4.4.4 

 Report Appendices ............................................................. 4.4.5 

 Photographs.................................................................. 4.4.5 

 Drawings and Sketches................................................ 4.4.5 

 Inspection Forms.......................................................... 4.4.6 

 Load Capacity Analysis ............................................... 4.4.6 

 Field Inspection Notes ................................................. 4.4.6 

 Underwater Inspection Report ..................................... 4.4.6 

 Material Testing Results .............................................. 4.4.6 

 4.4.3 Importance of the Inspection Report......................................... 4.4.6 

 Source of Information......................................................... 4.4.6 

 Legal Document ................................................................. 4.4.7 

 Critical Areas...................................................................... 4.4.7 

 Maintenance ....................................................................... 4.4.7 

 Load Rating Analysis ......................................................... 4.4.7 

 Bridge Management ........................................................... 4.4.7 
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.4: The Inspection Report 

4.4-ii

 4.4.4 Quality ..................................................................................... 4.4.7 

 
4.4.1 

Topic 4.4 The Inspection Report 

4.4.1 

Introduction The purpose of the bridge inspection reporting system is to have trained and 

experienced personnel record objective observations of all elements of a bridge 

and to make logical deductions and conclusions from their observations. 

The bridge inspection report should represent a systematic inventory of the current 

or existing condition of all bridge members and their possible future weaknesses. 

Moreover, bridge reports form the basis of quantifying the manpower, equipment, 

materials, and funds that are necessary to maintain the integrity of the structure. 

A bridge inspection is not complete until an inspection report is finalized. The 

bridge inspection report must document all signs of distress and deterioration with 

sufficient precision so that future inspectors can readily make a comparison of 

condition. Bridge owners normally set the format to be used when preparing a 

bridge inspection report. A complete inspection report contains several parts, as

outlined in this topic. A sample bridge inspection report is presented in Appendix 

A. An inspection report should be prepared for special inspections, which are 

conducted for checking a specific item where a problem or change may be 

anticipated. Even if no changes are evident, a report should be made for each type 

of bridge inspection. Some bridge owners also request a special bridge inspection 

and report when planning a major rehabilitation. 

4.4.2 

Basic Components 

of a Comprehensive 

Bridge Inspection 

Report 

Table of Contents The table of contents should present the general headings and topics of the 

inspection report in an orderly manner so that individual sections of the report can 

be found with ease. It generally follows the title page, and individual sections are 

listed with their corresponding starting page number. 

Location Map A map should be included with a scale large enough to positively locate the 

structure. The bridge should be clearly marked and labeled, and the map should 

have a north arrow. 

Bridge Description and 

History 

The bridge description and history section of the report should contain all pertinent 

data concerning the design, construction, and use of the bridge. The type of 

superstructure will generally be given first, followed by the type of abutments and 

piers or bents, along with their foundations. If data is available, indicate the type 

of foundation soil, maximum bearing pressures, and pile capacities. The type of 

deck is also indicated. 

Design Data 

The design information should include a description of the following: 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.4: The Inspection Report 

4.4.2 

3⁄4 Skew angle 3⁄4 Railing and median 

3⁄4 Number and length of spans 3⁄4 Year constructed/reconstructed 

3⁄4 Span type and material 3⁄4 Number of traffic lanes 

3⁄4 Total length 3⁄4 Design live loading 

3⁄4 Bridge width 3⁄4 Waterway 

3⁄4 Deck structure type 3⁄4 Other features intersected 

3⁄4 Wearing surface 3⁄4 Clearances 

3⁄4 Deck protection and membrane 3⁄4 Encroachments 

3⁄4 Sidewalks 3⁄4 Alignment 

 Construction Data 

The construction history of the bridge should include the date it was originally 

built, as well as the dates and descriptions of any repairs or reconstruction projects. 

State what plans are available, where they are filed, and whether they are “design”, 

“as-built”, or “rehabilitation”. 

Service Data 

State the average daily traffic (ADT) count and the average daily truck traffic 

(ADTT) count, along with the date of record. This information should be updated 

approximately every five years. Any environmental conditions which may have 

an effect on the bridge, such as salt spray, industrial gases, bird droppings, and 

ship and railroad traffic, should be noted in the report. 

The history of the bridge is from a structural standpoint and should be developed 

from information obtained from design, construction and rehabilitation plans, 

previous inspection reports, maintenance records, discussions with maintenance 

crews and local residents, and any other available source that offers pertinent 

information. Items to be included in the history narrative include: 

3⁄4 Year built 

3⁄4 Reconstruction year, if any 

3⁄4 Historical flood frequencies and high water marks 

3⁄4 Maintenance measures and repairs 

3⁄4 Chronological record of conditions 

3⁄4 Reference drawings 

3⁄4 Photos 

Executive Summary The executive summary is a narrative presentation summarizing the inspection and 

analysis findings in regard to the qualitative condition and the load capacity of the 

bridge, along with an overview of recommendations. The executive summary must 

properly identify the bridge (e.g., name, number, and location) and the date of 

inspection. The executive summary should also present any high priority repair 

items. 

Inspection Procedures The procedures and equipment used to inspect the bridge should be documented. 

In most instances, it is advantageous to inspect structures in the same sequence as 

the load path (i.e., the deck first, then the superstructure, and finally the 

substructure). This manual is organized and presented in that sequence. 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.4: The Inspection Report 

4.4.3 

Many inspections cannot follow this sequence due to traffic and lane-closure 

restrictions. It is useful to document whatever sequence was used during the 

inspection. This information will be useful in planning future inspections and will 

also serve as a checklist to make sure that all elements and components were 

inspected. The following information should be included: 

3⁄4 Equipment required (e.g., hammers and plumb bobs) 

3⁄4 Access equipment (e.g., rigging, ladders, and free climbing) 

3⁄4 Access vehicles (e.g., inspection cranes and bucket trucks) 

3⁄4 Traffic restrictions (e.g., lane closures, flagmen, and hours of operation) 

3⁄4 Permits required (e.g., railroad and Coast Guard) 

3⁄4 Inspection methods (e.g., corings and ultrasonic) 

3⁄4 Personnel (e.g., by name and classification) 

3⁄4 Special equipment (e.g., material testing and underwater inspection) 

3⁄4 Deviations from “hands-on” inspection of all areas 

3⁄4 Time required for inspection 

3⁄4 Channel profiles and scour criticality 

When structure plans are not in the bridge records and a load rating has not been 

calculated, it may be necessary to obtain field measurements to permit calculation 

of the load capacity of the structure. 

Inspection Results Narrative descriptions of the conditions should be both quantitative and 

qualitative, indicating the locations and the extent of the affected areas. Use forms 

consistent with similar inspections. Note all signs of distress, failure, or defects 

with sufficient precision so that a deterioration rate can be determined. This is very 

important for determining estimated remaining life and an optimal improvement 

strategy. Take photographs in the field to show defects and cross reference in the 

report or on forms where defects are noted. Supplement written notes with 

sketches and photos to show location and physical characteristics of deficiencies. 

Note any load, speed, or traffic restrictions on the bridge. Include information 

about high water marks and unusual loadings. Note the weather conditions such as 

temperature, rain, or snow. All work or repairs to the bridge since the last 

inspection should be noted. Verify or obtain new dimensions when improvement 

work has altered the structure. New streambed profiles and cross sections should 

be taken with each inspection to detect scour, channel migration, or channel 

aggredation and degradation. 

The seriousness and amount of all deficiencies must be clearly stated. In 

emergency situations, the inspector should immediately contact the inspection 

supervisor and the representative of the bridge owner. 

Load Rating Summary A summary of any load capacity rating analysis that has been performed should be 

included in the report. The summary should be presented in a table or chart. 

Governing load ratings should be shown for both inventory and operating levels 

for all types of loadings used in the analysis. The governing member for each 

rating should be identified. The governing member is the one that has the lowest 

capacity for a given type of loading. 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.4: The Inspection Report 

4.4.4 

For example, in a Girder-Floorbeam-Stringer structure, Stringer 3 in Bay 5 may 

have the lowest capacity for carrying HS20 trucks, compared to all other stringers, 

floorbeams, or girders. The HS20 inventory and operating ratings for this stringer 

would be reported, and it would be identified as the governing member. 

Conclusions and 

Recommendations 

A good inspection report should explain in detail the type and extent of any 

deterioration found on the bridge and should point out any deviations or 

modifications that are contrary to the “as-built” construction plans. The depth of 

the report should be consistent with the importance of the deterioration. Not all 

conditions of deterioration are of equal importance. For example, a crack in a 

prestressed concrete box beam which allows water to enter the beam is much more 

serious than a vertical crack in an abutment backwall or a spall in a corner of a 

slopewall. 

The inspector, in formulating conclusions for the cause of the defect, must report 

the seriousness of the defect or deficiency involved. The inspector’s experience 

and judgment are called upon when interpreting inspection results and arriving at 

reasonable and practical conclusions. Improper and misinformed conclusions will 

lead to improper recommendations. The inspector may need to play the role of a 

detective to conclude why, how, or when certain defects occurred. When the 

inspector cannot interpret the inspection findings, the advice of more experienced 

personnel should be sought. 

The recommendations made by the inspector constitute the “focal point” of the 

operation of inspecting, recording, and reporting. The inspector must review 

previous inspection recommendations and identify any that have not been 

addressed, particularly if urgent. A thorough, well documented inspection is 

essential for making informed and practical recommendations to correct or 

preclude bridge defects or deficiencies. 

All recommendations for maintenance work, stress analysis, postings, further 

inspection, and repairs should be included. The inspector must carefully consider 

the benefits to be derived from making repairs and the consequences if the 

suggested repairs are not made. The inspector should list, in order of greatest 

urgency, any repairs that are necessary to maintain structural integrity and public 

safety. Recommendations concerning repairs may be classified into two general 

categories: 

3⁄4 Urgent repairs 

3⁄4 Programmed repairs (i.e., those to be performed sometime later) 

The inspector must decide whether a repair is urgent. Usually this is easily 

determined, but occasionally the experience and judgment of a Professional 

Engineer may be required to reach a proper decision. A large hole through the 

deck of a bridge obviously needs attention, and a recommendation for emergency 

repair is in order. By contrast, a slightly deteriorated gusset plate at a panel point 

of a truss may not be critical. A condition such as this would appropriately call for 

a recommendation for a programmed repair. 

Typically, most recommendations concerning repairs submitted by the bridge 

inspector will be in the category of programmed repairs (i.e., repairs that will be 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.4: The Inspection Report 

4.4.5 

incorporated into preprogrammed repair and maintenance schedules). Whenever 

recommendations call for bridge repairs, the inspector must carefully describe the 

type of repairs that are needed, the scope of work to be done, and an estimate of 

the quantity of materials that will be required. 

If not already described in the executive summary, the conclusions and 

recommendations section of the report should summarize the following: 

3⁄4 Overall condition 

3⁄4 Major deficiencies 

3⁄4 Load-carrying capacity 

3⁄4 Recommendations for: 

− Further inspection 

− Maintenance 

− Repairs 

− Painting 

− Posting 

− Rehabilitation 

− Replacement 

Some state and local agencies designate separate personnel to prepare 

recommendations and cost estimates. 

Report Appendices The appendices should contain any back-up information that can be used to 

substantiate the inspector’s conclusions and recommendations. As a minimum, the 

appendix should include photographs, drawings and sketches, and inspection 

forms (see Topic 4.3 for record keeping and documentation). It can also include 

copies of any field notes used and specialist reports (e.g., underwater, 

nondestructive testing (NDT), and survey), or these documents can be referenced 

in the report. The appendices may also include a load capacity rating analysis of 

the structure. 

Photographs 

Photographs will be of great assistance to anyone reviewing reports on bridge 

structures. It is recommended that pictures be taken of any problem areas that 

cannot be completely explained by a narrative description. It is better to take 

several photographs that may be unessential than to omit one that could cause

misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the report. At least two photographs of 

every structure should be taken. One of these should depict the structure from the 

roadway, while the other photo should be a view of the side elevation. Also, 

photographs should be inserted on sheets that are the same size as the report pages. 

Captions should be provided for each photo, and photos should be numbered so 

that they can be referred to in the body of the report. 

Drawings and Sketches 

Sketches should be used freely as needed to illustrate and clarify conditions of 

structural elements. Original drawings are very helpful during future 

investigations with determining the progression of defects and to help determine

any changes and their magnitude. Drafting-quality plans and sketches, sufficient to 

indicate the layout of the bridge and bridge site, should be included as an 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.4: The Inspection Report 

4.4.6 

appendix. 

Inspection Forms 

The inspection forms should contain the actual field notes, as well as the numerical 

condition and appraisal ratings by the inspector. The inspection forms must be 

signed by the inspection team leader. A complete SI&A form or equivalent should 

be included in the appendix. If a previous report or printout is used for inventory 

data, items should be field checked for accuracy. 

Load Capacity Analysis 

Stress analysis is frequently performed on the structure to determine the load 

capacity of the bridge. It should include investigation of all primary load-carrying 

members of the bridge. Such analysis is normally performed by engineers in the 

office, not by the inspector. Also, not all inspections require stress analysis. 

Field Inspection Notes 

The original notes taken by the inspectors in the field or photocopies thereof 

should be included in the appendix section of the report. The original field notes 

are source documents and as such should be included in the bridge record. 

Underwater Inspection Report 

If an underwater inspection of the substructure has been performed, a separate 

report is usually prepared by the diver. If applicable, the diver’s report should be 

included in the appendix. 

Material Testing Results 

Material testing may be performed on a structure in order to determine the strength 

and properties of an unknown or suspect material. The testing lab’s report should 

be included in the appendix of the bridge inspection report. 

To achieve maximum effectiveness, each report should be supplemented with 

sketches, photographs, or any other additional explanatory information. Reports 

and supplemental information must be accurate, and descriptions or explanations 

should be clear and concise as the report is a legal document. 

4.4.3 

Importance of the 

Inspection Report 

Source of Information A well prepared report will not only provide information on existing bridge and 

bridge site conditions, but it also becomes an excellent reference source for future 

inspections, comparative analyses, and bridge study projects. Any conditions that 

are suspicious but unclear should be reported in a factual manner, avoiding 

speculation. Terms such as “Hazardous” or “Dangerous” are subjective and 

should not be used in the inspection report. Further action on such reports will be 

determined after review and consultation by experienced personnel. 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.4: The Inspection Report 

4.4.7 

Legal Document In preparing an inspection report, keep in mind that bridge funding may be 

allocated or repairs designed based on this information. Furthermore, the 

inspection report is a legal record which may form an important element in future 

litigation. The language used in reports should be clear and concise and, in the 

interest of uniformity, care should be taken to avoid ambiguity of meaning. The 

information contained in reports is obtained from field investigations, 

supplemented by reference to “as-built” or “field checked” plans. The source of 

all information contained in a report should be clearly stated. 

The inspector should sign and date the inspection forms and condition reports as 

they are completed. No undocumented alterations should be made to the report 

once it is completed. Some inspectors retain copies of their reports for their 

personal files in the interest of self-protection should there be any litigation. 

Critical Areas A primary purpose of the inspection report is to provide guidance for immediate 

follow-up inspections or action. NBIS regulations require follow-up on critical 

findings. An agency wide procedure must be established to assure that critical 

findings are addressed in a timely manner. The FHWA must be periodically 

notified of the actions taken to resolve or monitor the critical finding. Advanced 

inspection techniques for one or more elements may be recommended. The report 

provides information which may lead to decisions to limit the use of or to close to 

traffic, any bridge which the inspection has revealed to be hazardous to public 

safety. 

Maintenance Another purpose of the inspection report is to provide useful information about the 

needs and effectiveness of routine maintenance activities. An active preservation 

program is vital to the long-term structural integrity of a bridge. The inspection 

report enables bridge maintenance to be programmed more effectively through 

early detection of structural defects or deficiencies, thus minimizing repair costs. 

Load Rating Analysis When an inspection reveals defects or deficiencies that may affect the load 

carrying capacity of the structure, it should be reviewed by an engineer to 

determine if a revised stress analysis is needed. Any new stress analysis is made 

to determine the safe load capacity for the current condition. It may then be 

necessary to restrict loads crossing the bridge so that its safe load capacity is not 

exceeded. It is important that the calculations for the revised load-carrying 

capacity analysis become part of the bridge record. 

Bridge Management Another purpose of the inspection report is analysis by the states and the FHWA of 

the SI&A data. The intent of the analysis is to aid in the decisions for allocating 

and prioritizing funding. 

4.4.4 

Quality The accuracy and uniformity of information collected and recorded is vital for the 

management of an owner’s bridges for rehabilitation, maintenance, replacement, 

and, most importantly, public safety. Quality cannot be taken for granted. The 

responsibility of ensuring quality bridge inspections rests with each bridge owner. 

Two phrases are frequently used when discussing quality; they are quality control 

and quality assurance. 

NBIS regulations require each state to assure that systematic quality control (QC) 

and quality assurance (QA) procedures are being used to maintain a high degree of 
 SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

 TOPIC 4.4: The Inspection Report 

4.4.8 

accuracy and consistency in the inspection program. 

Bridge owners and inspectors may use established quality measures or develop 

their own procedures for FHWA approval. 

See Topic 1.3 for a detailed description of quality control and quality assurance. 
4.5-i

Table of Contents

Section 4 ..................................................................................................................................................

Bridge Inspection 

Reporting System 

 4.5 AASHTO Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Elements............................ 4.5.1 

 4.5.1 Introduction............................................................................... 4.5.1 

 4.5.2 CoRe Element Development..................................................... 4.5.1 

 

 4.5.3 Element Level Rating Terminology.......................................... 4.5.2 

 CoRe Elements................................................................... 4.5.2 

 Condition State................................................................... 4.5.2 

 Sub-Elements...................................................................... 4.5.2 

 Non-CoRe Elements........................................................... 4.5.2 

 Smart Flags......................................................................... 4.5.2 

 Feasible Actions ................................................................. 4.5.2 

 4.5.4 Basic Requirements of CoRe Elements .................................... 4.5.3 

 

 4.5.5 CoRe Element Identification..................................................... 4.5.4 

 CoRe Elements................................................................... 4.5.4 

 Sub-Elements...................................................................... 4.5.7 

 Smart Flags......................................................................... 4.5.8 

 Non-CoRe Elements........................................................... 4.5.8 

 4.5.6 Condition States........................................................................ 4.5.9 

 4.5.7 Environments .......................................................................... 4.5.10 

 

4.5.8 The Role of CoRe Elements in 

 Bridge Management Systems.................................................. 4.5.10 

 
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.5: AASHTO Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Elements 

4.5-ii

This page intentionally left blank 
4.5.1 

Section 4 

Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

Topic 4.5 AASHTO Commonly Recognized 

(CoRe) Elements 

4.5.1 

Introduction Managers of large inventories of infrastructure assets need a tool to effectively 

manage these assets. For bridge data, element level inspection has been 

successfully used as a basis for data collection, performance measurement, 

resource allocation, and management decision support. While NBIS (National 

Bridge Inspection Standards) provided a consistent standard for safety inspection

of bridge sites, it was not comprehensive enough to provide performance-based 

decision support. 

The Pontis CoRe (Commonly Recognized) Element Report, which is the basis of 

the AASHTO CoRe Element Guide, was prepared by technical working group 

representatives from California, Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, Virginia, 

Washington, and the Federal Highway Administration, June 1993 explains the 

reasoning behind the selection of bridge items that require inspection for a 

successful Bridge Management System. Pontis is ‘bridge’ in Latin. 

4.5.2 

CoRe Element 

Development 

In developing a system for standardized data collection, the FHWA and Caltrans 

needed to look at the shortcomings of NBIS data. The problems with NBIS data 

included: 

3⁄4 Each bridge is divided into only four major parts for condition assessment: 

deck, superstructure, substructure and culvert. 

3⁄4 The rating scale for these parts is 0-9 by severity of deterioration, which 

does not indicate the exact extent of the deterioration. 

3⁄4 The condition ratings are based on subjective interpretation by the 

inspectors. 

3⁄4 Sufficiency rating, based on NBIS data, is used by the Federal government 

for funding allocation. This emphasizes large scale functional and 

geometric characteristics of bridges, making it irrelevant for maintenance 

decision-making. 
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.5: AASHTO Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Elements 

4.5.2 

A system was developed which included a standardized description of bridge 

elements at a greater level of detail. The FHWA created a task force to revise the 

standards and created a manual called "Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Structural

Elements". The AASHTO Guide for CoRe Element Manual defines each element, 

the unit of measurement, definitions of a set of 3-5 standardized condition states, 

and feasible actions for each condition state. The CoRe Element Manual was 

accepted as an official AASHTO manual in May 1995. The states may develop 

their own CoRe Element Manual based on the AASHTO manual. Approximately 

40 states use element level inspection. 

4.5.3 

Element Level 

Rating Terminology 

The AASHTO “Guide for Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Structure Elements” 

provides a description of structural elements that are commonly used in highway 

bridge construction and encountered on bridge safety inspections. 

Many states have adopted AASHTO or modified guidelines to the Element Level 

Rating Guide. 

There are six specific terms used to describe bridge elements in AASHTO: 

3⁄4 CoRe Elements are used nationwide to describe these structural bridge 

elements. They provide a uniform basis for data collection to share among 

states. 

3⁄4 Condition State is used to describe deterioration and defects in CoRe 

Elements. It’s important that the various agencies that use AASHTO 

Element Level descriptions are consistent with one another. 

3⁄4 CoRe Elements can be subdivided into Sub-Elements to provide flexibility 

to track variations in cost or performance characteristics of the CoRe 

element. Physical size, location and exposure may be reasons to subdivide 

to Sub-Elements. 

3⁄4 Non-CoRe Elements are elements that are not included in the CoRe 

Element list were identified by the Pontis Task Force in 1993. Tunnels, 

Rigid Frames, Culvert Headwalls and Wingwalls, and steel secondary 

members are a few examples of Non-CoRe Elements which may be added 

by owner agency. 

3⁄4 Smart Flags are used to identify local problems that are not reflected in the 

CoRe element condition state language. They allow states to track distress 

conditions in elements that do not follow the same deterioration pattern or 

do not have the same units of measure as the distress described in the 

CoRe element. 

3⁄4 Feasible Actions provide guidance in typical repair strategies. Feasible 

actions are associated with each condition state for each element. The 

inspector is not required to record feasible actions.
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.5: AASHTO Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Elements 

4.5.3 

Figure 4.5.1 AASHTO CoRe Element Guide 

4.5.4 

Basic Requirements 

of CoRe Elements 

In the development of CoRe elements, it was important that the specification must 

be generic. Different agencies have varying maintenance practices, funding 

mechanisms, policy concerns and terminology. However, the physical components 

of bridges and deterioration processes are not unique. Agencies must be able to 

customize the generic standard to satisfy their own purposes without sacrificing the 

benefits of a common standard. Any changes to elements could introduce 

incompatibility between agencies. 

To avoid this happening, the CoRe element specification provides the ability of an 

agency to add its own sub-elements or non-CoRe elements. It is possible for a 

future CoRe Element Task Force to add new elements or sub-elements. These 

elements must be permanent, have clear distinction and be defined as concisely as 

possible. The guidelines for developing CoRe elements or sub-elements includes: 

3⁄4 Each element must have a unique functional role. 

3⁄4 Distinguish elements that have significantly different maintenance 

requirements. 

3⁄4 Distinguish elements that are measured in different ways for costing or 

inspection. 

3⁄4 Distinguish elements whose conditions are described in different ways. 

3⁄4 Each element must be significant from the standpoint of maintenance cost 

or functionality. This is why, for example, secondary members are omitted 

from the list of CoRe elements. The level of detail in data collection would 

be too large relative to the effect of these elements on decision making. 

3⁄4 Deterioration behavior and maintenance alternatives for the element must 

be sufficiently understood. 

3⁄4 If an element is more significant than other elements, its behavior or 

condition description is complex, the element may be subdivided into 
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.5: AASHTO Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Elements 

4.5.4 

smaller elements. 

3⁄4 A formal definition of each element must be developed to clarify thinking. 

One primary use of definitions is to establish a useful inventory. In the field, each 

element must be clearly identified, measured and counted economically. It is also 

important to describe element attributes, such as size, material, condition and 

serviceability, quantitatively. The commonality aspect of CoRe elements depends 

on having definitions that are widely understood and are stable over time. One 

major factor contributing to definitions being widely understood is NHI’s Bridge 

Inspector Training Course. 

4.5.5 

CoRe Element 

Identification 

CoRe Elements 

Ninety-eight AASHTO CoRe Elements are used to describe structural members 

such as: 

3⁄4 Girders 

3⁄4 Trusses 

3⁄4 Arches 

3⁄4 Cables 

3⁄4 Floorbeams 

3⁄4 Stringers 

3⁄4 Abutments 

3⁄4 Piers 

3⁄4 Pins and Hangers 

3⁄4 Culverts 

3⁄4 Joints 

3⁄4 Bearings 

3⁄4 Railings 

3⁄4 Decks 

3⁄4 Slabs 

See Figures 4.5.2 - 4.5.5 for a list of decks/slabs, superstructure, substructure and 

other super/substructure AASHTO CoRe Elements. 

Eight AASHTO Smart Flags are used to provide additional and possibly localized 

information on the CoRe elements (See Figure 4.5.6). 
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.5: AASHTO Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Elements 

4.5.5 

Figure 4.5.2 Deck / Slab CoRe Elements for AASHTO “Guide for Commonly 

 Recognized (CoRe) Structural Elements”, page 9 

Many agencies have decided to use “square meters” or “square feet” instead of 

“each”, although the entire deck area must be placed in one condition state. 
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.5: AASHTO Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Elements 

4.5.6 

Figure 4.5.3 Superstructure CoRe Elements for AASHTO “Guide for 

 Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Structural Elements”, page 18 

Figure 4.5.4 Substructure CoRe Elements for AASHTO “Guide for Commonly 

 Recognized (CoRe) Structural Elements”, page 18 
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.5: AASHTO Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Elements 

4.5.7 

Figure 4.5.5 Other Super/Substructure CoRe Elements for AASHTO “Guide 

for Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Structural Elements”, page 

18 

Sub-Elements Sub-Elements are defined by the owner or agency. They are a subdivision of the 

CoRe Elements and allow a more detailed classification. They are often created to 

distinguish a different size, location or exposure. 

3⁄4 Fascia girders and interior girders can be examples of Sub-Elements.

3⁄4 The ends of girders can be examples of Sub-Elements.
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.5: AASHTO Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Elements 

4.5.8 

Figure 4.5.6 Smart Flags for AASHTO “Guide for Commonly 

 Recognized (CoRe) Structural Elements”, page 35 

Smart Flags Smart Flags are used to identify local problems that are not reflected in the CoRe 

element condition state language. Smart Flags allow agencies to track deficiencies 

that do not follow typical deterioration rates of CoRe elements. The NBI 

translator program uses Smart Flag information to help translate CoRe element

level information to NBI condition data. 

The unit of measurement of Smart Flags is one “Each”. 

Steel Fatigue: Condition state language addresses bridges with steel elements 

showing fatigue damage. 

Pack Rust: Rust between steel plates, including built-up members and 

connections. 

Deck Cracking: Cracking on the top surface of concrete decks. 

Soffit: Condition state language addresses the bottom or undersurface of decks. 

This Smart Flag is extremely valuable when the top surface of the deck is 

covered with an overlay. 

Settlement: Substructure distress due to foundation movement. 

Scour: Presence of scour and its impact on the structure. 

Traffic Impact: Address distress to elements due to traffic impact damage (mainly 

superstructure elements). 

Section Loss: Condition state language addresses section loss of structural 

members and indicates the degree of distress and repair status. 

Non-CoRe Elements Some agencies track items not included in the AASHTO CoRe elements list. 

These are referred to as Non-CoRe Elements. 

Some highway structures and some features of highway structures were not 
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.5: AASHTO Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Elements 

4.5.9 

included in the AASHTO CoRe Element list. These include: 

3⁄4 Tunnels 

3⁄4 Rigid Frames 

3⁄4 Slope Protection 

3⁄4 Wingwalls and Headwalls 

3⁄4 Lateral Bracing 

3⁄4 Diaphragms 

3⁄4 Connectors of Steel Elements 

3⁄4 Waterway Protection 

3⁄4 Caps with Epoxy Coated Reinforcing 

In general, these elements do not meet the definition for CoRe elements. 

Detailed reasoning why these are Non-CoRe elements is listed on page 3 of the 

AASHTO “Guide for Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Structural Elements”. 

Agencies are free to track these and other elements if they define them as NonCoRe Elements. 

4.5.6 

Condition States An immediate application of CoRe elements is the collection and analysis of 

performance data. It is essential that original data collection be as objective and 

repeatable as possible. This raw, objective data must be stored so that the analysis 

may be updated or improved at a later time. The scale of good-fair-poor-critical is 

not acceptable because these terms do not have precise definitions that can be 

observed in the field. It was decided to measure bridge condition on a single scale 

that reflects common processes for deterioration and the effect on serviceability. 

The general pattern for a CoRe Element having five condition status is as follows: 

1. Protected – Protective systems sound and functioning to prevent 

deterioration 

2. Exposed – Protective systems partially or completely failed 

3. Attacked – Element experiencing active attack, but not yet damaged 

4. Damaged – Element has lost material such that serviceability is suspect 

5. Failed – Element no longer serves intended function. 

Each of these levels of deterioration is called a condition state. The condition state 

methodology provides two types of information about a bridge element’s 

deterioration: 

3⁄4 Severity – characterized by precise definition of each condition state 

3⁄4 Extent – the distribution of the element among condition states 

The severity is important for selection of a feasible and cost effective maintenance 

treatment, and extent is important for cost estimation. 

Condition state summaries developed from narrative descriptions and quantities 

are developed for the CoRe Element. The information from the narrative 
SECTION 4: Bridge Inspection Reporting System 

TOPIC 4.5: AASHTO Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Elements 

4.5.10

quantities and condition state summaries are then used to complete the element 

level condition report. Element Level Smart Flags are used to describe a condition 

which is not included in the CoRe Element condition state language. 

4.5.7 

Environments Element level rating contains four environments, which describe different weather 

or operating conditions. The environments are important for accurate deterioration 

models and prediction of future conditions. The four environments are defined as 

follows: 

1. Benign – No environmental conditions affecting deterioration

2. Low – Environmental conditions create no adverse impacts, or are 

mitigated by past non-maintenance actions or highly effective protective 

systems

3. Moderate – Typical level of environmental influence on deterioration 

4. Severe – Environmental factors contribute to rapid deterioration. 

Protective systems are not in place or are ineffective 

Environment policies are used for element level inspection and set by individual 

state agencies. 

4.5.8 

The Role of CoRe 

Elements in Bridge 

Management 

Systems 

CoRe elements must be usable to support management decision making. The large 

volume of raw data collected must be transformed into useful information. For 

this reason, the development of bridge CoRe elements was heavily influenced by 

the parallel development of Pontis software. 

Condition state data provides a direct indication of physical performance of bridge 

elements. Also, the effects of treatment actions can be tracked over time. 

Potential applications for agencies includes: 

3⁄4 Development and testing of new maintenance techniques 

3⁄4 Treatment selection policies 

3⁄4 Project priority setting and programming 

3⁄4 Budgeting 

3⁄4 Funding allocation 

3⁄4 Long-range planning