STATE BRIDGE ENGINEERS’ SURVEY

April 25, 2015, SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK http://bridges.transportation.org/Pages/FAQ.aspxw.

Introduction

Great participation:

submitting questions (99)

responding (47)

Apologies for strict deadlines; admin staff issues…

Objective: cover just 1-2 “eye-catching” results per HSCOBS Strategic Plan Objective

1. Extend Bridge Service Life

Need for AASHTO Service Life Guidance?

38 - Yes

27 - Based on life cycle cost analysis

Use Service Life Design Requirements to achieve 100 Years+ functional service life?

40 - For Major/Signature Bridges

36 - For Normal Bridges

1. Extend Bridge Service Life, continued

Does your state believe the recently published MAP -21 bridge performance measures will impact selection of bridge projects for preservation and replacement – 22 Yes, 24 – No

Does your state have performance goals relating to the condition of deck joints – 6 Yes; 41 No [Have States been having failures? See DV—CA]

Does your state identify steel pedestrian bridge girders as FCMs? – 26 yes; 20 No (clouded with interpretation of “golf-cart” bridges?)

2. Assess Bridge Condition

13 States use a Risk-based Inspection Schedule for Federal NBI Structures (12 are willing to share)

Load Rating Methods- 12 LRFR; 34 LFR

Health monitoring

9—Yes

37—No

2.Assess Bridge Condition, cont.

Underwater Inspection – Do you use high resolution scanning sonar ? 24 use w/diving inspection; 4 use in lieu of dive inspection

• Do you rate Temporary Bridges? 15 always 16 never

2. Assess STRUCTURE Condition 35 States Inspected Ancillary Structures

26 Bridges (< 20 ft)

26 Signs and Luminaries

20 Buried Culverts

7 Flexible Walls

6 Conventional Walls

High Mast Illumination

Base Metal Cracking ?

22 Yes ; 23 No

10 – replace, 7 repair, 3 monitor, 2 repair

3. Maintain/Enhance a Knowledgeable Workforce For a typical single span bridge, how many

man-hours are used to prepare the final bridge plans and final bridge design computations?

16—up to 400 hrs

30—over 400 hrs

Push for more questions next year on succession planning? If so, who? Whomever is retiring after the next meeting?

4. Enhance AASHTO Specs Design Local Bridges not on NHS or SHS-

44 LRFD; 2 LFD;

44 HL93, 4 Higher than HL93 ; 1 Lower than HL93

Does your state use the AASHTO LRFD Construction Specs? 15 Yes; 32 No

What specs does your state use for seismic design of bridges?

18 use the AASHTO LRFD BDS (but 19 feel that no change should be made)

16 use the AASHTO Guide Specs or state-specific criteria

5. Accelerated Bridge Construction/Delivery

Design- Build – AASHTO LRFD Construction Specifications - 9 OK ; 6 not easily enforceable

Design- Build – AASHTO LRFD Design Specifications – 18 OK; 10 not easily enforceable

Design Build- Decision-Making - 17 Project-level; 7 SBE; 6 District; 5 Dgn office chief

6. Optimize Structural Systems Does your state use Welded Wire Fabric –

Shear Reinforcement in PC Girders? – 21 Yes; 26 No.

Does your state allow deck bulb-tees on mainline bridges?

9 Yes; 21 No

4 w/restricted ADTT; 12 other

6. Optimize Structural Systems, continued Maximum Concrete Compressive Strength

for Standard PC/PS Girder – 4 (No limit); 13 (> 10 Ksi), 19 (8-10 ksi); 9 (7-8 ksi)

5 states have steel fiber bars in service > 5 yrs; 9 of 11 using steel fiber bars report less cracking

4 of 5 states using lithium curing compound had shrinkage crack issues

7. Manage Info Intelligently

Zone of Intrusion Policies based on AASHTO Roadside Design Guide (4th Ed) ? – 20 Yes; 6 Yes w/modifications; 16 Other

Perhaps this Objective is

more on BrIM and T19? Too soon for survey questions?

Does your state have a standard spec for UHPC? 4—Yes; 43—No

7. Manage Info Intelligently

Who is responsible for Proprietary ERS – 34 (vendor); 13 (engineer-of-record)

Warranty on Proprietary ERS – 2 Yes; 44 No.

Does your state maintain a list of proprietary earth retaining systems (ERS)? 35—Yes, 9—No; 3—had a list in the past

Basis of qualification:

38-report or package w/calcs

8. Contribute to National Policy

Does your state have a bridge design live load to facilitate the issuance of overweight special hauling permits?

19—Yes (up from 11 several yrs ago); 9 over 250k

28—No

Barriers for Temporary Bridges

5 (TL-2)

22 (TL-3)

8 (TL-4)

10 (Other)

Any others you

would care to

comment on?

THANK YOU !

State Bridge Engineers’ 2015 Survey Summary

For details, please contact Dolores, Mike, Sue or Lian.Duan@dot.ca.gov