BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

BRIDGE CONDITION REPORT

PROCEDURES & PRACTICES

Illinois Department of Transportation

Bureau of Bridges and Structures

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Bridge Condition Report

Procedures & Practices
Title Page

Prepared by:
Bureau of Bridges and Structures
Division of Highways

Agency:
Illinois Department of Transportation

Place of Publication:
Springfield Illinois

2011

ii

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Table of Contents
SECTION - I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
GENERAL. ................................................................................................................................... 1
BRIDGE CONDITION REPORTS. ................................................................................................ 1
Purpose. .................................................................................................................................... 1
Submittal Requirements. ........................................................................................................... 2
Bureau of Bridges & Structures (BB&S) Concurrence................................................................ 2
SECTION - II. BRIDGE INSPECTION............................................................................................. 4
GENERAL. ................................................................................................................................... 4
BRIDGE INSPECTION REFERENCES. ....................................................................................... 4
FIELD INSPECTION PROCESS................................................................................................... 4
Preparation. ............................................................................................................................... 5
Field Inspection. ........................................................................................................................ 5
Documentation. ......................................................................................................................... 8
DELAMINATION SURVEYS. ...................................................................................................... 10
ADDITIONAL TESTING METHODS. .......................................................................................... 11
SECTION - III. BRIDGE ANALYSIS & SCOPE OF WORK SELECTION....................................... 13
GENERAL. ................................................................................................................................. 13
SCOPE OF WORK DEFINITIONS. ............................................................................................. 13
BRIDGE ANALYSIS PROCESS. ................................................................................................ 13
GEOMETRIC & HYDRAULIC CAPACITY EVALUATION. .......................................................... 14
General. .................................................................................................................................. 14
Roadway Geometry. ................................................................................................................ 14
Bridge Clearances. .................................................................................................................. 14
Hydraulic Capacity. .................................................................................................................. 14
Geometric & Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation Assessment. ....................................................... 15
DECK EVALUATION. ................................................................................................................. 15
General. .................................................................................................................................. 15
Deck Joints. ............................................................................................................................. 15
Bridge Railings. ....................................................................................................................... 16
Wearing Surface Condition. ..................................................................................................... 16
Deck Condition. ....................................................................................................................... 16
Deck Repair/Replacement Assessment. .................................................................................. 16
Deck Repair Methods. ............................................................................................................. 17
Deck Repair Overlay Selection. ............................................................................................... 18
B-SMART Criteria. ................................................................................................................... 19
SUPERSTRUCTURE EVALUATION (other than deck) .............................................................. 20
General. .................................................................................................................................. 20
Condition. ................................................................................................................................ 20
Load Capacity. ........................................................................................................................ 20
Coring of Reinforced Concrete Superstructures....................................................................... 21
Bearings. ................................................................................................................................. 21
Special Considerations. ........................................................................................................... 22
Superstructure Widening. ........................................................................................................ 22
Superstructure Evaluation Assessment. .................................................................................. 22

iii

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

SUBSTRUCTURE EVALUATION ............................................................................................... 23
General. .................................................................................................................................. 23
Condition. ................................................................................................................................ 23
Load Capacity. ........................................................................................................................ 23
Semi-Integral Abutments. ........................................................................................................ 26
Scour Review. ......................................................................................................................... 27
Substructure Widening. ........................................................................................................... 27
Substructure Evaluation Assessment. ..................................................................................... 27
SEISMIC EVALUATION. ............................................................................................................ 28
General: .................................................................................................................................. 28
Seismic Evaluation Not Required:............................................................................................ 28
Abbreviated Seismic Evaluation: ............................................................................................. 28
Detailed Seismic Evaluation: ................................................................................................... 29
MISCELLANEOUS CHECKS ...................................................................................................... 31
Deck Drains. ............................................................................................................................ 31
Waterborne Debris. ................................................................................................................. 31
Slopewall & Stream Protection. ............................................................................................... 31
Reuse of Bridge Components Without Original Plans Available. .............................................. 31
STAGE CONSTRUCTION FEASIBILITY EVALUATION............................................................. 32
Lane Widths. ........................................................................................................................... 32
Superstructure Considerations. ............................................................................................... 32
Substructure Considerations.................................................................................................... 32
Profile Changes. ...................................................................................................................... 33
ECONOMIC EVALUATION......................................................................................................... 33
General. .................................................................................................................................. 33
Cost Estimate Preparation. ...................................................................................................... 34
SCOPE OF WORK SELECTION ................................................................................................ 34
SECTION - IV. ABBREVIATED BRIDGE COORDINATION .......................................................... 35
GENERAL. ................................................................................................................................. 35
BRIDGES TO REMAIN IN PLACE COORDINATION. ................................................................ 35
B-SMART, BRIDGE REPAIR & MAINTENANCE REPORTS. ..................................................... 35
REPORT FORMAT. .................................................................................................................... 36
SECTION - V. BRIDGE CONDITION REPORT PREPARATION .................................................. 37
GENERAL. ................................................................................................................................. 37
REPORT PREPARATION. ......................................................................................................... 37
REPORT FORMAT. .................................................................................................................... 37
APPENDIX A. Example Abbreviated Bridge Condition Report Format (B-SMART, Minor Repair
and Maintenance Projects) ......................................................................................................... 38
APPENDIX B. Example BCR Format (Deck Repair, Major Rehabilitation & Replacement
Projects) ..................................................................................................................................... 40
APPENDIX C. Concrete Deck Testing Procedures ................................................................. 47

iv

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Key to Acronyms:
AASHTO
ASD
ASTM

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Allowable Stress Design
American Society of Testing and Materials

BB&S
BCR
BD&E
B-SMART

Bureau of Bridges & Structures (Illinois Department of Transportation)

Bridge Condition Report
Bureau of Design and Environment
Bridge Surface Maintenance at the Right Time

CO

Concrete Overlay

FHWA
FWS

Federal Highway Administration

Future Wearing Surface

GGBFS

Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag

HRM
HMA

High Reactive Metakaolin

Hot Mix Asphalt

IDOT
ISIS

Illinois Department of Transportation

Illinois Structure Information System

LFD
LRFD

Load Factor Design

Load Resistance Factor Design

PONTIS

Computer based bridge management system

SPC
SPZ

Seismic Performance Category

Seismic Performance Zone

3P
3R

Pavement Preservation Policy

Resurfacing, Restoration & Rehabilitation

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

SECTION - I. INTRODUCTION
GENERAL.
This document provides guidance for preparing Bridge Condition Reports for the improvement of
roadway structures. It covers the wide range of information necessary to complete reports for
various types of bridge projects. The guideline reviews background information, field inspection &
testing (in brief), general analysis procedures and report preparation. Example bridge condition
report formats have been provided in the appendices. This document was developed primarily with
multi-girder supported bridges with cast in place concrete decks in mind. However, the general
process provided can be applied to both simpler and more complicated structures.
The information provided in this revised Bridge Condition Report Procedures & Practices
supersedes the guidance published in the previous document dated February, 2007.

BRIDGE CONDITION REPORTS.

Purpose.
Bridge Condition Reports provide a format for Districts to develop and document a proposed scope
of work for a structure. The reports are submitted to the Bureau of Bridges & Structures (BB&S) for
review and approval. Two main report formats have been developed; the Bridge Condition Report
and Abbreviated Bridge Condition Report. A BCR is typically required for projects where significant
work is planned for a structure. The Abbreviated BCR is intended for projects where only minor
work is anticipated. The definition and purpose of each is provided below.
A Bridge Condition Report (BCR) is used to document the current physical condition and function of
a structure and to develop a preliminary scope of work when significant work is anticipated. The
scope of work selected should be a cost effective approach for the structure given its condition and
the structural / geometric / hydraulic deficiencies and exterior constraints that affect it. This scope
of work will set the general direction for the project; rehabilitation or replacement. It also
establishes design features such as structure width and stage construction feasibility. The report
addresses all known significant functional, structural and safety deficiencies associated with the
structure. All corroborating information necessary to support the proposed scope of work is
provided in the report.
An Abbreviated Bridge Condition Report is used to document the current physical condition of a
structure where only minor work or no work is anticipated. It is similar to a BCR, but the
documentation requirements are greatly reduced.
The scope of work and estimated cost developed in the BCR phase of project development are
suitable for Departmental programming and preliminary design purposes but are subject to revision
as the project progresses. While the decision to rehabilitate or replace the structure has been
made, structure length, number of spans, structure type, etc are to be determined by the bridge
planner during the TSL phase.

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Submittal Requirements.
A Bridge Condition Report is required for every structure which is within a roadway section covered
by a Phase-I report or which is the subject of a Phase-I report itself. Structures may fall into one of
the following categories which would require a report.

Allow structure to remain in place

Gap structure temporarily
Deck repair and resurface
Rehabilitation or reconstruction of the structure
Replace the structure

All existing structures > 20 ft. in length back-back abutment and cast in place multiple cell concrete
box culverts meeting the above criteria require a Bridge Condition Report.
Coordination requirements for structures with the scope of work Bridge to Remain in Place that
are located within a 3R type highway project are found in Section IV, ABBREVIATED BRIDGE
COORDINATION of this document.
Scope of work definitions for bridge projects are provided in Section-III of this document.
For structures to be Gapped Temporarily within a 3R type highway project, a memorandum may
be submitted briefly describing the Districts intent to complete work on these structures in a
separate project. This approach should only be used in rare instances and the reason for gapping
the structure provided in the memorandum. A Bridge Condition Report is still required in this case
at a later date.
Structures located within SMART and 3P projects do not require the submittal of a Bridge Condition
Report. However, if the structure is being resurfaced as part of the project, coordination will be
made with the BB&S to approve the resurfacing method, bridge rating and general scope of work.
See Section IV, ABBREVIATED BRIDGE COORDINATION of this document for details.
Structures planned for maintenance type work do not require coordination with BB&S unless
specifically requested by the District. However, if the structure is being resurfaced, coordination will
be made with the BB&S to approve the resurfacing method and bridge rating. See Section IV
ABBREVIATED BRIDGE COORDINATION of this document for details.
Bureau of Bridges & Structures (BB&S) Concurrence.
The Bridge Condition Report allows the BB&S to review the proposed scope of work for a structure
and provide concurrence based on its current condition, relevant design criteria and other
applicable issues. Upon completion of their review, the BB&S will document concurrence or nonconcurrence with the following geometric and structural factors as applicable:

Replacement or reuse of components

Proposed general configuration features
Structural feasibility
Proposed bridge clear width of the deck
Stage construction feasibility of the existing structure

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

The BB&S concurrence relates to the structural and economic acceptability of the bridge
improvement proposal. If appropriate, the economics of a proposal should be investigated as part
of the report process and will be reviewed at this time. In some instances geometric, environmental
or other design factors may preclude economic considerations. In these instances these factors
should be well documented within the BCR.
Before design approval can be granted on a roadway project which includes structures or on a
bridge by itself, the Bridge Condition Reports on all bridges must be approved by the Bureau of
Bridges & Structures.

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

SECTION - II. BRIDGE INSPECTION

GENERAL.
A well planned and thorough inspection is critical to producing a high quality BCR. This section
provides general guidance on the bridge inspection process required to collect the information
necessary to produce bridge condition reports. It is not intended to be an all encompassing
reference for bridge inspection. For detailed information on bridge inspection see the classes and
publications listed below.

BRIDGE INSPECTION REFERENCES.

The following classes and publications are recommended as references for conducting bridge
inspections.
FHWA Class:
FHWA Class:
FHWA Class:
FHWA Pub.:
FHWA Pub.:
FHWA Pub.:

130055 Safety Inspection of In Service Bridges

130053 Bridge Inspection Refresher Training
130078 Fracture Critical Inspection Techniques for Steel Bridges
FHWA-NHI 03-001 Bridge Inspectors Reference Manual
FHWA-IP-86-26 Inspection of Fracture Critical Bridge Members
FHWA-PD-96-001 Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and
Appraisal of the Nations Bridges
IDOT Pub.:
Structure Information and Procedure Manual
AASHTO Pub.: Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges

FIELD INSPECTION PROCESS.

The level of field inspection required for a structure is dependent on several factors. Structures
being inspected to produce a report outlining the scope of work for a bridge in an upcoming project
will generally require more effort than an inspection to meet the periodic mandated safety inspection
requirements. Another factor affecting the effort is the current condition of the structure. A
structure in poor condition will usually require more effort than one in good condition. Material
testing and delamination surveys may also be used as part of the inspection process but are not
always appropriate due to the high cost to prepare this data verses the benefit of having the
additional information. This is often true for small structures, structures with little or no apparent
deterioration, those that are functionally obsolete and must therefore be replaced anyway or are
obviously beyond repair. On the other hand, for structures exhibiting a level of deterioration where
it is unclear if the element in question is beyond economical repair, more extensive testing may be
appropriate.
To accomplish the objectives of the Bridge Condition Report, the inspection must be as thorough as
possible within engineering reason. It must also be documented in such a manner as to allow a
proper scope of work to be determined and approved. An initial thorough detailed inspection will
also reduce the potential need for return trips to the site to secure additional information during the
report preparation and approval process.

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Preparation.
Thorough preparation will improve the prospects of obtaining a good inspection. The following
guidelines are provided as aids for planning a bridge inspection:
1. Review the structure plans of the bridge to be inspected for familiarity with the following details
as appropriate:

type of superstructure
type and age of deck and of deck overlays
joint types longitudinal and transverse
bearing types
substructure types and borings
details requiring special inspection
fatigue prone details
fracture critical details
pins and hangers in the main load carrying elements
previous repair or maintenance work
previous inspection reports

2. Prepare sketch plans of the top and bottom of the deck, abutments, piers and other structural
elements as necessary to allow proper documentation of the location and description of significant
distress features using the following guidelines:

plans should be roughly to scale and of a convenient size for field use
plans should include basic dimensions and a reference line from a point that can be easily
located and measured from in the field and identified in the report
areas of distress located on the sketches should have a linear or area dimension placed on it
as appropriate
areas of distress should be detailed in a distinctive manner and a key provided to distinguish
between the different deterioration types

3. Prepare a list of equipment needed to complete the inspection. Include how you will access
each element of the bridge to be inspected and if it will require coordination for special equipment
and traffic control.
Field Inspection.
The inspection will generally include all elements of the bridge. The following list describes
elements found on a typical bridge and issues to consider during their inspection. Photographs of
distressed areas, areas of concern and areas depicting the general overall condition of the structure
should be taken during the inspection. This list is not all inclusive and is only intended as a guide.

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Deck / Slab:
Inspect the bottom of the deck first. Some problem areas to look for and document are:
wet or stained areas
areas with heavy leaching and/or stalactites
areas of cracking and leaching
spalled and delaminated areas
exposed reinforcement
section loss in reinforcement
previously repaired areas
Pay special attention to areas around joints, drains, along cracks and at construction joints. These
areas are often more susceptible to deterioration.
Inspect the top of the deck along with the parapet/railing. Some problem areas to look for and
document are:
potholes
spalled areas particularly areas with exposed rebar
broken and map-cracked areas in bituminous deck surfaces
cracks that may relate to deteriorated areas observed on the bottom of the deck
map cracking and other crack patterns
record and locate deteriorated areas on curbs, medians or parapets
record any bridge rail damage and/or deterioration, including deterioration of the overhang
area which may indicate reduced capacity
previously repaired areas
A delamination survey may be completed to aid in the repair or replacement decision if appropriate.
A deck that is estimated to require deck repair should have a delamination survey completed. The
type and date of the delamination survey should be provided with the delamination plot. An
exception to this recommendation is deck repair projects that meet B-SMART criteria.
The visual top and bottom deck surveys, along with the results of the delamination survey and other
tests if used, will be combined and correlated to determine the extent of estimated full-depth and
partial-depth deck repairs needed.
Deck Joints Transverse & Longitudinal:
Inspect the transverse & longitudinal joints. Some problem areas to look for and document are:
damaged, missing or loose joint sections
evidence of leakage through the joint
deteriorated concrete at the edges of the joint
excessive opening/closure of the joint

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Beams & Girders:

Inspect the beams and girders. Some problem areas to look for and document as applicable are:
Steel Beams & Diaphragms:
areas with heavy rusting or section loss
damaged areas due to impact or other causes
presence and condition of fatigue sensitive details (see section [Link] in the Bridge
Manual)
presence and condition of pin and link connections
beam ends/sections under expansion & longitudinal joints
condition of the paint
Concrete Beams & Diaphragms:
areas with heavily deteriorated concrete such as cracking, staining, delaminations & spalling
open cracks
damaged areas due to impact or other causes
exposed reinforcement
section loss in reinforcement
beam ends/sections under expansion & longitudinal joints (concrete sounding recommended
in this area)
PPC Deck Beams:
areas with heavily deteriorated concrete such as cracking, staining, delaminations & spalling
large cracks (especially longitudinal cracks)
damaged areas due to impact or other causes
exposed stirrup reinforcement, wire mesh and prestressing strands
section loss in stirrup reinforcement, wire mesh and prestressing strands
beam ends/sections under expansion & longitudinal joints
Pay special attention to areas near and under joints and drains as structure elements are more
susceptible to damage in these areas.

Bearings:
Inspect the bearings. Some problem areas to look for and document are:
areas with heavy rusting or section loss
excessive movement, lack of movement or excessive tilting of the bearing
damaged or missing bolts
deterioration of the concrete at the base of the bearing
bulging or tearing of elastomer

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Abutments:
Inspect the abutments and wing walls. Some problem areas to look for and document are:
areas of cracking and leaching
spalled and delaminated areas
exposed reinforcement (concrete sounding recommended in this area)
section loss in reinforcement
movement or rotation of the abutments
scour or erosion around the abutments
presence of excessive or unexplained moisture at or behind the abutments
Piers:
Inspect the piers. Some problem areas to look for and document are:
areas of cracking and leaching
spalled and delaminated areas
exposed reinforcement (concrete sounding recommended in this area)
section loss in reinforcement
movement or rotation of the piers
scour or erosion around the piers
Other Items:
Additional items that should be identified & documented as appropriate:
presence and extent of scour or erosion at the site
presence, types and condition of utilities on or near the structure
condition of the slope protection system
Documentation.
Proper documentation of the inspection results is critical to producing a good BCR. Without proper
documentation, it will be difficult to conduct a thorough analysis of the structure to determine the
appropriate scope of work. It will also be difficult for the BB&S to quickly review the report once it is
submitted for approval. Poor documentation often leads to wasted time for District, Consultant and
BB&S personnel in retrieving information that should have been documented as part of the initial
inspection and report preparation process. General guidance on providing adequate
documentation of important aspects of the inspection is provided in the following paragraphs.
Photographs:
Adequate photographs of the structure need to be taken to convey its current condition and
corroborate the recommended scope of work in the report. Photographs provided in the report
must be color and of high quality to be useful. Photographs of distressed areas, areas of concern
and areas depicting the general overall condition of elements of the structure should be taken
during the inspection.
The example report formats located in Appendix A and B of this document provide a sample listing
of photographs required.

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Top & Bottom of Deck Surveys:
Provide detailed top and bottom of deck surveys from the results of the inspection sketches. These
surveys are critical in estimating the condition of the deck and determining whether or not it is
economical to repair. The top and bottom of deck survey plans allow proper documentation of the
location and description of distress in the deck and should be detailed according to the following
guidelines:

plans should be drawn roughly to scale and made to fit in the report
plans should include basic dimensions and reference points that can be easily identified in
the report
areas of distress should have a linear or area dimension placed on it as appropriate
areas of distress should be detailed in a distinctive manner and a key provided to distinguish
between different deterioration types

Plot estimated full and partial-depth patch areas on the bottom and top of deck surveys. Avoid
being too conservative since the actual full-depth areas are generally larger than the distress areas
visible during the inspection.
The bottom of deck survey is the more important of the two surveys as it allows the report preparer
to estimate the amount of full depth patching required for the deck.
If a delamination survey is used, the areas of delamination found in the survey are plotted to scale
on the top of deck survey sketch and squared off for easy measurement of delaminated areas.
These areas will frequently overlap other distressed areas plotted and provide a more
comprehensive assessment of the deck condition.
Substructure Surveys:
Provide detailed substructure surveys. These surveys are critical in estimating the condition of the
substructure and whether or not it is economical to reuse. The survey plans provide documentation
of the location and type of distress in the substructure and should be detailed similar to the top and
bottom of deck surveys. The surveys will be used later to develop detailed repair plans, if
applicable.
Measurements at Areas of Concern:
Section Loss. If significant section loss is detected on main load carrying elements the following
measurements should be taken, if appropriate:

thickness of the element in question (provide current and as designed thickness)

length/area of section loss
distance from known point to location of section loss
photographs should be taken of the damage to include in the report

Concrete Crack. If significant concrete cracks are detected in structural members the following
measurements should be taken:

length of crack

crack widths at identified points

distance from known point to location of crack

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Substructure Rotation or Movement. If it is suspected that substructure units (abutments or piers)
have rotated or moved significantly since construction the following measurements should be taken,
if appropriate:

plumbness of the walls

degree of rotation or movement of the bearings at the unit
elevation of the bearing seats at each end of the unit
length from adjacent substructure units to the unit in question taken at each end of the unit
and measured from known points
the opening width at each end of transverse expansion joints at the unit in question
photographs should be taken of evidence supporting this conclusion to include in the report

DELAMINATION SURVEYS.
The decision to use a delamination survey is dependent on several factors. Delamination surveys
are not always appropriate due to the cost to prepare this data verses the potential benefit of having
the additional information. This is often true for small deck areas, structures with little or no
apparent deterioration, those that are functionally obsolete and must therefore be replaced
regardless or are obviously beyond repair. On the other hand, for structures that exhibit a level of
deterioration where it is unclear if the deck is beyond economical repair, completing a delamination
survey is appropriate.
If it is estimated a deck will require deck repair, a delamination survey is recommended to verify the
scope of work selected and aid in determining the estimated deck repair quantities.
The following methods are used to conduct delamination surveys:
Method 1-(ASTM D 4580) Measuring Delaminations in Concrete Bridge Decks by Sounding
Method 2 (AASHTO TP36)* Evaluating Asphalt-Covered Concrete Bridge Decks Using Pulsed
Radar
*This test method has been discontinued by AASHTO
Method 3-(ASTM D 4788) Detecting Delaminations in Bridge Decks Using Infrared Thermography
Method 1 may be used for exposed concrete bridge decks and bridge decks with a concrete
overlay. However, for decks with a concrete overlay, this method will detect debonding of the
overlay and delamination of the underlying concrete. This method cannot distinguish between
debonding and delamination. Method 1 is very accurate for exposed concrete bridge decks, but the
sounding process can be slow and traffic noises may restrict its use. The chain drag is the most
commonly used procedure for conducting this test.
The results of a sounding survey (Delamtect, chain drag, or hammer) can be affected by cold
temperatures and/or wet conditions. This type of survey should be performed when the air
temperatures remain above 320 F for a sufficient length of time to assure a dry and frost free deck.
The use of a delamination survey on precast-prestressed concrete box beam superstructures is not
recommended.
Method 2 is primarily intended for concrete bridge decks with a hot mix asphalt overlay. This
method may also be used for exposed concrete bridge decks and bridge decks with a concrete
10

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

overlay. An advantage Method 2 has is it can distinguish between a debonded overlay and a
delamination of the underlying concrete. However, abnormally shallow reinforcement concrete
cover can produce distortions that interfere with the detection of a delamination. In addition, there
is a high incidence of false concrete damage near steel abutment joints.
Method 3 may be used for exposed concrete bridge decks, and bridge decks with a concrete or hot
mix asphalt overlay. However, this method cannot distinguish between a debonded overlay and
delamination of the underlying concrete. Delamination surveys on decks with overlays present are
likely to be of limited use because of this.
The following guidance is provided to determine which delamination survey method to use on a
bridge deck:

Use Method 1, 2 or 3 for exposed concrete decks and decks with a concrete overlay.
Use Method 2 and/or 3 for decks with a hot mix asphalt overlay.

For more information concerning Methods 2 and 3, the publication Evaluation of Bridge Deck
Delamination Investigation Methods by Henrique L. M. dos Reis and Matthew D. Baright (Project
IC-H1, 95/96 and Report No. ITRC FR 95/96-1) is available from the Bureau of Materials and
Physical Research. The report recommended that a combination of Methods 2 and 3 be used for
the most accurate inspection of a bridge deck.
Since some delamination surveys may interpret the debonding of wearing surfaces as
delaminations, the surveys must be closely coordinated with both the top and bottom of deck
inspections to aid in estimating areas of deck delaminations.
If the deck condition remains unclear after the delamination survey and top and bottom of deck
survey coordination, further tests such as spot overlay removal and deck cores can be taken.
Additional diagnostic tests such as the half-cell survey and chloride content tests may also be made
to aid in determining whether or not deck repair is appropriate.

ADDITIONAL TESTING METHODS.

The following tests can be used to obtain additional information regarding concrete condition when
necessary. A more detailed explanation of each test is provided in Appendix C.
Test 1 (No Test Reference) Measurement of Reinforcement Bar Concrete Cover
Test 2 (AASHTO T 24) Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete
Test 3 (ASTM C 805) Rebound Number of Hardened Concrete
Test 4 (AASHTO T 22) Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens
Test 5 (ASTM C 876) Corrosion Potentials of Uncoated Reinforcing Steel in Concrete
Test 6 (Method A) (AASHTO T 260) Sampling and Testing for Chloride Ion in Concrete and
Concrete Raw Materials
Test 6 (Method B) (AASHTO T 332) Determining Chloride Ions in Concrete and Concrete
Materials by Specific Ion Probe
11

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Test 7 (ASTM C 856) Petrographic Examination of Hardened Concrete

12

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

SECTION - III. BRIDGE ANALYSIS & SCOPE OF WORK SELECTION

GENERAL.
In this section the bridge analysis and scope of work selection process is reviewed. This process
determines the appropriate scope of work for a structure within the framework of the project being
considered. It considers information about the bridge and surrounding area such as the results of
the inspection (current condition), geometric/hydraulic requirements, load capacity, construction
feasibility, economics and exterior constraints when making this decision. This section provides
general guidance on this process for typical structures.

SCOPE OF WORK DEFINITIONS.

The scope of work for a structure covered in a bridge coordination report may be any of those
provided below. These definitions have been modified from those provided in the BD&E Design
Manual pg. 39-3.01(a).
Bridge Replacement. Replacement of the entire bridge.
Bridge Reconstruction. At a minimum complete replacement of the superstructure and may include
work on the substructure and foundation.
Bridge Rehabilitation. Repair or replacement work on one or more of the major and/or minor
components of a bridge (i.e., deck replacement, super/substructure widening, bridge rail
retrofit/replacement, transverse or longitudinal joint work, beam repairs and substructure repairs).
Bridge Deck Repair. The existing bridge deck is structurally adequate, but deck repairs are
required and an overlay may be necessary to improve the rideability and maintain the integrity of
the deck. Additional repairs to the superstructure and/or substructure may be included with this
work. This is considered a special type of bridge rehabilitation.
Bridge to Remain in Place. The bridge is structurally sound, has adequate load capacity and meets
the minimum width/clearance/geometric criteria to remain in place without work.

BRIDGE ANALYSIS PROCESS.

The bridge analysis process assists the engineer in determining the best scope of work for a given
structure during the BCR preparation process. It applies thoroughness, sound judgment and
professional knowledge to the decision process.
The analysis process requires the engineer to evaluate various aspects and components of the
bridge to determine if they are suitable for reuse or repair. This begins with collecting the
information necessary to make good evaluations and well informed decisions. Information
gathered/determined by the engineer doing the analysis will include facts and well founded
assumptions. Once the analysis process is complete the results are reviewed in whole and the
appropriate scope of work selected.

13

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

The evaluations required for a typical bridge during the analysis process generally include:

Geometric & Hydraulic Capacity

Deck
Superstructure (other than deck)
Substructure
Miscellaneous Checks
Stage Construction Feasibility
Economic

General information on how to conduct each of these evaluations is provided in the following pages.
The evaluations are presented in the general order they should be reviewed for a typical structure;
however, the order may be revised if deemed appropriate by the engineer.

GEOMETRIC & HYDRAULIC CAPACITY EVALUATION.

General.
The Geometric and Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation consists of a review of the following aspects at
the existing bridge if applicable:

Roadway Geometry
Bridge Clearances
Hydraulic Capacity

Roadway Geometry.
The geometry for the roadway through the bridge and for roadways under/over the structure should
be evaluated for conformance to Department policy and needs. It must be determined if any
changes will be made to the horizontal and vertical roadway alignments and widths within the scope
of current or future projects that will affect the existing structure.

Bridge Clearances.
The deck clear width between rails/curbs along with the horizontal and vertical clearance beneath
the structure must be reviewed, as applicable, for conformance to Department policy. Minimum
clearances for bridges to remain in place are found in the BD&E Manual in Chapters 49 and 50 (3R
Guidelines) depending on the clearance type and roadway classification. Review the sections
labeled Criteria for Bridges to Remain in Place to check existing structures. Clearances for
improved bridges can be found in these same chapters along with Chapter 39 (Structure
Planning/Geometrics).
Hydraulic Capacity.
For bridges over streams, the hydraulic capacity should be reviewed when appropriate. A review of
any hydraulic capacity analysis results and records of flooding should be made, if available.
Changes since initial construction in the channel location or hydraulic opening through the structure
should be noted. Changes in drainage conditions affecting the bridge should also be noted.
14

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Where the existing vertical alignment is to be maintained and there is no history of serious hydraulic
deficiencies at the location, then the existing bridge waterway opening may usually be retained.
For the following cases, development of a formal Hydraulic Report is required:

bridge replacement.
superstructure replacement.
bridge widening requiring additional substructure to be added.
reductions to the hydraulic opening through the structure.

Detailed guidance on Hydraulic Report production is available in the IDOT Drainage Manual.
Geometric & Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation Assessment.
Once the information for the Geometric, Hydraulic and Capacity Evaluation has been collected it
must be evaluated. If the structure meets the minimum clearance requirements, is hydraulically
acceptable and no significant changes to the roadway geometry are anticipated, then it satisfies
criteria for this evaluation to remain in place.
If the structure is found not to meet minimum clearance, hydraulic or geometric requirements then
further investigation is required. The area not meeting policy must have a waiver of the policy
granted if the structure is to remain in place. If a waiver of the policy is not granted by the
approving authority, or desired by the District, then the element in question must be modified or
replaced to meet policy. In cases where complete replacement of the structure is justified as
necessary and economical after completion of the Geometric, Hydraulic and Capacity Evaluation
then only a cursory review of the structure condition related evaluations need to be made if the
existing structure is to be removed.

DECK EVALUATION.
General.
The deck evaluation consists of a review of the bridge elements that are related to the decks
condition. These elements are the deck joints, bridge railing, wearing surface (if applicable) and
structural deck element condition.

Deck Joints.
All transverse and longitudinal joints should be reviewed to determine their condition. If the joints
are found to be significantly deteriorated, they should be considered for repair or replacement.
Methods and details for replacement joint types are found in the BB&S Structural Services Manual
for decks remaining in place and the BB&S Bridge Manual for decks being replaced.
When practical, deck joints should be considered for elimination. This reduces the potential for
deck drainage passing through failed joints and causing deterioration of the structural elements
located below. Guidance on deck joint elimination is as follows:

15

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Transverse Joints. Transverse expansion joints may be eliminated if a structural check of the
proposed loading/fixity condition is found to be acceptable on the existing superstructure,
substructure & foundation.
Longitudinal Joints. All open longitudinal joints on girder supported decks with an out-to-out beam
width of 120 feet or less may be considered for elimination. All open longitudinal joints on concrete
slab structures 45 feet or less in width may also be considered for elimination. See the BB&S
Structural Services Manual for typical joint closure details.
Bridge Railings.
The deck railing must be evaluated for conformance to Department policy to remain in place. All
rails should be repaired, retrofitted or replaced that show evidence of significant accident damage,
are in questionable condition, contain irregularities that could cause intolerable vehicular
decelerations or do not meet current AASHTO strength standards. If replaced, rails and their
connections to the deck shall be designed to meet current AASHTO strength and safety standards.
All replacement rails should meet the criteria outlined in Section [Link].7 Bridge Rails of the IDOT
Bridge Manual.
Curb sections that project horizontally more than 9.0 in. but less than 3.0 ft. from the face of the rail
will be retrofitted.
Wearing Surface Condition.
The condition of the wearing surface, if present, must be evaluated. The top of deck survey is the
primary tool for this effort although the bottom of deck survey can also be useful. If the wearing
surface shows significant deterioration such as cracking, debonding and spalling it should be
considered for repair or replacement.
Deck Condition.
The top and bottom of deck surveys along with the results of any tests used are combined to
evaluate the condition of the deck. The result of this evaluation should be separate estimates for
the number of square feet and percentage of the total deck area that require full and partial depth
deck slab repairs.
Deck Repair/Replacement Assessment.
Once the physical condition of the deck has been estimated, an assessment must be made to
determine if it is more economical to repair or replace this element of the bridge. This process has
been studied for various percentages of deck repair verse deck replacement using life cycle cost
analysis. The results of the study were used to develop the table shown on the next page. The
numbers listed represent the estimated total percentage of deck repair area for the deck
(total repair % = partial depth repair % + full depth repair %). A maximum limit of 13% full depth
deck repairs is recommended when repairing the deck for economic considerations and to ensure
long term soundness (the % of full depth repairs includes deck removal at transverse joints).

16

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Deck Repair vs. Replacement Assessment Table

Equal Width Decks(1):

Decks Requiring
Widening(1,2):

25%

15%

26-35%

16-25%

> 35%

> 25%

Recommendation:
Deck repair cost effective(3)
Deck repair cost effective only in well
documented cases(4)
Deck replacement appropriate

Notes to Table:
(1) Deck area calculated using length x face-face parapet width.
(2) This column pertains to deck widening which requires additional beam/s only.
(3) For decks containing sidewalks and raised medians with significant amounts of
repair/replacement work required, separate cost analysis estimates should be completed to
justify deck repair versus deck replacement.
(4) In this case deck repair may be considered appropriate when a detailed cost analysis and/or
well documented exterior constraints indicate deck repair is more advantageous.
All deck repair projects must be evaluated with the length of time until construction being
considered.
The maintenance history and age of the deck must also be considered when evaluating a deck for
repair or replacement. Concrete decks in need of repair that contain large areas of patching from
prior repair cycles are less desirable to retain. This is due to the tendency of the area around
previously repaired areas to deteriorate more rapidly than the original deck.
Decks that have had thin concrete overlays previously placed on them will also need to be
evaluated for repair. In order to be cost effective, a thin concrete overlay must last approximately
18 years, otherwise, deck replacement is often more economical. Decks that are in poor or
questionable condition to last this length of time should not be considered for an additional overlay
in most circumstances.
Deck Repair Methods.
There are multiple methods available to complete deck repairs on a bridge. Each method differs
somewhat from the others in deck slab repairs, deck surface preparation and replacement wearing
surface composition. The specific requirements for these methods are described in detail in the
Departments Standard Specifications and Special Provisions.
Any deck repair method that results in the temporary elimination of bond between the concrete and
the upper mat of negative moment reinforcing steel on continuous or rigid frame concrete structures
(such as continuous T-beam and slab bridge superstructures) where this reinforcement acts as part
of the primary superstructure support system must provide for the staging of repairs in those areas
to maintain structural integrity. If the recommended repair method results in dead load in excess of
the existing conditions, approval shall be obtained from the Bureau of Bridges and Structures.

17

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Deck Repair Overlay Selection.
The table shown below was developed as a guide in the selection of deck overlay type. It uses
desired overlay lifespan, ADT levels, stopping condition and construction duration as parameters to
guide the selection of overlay type.

Bridge Deck Overlay Selection Guide

Issue:

Overlay
Type

Desired Overlay
Lifespan <
12years(3)
ADT < 10,000
- HMA w/coal tar
membrane
- HMA w/sheet
membrane

Desired Overlay
Lifespan <
12years(3)
ADT 10,000
- Fly Ash GGBFS
CO
- Microsilica CO
- HRM CO
- Latex CO(1)
-Thin Polymer Over.

Desired Overlay
Lifespan 12years
ADT < 3,000

Desired Overlay
Lifespan 12years
ADT 3,000

- HMA w/coal tar

membrane
- HMA w/sheet
membrane

- Fly Ash GGBFS

CO
- Microsilica CO
- HRM CO
- Latex CO(1)
-Thin Polymer Over.

(2)

(2)

Stopping
Condition
Within 300
of Deck

- HMA w/coal tar

membrane

- Fly Ash GGBFS

CO
- Microsilica CO
- HRM CO
- Latex CO(1)

- Fly Ash GGBFS

CO
- Microsilica CO
- HRM CO
- Latex CO(1)

- Fly Ash GGBFS

CO
- Microsilica CO
- HRM CO
- Latex CO(1)

Short
Construction
Duration
Required

- HMA w/sheet
membrane
- HMA w/coal tar
membrane

-Thin Polymer
Over.(2)

- HMA w/sheet
membrane
- HMA w/coal tar
membrane

-Thin Polymer Over.

(2)

Notes to Table:
- The following acronyms were used in the table above:
GGBFS = Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
HMA = Hot Mix Asphalt
HRM = High Reactive Metakaolin
CO = Concrete Overlay
(1) - For Latex CO projects the maximum slope allowed is 3% and the maximum thickness is 3.5.
(2) - Thin Polymer Overlays are generally recommended on decks with small areas and low patching
quantities or when necessitated by the need to minimize additional dead load or the need to minimize
height adjustments at the expansion devices.
(3) - For projects with an estimated lifespan 5 years, an HMA without a waterproofing membrane may be
considered.
The overlay types shown are recommendations for the criteria provided. Other overlay types may
be used in these situations when justified by the engineer.

18

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

B-SMART Criteria.
General. The B-SMART Program allows for the quick approval of low cost bridge deck preservation
projects. It is intended to extend the life of the deck 12-20 years (dependant on overlay type and
location) on structures with good superstructures and substructures.
Primary Improvement. The application of a thin concrete overlay (maximum 1 in. concrete deck
scarification) or bituminous concrete overlay with waterproofing membrane system.
Additional Work Allowed. The following additional work is allowed on B-SMART deck overlay
projects:

Full and partial depth deck repair subject to the limits outlined in the Qualification Criteria
paragraph.
Expansion joint repair/replacement.
Bearing reconditioning/replacement.
Deck drain replacement, extension or plugging.
Bridge rail repair/retrofit (replacement not allowed).
Minor abutment backwall repairs (formed concrete repair 5 in.).

Other substructure repairs are excluded from this program unless approved by the Bureau of
Bridges and Structures on an individual basis.
Qualification Criteria. The following criteria must be met to qualify for the B-SMART Program:

Superstructure and Substructure Condition Ratings must be greater than or equal to 6.

Deck Condition Rating must be greater than or equal to 5.
Partial Depth Patching is restricted to a maximum of 15% of the total deck area based on the
visual top and bottom deck survey results included in the element level inspection.
Full Depth Patching is restricted to a maximum of 5% of the total deck area not including the
removal areas for joint repair and deck drain replacement.

A delamination survey of the deck is not required. A visual top and bottom of deck survey is
adequate for documentation. This survey will be satisfied by a PONTIS inspection.
There are no restrictions on these projects regarding roadway type, age of structure or ADT. They
also need not be used in conjunction with Pavement SMART projects.
B-SMART projects will not be approved for funding beyond the first three years in the Departments
Multiyear Program due to the potential for structural condition state changes. The deck survey
must be taken within one year of the proposed letting date. Structures that fail the above
restrictions will not be approved and will revert to standard procedures for deck repair.
Projects that qualify for the B-SMART Program should be submitted for review and approval using
the Abbreviated Bridge Condition Report Format in this document.

19

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

SUPERSTRUCTURE EVALUATION (other than deck)
General.
The superstructure evaluation usually consists of a review of the superstructure condition, load
capacity, bearings and any special considerations defined below.
Condition.
The main and secondary load carrying elements of the superstructure are evaluated to determine if
they are structurally sound and in sufficient condition to remain in place or require repair or
replacement. These main load carrying elements often consist of girders and the secondary load
carrying elements often consist of diaphragms or cross bracing. Some areas of importance to
consider during this review are:

significant section loss of a member/reinforcement that will affect the load capacity.
general deteriorated condition of an element that indicates possible reduced capacity.
damaged areas due to impacts or other causes that may affect the load capacity.

If elements of the superstructure are thought to have sufficient damage to significantly affect the
load capacity, a capacity check must be made. The design loading requirements are described in
the next sub-section.
Load Capacity.
The load capacity of the superstructure must be evaluated for conformance to Department policy.
Review the superstructure elements live load capacity based on the design specifications used to
design the structure:
ASD and LFD Designs (HS-20 live load). Evaluate these structures based on the proposed scope
of work as described below.
Bridge Rehabilitation, Bridge Deck Repair & Bridge to Remain in Place Projects: If the
superstructure has a live load inventory rating equal to or greater than HS-20 for the proposed
loading condition, no further investigation is required. If this live load rating is less than HS-20,
the main load carrying elements of the superstructure must be investigated to determine if they
are capable of carrying the live load specified in the BDE Manuals 3R Guidelines (Chapters 49 &
50) for the type of roadway classification being considered. These loads are found under the 3R
sections labeled Criteria for Bridges to Remain in Place. If the member does not meet these
criteria in its current condition it must be strengthened or replaced to meet the required capacity.
Bridge Reconstruction Projects: All superstructure replacement projects will be designed using
HL-93 live load and the LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
LRFD Designs (HL-93 live load): If the superstructure has a live load inventory rating factor for the
proposed loading condition equal to or greater than 1.0 using LRFR, no further investigation is
required. If the live load rating factor is less than 1.0, the main load carrying elements of the
superstructure must be investigated to determine if they are capable of carrying the design loading
without exceeding 65% of the strength of any member. If the member does not meet these criteria
in its current condition it must be strengthened or replaced to meet the required capacity.
20

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Note: LRFR rating factors may be obtained from the BB&S if necessary.
If additional dead load is to be added to the superstructure, the capacity of the main load carrying
elements must be reviewed for compliance with the live load criteria discussed in the previous
paragraphs for either case described.
In some cases the use of a reduced FWS allowance may be considered to permit reuse of existing
structure elements. Contact the BB&S for approval when considering this approach.
Coring of Reinforced Concrete Superstructures.
Projects involving the staged removal of reinforced concrete slab bridges and box culverts will have
top slab concrete cores taken to verify the condition of the concrete for use under stage traffic. Use
the following guidance in taking cores:

Take a minimum of one 4-inch diameter core per span.

Take cores near mid-span, preferably along the centerline of a wheel-path.
Take cores from the section of the slab anticipated to carry staged traffic.
Determine the compressive strength of the structural concrete component of the core.

A Bridge Core Data Form (IDOT BB&S Form: BBS 2720) will be used to record the results and
provide a detailed description and photograph of the core. If the cores indicate the concrete is in an
advanced state of deterioration (i.e. heavily fragmented or returned to an aggregate like material)
immediately notify the Bureau of Bridges and Structures for evaluation and possible load posting.
The coring results will be used in the analysis and scope of work selection process as well as
included in Attachment M of the Bridge Condition Report.
Bearings.
The general condition and type of bearings present on the structure must be reviewed. All bearings
should be repaired/reset or replaced that show evidence of excessive deterioration, damage or
tilting. Additional guidance on bearings is as follows:
At Transverse Expansion Joint Locations.
On Bridge Reconstruction and Bridge Rehabilitation (deck replacement and super/substructure
widening) projects all steel high profile rocker and roller bearings will be replaced with elastomeric
bearings, if practical.
On Bridge Rehabilitation (other than deck replacement and super/substructure widening) or Bridge
Deck Repair projects these bearings should be replaced with elastomeric bearings if in poor
condition or if desired by the District and funding is available.
At Non-Transverse Joint Locations. If the bearings are in good overall condition they may be
reused, if practical.
In Structure Widening Cases Where Additional Beam Lines Are Required. If additional beam lines
are added to a structure the expansion bearings must be matched in type transversely across the
structure.
21

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Special Considerations.
The superstructure should be reviewed and analyzed for the following details if applicable.
Steel Beams & Girders: Existing steel beams or girders scheduled for a new deck shall be made
composite their full length when practical regardless if composite action is necessary for strength.
Fatigue Evaluation of Existing Welded Cover-plates: On Bridge Reconstruction and Bridge
Rehabilitation (deck replacement and super/substructure widening) projects the remaining fatigue
life of all structural steel girders with Category E or E details must be evaluated in accordance with
Section [Link] Retrofit of Existing Welded Coverplates of the IDOT BB&S Bridge Manual. The
results of this analysis will be documented in the BCR. Reports produced by Consultant firms will
provide this analysis as part of the report preparation process. Reports produced by District
personnel will have this analysis completed by the BB&S Staff upon request.
Pin & Hanger Connections: On Bridge Reconstruction and Bridge Rehabilitation (deck replacement
and super/substructure widening) projects steel girders with pin and hanger connections should be
evaluated for elimination of this detail by making them continuous whenever practical and
economical. Bridge condition reports produced by Consultant firms will provide this analysis as part
of the report preparation process. Reports produced by District personnel will have this analysis
completed by the BB&S Staff upon request.
Paint System: The condition of the paint system should be assessed and the cost to repaint the
structure calculated if applicable. See the All Bridge Designers Memorandum 02.1 for details.
Superstructure Widening.
On superstructures being considered for widening, the following guidelines should be reviewed
when determining the scope of work:

The widened section should have similar structural characteristics to the existing section.

Evaluate the condition of the existing deck if it is being considered for reuse in the widening. It
is desirable for the existing and new sections of the deck to have the potential for similar
maintenance and life expectancies. The higher the percentage the new deck is of the total deck
area the more important this correlation becomes. Existing decks with significantly different
maintenance or life expectancies than the proposed addition should be considered for
replacement. If the existing deck is reused the joint between the new and existing deck sections
should be placed within the center half of the slab span when practical.

Evaluate any effects the widening will have on vertical clearances beneath the structure.

Superstructure Evaluation Assessment.

Once the information for the Superstructure Evaluation (other than deck) has been collected it must
be evaluated. If the structure meets the minimum load capacity requirements for the proposed
loading in its current condition then it satisfies criteria for this evaluation to remain in place. Bearing
and special consideration factors must also be considered.
22

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

If the superstructure is found not to meet minimum requirements discussed in this section then
further investigation is required. Girders not meeting minimum strength requirements should be
strengthened or replaced. Items in the special considerations category should be assessed and
any work required identified. Changes to the bearings required to meet policy should also be noted.

SUBSTRUCTURE EVALUATION
General.
This evaluation usually consists of a review of the substructure condition, load capacity and a scour
assessment as applicable.

Condition.
The main load carrying elements of the substructure are evaluated to determine if they are
structurally sound and in sufficient condition to remain in place or require repair or replacement.
Areas that require repair are identified and an estimated length or area requiring repair is made.
These main load carrying elements often consist of substructure caps, columns, stems, footings
and piling. Some areas of importance to consider during this review are:

significant section loss or damage to a member that affects the load capacity.
general deteriorated condition of an element that indicates possible reduced capacity.

If elements of the substructure are thought to be have sufficient damage to significantly affect the
load capacity then a capacity check must be made.
Load Capacity.
Changes to substructure and foundation loading condition will be evaluated as follows:
Abbreviated Analysis:
The load capacity of existing substructure and foundation elements may be assumed to be
adequate for reuse without a detailed structural analysis when:

The substructure elements are in good condition (NBIS Condition Rating of 6 or greater) and
show no significant structural distress under existing live load.
The proposed service dead load is not greater than 115% of the original design service dead
load at the top of the substructure element (top of bearing seat).
There is no significant reconfiguration of loads (i.e. changes to bearing locations or
substructure fixities).

23

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Detailed Analysis:
If the structure does not satisfy the criteria outlined above for an Abbreviated Analysis, a detailed
capacity check of the existing substructure elements (caps, columns, stems, footings, etc) and
foundation elements (piling and spread footing) shall be completed as follows:
Substructure Elements:
For Caps, Columns, Stems, Footings, etc. originally designed using the AASHTO ASD or LFD
design codes: A detailed capacity check of the existing substructure elements shall be completed
using an Illinois Modified Group-1 load combination per the AASHTO LFD Bridge Design
Specifications. The analysis shall consider all applicable dead loads and the effects of the HS-20
live load configuration. As a minimum, the substructure elements shall be investigated for the
Standard Specifications, Division 1A, 500 year seismic hazard. The Illinois Modified Group-1 load
combination is:
1.15 x DL + 1.3 x (1.67 x LL)
If a substructure element is found to be deficient following detailed analysis with this load
combination, consider:
1. Reducing the proposed dead loads (i.e. reduce or eliminate FWS, change parapet type, etc.)
2. Investigate individual substructure element replacement, strengthening, or retrofit based on an
economic analysis. All replacement elements shall be designed LRFD.
3. Total replacement
All of the above approaches are subject to the approval of the BB&S.
Existing substructures originally designed using the LRFD design code which are in adequate
condition to consider being reused with a new LRFD designed superstructure may be evaluated
as described above under Load Capacity with the exception that when completing a Detailed
Analysis of a substructure the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications with HL-93 Live
Loading will be used to complete the analysis.
Foundation Elements:
Pile Foundations: When existing production pile driving data is available, the as driven pile
resistance may be used rather than the plan design capacity. Existing piles often have greater
geotechnical resistance than specified on the original plans due to various factors. The following
table and the example calculation provide a method to calculate the potential increased
pile capacity for existing structures constructed prior to January 2007. The increased pile
capacity calculated using this table does not apply to structures constructed after this
date.

24

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Existing Pile Capacity Determination Table:

Cs
Cb
He
Pe
Pl
Sm

Existing Pile
Capacity
Source
Low Capacity
Formula Bias
Hammer
Efficiency
Correction
Pile Effect on
Hammer
Efficiency
Pile Length
Formula
Conservatism
Borings
Indicate Main
Mode of
Support

Existing Driving Records

(0% capacity increase)

Existing Plans Pile Data

(10% capacity increase)

Pile Capacity > 40 tons

Pile Capacity < 40 tons
(0% capacity increase)
(6% capacity increase)
Closed End Diesel, Drop Open End Diesel
Air-Steam Hammer
(8% capacity increase)
or Unknown Hammer
Hammer
(0% capacity increase)
(4% capacity increase)
Precast Concrete or Timber Pile
Metal Shell or Steel H-Pile
(0% capacity increase)
(4% capacity increase)
Driven or Estimated
Length < 60 ft.
(0% capacity increase)
No
End
Records
Bearing in
Available
Soil or
(0% cap.
Shale
(0% cap.
increase)
increase)

Estimated Plan Pile

Length > 60 ft.
(2% capacity increase)
Friction in Friction in
Granular
Cohesive
Soils
Soils
(8% cap.
(16% cap.
increase)
increase)

Driving Records Driven

Length > 60 ft.
(4% capacity increase)
End
End
Bearing in Bearing in
Sandstone Limestone
(16% cap. or Dolomite
(20% cap.
increase)
increase)

Example: Existing plans pile data indicate timber piles, estimated to be 62 ft. long, with a design
capacity of 24 tons. The pile driving records indicate that a MKT 11B3, a Closed End Air-Steam
hammer, was used and on average the piles were driven 57 ft. with a final bearing of 30 tons.
The allowable resistance available Ra, can be determined by the following formula: Ra = Existing
Capacity x (1+Cs+Cb+He+Pe+Pl+Sm). The Exist Cap = 30 tons from driving records, Cs = 0.0 since
we have driving records, Cb = 0.06 since the Exist Cap is below 40 tons, He = 0.08 due to the use of
an Air-Steam Hammer, Pe = 0.0 because timber piles were used, Pl = 0.0 based on a driven length <
60 ft., and Sm = 0.0 since no borings are available. The factored resistance available RF is
determined by multiplying by the factor of safety which is assumed to be 3.0 and the resistance factor
which is taken as 0.5.
Ra = 30 tons x (1+0+0.06+0.08+0+0+0) = 30 tons x 1.14 = 34.2 tons, 14% < 50% so OK.
RF = Ra x (Safety Factor) x (Resistance Factor) = 34.2 x 3 x 0.5 x 2 kips/ton = 102.6 kips
The new factored strength group pile loading must not exceed the factored resistance available of
102.6 kips.

Spread Footing Foundations: Existing spread footings often have greater geotechnical capacity
than indicated on the original plans when various factors are present. The table shown below and
the example provide a method to calculate the potential increased capacity for existing structures.
Settlement need not be checked when using this table.

25

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Existing Spread Footing Capacity Determination Table:

Ra

No Borings
Available
(2 ksf)

Mixed
soils with
N >15
(4 ksf)

Clay soils
with Qu > 3.0
(6 ksf)

Very Dense
Granular
with N > 50
(8 ksf)

Hard Clay
Till with
Qu > 4.5
(10 ksf)

Sandstone
or Shale
(15 ksf)

Limestone
or
Dolomite
(30 ksf)

Example: Obtain the footing plan dimensions and base elevation from the existing plans. Calculate
the existing and proposed footing loading to obtain the maximum applied service bearing pressure
(Qmax) and resultant eccentricity. If the proposed Qmax is more than 50% above the existing
loading, the footing cannot be reused. If founded on soil, calculate the proposed equivalent uniform
bearing pressure (QEUBP). Using new or existing boring data, locate the footing base elevation and
evaluate the soils/rock within a depth of 1.5 times the footing width to determine the allowable
service bearing capacity Ra from the above table.
The proposed applied bearing pressure (Qmax for rock or QEUBP for soil) must be less than the
allowable service bearing capacity Ra and the proposed resultant eccentricity must be within the
middle third (for soil) or middle half (for rock) of the footing for the existing foundation to be
considered adequate.
For both piles and spread footings lateral loads to piles or sliding need not be checked unless the
structure is in seismic categories C or D (AASHTO LFD) or seismic zones 3 or 4 (AASHTO LRFD).
The allowable resistance available may be converted to factored resistance by multiplying by 1.5
(3.0 Factor of Safety times 0.5 resistance factor). The foundation element may be reused providing
the following conditions exist:
1. The Illinois Modified Group-1 load combination is below the actual calculated resistance
available from the existing foundation as described above.
2. The hydraulic analysis and soil conditions indicate no substantial scour.
3. Deterioration has not compromised the structural integrity of the piles or footing.
4. Inspections indicate no past foundation settlement.
5. There is sufficient redundancy (more than 4 piles per foundation element).
6. The increase in pile capacity or service bearing loading does not exceed 50%.
In-kind substructure widening with additional foundation capacity being added typically does not
require a detailed analysis at this time except as described above. However, when the original
structural design concept is changed, such as replacing a series of simple spans with a continuous
span structure, changing superstructure to substructure fixity or significant changes in bearing
location and elevation are made the capacity of the substructure unit must be evaluated. In these
cases the Abbreviated Analysis does not apply and a Detailed Analysis will be required.
In some cases the use of a reduced FWS allowance may be considered to permit reuse of existing
structure elements. Contact the BB&S for approval when considering this approach.

Semi-Integral Abutments.
Existing structures with transverse expansion joints at the abutments that are being considered for
Bridge Reconstruction or Bridge Rehabilitation (deck replacement and super/substructure widening)
should be considered for modification to semi-integral abutments if applicable. The limitations for
use of this type of abutment are found in Section [Link].1 of the IDOT Bridge Manual. The

26

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

capacity of the abutments should also be reviewed to ensure they are adequate to carry the
additional loading often required in the conversion to this abutment type.

Scour Review.
A review of the substructure for scour related problems should be made on structures over streams.
Areas of particular concern to identify are exposed footings and piling. The potential for future
damage due to this problem should also be assessed.
If scour damage is identified or thought to be likely then repairs/countermeasures should be
identified for bridges not being replaced.

Substructure Widening.
On substructures being considered for widening the following general guidelines should be
reviewed when determining the scope of work:
For bridge widening projects, the pier cap may be widened and cantilevered off the existing stem
where structurally practical and sufficient foundation capacity exists.
Piers with an expansion fixity condition to the superstructure that require additional foundation
capacity may often be widened with a single row of piles in a pile bent. Situations that may
preclude this treatment are locations were the loads to be carried are large and require multiple
rows of piles to support them or grade separation structures were this approach may not be
aesthetically desirable. In these situations widening the pier in kind may be necessary.
Piers with a fixed fixity condition to the superstructure that require additional foundation capacity
may potentially be widened by either of the two methods mentioned above. However, a check of
the pier capacity for the revised longitudinal and transverse forces applied must also be made in
addition to vertical load capacity review. If insufficient longitudinal or transverse capacity is found
then widening in kind may be necessary.
When selecting a method of substructure widening consideration must be given to maintaining the
structural integrity of those elements to be reused especially in regard to the method of attachment
of the new section of substructure to the existing sections.
Substructure Evaluation Assessment.
Once the information for the Substructure Evaluation has been collected, it must be evaluated. If
the substructure meets the capacity requirements for the proposed loading in its current or modified
condition then it satisfies criteria for this evaluation to remain in place.
If the structure is found not to meet requirements discussed in this section then further investigation
may be required. Substructures not meeting minimum strength requirements should be
strengthened, have capacity added, or be replaced.

27

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

SEISMIC EVALUATION.
General:
This sub-section provides guidance on completing seismic evaluations. A large number of factors
may contribute to how a bridge responds during seismic loading. These factors can vary greatly
with the structure type and location. Given the large number of variables that exist, a simple cookbook type approach which can be applied to all structures is not practical. The following guidance
outlines the level of evaluation required. Some basic seismic retrofit measures are also identified.
Each bridge will initially be assessed to determine the level of seismic evaluation required based on
its importance category, structure type, location, estimated remaining service life and scope of
work. Three levels of evaluation have been developed. The levels are: Seismic Evaluation Not
Required, Abbreviated Seismic Evaluation and Detailed Seismic Evaluation. Each is described in
the following paragraphs and detailed in the flow chart on page 28 of this document.
For additional guidance use the IDOT Bridge Manual and the FHWA-RD-94-052 Seismic Retrofit
Manual for Highway Bridges (May 1995). The general analysis and design philosophy of the May
1995 FHWA publication is preferred by the Department. The more recent publication FHWA-HRT06-03T Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures (January 2006) should also be
consulted when selecting specific retrofit measures for the various elements of the bridge. This
document provides more extensive guidance on retrofit measures.
The two importance categories for highway structures used in this guidance are Essential and
Standard Bridges. They are defined as follows:
Essential Bridge: A bridge located on or crossing over an IDOT Earthquake Emergency Route
(EER). Consult with the District to determine if a bridge falls within this category.
Standard Bridge: All structures not meeting the criteria outlined for Essential Bridges.

Seismic Evaluation Not Required:

A Seismic Evaluation is Not Required for bridges meeting one of the following criteria:
Structures with 15 years of estimated remaining service life (unless otherwise determined by
the BB&S).
Structures falling in AASHTO LFD SPC-A.
Box culverts and buried structures.
Simple & continuous span bridges with integral abutments and pile bent piers.
All bridges with a Scope of Work consisting of maintenance type work not requiring a BCR.
Abbreviated Seismic Evaluation:
An Abbreviated Seismic Evaluation is required for bridges not meeting the criteria for Seismic
Evaluation Not Required and meeting the following criteria:
Structures falling in AASHTO LFD SPC-B or C.
Bridges in the following Scope of Work categories:
o Essential and Standard bridges requiring Bridge Deck Repair
o Standard Bridges requiring Bridge Rehabilitation (other than Substructure Widening)
Essential and Standard single span bridges in AASHTO LFD SPC-B & SPC-C.
28

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

An abbreviated seismic evaluation will be completed for these structures consisting of the following:
1. Substructure Seat Widths will be reviewed and modified if necessary to meet current policy as
outlined in the IDOT Bridge Manual (BM), T3.15.4.2-1.
2. Liquefaction potential will be reviewed using the existing borings. If existing borings are not
available or inadequate contact the BB&S for guidance.
3. Bearings will be reviewed and:
High profile rocker or roller expansion bearings will be replaced with elastomeric bearings if
practical.
High profile fixed bearings will be modified ,if necessary, for a applied lateral force of 20
percent of total dead load as stated in Appendix A-2 (FHWA), and allowable capacity as
stated in the BM, T.3.7.3-1 & 2. Contact the BB&S for fixed bearing retrofit options.
4. Projects in this category require no detailed analysis of the substructure or foundation for seismic
loads unless specifically requested by the BB&S.

Detailed Seismic Evaluation:

A Detailed Seismic Evaluation is required for bridges not meeting the criteria for Seismic Evaluation
Not Required or Abbreviated Seismic Evaluation and meeting the following criteria:
Structures falling in AASHTO LFD SPC-B or C.
Bridges in the following Scope of Work categories: Bridges of all importance categories
requiring Bridge Reconstruction or Bridge Rehabilitation (Substructure Widening).
If seismic rehabilitation measures are determined to be warranted, the objective of the measures
should be:
Hazard to life is minimized.
Bridges may suffer damage but should have a low probability of collapse.
Damage should be confined to easily accessible locations if practical and economical.
The function of Essential-EER bridges will be maintained with little or no repair required.
Bridges determined to require seismic retrofit will have an estimated scope of work provided in the
BCR for review and approval by the BB&S. The extent of the rehabilitation measures used will be
influenced by factors such as the bridges importance, ADT, estimated service life and the
availability of funding.

29

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

START
Determine:
Bridge Type
Bridge Importance Category
SPC Category
Project Scope of Work

15 yrs remaining life

SPC-A
Box Culvert
Buried Structure
Simple & Continuous Span
Integral Abut. Bridges w/Pile
Bent Piers
Scope of Work is
maintenance only

NO

Scope of Work is:

o Deck Repair for Essential & Standard
bridges
o Bridge Rehabilitation (other than
Substructure widening) for Standard
Single Span Bridge:
o Essential & Standard
o In SPC-B or SPC-C

YES

NO

YES

Seismic
Evaluation
Not Required

Abbreviated
Seismic Evaluation
Required

Seismic Evaluation Requirements:

30

In category SPC-B or C
Scope of Work is:
o Bridge Reconstruction for all
importance categories
o Bridge Rehabilitation (Substructure
widening) for all importance categories

YES
Detailed
Seismic Evaluation
Required

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

MISCELLANEOUS CHECKS
Deck Drains.
On bridges were the existing deck is proposed to remain in place, a review of the deck drains
should be made if applicable. Many older decks have drains that do not meet current policy and
cause damage to the bridge. The following general criteria should be used when reviewing free fall
deck drains to remain in place:
Drains located within 10 of substructure units should be plugged if practical.
Decks that contain large numbers of small drains spaced at less than 8 centers should have
every other drain of this type plugged if practical.
Drains to remain in place that do not extend below the low beam elevation of the nearest
beam a minimum of 3 should be extended to a point at least 6 below the low beam.
Existing closed drainage systems should be inspected for clogging and damage. Repairs or
modifications to these systems should be planned as needed.
Waterborne Debris.
Debris buildup at structures over streams can cause a reduction in flow through the structure and
an increased likelihood of scour. Any current or past debris collection problems at the structure
should be noted and a description provided.
Slopewall & Stream Protection.
The slope and stream protection systems on structures and embankments proposed to remain in
place should be reviewed for adequacy. The following general criteria should be used when
reviewing slopewalls & stream protection systems to remain in place:

Slopewall and stream protection systems should be reviewed for damage, deterioration or
undermining. If they are found to have significant damage they should be repaired or
replaced.
When it is determined the slope protection system needs replaced it is preferred to use riprap
at stream crossings and concrete slopewalls at grade separation structures. If the stream
velocity or site conditions preclude the use of riprap then rock blankets, slope mattress or
other protective system may be considered.
The slope protection system should be checked for conformance to the width dimension
policies past the edge of deck located in the Bridge Manual Section [Link].3.

Reuse of Bridge Components Without Original Plans Available.

The following general criteria should be used when considering the reuse of bridge components for
which the original plans are not available:

Structures falling in the scope of work categories of Bridge to Remain in Place, Bridge Deck
Repair and Bridge Rehabilitation (other than deck replacement and super/substructure
31

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

widening) may be considered for reuse if found to be in good condition with only the need for
minor repairs and after a structural evaluation has been made.
Structures requiring additions in load, Bridge Reconstruction or Bridge Rehabilitation (deck
replacement and super/substructure widening) should in general not be considered for reuse.

STAGE CONSTRUCTION FEASIBILITY EVALUATION

If stage construction is being considered as an option to complete the proposed scope of work then
a review of the structure should be made to determine if this is practical. The categories listed
below provide some general guidance that should be reviewed as applicable.
Lane Widths.
The lane widths listed below should be considered when reviewing stage construction practicality:

Lane widths of 14 or greater are optimal as they do not require a wide load detour.
Lane widths of 12 or greater are desirable from a safety aspect.
A lane width of 10 is generally considered the minimum allowable.

Superstructure Considerations.
The following superstructure considerations should be reviewed for stage construction projects:

On multi-girder supported bridges, each stage section should be supported by a minimum of

3-longitudinal girders. The use of any other stage construction configuration requires
approval from the BB&S.
Superstructures that consist of a truss, arch, or 2-girder system are often not compatible with
stage construction on major Rehabilitation, Reconstruction or Replacement projects. A
structural evaluation will have to be made to determine staging feasibility on a case by case
basis for these bridges.
On girder supported bridges the cantilevered deck section at the stage line must be reviewed
for structural acceptability.
On culverts with high skews to the roadway and the primary reinforcement placed
perpendicular to the axis of the barrels, temporary support of the slab may be necessary at
the stage line for reinforcement cut on the skew.
When practical, select the section of the structure in the best structural condition to carry
stage construction traffic.
Existing PPC deck beams being proposed to carry stage construction traffic may require
evaluation for sufficient capacity and life to last the duration of the construction project.

Substructure Considerations.
The following substructure considerations should be reviewed for stage construction projects:

Overall stability of the remaining section of a substructure unit supporting traffic must be
reviewed if a significant structural element of the unit is removed.
One or two column piers may not be compatible with stage construction on replacement
projects. A structural evaluation will have to be made to determine staging feasibility on a
case by case basis.
32

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Profile Changes.
The considerations listed below should be reviewed for stage construction projects involving
significant profile changes. Projects with large profile changes should not be stage constructed
whenever practical.

The feasibility/cost of retaining the soil due to the proposed cut/fill situation must be
reviewed.
The stability of substructure units near proposed cut/fill situations must be investigated.

ECONOMIC EVALUATION
General.
Once the evaluations of the various geometric, hydraulic, physical and structural aspects of the
structure are finished, an economic evaluation should be completed. The economic evaluation will
estimate the initial construction cost for the various scope of work alternatives being considered for the
project. The estimates will reflect the findings of the other evaluations completed regarding need for
repair, rehabilitation and reconstruction of any structure elements being considered for reuse. To be
considered for reuse an element must be in good or economically repairable condition with adequate
structural capacity. The element must also have sufficient remaining service life after the project is
complete to last as long as the other major elements of the structure without requiring an unreasonable
amount of maintenance. Aesthetic appearance may also be considered when warranted.
In the absence of other overriding factors, a rule of thumb to determine when existing structure
elements are economical for reuse is as shown below:
Cast in Place Concrete Decks:

See the Deck Repair verse Replacement Assessment Table

located in this section for guidance on repair verse replacement.

Individual Bridge Elements:

If the cost to modify, repair and/or strengthen it is < 50% of the

replacement cost, it may be considered for reuse.

Major Components:

If the cost to modify, repair and/or strengthen it is < 60% of the

replacement cost, it may be considered for reuse.

NOTE: the above categories are defined as follows:

Cast in Place Concrete Decks self explanatory
Individual Bridge Elements pier cap, column, individual beam line, etc.
Major Components superstructure, substructure or entire structure
In some instances an economic analysis regarding reuse of existing structure components may not
be necessary. Examples of these cases are structures whose physical condition is obviously
beyond economical repair, a major roadway geometry change causing the structure to be relocated
or unacceptable hydraulic or structural capacity factors. In these instances the reason for not
completing an economic analysis must be well documented in the Bridge Condition Report.

33

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Cost Estimate Preparation.
The economic evaluation is usually completed as one or more cost estimates. A cost estimate
must be completed for each scope of work deemed appropriate for the given project parameters
and structure condition/capacity. Unless otherwise directed, cost estimates will be prepared based
on initial construction cost to complete the work using itemized costs.
The itemized cost estimates will generally include all significant pay items necessary to complete
the proposed work to include the following:

Structure pay items to include structure repairs

Staging & Traffic Control related to the structure
Profile revisions necessary for structure related issues such as clearances

SCOPE OF WORK SELECTION

The scope of work selection is the final step in the bridge analysis process. It requires a review of
the critical factors surrounding the structure and project. These factors can be separated into the
following categories:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Structure Condition and Load Capacity

Geometric and Hydraulic Acceptability
Economic Evaluation
Exterior Constraints

The first three items on this list have already been covered in this section during the discussion of
the following evaluations:

Geometric & Hydraulic Capacity

Deck
Superstructure (other than deck)
Substructure
Miscellaneous Checks
Stage Construction Feasibility
Economic

The remaining factor, Exterior Constraints, consists of issues which impact a project but are not
directly related to the physical condition, geometrics/hydraulics and repair/replacement cost
relationships. Typical exterior constraints are:

Adverse affects on traffic control

Unacceptable user delay
Emergency need of repair
Availability of funding

When Exterior Constraints influence the scope of work decision on a structure they must be
thoroughly analyzed and well documented in the Bridge Condition Report.
Once all the categories of evaluation have been completed, the results are reviewed in whole and
the most appropriate scope of work is selected for the structure.
34

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

SECTION - IV. ABBREVIATED BRIDGE COORDINATION

GENERAL.
The Abbreviated Bridge Coordination formats are used to document the necessary information for a
structure to allow the proposed scope of work to be approved. These formats are intended for
projects were minor or no work is planned for a structure. They are intended to minimize the effort
required by District and Central Bridge Office personnel to complete, process and approve these
types of projects while ensuring adequate documentation and analysis of the proposed work.
Abbreviated bridge condition reports for deck repair projects should not be submitted for approval
with scheduled construction dates greater than two calendar years from the date submitted.
The paragraphs listed below describe the required abbreviated formats for the various scopes of
work covered by this section. Scope of work definitions are provided in Section-III of this document.

BRIDGES TO REMAIN IN PLACE COORDINATION.

Structures whose scope of work is determined to be Bridge to Remain in Place fall into this
category. A memorandum may be submitted in lieu of a formal BCR or Abbreviated BCR in this
case. The memorandum must briefly describe the good condition of the structure and the Districts
intent to do no work on the bridge as part of the proposed improvement. Along with the
memorandum a copy of the Illinois Structure Information System (ISIS) Master Report (107) and
of the most recent NBIS report should be attached.

B-SMART, BRIDGE REPAIR & MAINTENANCE REPORTS.

Structures with the scope of work indicated below and meeting the criteria shown fall into this
category. An Abbreviated BCR is required for these structures.
SCOPE OF WORK:
Bridge Deck Repair

CRITERIA:
Bridge deck overlays to be completed as B-SMART projects (1).

Bridge Rehabilitation

(Other than deck replacement and super/substructure widening) Minor

repairs such as bridge rail retrofit, transverse or longitudinal joint work,
minor beam repairs and minor substructure repairs (2).

Notes:
(1) All deck overlay projects not meeting this criterion except Day Labor Force and Contract
Maintenance Projects require the submittal of a full BCR. See Section V of this document for the
appropriate format. Day Labor Force and Contract Maintenance deck overlay projects do not
require the submittal of a BCR or Abbreviated BCR. However, a memorandum describing the
proposed work type, surface removal thickness, overlay type and overlay thickness must be sent to
the BB&S for approval prior to completing the work.
(2) When the minor repairs listed above as part of Bridge Rehabilitation are to be completed by
Day Labor forces, District Maintenance forces or as part of Contract Maintenance projects this work
does not require submittal of a BCR or Abbreviated BCR to approve the work.

35

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

REPORT FORMAT.
The information required in the Abbreviated BCR has been provided in an example report format.
Each report prepared should follow the format provided. Incomplete reports will be returned to the
District for correction and resubmittal.
See Appendix A, of this document for the Abbreviated Bridge Condition Report Format.

36

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

SECTION - V. BRIDGE CONDITION REPORT PREPARATION

GENERAL.
The Bridge Condition Report is used to document the necessary information on a structure to allow
the proposed scope of work to be approved. This report is intended for projects where significant
work is planned for a structure. It is required for the scopes of work Bridge Replacement, Bridge
Reconstruction and Bridge Rehabilitation (deck replacement and super/substructure widening).
Those structures classified as Bridge Rehabilitation (other than deck replacement and
super/substructure widening) and Bridge Deck Repair which do not meet the requirements for an
Abbreviated Bridge Condition Report described in Section-IV must also have a Bridge Condition
Report completed for approval.

REPORT PREPARATION.
Bridge Condition Reports must be detailed and thorough. Many scope of work decisions require
some structural analysis. If the report is being prepared by a Consultant Firm, then the Consultant
is responsible for completing this analysis. If the report is being prepared by the District then the
BB&S should be contacted to complete the required structural analysis. All cost estimates, surveys
and attachments must be completed by those responsible for preparing the report.
Bridge condition reports for deck repair projects should not be submitted for approval with
scheduled construction dates greater than two calendar years from the date submitted.

REPORT FORMAT.
The information required in the Bridge Condition Report has been provided in an example report
format. The format describes in detail the information required to complete high quality reports that
can be quickly processed and approved. Each report prepared should follow the format provided.
Incomplete reports will be returned to the District for correction and resubmittal.
See Appendix B, of this document for the Bridge Condition Report Format.

37

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

APPENDIX A. Example Abbreviated Bridge Condition Report Format (B-SMART,
Minor Repair and Maintenance Projects)

ABBREVIATED BRIDGE CONDITION REPORT

I. Administrative Data.
REGION:
DISTRICT:
COUNTY:
ROUTE:
SECTION:
JOB NUMBER:
PROPOSED LETTING DATE:
STRUCTURE NUMBER:
LOCATION:

(Provide the information indicated.)

(Provide route carried over feature crossed.)

II. Roadway/Structure Data.

Roadway Classification:
ADT (current):
ADTT (current):
Inventory Rating (HS or HL):
Operating Rating (HS or HL):
Sufficiency Rating:

(Provide the information indicated.)

Construction / Reconstruction / Repair History:

Provide the year, route and section the original structure was built under.
Also provide the year/s and a brief description of any reconstruction, rehabilitation or repairs
done to the structure since it was built.

III. Structure Condition Data.

Inspection History (NBIS Ratings).
Year: Deck:
Super:
Sub:
Provide the latest NBIS ratings available for the structure.
Deck: Provide a description of the condition of the deck, railing and wearing surface. For concrete
decks and slabs include separate square foot areas and percentages of the deck that are estimated
to currently require partial and full depth patching.
Joints: Provide a description of the joint type and their condition.
Bearings: Provide a description of the condition of the bearings. Include any observations such as
excessive tilting (give direction and angle), significant deterioration and broken/missing anchor
bolts.
38

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Beams: Provide a brief description of the condition of the beams. Include the locations and extent
of any significant deterioration/damage which may affect the structural capacity of the bridge.
Substructure: Provide a brief description of the condition of the substructure. Include the
area/length that is estimated currently requires repairs such as formed concrete repair or crack
sealing. Describe any scour problems identified.
(Other): Provide a description of the condition of any other area being proposed for work. Include
the locations and extent of any significant deterioration/damage.

IV. Discussion and Recommended Scope of Work:

In this section the proposed scope of work is discussed. A detailed list of the work to be completed
on the structure is provided. Included in this list should be all proposed deck repair work, overlay
type, milling and overlay thickness, joint work, rail work, bearing work, substructure/beam repairs,
plug/extend drains, slope protection repairs, etc.
The method of construction (road closure, temporary runaround or staging) must also be listed.

ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A. IDOT Master Structure Report
Provide a copy of the Master Structure Report.

Attachment B. Bridge Inspection Report

Provide a copy of the most recent NBIS and Pontis bridge inspection reports.

Attachment C. Cost Estimate

Provide a copy of the cost estimate for the proposed work.

Attachment D. Structure Photos

The following list can be used as a guideline to the type of photographs desired. All photos must be
color and of high quality.
1. Picture taken looking up or down-station through the structure from approximately 30 feet off the
bridge.
2. Picture(s) taken depicting the general condition of the top and bottom surfaces of the deck.
3. Picture(s) taken depicting the general condition of the joints and bearings.
4. Picture(s) of other areas of concern on the structure that are being proposed for work.

Attachment E. Abbreviated Existing Plans

Provide an 11x17 copy of the General Plan & Elevation and Superstructure Cross Section sheets
only.

39

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

APPENDIX B. Example BCR Format (Deck Repair, Major Rehabilitation &
Replacement Projects)

BRIDGE CONDITION REPORT

REGION:
DISTRICT:
ROUTE:
COUNTY:
JOB NUMBER:
STRUCTURE NUMBER:

LOCATION:

(Provide route carried over feature crossed.)

(Comment: This cover sheet provides general information necessary to process the report.
Provide the information indicated.)

PREPERED BY:

(provide name of preparer and District

Office/Consultant name)

DATE INSPECTED:
PROPOSED LETTING DATE:

40

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Table of Contents
Item:

Page:

I. Geographical & Administrative Data

II. Physical Description of Structure
III. Field Inspection & Physical Evaluation
IV. Potential Scope of Work Determination & Analysis
V. Discussion and Recommended Scope of Work
Attachments:
A. Location Map
B. IDOT Master Structure Report
C. Bridge Inspection Report
D. Top and Bottom of Deck Condition Surveys
E. Substructure Condition Surveys
F. Cost Estimates
G. Proposed Structure
H. Structure Photos
I. Hydraulic Analysis Summary (if required/available)
J. Proposed Plan & Profile (if available)
K. Existing and Proposed Roadway Cross Sections (if available)
L. Abbreviated Existing Plans
M. Additional Test Results (if applicable i.e. Borings, Deck Core Analysis etc)

(Comment: Provide a table of contents as shown above.)

41

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

I.

Geographical & Administrative Data:

Structure Number:
County:
Route Carried:
Feature Crossed:
Section:
Station:
Roadway Classification:
Design/Posted Speed:
ADT (current/design):
ADTT (current/design):
DHV:
Inventory Rating (HS or HL):
Operating Rating (HS or HL):
Sufficiency Rating:

(Provide the information listed in

the column on the left.)

(Provide the ADT/ADTT for routes crossed also if applicable.)

Construction / Reconstruction / Repair History:

Provide the year, route and section the original structure was built under.
Also provide the year/s and a brief description of any reconstruction, rehabilitation or repairs
done to the structure since it was built.

II.

Physical Description of Structure:

Provide a brief description of the structure with the following information:

superstructure and substructure type

length & width
span arrangement and lengths
skew
existing wearing surface type and thickness
existing horizontal & vertical alignment
any utilities or attachments present

III. Field Inspection & Physical Evaluation:

Provide a description of the physical condition of the different aspects of the structure.
Some of the possible areas requiring comment are listed below. The reported conditions
should be supported by the top & bottom of deck and substructure condition surveys along
with the structure color photos provided in the attachments. The items listed below may not
cover all areas requiring description for every structure. The engineer will have to use their
judgment to determine if additional areas should be covered or if some areas listed are not
required for a given report.

42

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Superstructure:
Deck: Provide a description of the condition of the deck, railing and wearing surface. For concrete
decks and slabs include separate square foot areas and percentages of the deck that are estimated
to currently require partial and full depth patching.
Beams: Provide a description of the condition of the beams. Include the locations and extent of
any significant deterioration/damage which may affect the structural capacity of the bridge. The
condition of the paint on steel beams should also be addressed if applicable. Some areas that may
require special comment and/or analysis include fatigue sensitive details such as welded cover
plates and pin & link systems.
Joints: Provide a description of the condition of the joints along with the joint type. A measurement
of the joint opening and the temperature the measurement was taken at should also be provided if
possible.
Bearings: Provide a description of the condition of the bearings. Include any observations such as
excessive tilting (give direction and angle), significant deterioration and broken/missing anchor
bolts.

Substructure:
Abutments: Provide a description of the condition of the abutments, wingwalls and backwalls.
Include the area/length that is estimated currently requires repairs such as formed concrete repair
or crack sealing. If the abutments are thought to have moved or rotated this should be described
and the distance from the face of the backwall to the top and bottom of the two fascia beam ends
should be measured and provided. Describe any scour problems identified.
Piers: Provide a description of the condition of the piers. Include the area/length that is estimated
currently requires repairs such as formed concrete repair or crack sealing. If the piers are thought
to have moved or rotated this should be described. Describe any scour problems identified.
Scour/Slope Protection: Provide a description of the type and condition of the scour/slope
protection. Include any estimated areas and locations that require repair.

Inspection History (NBIS Ratings):

Year
Deck
Super
Sub
Provide the NBIS ratings for the structure over the last 3 reporting periods if available.

Geometric, Horizontal & Vertical Clearance / Hydraulic Data:

Provide information on the vertical & horizontal clearances through and beneath the structure as
applicable. The hydraulic adequacy of the structure should be addressed if applicable. If scour or
debris collection is a problem it should be described. Comment on whether the clearances,
geometrics and/or hydraulics meet current requirements.

43

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

IV. Potential Scope of Work Determination & Analysis:

In this section potential courses of action are determined and analyzed for the structure. The
number of courses of action that should be considered depends on the condition of the structure
and its ability to meet current and proposed design criteria set by the Department. Some courses of
action typically considered include the following:
1. Rehabilitation - Repairs:
2. Rehabilitation - Deck Repair:
3. Rehabilitation - Deck Replacement:
4. Rehabilitation - Structure Widening:
5. Reconstruction - Superstructure Replacement:
6. Complete Replacement:
An additional criterion that must be considered with the various courses of action is the method of
construction road closure, temporary runaround or staging.
The courses of action that are determined to be appropriate for analysis should be summarized
individually listing a detailed description of the scope of work and have a cost estimate completed
and included in the attachments if appropriate. Each course of action must consider how all desired
design criteria will be addressed.
Typical example design criteria for structures are:
1. Geometrics / horizontal and vertical clearance through and beneath the bridge
2. Structure live load capacity
3. Bridge rail type
4. Structure condition/service life
5. Overall economics
6. Hydraulic capacity

V. Discussion and Recommended Scope of Work:

In this section the positive and negative merits of the potential scopes of work evaluated are
summarized. The best scope of work is then selected after weighing these results. The reasons for
selecting a particular scope of work must be identified. Any Exterior Constraints that affected the
selection of the scope of work must be identified and discussed.

On Rehabilitation and Reconstruction projects provide a sufficiently detailed

scope of work. Some examples of what may be necessary to address are:
bearings, joints, backwalls, approach pavements, bridge rails, drain
extensions, beam/slope protection/substructure repairs and painting.
The proposed structure clear width must be provided for Replacement, Reconstruction and
Rehabilitation (deck replacement and super/substructure widening) projects.
44

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

The method of construction (road closure, temporary runaround or staging)

must also be identified.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A. Location Map
Provide a map identifying the location of the structure.
Attachment B. IDOT Master Structure Report
Provide a copy of the Master Structure Report.
Attachment C. Bridge Inspection Report
Provide a copy of the most recent NBIS and Pontis bridge inspection reports.
Attachment D. Top and Bottom of Deck Condition Surveys
Provide separate sketches of the top and bottom of deck detailing the location, area and
type of deterioration present.
Attachment E. Substructure Condition Surveys
Provide sketches of each substructure unit detailing the location, area and type of
deterioration present.
Attachment F. Cost Estimates
Provide copies of the cost estimates used in the Scope of Work Selection section. Each
analysis should identify the proposed scope of work it pertains to along with pay item,
quantity, unit cost and total cost of the items considered in the estimate.
Attachment G. Proposed Structure
Provide the proposed structure elevation view, plan view and cross section drawings.
Provide a cross section for the route over if applicable. See the Bridge Manual, Section
[Link].4 for details.
Attachment H. Structure Photos
Provide high quality color photographs detailing the general condition of the structure.
Photos of damaged areas or deterioration must also be provided.
The following list can be used as a guideline to the type of photographs desired:
1.

Picture taken looking up-station through the structure from approximately 30 feet downstation of bridge.

45

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

Picture taken looking down-station through the structure from approximately 30 feet upstation of bridge.
Picture taken from the structure looking upstream (route) showing the existing ground
features.
Picture taken from the structure looking downstream (route) showing the existing
ground features.
Picture taken through the structure looking upstream (route) showing the bridge.
Picture taken through the structure looking downstream (route) showing the bridge.
Picture(s) of the corners of the structure showing the condition of the wingwalls and
embankment.
Picture(s) of the expansion joints in the superstructure.
Picture(s) of the type and condition of the bridge rail.
Picture(s) depicting the general condition of the underside of each span of the
superstructure.
Picture(s) depicting areas of deterioration/damage on the underside of the
superstructure.
Pictures of each abutment depicting its type and condition to include the bearings and
backwall.
Pictures of each pier depicting its type and condition.
Picture(s) showing any evidence of scour or streambed movement if applicable.

Attachment I.

Hydraulic Analysis Summary (if applicable/available)

Provide a summary of the hydraulic analysis listing any concerns/issues and a copy of the
approved waterway information table if available along with the streambed elevation at the
structure.
Attachment J. Proposed Plan & Profile (if available)
Provide a copy of the proposed plan and profile sheet if available.
Attachment K. Existing and Proposed Roadway Cross Sections (if available)
Provide a copy of the existing and proposed (if available) roadway cross section adjacent to
the structure.
Attachment L. Abbreviated Existing Plans
Provide an 11x17 copy of the General Plan & Elevation and Superstructure Cross Section
Sheets only (provide any as built plan sheets if applicable).
Attachment M. Additional Test Results (if applicable)
Provide a copy of any additional testing results taken (if applicable), i.e. Slab Coring
Reports and structure borings.

46

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

APPENDIX C. Concrete Deck Testing Procedures
Test 1 (No Test Reference) Measurement of Reinforcement Bar Concrete Cover
This test uses a cover meter (pachometer) to detect reinforcing steel within concrete. For a
meaningful evaluation, the greater of 40 locations per bridge deck or 40 locations per 465 m2
(5,000 sq. ft.) is recommended. The accuracy of the cover meter decreases as the depth of
concrete cover increases. Thus, a correction factor should be obtained by exposing the
reinforcement at one location to determine the actual depth. The test is used to verify an
abnormally shallow reinforcement cover.

Test 2 (AASHTO T 24) Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete
The primary use of deck coring is to determine the depth of delaminations, and to differentiate
between delaminations and debonding when an overlay is present. This information is helpful when
conducting delamination surveys according to Methods 1 and 3. The deck core also provides a
visual inspection of the quality of the deck. The number of cores is based on engineering judgment.

Test 3 (ASTM C 805) Rebound Number of Hardened Concrete

The operation of the rebound hammer (also called the Schmidt Hammer or Swiss Hammer)
provides a quick method to determine the uniformity of concrete at the surface, which may be useful
information if surface removal by hydro-demolition is anticipated. The test has also been used to
estimate concrete strength, but accuracy is limited. Therefore, concrete strength estimation with
this test method is not recommended. The number of test locations is based on engineering
judgment, with 10 tests per test location area.

Test 4 (AASHTO T 22) Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens

This test is the best method for determining concrete strength of bridge deck cores obtained
according to Test 2. The test information may help with determining areas of the bridge deck which
need full depth repairs. Areas of the bridge deck which appear to be sound should also be tested
for comparison. The number of tests is based on engineering judgment. However, at least three
deck cores should be tested when determining strength.

47

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Test 5 (ASTM C 876) Corrosion Potentials of Uncoated Reinforcing Steel in Concrete
This test is used for detecting the corrosion activity of the reinforcing steel in the bridge deck, but
does not provide information on the corrosion rate. For a meaningful evaluation, refer to ASTM C
876 for an appropriate testing program. The test should not be performed on bridge decks which
contain epoxy-coated or galvanized reinforcement. Data presentation of the test measurements is
performed by an equipotential contour map or by a cumulative frequency diagram. The
equipotential contour map provides a graphical presentation of where corrosion activity may be
occurring in the bridge deck. The frequency diagram provides an indication of the magnitude of the
affected bridge deck area. The usefulness of this test comes from the comparison to tests
performed on other bridge decks. The test results and the subsequent performance of bridge deck
repairs can provide some guidance on the most effective rehabilitation method. Rehabilitation
methods may include overlays, sealers, corrosion inhibitors, and cathodic protection. In addition,
the test results obtained from several bridge decks may provide information for estimating repair
quantities on future bridge deck projects.

Test 6 (Method A) (AASHTO T 260) Sampling and Testing for Chloride Ion in Concrete and
Concrete Raw Materials
This test determines total chloride content of concrete. This includes chloride content that is soluble
and will contribute to corrosion, plus chloride content that is chemically bound to the concrete and
may not contribute to corrosion. Chemically bound chlorides are found in the aggregate, and this is
called benign chloride content. If benign chlorides exist in the aggregate, the corrosion threshold
is 0.8 kg/cu m (1.4 lb./cu yd) plus the amount of benign chloride content in the aggregate. In Illinois,
chloride content in bridge decks will generally exceed the corrosion threshold limit. For a
meaningful evaluation, the greater of 10 locations per bridge deck or 10 locations per 465 m2
(5,000 sq. ft.) is recommended. The usefulness of this test comes from the comparison to tests
performed on other bridge decks. The test results and the subsequent performance of bridge deck
repairs can provide some guidance on the most effective rehabilitation method. Rehabilitation
methods may include overlays, sealers, corrosion inhibitors, and cathodic protection. In addition,
the chloride test results obtained from several bridge decks will provide information for estimating
repair quantities on future bridge deck projects. The disadvantage of the test is the fewer number
of test results which can be obtained in a day, as compared to Test 5. However, the presence of
epoxy-coated or galvanized reinforcement does not restrict the use of the test as compared to Test
5.

Test 6 (Method B) (AASHTO T 332) Determining Chloride Ions in Concrete and Concrete
Materials by Specific Ion Probe
AASHTO T 332 is another test for determining total chloride content of concrete. The test results
correlate well with the AASHTO T 260 test method. The advantage of the AASHTO T 332 test over
AASHTO T 260 is that more tests can be performed in a day. In addition, the AASHTO T 332
testing can be conducted in the field.

48

BCR Procedures & Practices Revised December 2011

Test 7 (ASTM C 856) Petrographic Examination of Hardened Concrete

This test is conducted on bridge deck cores obtained according to Test 2, and should be done only
after consultation with the Bureau of Materials and Physical Research. Bridge decks which are
experiencing excessive and unusual concrete deterioration, as compared to other decks at the
same age, may warrant this test. The test is used to determine possible freeze/thaw damage due
to inadequate air entrainment of the concrete, possible freeze/thaw damage due to susceptible
aggregate materials, possible alkali-silica reactivity of certain aggregate materials, and possible
alkali carbonate reactivity of certain aggregate materials. The number of tests is based on
engineering judgment.
The following references were used to provide information on Tests 1 7.
Guide for Evaluation of Concrete Structures Prior to Rehabilitation (ACI 364.1R)
In-Place Methods for Determination of Strength of Concrete (ACI 228.1R)
Workshop of SHRP Research Products related to Methodology for Concrete Removal, Protection
and Rehabilitation (Publication No. FHWA-SA-97-003)

49