State Bridge Load Posting Processes and Practices (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

65 APPENDIX A Survey of States on Practices in Load Posting NCHRP Project 20-05 Topic 44-15 distributed a survey in 2013 to state transportation officials who are members of the AASHTO SCOBS. The survey was developed and distributed electronically using SurveyGizmo (surveygizmo.com). This appendix to the synthesis report reproduces the question of the electronic survey and tabulates the responses from states below each question. Forty-three states responded to the survey. These are the survey states referred to at many points in the synthesis report. Survey states are listed in Table A1. TABLE A1 SURVEY STATES, NCHRP PROJECT 20-05 TOPIC 44-15 Alabama Indiana Missouri Oregon Alaska Iowa Montana South Dakota Arizona Kansas Nebraska Tennessee California Kentucky Nevada Texas Colorado Louisiana New Hampshire Utah Delaware Maine New Mexico Virginia Florida Maryland New York Washington Georgia Massachusetts North Carolina West Virginia Hawaii Michigan North Dakota Wisconsin Idaho Minnesota Ohio Wyoming Illinois Mississippi Oklahoma Authority to Post for Load Which bridges are posted for load by your state government or its DOT? ( ) All bridges on public roads in the state ( ) All state-owned bridges ( ) All bridges on the National Highway System (on-system bridges) ( ) Other: For state-owned bridges, who (what official) has the authority to post weight limits? ( ) DOT bridge load rating engineer ( ) DOT bridge engineer ( ) DOT regional or district chief engineer ( ) DOT chief engineer ( ) Head of the state transportation department (Secretary of Transportation, Executive Director, or similar title) ( ) Other state government official, not in DOT ( ) State governor ( ) Other: TABLE A2 SURVEY RESPONSE—STATE AUTHORITY TO POST FOR LOAD State Bridges Posted by State Official for State Alabama All bridges State bridge load rating engineer Alaska All bridges1 State bridge engineer Arizona All bridges State bridge engineer California State-owned bridges DOT director Colorado State-owned bridges State bridge engineer Delaware State-owned bridges DOT chief engineer Florida State-owned bridges DOT secretary Georgia State-owned bridges State bridge engineer Hawaii All bridges DOT director Idaho State-owned bridges District engineer Illinois All bridges State bridge engineer Indiana All bridges State bridge engineer Iowa State-owned bridges DOT chief engineer Kansas State-owned bridges District engineer Kentucky State-owned bridges DOT bridge load rating engineer (continued on next page)

66 State Bridges Posted by State Official for State Louisiana State-owned bridges DOT chief engineer Maine All bridges DOT chief engineer Maryland All bridges2 DOT bridge engineer Massachusetts All bridges State bridge engineer Michigan State-owned bridges DOT chief engineer Minnesota State-owned bridges DOT bridge engineer Mississippi State-owned bridges Mississippi Transportation Commission Missouri All bridges DOT bridge load rating engineer Montana State-owned bridges DOT bridge engineer Nebraska State-owned bridges DOT director Nevada State-owned bridges DOT director New Hampshire State-owned bridges DOT commissioner New Mexico State-owned bridges District engineer New York State-owned bridges DOT bridge engineer North Carolina All bridges DOT bridge engineer North Dakota All bridges DOT bridge load rating engineer Ohio State-owned bridges DOT director Oklahoma State-owned bridges DOT bridge engineer Oregon State-owned bridges DOT chief engineer, Administrator of the Motor Carrier Transportation Division South Dakota State-owned bridges DOT as corporation Tennessee State-owned bridges DOT bridge load rating engineer Texas State-owned bridges DOT executive director Utah On-system bridges DOT bridge engineer Virginia State-owned bridges District engineer Washington State-owned bridges DOT bridge engineer West Virginia State-owned bridges Secretary of Transportation Wisconsin All bridges DOT bridge load rating engineer Wyoming All bridges District engineer 1Excludes federally owned bridges. 2Excludes some Maryland counties. Load Rating Staff What engineering staff evaluates weight limits for posted, state-owned bridges? ( ) State employees (usually state DOT employees) ( ) Consulting engineers engaged by the state ( ) Both What percentages of evaluations of weight limits are made by state employees and by consultants or contractors? Weight limits evaluated by state employees (percent of posted bridges): ___ Weight limits evaluated by consultants or contractors (percent of posted bridges): ___ TABLE A3 SURVEY RESPONSE—LOAD RATING STAFF State Load Rating Staff Load Rating by State Load Rating by Consultant State Consultant State + Consultants Alabama Y 98% 2% Alaska Y 95% 5% Arizona Y California Y Colorado Y 90% 10% Delaware Y 90% 10% Florida Y 10–20% 80–90% Georgia Y 10% 90% Hawaii Y 50% 50% Idaho Y Illinois Y 90% 10% TABLE A2 (continued)

67 State Load Rating Staff Load Rating by State Load Rating by Consultant State Consultant State + Consultants Indiana Y 95% 5% Iowa Y Kansas Y Kentucky Y 95% 5% Louisiana Y 70% 30% Maine Y 25% 75% Maryland Y 70% 30% Massachusetts Y 5% 95% Michigan Y 50% 50% Minnesota Y Mississippi Y Missouri Y 95% 5% Montana Y 99% 1% Nebraska Y 90% 10% Nevada Y New Hampshire Y New Mexico Y 50% 50% New York Y North Carolina Y 95% 5% North Dakota Y Ohio Y 95% 5% Oklahoma Y Oregon Y South Dakota Y Tennessee Y 99% 1% Texas Y 10% 90% Utah Y 20% 80% Virginia Y Washington Y West Virginia Y 99% 1% Wisconsin Y 99% 1% Wyoming Y Safety Inspections How are safety inspections used in decisions to post bridges for load? ( ) Inspectors can recommend or request that load rating be re-evaluated for a bridge ( ) All inspection reports are reviewed by bridge load rating section ( ) Bridges having low values of general condition ratings (GCR) are reviewed by load rating section ( ) Other: TABLE A4 SURVEY RESPONSE—ROLE OF SAFETY INSPECTION IN DECISION TO RE-RATE FOR LOAD State Inspectors Recommend Re-Rate Load Raters Review Inspection Reports Low GCR Triggers Review Alabama Y Y Alaska Y Y Y Arizona California Colorado Y Y Delaware Y Florida Y Georgia Y Hawaii TABLE A3 (continued) (continued on next page)

68 State Inspectors Recommend Re-Rate Load Raters Review Inspection Reports Low GCR Triggers Review Idaho Y Y Illinois Y Indiana Y Y Iowa Y Kansas Y Y Kentucky Y Y Y Louisiana Y Y Y Maine Y Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Y Y Y Minnesota Mississippi Y Y Missouri Y Montana Y Y Y Nebraska Y Y Nevada New Hampshire Y Y New York New Mexico Y Y North Carolina North Dakota Y Ohio Y Oklahoma Y Y Y Oregon Y South Dakota Y Tennessee Y Texas Utah Y Y Virginia Y Washington West Virginia Y Wisconsin Y Y Wyoming Y How are reports from safety inspections used in load rating and posting? Do critical findings trigger consideration of load posting for bridges? ( ) No ( ) Yes ( ) Other TABLE A5 SURVEY RESPONSE—USE OF INSPECTION REPORTS AND CRITICAL FINDINGS IN LOAD RATING State Use of Inspection Reportsin Load Rating? Critical Finding Triggers New Load-rating? Alabama Yes Alaska Changes in dead load (wearing surface) and retrofits (rail system upgrade) may initiate a new load rating. If the critical finding affects structural capacity the need for a new load rating is evaluated. Arizona Yes California No Colorado Reports are used to verify HBP on structures and if re-rating would be necessary. Yes Delaware Yes Florida Statewide QC plans ensure that critical findings trigger a review of load ratings. Critical findings affecting the bridge capacity will trigger a review of the load rating. TABLE A4 (continued)

69 State Use of Inspection Reportsin Load Rating? Critical Finding Triggers New Load-rating? Georgia Reports document deterioration Yes Hawaii Yes Idaho Yes Illinois Yes Indiana Yes Iowa Yes Kansas Provides detailed section of each element still available for service. Locates and defines distressed areas. Condition rating levels trigger posting considerations. Also triggers inspectors to increase detailed inspection information on distressed areas. Yes Kentucky Louisiana Yes Maine Yes Yes Maryland Anytime the condition of a primary structural element has significantly worsened, a review of the current load rating is required. The load rating is then evaluated to ensure the load carrying capacity of the structure in its existing condition is accurately reflected in the load rating. As necessary, revisions are made to the load rating and consequently to the posting requirements. It triggers a review of the load rating. The posting requirements will be dependent upon the results of the load rating. Massachusetts Yes Michigan Yes Minnesota It will trigger the immediate review for load rating. Mississippi Yes Missouri Yes Montana Yes Nebraska Yes Nevada No New Hampshire Yes New Mexico Yes New York The bridge’s H20 operating capacity is calculated after each biennial inspection. If the H20 operating capacity falls below a specified threshold, then a posting analysis is performed. North Carolina Yes North Dakota Yes Ohio Yes Oklahoma Yes Oregon The safety inspection report is reviewed for comments and specific information from the inspector of the member or members that are rating out low and controlling the load capacity of the bridge. If the condition of any member of a bridge changes by 2 during an inspection cycle or when the previous load rating was performed, we have database queries that will alert load rating staff to perform a review of the load rating for the change of condition. If an inspector has an immediate concern with a bridge, they will contact the load rating staff directly to alert them of their findings and request a load rating review. Yes South Dakota Depends upon the situation Tennessee Yes TABLE A5 (continued) (continued on next page)

70 State Use of Inspection Reportsin Load Rating? Critical Finding Triggers New Load-rating? Texas Bridge inspections are used to identify bridges for analysis and reload rating if condition has changed to the point where load capacity could be affected. Licensed engineers review all inspection reports and compare previous load ratings against present condition. Yes Utah Change in condition will trigger re-evaluation of load rating or a new load rating. A critical finding would trigger a new evaluation of the bridge. Virginia A critical finding triggers action to protect the travelling public; if that action is a load rating then a load rating is performed. Washington No West Virginia Yes Wisconsin Yes Wyoming Yes General Condition Ratings Which general condition ratings (among deck, superstructure, substructure, channel and culvert) and what values of condition ratings trigger re-evaluation of load ratings for bridges? TABLE A6 SURVEY RESPONSE—GENERAL CONDITION RATINGS AND RE-EVALUATION OF LOAD RATING State General Condition Rating for Re-Rating of BridgeDeck Superstructure Substructure Channel Culvert Alabama 4 4 4 3 4 Alaska 3 3 3 Arizona California Colorado 2 4 4 3 3 Delaware Florida Georgia 4 4 4 4 Hawaii 4 4 Idaho 4 4 4 5 Illinois 4 4 4 4 Indiana 4 4 Iowa 4 4 4 Kansas 3 4 4 4 4 Kentucky 3 3 3 3 Louisiana 5 5 5 5 Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan 4 4 4 Minnesota Mississippi 4 4 4 Missouri Montana Nebraska 4 4 4 Nevada New Hampshire 4 4 4 4 New Mexico 4 4 4 New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio 4 4 4 TABLE A5 (continued)

71 State General Condition Rating for Re-Rating of BridgeDeck Superstructure Substructure Channel Culvert Oklahoma 4 Oregon South Dakota 3 Tennessee Texas Utah 4 Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin 4 4 4 Wyoming Time Intervals We seek information on the time required to identify, evaluate and implement weight limits at posted bridges. What are the typical intervals in your state for? ( ) Time from initial recommendation to evaluate for posting to completion of computations, interval, weeks: ___ ( ) Time from completion of computations to formal decision to post bridges for load, interval, weeks: ___ ( ) Time from decision to post to installation of weight limit signs, interval, weeks: ___ ( ) Time from installation of signs to verification of signs by DOT staff, interval, weeks: ___ ( ) Total time from initial recommendation to evaluate to verification that posting signs are in place, interval, weeks: ___ TABLE A7 SURVEY RESPONSE—TIME INTERVALS IN LOAD POSTING State Time Intervals (weeks unless noted) Initial Recommendation to Rating Computations Rating Computations to Decision to Post Decision to Post to Installation of Signs Installation of Signs to Verification Total Time Alabama 16 2 4 2 24 Alaska 4 2 1 varies varies Arizona ASAP ASAP ASAP ASAP ASAP California 1 1 day 1 1 1 day to several weeks Colorado 90 days 1 day 90 days 1 day 90 days Delaware 1 1 1.5 0.5 4 Florida 2–4, less if critical 0–1 4 by law for off- system each inspection cycle Georgia 1 day 1 day 1 day state system to 4 weeks off- system 1 week 6 weeks Hawaii 2 0 1 0 0 Idaho ASAP Illinois 1–3 0 1–2 0 2–5 Indiana 1/2 day 1 day 1 immediate 1.5 Iowa 4 12 24 Kansas 1 0.2 0.3 0 4.5 Kentucky depends immediate 2 days 4 depends Louisiana 4 to 8 1 0.3 26–52 64 Maine 2 2 <1 0 5 Maryland 2 2 2 2 8 Massachusetts 52 1 4 8 65 Michigan 2 0 12 max N/A Minnesota <1 1–2 <1 <1 max 30 days Mississippi 2 1 2 1 6 TABLE A6 (continued) (continued on next page)

72 State Time Intervals (weeks unless noted) Initial Recommendation to Rating Computations Rating Computations to Decision to Post Decision to Post to Installation of Signs Installation of Signs to Verification Total Time Missouri 1.5 0.5 4 varies varies Montana varies immediate varies varies varies Nebraska 2–4 2–4 4–6 2–4 10–18 Nevada 4 2 4 1 11 New Hampshire <1 <1 <1 <1 1–2 New Mexico 0–1 0–1 0–1 0–1 2–4 New York 4 0.6 0.6 0.8 6 North Carolina 2 days 2 days 2 1 4 North Dakota 1 2 12 52 52 Ohio 2 2 2 6 12 Oklahoma 1 1 1 1 1 Oregon South Dakota N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tennessee 0.5 0.5 4 0 5 Texas 90 days Utah 2 1 2 1 6 Virginia 12 <1 <4 — 16 Washington varies varies varies varies varies West Virginia 8 2 6 52 52 Wisconsin 4 2 1 1 8 Wyoming 5 1 2 1 9 Additional comments on time intervals in load posting? TABLE A8 SURVEY RESPONSE—STATES’ NOTES ON TIME INTERVALS IN LOAD POSTING State Additional Comments on Time Intervals in Load Posting Alabama Repair work or retrofitting is usually looked at as an option as well to avoid posting. Alaska All load ratings for bridges that require load posting must have a full load rating check before posting notice is issued. Arizona California Colorado Delaware Florida The total time depends upon several factors: 1- type of bridge—some complex bridges require more time to be evaluated; 2 - bridge can be closed until evaluation Georgia State-owned bridges are usually evaluated and posted in less than a week. Off-system bridges are usually evaluated and posted in five to six weeks. Hawaii Idaho There is no official time limit for installing bridge posting signs. We just ask for it to be done ASAP. Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Signs are installed by KDOT maintenance staff, and a picture is taken and sent to KDOT Bridge Management. Kentucky We get to the ratings as soon as we can. We try to do it with a day or two. Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan First of all—there’s a difference between MDOT and local agency; 90 days max and 180 days max. Also, this time frame highly depends on the severity of the finding and the severity of the posting. Minnesota Depending on the situation, for any critical findings, usually within one week even within a couple of days. TABLE A7 (continued)

73 State Additional Comments on Time Intervals in Load Posting Mississippi The amount of time from initial recommendation to evaluate to verification of posting signs in place can vary greatly depending on many different factors. The above intervals are a generalization. Missouri Verification of signs by DOT staff is done during general inspections and can take 2 years or less since general inspections are typically done on a 2-year cycle. Montana The interval from recommendation to evaluation for posting varies depending on the workload of the load rating engineers. Once evaluation of a bridge is complete, the decision to post is made immediately. On state-maintained bridges, the posting signs go up within a week or two of the recommendation, and bridge management staff is notified by the maintenance crew doing the work as soon as the signs are put up. On county-owned bridges, a letter is sent to the county recommending posting, and MDT works hard to ensure the signs are up within 30 days. County personnel are responsible for installation of load posting signs on their bridges, which can delay the process of sign installation. Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Mexico The interval can vary greatly. If NMDOT determines that a bridge should be restricted immediately, bridge could be posted on the same day. New York The time from initial recommendation to completion of the load posting evaluation is dependent on the bridge member's condition and redundancy. The time frame can be from 1 day to 6 weeks. North Carolina North Dakota There is one posted bridge on the state system and it is not on the mainline highway. County structure posting needs are sent via letter to county officials. They are given 180 days to reply back to us telling us what they have done to comply. DOT safety inspectors review at next inspection cycle. Ohio Verification is done at the next inspection cycle too. Oklahoma Oregon Once a load rating is completed, Oregon DOT has a letter of agreement with FHWA that a bridge has to be repaired, replaced, or load posted within 6 months of the load rating date. South Dakota We have no official requirements on the state highway system. Tennessee If a bridge requires closure, the time interval is compressed to just 2 weeks for the closure to be implemented once the responsible bridge owner is notified. Texas Utah These values are estimates only. No past data are available. Virginia 12 weeks = 90 days; if the changes in loadings or conditions (including shop drawings review or as-built) are significant, the changes are evaluated immediately by the District Bridge Engineer or their designee. As a precautionary measure, engineering judgment may be used to lower the load rating capacity of the structure for the safety of the traveling public until the load rating is performed. This determination is recorded in the load rating documentation. Posting is typically completed within 1–2 weeks; however, 4 weeks is allowed to order, fabricate, deliver, and install the signs (the inventory is updated immediately with any changes to restrict all permit loads). Washington In general, posting of a structure, when warranted, shall occur within 60 days from date of letter sent to the region or the local agency is notified by the engineer. In instances where the load carrying capacity of a bridge is significantly reduced, such as impact to the structure, posting or closing of the bridge shall occur as soon as it is determined it is not safe to carry legal or vehicular loads. West Virginia Wisconsin The timing on the posting process will vary greatly depending on the specific bridge in question. When a recommendation to evaluate for re-rating and/or posting is received, an initial review is performed by a rating engineer to determine the relative priority of the posting analysis. If a new posting seems likely, the process will be more accelerated than what is indicated above; sometimes much more so. Wyoming TABLE A8 (continued)

74 Quality Practices What are your quality practices for load rating of highway bridges? Do you use peer review of load rating computations? TABLE A9 SURVEY RESPONSES—QUALITY PRACTICES IN LOAD RATING State Peer Review QC/QA Practices for Load Rating Alabama Y The models and rating are reviewed by the manager of the bridge rating office before the load test is performed. Alaska Y LFR load ratings are conducted and either a conformance review or complete check is completed. New bridges are load rated to LRFR by the design engineer upon completion of the bridge construction. Arizona In development California Colorado Y Rater and checker uses QC/QA sheet for compliance with rating policies. Delaware Y We have a peer review process for every bridge load rating and posting. Florida Each of our eight districts has developed a load rating QA plan. Georgia Y Calculations are done and then checked in a peer review process and the recommendations are then reviewed for posted bridges. Hawaii Implementation Guidelines for Load and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR) of Highway Bridges Idaho Illinois Structural Services Manual (Ratings chapter to be added with 2013 edition) Indiana FHWA NBIS regulations Iowa I.M. 2.120 Bridge Inspections. Load Rating Engineer reviews will be conducted by the Office of Bridges and Structures utilizing SIIMS in conjunction with on-site field reviews as part of the Iowa DOT’s annual oversight of the LPA’s program. Kansas Bridge Inspection Manual Kentucky Louisiana Y The Policies and Guidelines for Bridge Rating and Evaluation - 2012.1 Maine Y Maine DOT requires a complete review of load ratings per our 2013 Load Rating Guide. Maryland Y The computations are reviewed by a second engineer. QA in the context of FHWA compliance reviews have assisted in this respect. Massachusetts Bridge Inspection Handbook Michigan Y We QC 100% of our load ratings regardless of posting recommendation. We also QC our load rating software on approximately 10% of load ratings. We’re working on generating an official policy. Minnesota MN LRFD bridge design manual, Chapter 15 Mississippi Mississippi Department of Transportation Bridge Safety Inspection Policy and Procedures Manual Missouri Typically there is an independent check and review of the load rating. A yearly inspection is performed on all of the bridges in 2 to 3 counties of each district to ensure that the load postings are correct. Montana Y Load posting of state-owned bridges is rare—we only have 2 of them at the moment. The original load rater usually has another load rater check his or her calculations to verify they are correct. Then the Bridge Maintenance Engineer works with district maintenance forces to ensure the proper signs are installed. Nebraska Bridge Inspection Program Manual Nevada Y Independent check and peer review of calculations. New Hampshire Y Independent review of calculations to verify the recommended load posting. We have engaged a consultant to develop a manual on all of our bridge inspection practices, including bridge postings and QA/QC procedures. New Mexico New York EI 05-034: Load Rating/Posting Guidelines for State-Owned Highway Bridges North Carolina Database tracking North Dakota We have a QC/QA plan that addresses the steps taken to identify bridges that need analysis and how the postings are identified and communicated to the owner.

75 State Peer Review QC/QA Practices for Load Rating Ohio DOT QA Reviews, Shelf QAR Oklahoma Oregon The load rating staff will follow up with the District Manager who is responsible for a particular bridge to verify the status of the posting recommendation and what actions are taking place in either the repair process or posting decision. If the condition of any member of a bridge changes by 2 during an inspection cycle or when the previous load rating was performed, we have database queries that will alert load rating staff to perform a review of the load rating for the change of condition. If an inspector has an immediate concern with a bridge, they will contact the load rating staff directly to alert them of their findings and request a load rating review. South Dakota We have a QC/QA document covering our NBIS Bridge Inspection process. Tennessee TDOT Bridge Inspection Procedures Manual Texas TxDOT Bridge Inspection Manual - Chapter 9 Utah Y Initial load rating and if required the posting evaluation are QC checked and QA checked. Full procedure is outlined in Bridge Operations Manual. Virginia IIM-S&B-86, Load Rating and Posting of Structures Washington Y QC for load rating bridges is addressed in the Bridge Inspection Manual. West Virginia The local district bridge engineer reviews the load ratings and prepares a posting request. The program manager reviews all posting requests and prepares legal documents for the Commissioner of Highways. Wisconsin Our procedures and policy document will be in-house and is currently under development. Wyoming Inspection reports are reviewed for deterioration of elements affecting load capacity and Load Rating Summaries are reviewed for concurrence. If not, the load rating is revisited to take defects into consideration. What are your practices to verify the presence and adequacy of weight limit signs at bridges that are posted for load? TABLE A10 SURVEY RESPONSES—QUALITY PRACTICES FOR WEIGHT LIMIT SIGNS State Photo of Signs Inspector Verify QA Verify QC/QA Practices for Weight Limit Signs? Alabama Y For structures requiring posting signs, pictures are sent to the load rating office once signs have been erected. If the structure is not posted within a month then the load rating office notifies the divisional office responsible for the structure. Alaska Y Posting notice requests photos of installed signs. Inspections confirm posting with photos at a later date. Arizona In development California SM&I Quality Management Plan Colorado Y Y Inspector verifies sign; photos on off-system by local government Delaware We have a peer review process for every bridge load rating and posting. Florida Georgia Y Posted signs are verified by GADOT personnel within a week of posting. Pictures are taken of the posting signs during each inspection cycle. Hawaii Implementation Guidelines for Load and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR) of Highway Bridges Idaho Y The bridge inspector takes a picture of the posting sign during every inspection. If it is not installed properly the inspector creates a maintenance recommendation to fix it. Illinois Structural Services Manual (Ratings chapter to be added with 2013 edition) Indiana FHWA NBIS regulations Iowa I.M. 2.120 Bridge Inspection Kansas Bridge Inspection Manual Kentucky Louisiana Y The Policies and Guidelines for Bridge Rating and Evaluation - 2012.1 Maine Y TABLE A9 (continued) (continued on next page)

76 State Photo of Signs Inspector Verify QA Verify QC/QA Practices for Weight Limit Signs? Maryland The district offices responsible for installing the signs are to follow up with the bridge office to confirm that the signs are in place. We then receive posting memorandums further confirming the installation of the signs and the posting values. Massachusetts Bridge Inspection Handbook Michigan Y We have a QA program for evaluation of local agency bridge files which includes posting signs. We also require photos of signs be sent to our management staff immediately upon posting or changes. Minnesota MN LRFD bridge design manual, Chapter 15 Mississippi Mississippi Department of Transportation Bridge Safety Inspection Policy and Procedures Manual Missouri Y A yearly inspection is performed on all of the bridges in 2 to 3 counties of each district to ensure that the load postings are in place and correct. Montana Y District bridge inspectors evaluate posting signs during regular inspections to ensure they are in decent condition and are still in place. If they are missing or unreadable, the inspectors recommend a work item for replacing the signs. Nebraska Bridge Inspection Program Manual Nevada New Hampshire We have engaged a consultant to develop a manual on all of our bridge inspection practices, including bridge postings and QA/QC procedures. New Mexico Y Postings are checked when the bridge is inspected as required by the NBI. Maintenance patrols may also inform DOT staff of missing signs. New York EI 05-034: Load Rating/Posting Guidelines for State-Owned Highway Bridges North Carolina North Dakota We have a QC/QA plan that addresses the steps taken to identify bridges that need analysis and how the postings are identified and communicated to the owner. Ohio DOT QA reviews, field QAR Oklahoma Oregon The load rating staff will follow up with the District Manager who is responsible for a particular bridge to verify the status of the posting recommendation and what actions are taking place in either the repair process or posting decision. Typically, the District Manager will contact the load rating staff to report when the bridge has been posted. Our bridge inspectors usually review the posting signs to make sure they are installed at their proper locations and state the correct load posting for the bridge. South Dakota We do have a QC/QA document covering our NBIS Bridge Inspection process but it does not cover bridge load rating/posting. Tennessee TDOT Bridge Inspection Procedures Manual Texas TxDOT Bridge Inspection Manual - Chapter 9 Utah Initial posting is documented and is then checked each time bridge is inspected. Full procedure in Bridge Operations Manual. Virginia IIM-S&B-86, Load Rating and Posting of Structures Washington Y Posting signs are checked as part of the routine inspection. West Virginia Wisconsin Our procedures and policy document will be in-house and is currently under development. Wyoming Y Proof of load posting is required. The database is reviewed to ensure it contains the latest information. TABLE A10 (continued)

77 TABLE A11 SURVEY RESPONSES—STATES QUALITY REVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT LOAD POSTING State QA Review of Local (Y/N) Describe QA Review of Local Government Owners Alabama Yes The local governments have to submit the below questionnaire every 3 years. Field visits to posted structures are conducted every 6–9 years for counties (pp. 8–10) http://www.dot.state.al.us/maweb/frm/Bridge%20Inspection %20Program%20Review%20Questionnaire.pdf. Alaska Yes State inspects local agency bridges. Posting sign installation is verified during inspections. Arizona Yes We evaluate and review the load posting calculation. California No Colorado Yes Delaware No Florida Yes Florida DOT Bridge Load Rating Manual Georgia Yes Load postings are verified by GADOT personnel. Hawaii No Idaho The bridge inspector takes a picture of the posting sign during every inspection. If it is not installed properly, the inspector creates a maintenance recommendation to fix it. Illinois Yes Structural Services Manual (Ratings chapter to be added with 2/2013 edition) Indiana No Iowa Yes I.M. 2.120 Kansas No Kentucky Yes When the inspectors do the inspection, postings are verified in the field. If they are incorrect/missing, the local government is notified. Louisiana Yes Bridge Inspection Directives Maine Yes Maine DOT completes load posting calculations for locally owned bridges. Maryland Yes No formal QA policies; periodic compliance reviews assist with this effort Massachusetts Yes Bridge inspectors check the posting signs and the weight levels. Michigan Yes Described above in the QA section Minnesota No Mississippi No Missouri Yes Load postings are reviewed for being in place and correct during general inspections. Montana Yes Bridge inspectors evaluate posting signs during their regular inspections to ensure the proper loads are posted on the signs and the signs are present and in good condition. If the signs need replacement or repair, the inspector notifies the local agency. Nebraska Yes Bridge Inspection Program Manual Nevada No New Hampshire No New Mexico No New York Yes Most local government agencies use the state EI 05-034: Load Rating/Posting Guidelines for State-Owned Highway Bridges North Carolina No North Dakota No Ohio Yes ODOT Bridge Inspection Manual Oklahoma Yes Routine bridge inspections change in condition; presently we only have 26 posted bridges some of which are owned by Corps of Engineers or GRDA Process: (1) Inspector requires load posting (2) Bridge Div. waits for resolution from Local Gov. confirming posting in place (3) If no posting is in place within 90 days, follow-up action is taken Quality Review of Load Posting by Local Government Bridge Owners Does your state make quality assurance reviews of load posting activities of local governments? (continued on next page)

78 State QA Review of Local (Y/N) Describe QA Review of Local Government Owners Oregon Yes Bridge inspectors are required to review and evaluate the posting signs at the bridge and the advanced posting signs. If they are out-of-spec or do not reflect the required posting, it will be reported on the bridge inspection report. This will be raised as a critical finding when the inspection report is submitted to the state DOT. ODOT’s Local Agency Bridge Inspection Coordinator will then follow up with the Local Agency to correct the posting signs and bring them into compliance. South Dakota Tennessee Yes Local governments are required to submit photographs of each end of the bridge showing that the load posting signs are in-place and showing the face of the sign so that the posting can be verified. Texas Yes TxDOT Bridge Inspection Manual Utah No Virginia Yes IIM-S&B-86, Load Rating and Posting of Structures Washington Yes Posting practice (signs and proper weight limits) is reviewed during annual review of local agency bridge inspection program. West Virginia Yes Local district bridge engineer reviews the need for load postings. Bridge inspectors verify that signs are installed. Wisconsin Yes Our policies and procedures document will be in-house and is under development. Wyoming Yes Inspection reports are reviewed for presence of signs, accuracy of sign content, legibility of signs, etc. Other than QA reviews, does your state monitor load postings of bridges by local governments? TABLE A12 SURVEY RESPONSES—OTHER STATE MONITORING OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT LOAD POSTING State Other Monitoring Describe Other Monitoring Alabama Yes Once a month a report is run showing structures that are to be posted. After 2 months if the structure is not posted then the local government is contacted about the need to post the structure. Alaska Yes State inspects local agency bridges. Posting sign installation is verified during inspections. Arizona Yes By periodical safety inspection teams California No Colorado Yes Delaware No Florida Yes The state monitors length of time for which posting signs are missing. Georgia Yes GADOT verifies load postings. Hawaii No Idaho No Illinois No Indiana No Iowa Yes Kansas No Kentucky Yes We determine the load postings and then tell the local government of the recommended postings. Louisiana Yes Run query every 3 to 6 months Maine Yes State inspects locally owned bridges and verifies installation of posting sign. Maryland Yes We keep on file the details of all load posted local government bridges. Massachusetts No Michigan Yes We receive photos of every posted bridge in the state from our local inspectors. Minnesota Yes Through inspection auditing Mississippi No Missouri No TABLE A11 (continued)

79 State Other Monitoring Describe Other Monitoring Montana Yes Once MDT determines a bridge needs posting, a letter is sent to the local agency. Once the proper signs are installed, the local agency is required to sign and date the original letter in order to verify that the signs have been installed. Nebraska Yes Use National Bridge Inventory Items to keep a record of any posting signs that are up, type of sign (R12-5 or R12-1), and values on the sign. Nevada No New Hampshire Yes Through our bridge inspection program. NHDOT inspects all state and municipal bridges and during these inspections is able to verify the presence or absence of load posting signs. New Mexico Yes NMDOT inspects all locally owned bridges. Postings are checked when the bridge is inspected as required by the NBI. New York Yes All local bridges are load rated as part of the biennial bridge inspection program. This includes verifying the current load posting is correct. North Carolina No North Dakota Yes During safety inspection of bridges Ohio No Oklahoma Oregon Yes When a local agency load rating is submitted to ODOT to be entered into the load rating database, one of the state load rating engineers will review the load rating. If any of the legal rating factors are less than 1.0, they will bring it to the attention of the State Bridge Engineer. A letter will then be sent from the State Bridge Engineer to the local agency giving our recommendation that the bridge be repaired or posted for load. It is ultimately the local agency’s responsibility to post their bridge, so the posting recommendation letter will state that they need to have the posting signs in place by a certain date (typically 3–4 months from the date of the letter). The letter will usually request for the local agency to contact ODOT’s Local Agency Load Rating Engineer to confirm when the posting signs are in place and submit a digital photo of the installed posting signs at the bridge. The Local Agency Load Rating Engineer tracks the posting recommendation letters that are sent and the dates of when each local agency is to comply, and will contact the local agency if they have not submitted a response by the required date. If a local agency fails to comply, they risk losing state and federal funding for projects. South Dakota Yes Local Transportation Program—does monitor which bridges require posting and tracks those that are posted or not posted when they should. They work with the local government agencies to encourage them to post their bridges correctly. Tennessee Yes Each time a bridge is re-inspected, any problems with the weight posting (missing, damaged signs, etc.) is noted. Texas Yes Documentation through photographic and correspondence evidence Utah No Virginia Yes Typically, notifications of new/changes in weight postings are made to the VDOT District Bridge Office. Additionally, all inspection reports submitted by localities are reviewed by the VDOT District Bridge Safety Inspection Engineer, including posting information; and VDOT’s public bridge condition dashboard includes postings for VDOT and non-VDOT structures. Washington No West Virginia Wisconsin Yes Load postings are monitored in part based on inspection reports submitted by the local authorities. Wyoming No Weight Limit Signs What types of weight limit signs are used at state-owned bridges? ( ) Signs stating limits on gross vehicle weight (R12-1) ( ) Signs stating limits on axle load (R12-2) ( ) Signs stating limits on empty vehicle weight (R12-3) ( ) Signs showing silhouettes with weight limits (R12-5) ( ) Other TABLE A12 (continued)

80 TABLE A13 SURVEY RESPONSES—USE OF STANDARD SIGNS FOR WEIGHT LIMITS State U.S.DOT Sign (from MUTCD) R12-1 R12-2 R12-3 R12-4 R12-5 Other Alabama Y Y Alaska Y Y Y Y Arizona Y California Y Y Colorado Y Delaware Y Y Florida Y Georgia Y Y Hawaii Y Idaho Y Y Illinois Y Y Indiana Y Iowa Y Y Kansas Y Kentucky Y Y Louisiana Y Maine Y Y Maryland Y Massachusetts Y Michigan Y Y Y Y Y Minnesota Y Y Mississippi Y Y Y Missouri Y Y Y Montana Y Y Nebraska Y Nevada Y New Hampshire Y Y New Mexico Y Y New York Y North Carolina Y Y North Dakota Y Y Ohio Y Oklahoma Y Oregon Y Y Y South Dakota Y Tennessee Y Y Texas Y Y Y Utah Y Y Virginia Y Y Washington Y Y West Virginia Y Y Wisconsin Y Y Wyoming Y Please describe your other signs for weight limits. TABLE A14 SURVEY RESPONSES—STATES NOTES ON WEIGHT LIMIT SIGNS State Please Describe Other Signs for Weight Limits Alabama Alaska Single, tandem axle, triple and quad axle groups Arizona California Colorado Delaware

81 State Please Describe Other Signs for Weight Limits Florida Georgia R12-5 is modified for Georgia silhouettes. Hawaii Idaho R12-6B (Axle Limit Sign) used in conjunction withthe R12-5 (Weight Limit Sign) Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri We also have speed and lane restriction posting signs. Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Excluded Bridge: A bridge with a sign E-1, E-2, or C-3. These signs Exclude Certified Vehicles from crossing the bridge, as authorized and described in RSA 266:18-c General Weight Provisions: Caution Crossing: A bridge with a sign C-1, C-2, or C-3. These signs indicate that Caution Crossing Procedures are to be used by Certified Vehicles, as authorized and described in RSA 266:18-b-III-h. When multiple vehicles of more than two axles are located on the designated bridge, all loaded certified vehicles shall be required to stop and wait until other traffic passes before crossing the bridge. E-1 Sign: This indicates an Excluded Bridge for Single Unit Vehicles only. A Certified Vehicle that is a Single Unit Vehicle is excluded from crossing the bridge E-2 Sign: This sign indicates an Excluded Bridge. Certified Vehicles, both Single Unit and Combination Vehicles, are excluded from crossing the bridge. C-3 Sign: This indicates an Excluded Bridge for Single Unit Vehicles only; and a Caution Crossing Bridge for Combination Vehicles only. C-2 Sign: This indicates a Caution Crossing Bridge. Certified Vehicles, both Single Unit and Combination Vehicles, are required to wait until they can cross the bridge with no other trucks on the bridge. C-1 Sign: This indicates a Caution Crossing Bridge, for Single Unit Vehicles only. A Certified Vehicle that is a Single Unit Vehicle is required to wait until they can cross the bridge with no other trucks on the bridge. New Mexico New York North Carolina R12-18 and R12-19 North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon ftp://ftp.odot.state.or.us/Bridge/LoadRating/R12-4_Posting_sign.pdf South Dakota Tennessee Texas Signs showing tandem axle limits Utah Virginia R12-V1; VDOT mod to the R12-5 Washington Modified R12-5 West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming TABLE A14 (continued)

82 ( ) Central office load rating staff, using contractors for signs ( ) Central office load rating staff, making requests to DOT maintenance branch ( ) Regional/district office load rating staff, using contractors for signs ( ) Regional/district office load rating staff, making requests to DOT maintenance branch ( ) Other TABLE A15 SURVEY RESPONSES—INSTALLATION OF WEIGHT LIMIT SIGNS DOT Staff Responsible for Installation of Weight Limit Signs State Central office/ DOT crew District office/ DOT crew District office/ contractor Alabama Y Alaska Y Arizona Y California Y Colorado Y Delaware Y Florida Y Georgia Y Hawaii Y Idaho Y Illinois Y Indiana Y Iowa Y Kansas Y Kentucky Y Louisiana Y Maine Y Maryland Y Massachusetts Y Michigan Y Minnesota Y Mississippi Y Missouri Y Montana Y Nebraska Y Nevada Y New Hampshire Y New Mexico Y New York Y North Carolina Y North Dakota Y Ohio Y Oklahoma Y Oregon Y South Dakota Y Tennessee Y Texas Y Utah Y Y Virginia Y Washington Y West Virginia Y Wisconsin Y Wyoming Y What DOT staff verifies the presence and adequacy of weight limit signs at posted bridges? ( ) DOT maintenance crews ( ) Bridge safety inspectors ( ) Other What DOT staff is responsible for installing weight limit signs at state-owned, posted bridges?

83 TABLE A16 SURVEY RESPONSES—VERIFICATION OF WEIGHT LIMIT SIGNS Staff Verifying Weight Limit Signs State Bridge Safety Inspectors DOT Maint. Crew State Bridge Safety Inspectors DOT Maint. Crew Alabama Y Missouri Y Alaska Y Montana Y Y Arizona Y Nebraska Y California Y Nevada Y Colorado Y New Hampshire Y Delaware Y New Mexico Y Florida Y New York Y Georgia Y Y North Carolina Y Hawaii Y North Dakota Y Idaho Y Ohio Y Illinois Y Oklahoma Y Indiana Y Oregon Y Iowa Y South Dakota Y Kansas Y Tennessee Y Kentucky Y Texas Y Y Louisiana Y Y Utah Y Maine Y Virginia Y Maryland Y Washington Y Massachusetts Y West Virginia Y Michigan Y Wisconsin Y Y Minnesota Y Wyoming Y Mississippi Y Are weight limit signs placed at bridges that can carry legal loads, but cannot carry one or more types of overweight permit load? TABLE A17 SURVEY RESPONSES—WEIGHT LIMIT SIGNS AT WEIGHT-RESTRICTED BRIDGES State Weight Limit Signs at Restricted Bridges State Weight Limit Signs at Restricted Bridges Alabama No Missouri No Alaska No Montana No Arizona No Nebraska No California No Nevada No Colorado No New Hampshire No Delaware No New Mexico No Florida No New York Yes, Note 1 Georgia No North Carolina No Hawaii No North Dakota No Idaho No Ohio No Illinois Yes Oklahoma No Indiana No Oregon Yes, Note 2 Iowa No South Dakota No Kansas No Tennessee No Kentucky Yes Texas Yes Louisiana No Utah No Maine No Virginia Yes Maryland No Washington No Massachusetts No West Virginia No Michigan No Wisconsin No Minnesota Yes Wyoming Yes Mississippi No Note 1 New York “No Trucks with R Permits” signs are placed at bridges that can carry legal load, but not permit loads. Signs do not display a tonnage. Note 2 Oregon If a bridge can carry some routine permit loads, the bridge will be placed on ODOT’s restricted bridge list with the maximum vehicle/axle weights allowed. ODOT’s Motor Carrier Transportation Division will then alert annual permit owners of the new restriction and manage which permit vehicles that can use the bridge. Thus, the bridge will not be signed. However, if a bridge is able to carry legal loads, but cannot carry any of the routine permit loads, a sign will also be posted at the bridge that restricts it to legal axle weights.

84 STATE ROLE IN LOAD POSTING OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT BRIDGES If state and local governments share authority for load posting of bridges owned by local governments, how is this authority shared? ( ) Based on route system ( ) State performs load ratings for all bridges on truck routes ( ) Varies by local government; some cities or counties delegate rating authority to the state ( ) Case-by-case TABLE A18 SURVEY RESPONSES—BASIS FOR SHARED AUTHORITY TO POST LOCAL BRIDGES FOR LOAD Basis for Shared Authority to Post for Load State Route system State load rates Local gov’t. delegates Case-by-case Alabama Y Alaska Y Arizona California Y Colorado Y Delaware Y Florida Y Georgia Y Hawaii Y Idaho Illinois Indiana Y Iowa Kansas Kentucky Y Louisiana Maine Y Maryland Y Massachusetts Y Michigan Minnesota Y Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Y Nevada Y New Hampshire Y New Mexico Y Y New York North Carolina Y Y North Dakota Y Ohio Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Y Wyoming Y Additional notes on state government role in load posting of local government bridges?

85 TABLE A19 SURVEY RESPONSES—STATES’ NOTES ON SHARED AUTHORITY FOR LOAD POSTING State Shared Authority for Load Posting Alabama The local government always has the ability to post for less than the state government recommendation, but never higher. Alaska State calculates load posting values and recommends posting to the local authority. Arizona California State DOT makes recommendation and local agency may opt to do by ordinance or allow state DOT to post by order. Either way, state DOT determines load limits. Colorado Local government could post more restrictive posting than required by the CDOT Bridge Rating Manual. Delaware For example, DRBA 1 -owned bridges are rated by DRBA, but we keep a load rating files of those bridges. Florida Georgia GADOT load rates all bridges. GADOT posts state-owned bridges and recommends posting for off-system bridges. Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky State performs load ratings for all bridges on truck routes. Louisiana Maine State completes load rating and recommends posting to the local authority. Maryland Massachusetts According to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 85 Sec 35, the state DOT has the authority to determine the posting for all locally owned bridges. The municipalities adopt the posting and are responsible for installing the posting signs. Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Both state government and local governments determine weight limits. Nebraska State gave a load rating baseline in 2009. Counties are responsible for upkeep of that baseline including any re-rates. Nevada State performs load ratings on all structures and provides recommendations to locals. Locals can accept the recommendation or perform their own engineering assessment to determine allowable loads. New Hampshire NHDOT recommends load postings to the municipalities, who, in most instances, follow our recommendations and post the bridge. New Mexico State can only recommend posting to local government. Recommendation is usually accepted. New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah State can only recommend posting to local government. Recommendation is usually accepted. Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Local authorities have the responsibility to post their bridges based on posting analysis. This is typically done in coordination with state authorities. However, for various reasons, local authorities can opt to post at loads lower than what analysis shows to be necessary. And with maintenance budgets stretched thin, local authorities often rely on the advice/expertise of state forces to guide posting decisions. Wyoming 1Delaware River and Bay Authority.

86 METHODS OF LOAD RATING What methods does your state use for evaluation of weight limits of posted bridges? ( ) Beam line analysis using live load distribution factors ( ) 3D analysis, finite-element method, or other refined analysis ( ) Field load testing ( ) Field evaluation and engineering judgment Load rating or posting without load rating computations. Load rating or posting based entirely on a bridge's current condition and history in its present service. ( ) Other, please describe. TABLE A20 SURVEY RESPONSES—LOAD RATING METHODS USED BY STATES State Method of Load Rating Beam Line Analysis Refined Analysis Load Test FE/EJ Describe Other Alabama Y Y Y Y Alaska Y Y Y Y Arizona Y California Y Y Y Colorado Y Y Y Y Delaware Y Y Y Y Florida Y Y Y Other methods include testing of coupon and the use of results in the other methods. Georgia Y Y Y Hawaii Y Y Y Idaho Y Y Illinois Y Y Y Indiana Y Iowa Y Y Kansas Y Y Y Y Kentucky Y Y Y Louisiana Y Y Y Y Maine Y Y Y Maryland Y Y Massachusetts Y Michigan Y Y Y Y Minnesota Y Mississippi Y Missouri Y Y Truss and floor beam analysis Montana Y Y Y Y Nebraska Y Y Nevada Y Y New Hampshire Y Y New Mexico Y Y New York Y Y Y North Carolina Y 3D FEA and Load Testing used when necessary. North Dakota Y Y Ohio Y Y Y Oklahoma Y Y Y Oregon Y Y Y Y South Dakota Y Tennessee Y Y Y Texas Y Y Y Utah Y Y Y Virginia Y Y Y Y Washington Y West Virginia Y Y Wisconsin Y Y Y Wyoming Y Y

87 BASIS FOR LOAD RATING What basis does your state use for evaluation of load ratings for bridges? ( ) Allowable stress load rating (AS) ( ) Load factor rating (LF) ( ) Load and resistance factor rating (LRFR) ( ) Other, please describe. TABLE 21 SURVEY RESPONSES—BASIS FOR LOAD RATING State Basis for Load RatingASR LFR LRFR Other: Note Alabama Y Y Alaska Y Phasing out ASR load postings Arizona Y California Y Y Colorado Y Y Y Y Delaware Y Florida Y Y Georgia Y Y Y Hawaii Y Y Y Idaho Y Y Y Illinois Y Y Y Non-analytical methods based on condition ratings when plans are not available. Indiana Y Iowa Y Y Y Y Load testing Kansas Y Kentucky Y Y Y Y Load testing and engineering judgment Louisiana Y Y Maine Y Maryland Y Y Y Massachusetts Y Michigan Y Y Y Minnesota Y Mississippi Y Y Y Missouri Y Y Montana Y Y Y Nebraska Y Y Nevada Y Y New Hampshire Y Y New Mexico Y Y New York Y Y North Carolina Y Y Y North Dakota Y Y Y Ohio Y Y Oklahoma Y Y Y Oregon Y Y South Dakota Y Tennessee Y Y Y Texas Y Y Utah Y Y Virginia Y Y Y Engineering judgment (assumed capacity). Washington Y Y Y West Virginia Y Y Y Wisconsin Y Y Y Y Engineering judgment may also be used (conservatively) on certain types of structures that are not easily analyzed. Posting decisions may also be performance-based or maintenance- based (for the long-term preservation of the structure). Wyoming Y Y Y

88 LEVEL FOR LOAD POSTING What rating level is used to set weight limits for load posting? ( ) Operating rating level ( ) Inventory rating level ( ) Intermediate level between operating and inventory rating ( ) Using load posting equation in AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation ( ) Other TABLE A22 SURVEY RESPONSES—LEVEL FOR LOAD POSTING State Inventory Rating Operating Rating LRFR Posting Equation Intermediate Level Alabama Y Alaska Y Arizona Y California Y Colorado for LRFR for ASR & LFR Delaware Y Florida Y Georgia Y Y Hawaii Y Idaho Y Illinois Y Indiana Y Iowa Y Kansas Y Kentucky Y Louisiana Y Maine Y Maryland Y Massachusetts Y Michigan Y Minnesota Y Mississippi Y Missouri Y Montana Y Nebraska Y Nevada Y New Hampshire Y New Mexico Y New York Y North Carolina Y North Dakota Y Ohio Y Oklahoma Y Oregon Y South Dakota Y Tennessee Y Texas Y Utah Y Virginia Y Washington Y West Virginia Y Wisconsin Y Wyoming Y Additional notes on level for load posting?

89 TABLE A23 SURVEY RESPONSES—STATES’ NOTES ON LEVEL FOR LOAD POSTING State Notes on Level for Load Posting Alabama Alaska Posting analysis is triggered when the inventory load rating factor is less than 0.75. Arizona California Colorado Load testing Delaware Four levels depending on condition, details, enforcement, and detour length Florida Florida uses the LF and the LRFR methods for load posting purposes including Florida specific load factors. Operating as Florida legal load rating (LR 7.3). Georgia Evaluate at Operating Level. Post state bridges at Operating Level. Post local bridges at Inventory Level. Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Post structure approximately midway between the inventory and operating rating. Kentucky If the rating falls below 75% of Fy, we post at 69% of Fy Louisiana Maine Load capacity based on state legal loads is used for posting. Maryland Massachusetts Most postings are set at the inventory level. However, if a 5% overstress over the inventory level gives statutory ratings for all posting trucks the posting is waived. If a 5% to 10% overstress over the inventory level gives statutory ratings for all posting trucks, then the bridge is posted for statutory truck weights. This policy is found in the Bridge Inspection Handbook, which is currently only available in hardcopy. Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Posting is generally established at 68% of the allowable stress for the working stress method and at 86% of the operating rating for the load factor method. Montana The Operating Rating for the type 3-3 truck is our trigger as to whether a bridge requires posting or not, but we post at the inventory rating for all three AASHTO legal loads. Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Mexico New York The operating capacity of the bridge member rated is reduced by a factor that is based on condition and load path and internal redundancy. North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Tennessee Texas TxDOT uses both inventory and operating ratings to determine posting levels. The bridge condition is used to determine which rating level to use to set the posting load. A flowchart outlining the methodology is presented in the TxDOT Bridge Inspection Manual. Utah Virginia Posting is as follows: Load factor—steel structures at midway between inventory and operating.Load factor—concrete structures at operating; LRFR using load posting equation. Washington West Virginia We normally use the mid-point between inventory and operating but will allow posting at operating on a temporary basis. Fracture critical members are limited to inventory stress. Wisconsin We would use operating level for structures that were designed ASD or LFD. We would use the AASHTO load posting equation for structures designed LRFR. Wyoming

90 REFINED ANALYSIS When does your state use refined methods of analysis to evaluate weight limits for posted bridges? ( ) All bridges ( ) Any bridge for which beam line analysis indicates need for load posting ( ) On-system bridges only ( ) Bridges on truck routes only ( ) Other, please describe. TABLE A24 SURVEY RESPONSES—USE OF REFINED ANALYSIS State Avoid Posting Complex Bridge Use of Refined Analysis Methods in Load Rating Alabama Y Usually just involves the structures that are on state routes or the Interstate that are not legal for all posting vehicles using the beam line analysis. A state structure is first modeled with a beam line and live load distribution analysis. If posting vehicles are not legal then a 3D analysis is done. If the structure is not legal for moment then a load test will be performed with multiple strain gages at midspan and twangers for deflection. Structures not legal for shear will be cored to see the current concrete compressive strength. Structures that have to be posted will be added to a list for monitoring to make sure structure becomes posted. Alaska Y Bridges on truck routes and other routes where there is no detour Arizona California Y Y Bridges that are close to full legal capacity, unusual configurations, some state- owned bridges for which beam line analysis indicates the need to post Colorado Y When posting is required for a structure analyzed using the LFR method, LRFR is used to remove posting requirements. If LRFR does not help, refined analysis is used. Delaware Y If the bridges can’t be evaluated using the beam line analysis, then we use refined analysis Florida Y If beam line analysis results in a posting for on-system bridges, a more refined analysis will likely be performed. Georgia Y We will do it for state system bridges for which beam line analysis indicates the need for posting. Hawaii Idaho Illinois Y Used for complex structures Indiana Iowa Kansas Y Only used on complex bridges Kentucky Louisiana Y Y Load posted bridges and complex bridges Maine Y Y Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Y Y Refined methods are use when beam line analysis yields results that may be deemed conservative. In addition, refined methods are used for types of structures (pipes, 3 sided arches, curved structures) where beam line methods are either not available or known to be over-conservative. Minnesota Y For complex bridge we require that the designers use same design method for ratings, such as FE models. Mississippi Missouri Not available Montana Y Y When a beam-line analysis produces extremely low rating factors, or a very complex bridge or a very complex part of a bridge is rated. Nebraska Y Complicated structures that beam analysis does not properly rate (segmental box, tied arches) Nevada Y Any bridge for which beam line analysis indicates need for load posting New Hampshire New Mexico New York Y Refined analysis is generally performed on bridges where girder-line analysis gives conservative result requiring load posting.

91 State Avoid Posting Complex Bridge Use of Refined Analysis Methods in Load Rating North Carolina Y Structures critical to the local economy or industry. North Dakota Ohio Y In special circumstances, for complex and unusual bridges where we cannot accurately model a bridge using beam line analysis Oklahoma On-system bridges, when load rating for Oklahoma Standard OL-1 permit truck Oregon Y For complex bridges that are outside the applicable limits for a beam line analysis. South Dakota Tennessee Y Bridges where the weight posting decision is borderline between postings or not posting may be rated using refined methods so as to reach a final conclusion. Texas Y Any bridge for which beam line analysis indicates need for load posting Utah Y Y Whenever beam line analysis indicates need for posting or otherwise is not adequate. Virginia Y 3D analysis, finite-element method or other refined analysis are typically not used to get higher capacities; they are used when the traditional (Virtis) software is not able to analyze a structure. Washington Y Refined analysis is sometimes used when line analysis results shows a need for posting of a bridge. West Virginia Wisconsin Y We don’t often use refined analysis for posting decisions. We would potentially use these methods when the bridge in question is a “major” bridge or deemed a critical link in the transportation system. Wyoming FIELD EVALUATION AND ENGINEERING JUDGMENT Please describe your use of field evaluation and engineering judgment to set weight limits at posted bridges. TABLE A25 SURVEY RESPONSES—USE OF FE/EJ FOR BRIDGE LOAD RATING State Use of Field Evaluation and Engineering Judgment Alabama All of these structures have concrete superstructures with unknown reinforcement. Most of these structures are concrete slabs. A Professional Engineer with inspection experience assigns the overall weight limit to these structures. Alaska On concrete bridges when there are no plans. Arizona California See ABME procedures manual (intranet) Colorado No publication Delaware We use field evaluation to find out the load distribution of slab bridges and find out that the formulae are overly conservative. Florida Georgia We use field evaluations for concrete elements with unknown reinforcement, masonry, etc. Hawaii If a route has no detour, the posted limit for the entire route is based on the lowest capacity bridge. Idaho Illinois Structural Services Manual (Ratings chapter to be added with 2/2013 edition) http://www.dot.il.gov/bridges/brmanuals.html Indiana Iowa Kansas Field judgment is used to determine the actual remaining carrying capacity for each element. Even with actual field measurements, engineering judgment is still required for the determination of what portion of the element is still available. Kentucky If we have no plans for a structure, we will use the condition of the bridge to enhance our engineering judgment to see if we need to post the bridge for weight limits. Louisiana MBE Maine Maryland Massachusetts TABLE A24 (continued) (continued on next page)

92 State Use of Field Evaluation and Engineering Judgment Michigan MDOT BRIDGE Advisory 2012-3 http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_BRIDGE_ADVISORY_BA_2012- 02_401291_7.pdf Minnesota Mississippi Missouri We use field evaluation and engineering judgment when we don’t have any plans or design information on file for a structure. The load posting is based on the current condition of the structure documented in the field evaluation and history of the structure. Montana A licensed professional engineer evaluates the bridge and determines a reasonable load posting given the condition of the bridge, its design type, and other factors the engineer feels are pertinent in making the engineering judgment call. Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Ratings are set to match RSA 266. New Mexico Will load test some concrete bridges with no available plans beginning in the summer of 2013. New York North Carolina North Dakota With bridges with minimal information (prestressed with no area of prestress strands) the bridge is posted at no more than the design load. Ohio District Bridge Engineer’s evaluation and determination Oklahoma Engineering judgment is based on site conditions—oftentimes the posting is a temporary condition while repairs are being made. Oregon Section 8 of the ODOT LRFR Manual provides instructions for load rating concrete bridges without existing plans. Go to section 8 in the manual for more information. ftp://ftp.odot.state.or.us/Bridge/LoadRating/Tier-2/Manuals/ODOT_LRFR_Manual.doc South Dakota Tennessee TDOT Bridge Inspection Procedures Manual; not available on-line. Texas The Bridge Inspection Manualhttp://gsd-ultraseek/txdotmanuals/ins/index.htm Utah Bridge condition and field data are incorporated in load rating that leads to setting weight limits on a posted bridge. Virginia IIM-S&B-86, Load Rating and Posting of Structures http://www.extranet.vdot.state.va.us/locdes/electronic%20pubs/Bridge%20Manuals/IIM/SBIIM86. pdf Washington West Virginia Guidance in DOT document BMD P49-5, Load Rating Concrete Structures Wisconsin The general process would be to assess the intended design capacity of the structure and how much that capacity is compromised by the current state of the structure. When we’re using field evaluation/engineering judgment to make a posting decision, we’re typically erring on the side of being overly conservative. Though rare, we might use engineering judgment in the case where we have low confidence in “typical” analysis methods due to the number of assumptions that must be made regarding the composition and condition of a structure. Wyoming Bridges in good condition (showing no signs of distress) should be rated as follows: HS20 Inv = 28 tons, Type 3 Inv = 22 tons, Opg = 22 tons, Type 3S2 Inv = 40 tons, Opg = 40 tons, Type 3-3 Inv = 41 tons, Opg = 41 tons. If in the judgment of the rater, the ratings can be reduced to reflect the amount of distress. Please describe your use of load tests to set weight limits at posted bridges. TABLE A26 SURVEY RESPONSES—USE OF LOAD TESTS State Use of Load Tests Alabama Only involves structures that are on state routes or the interstate that are not legal for all posting vehicles using a 3D analysis. If the structure is not legal for moment then a load test will be performed with multiple strain gages at midspan and twangers for deflection. Structures not legal for shear will be cored to see the current concrete compressive strength. Structures that have to be posted will be added to a list for monitoring to make sure structure becomes posted. Alaska Bridges on major truck routes. Load distribution tests are performed to improve the load rating and posting. Arizona California TABLE A25 (continued)

93 State Use of Load Tests Colorado Not typically done at CDOT. Load tests were performed on several I-25 bridges in Colorado Springs for the HETS vehicle (Heavy Equipment Transport System) for the U.S. Army. Delaware When we have doubts about the rating based on our engineering experience Florida A load test could be used if the beam line analysis results and a more refined analysis result in recommending posting of an on-system bridge. Georgia Critical bridges Hawaii When as-builts are not available. Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa When bridge on an important truck route Kansas In extreme cases when the existing condition and performance don’t match with the computed rating. Kentucky When the bridge is borderline of being posted. Louisiana Critical bridges or bridges with repeat issues Maine Load tests performed on critical bridges when refined analysis methods are not sufficient to improve a rating and avoid posting. Load tests have also been performed to verify the results of state developed rating software. Maryland When analytical computations indicate posting is required; in a location where posting would be especially undesirable, a load test may be used to verify the actual capacity of the structure. Massachusetts Michigan For bridges where plans are perhaps not available and structures of high importance such as truck routes or high volume routes where refined methods do not yield desirable results. Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Load tests are used on non-state (city and county) structures. Montana On county bridges constructed of old railroad cars, the county has the option of posting the bridge at 5 tons or load testing the bridge in order to get a higher posting or no posting at all. Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Mexico Will load test some concrete bridges with no available plans beginning in the summer of 2013. New York North Carolina Structures critical to the local economy or industry. North Dakota Ohio Special circumstances when very heavy superloads are being considered. Oklahoma Not typically done in Oklahoma, no guidelines Oregon Any bridge for which beam line analysis indicates need for load posting. South Dakota Tennessee Not applicable Texas Not applicable Utah Not applicable Virginia Structure specific—unusual structure type where a capacity cannot be determined by load rating methods (including unknown details) and on routes that are critical to commerce. This is rarely used. Washington WSDOT does not use load testing. West Virginia Wisconsin We don’t currently use load tests in posting decisions. This isn’t to say that its policy is not to use load tests, but it’s not currently a part of our program. Wyoming LOAD RATING OF DECKS & SUBSTRUCTURES Does your state load rate deck slabs of beam-deck bridges when evaluating weight limits for posting? ( ) No ( ) Yes ( ) Other, please describe. Is deck condition or material a factor? TABLE A26 (continued)

94 TABLE A27 SURVEY RESPONSES—LOAD RATING OF DECKS State Rate Decks Poor Condition Deck Mat’l. Other Note Alabama N Alaska Y Arizona N California N Colorado — Y Timber structures with timber decks are considered in the evaluation. Delaware N Florida — Y Slabs are part of finite-element models, when FEM is used. Georgia N N N Hawaii N Idaho — Y Illinois Indiana Y Iowa N Kansas — Y Extreme cases only Kentucky Y Louisiana — Y Timber decks and metal decks are rated. (procedures) Maine Y Timber of steel decks is evaluated. Maryland N Massachusetts Y Michigan Y Minnesota N Mississippi N Missouri N Montana Nebraska — Y Engineering judgment Nevada Y New Hampshire Y New Mexico N New York — Y Timber, metal North Carolina Y North Dakota N Ohio DOT N Oklahoma Oregon — Y Engineering judgment South Dakota N Tennessee Y Texas — Y Utah N Virginia — Y Y Slabs of single-cell box bridges Excessive span between girders Engineering judgment Washington — Y West Virginia Wisconsin — Wyoming N Does your state load rate substructures when evaluating weight limits for posting? ( ) No ( ) Yes ( ) Other, please describe. Is substructure condition or material a factor?

95 TABLE A28 SURVEY RESPONSES—LOAD RATING OF SUBSTRUCTURES State Rate Substructure Poor Condition Material Other Note Alabama N Alaska — Y Arizona N California Y Colorado N Y Y When substructure condition rating is 4 or lower or has scour potential, substructures are used in the evaluation. Delaware N Florida — Settlement Georgia Y Y Y Hawaii N Idaho — Y Illinois — Y Indiana N Iowa — Y Kansas — Y Kentucky Y Louisiana Y Y Timber piers, metal piers (procedures) Maine N Maryland N Massachusetts — Y Y Timber, steelFracture-critical (pile bents) Michigan — Y Minnesota — Y Pier cap integrated with girders Mississippi Y Missouri N Montana Y Substructures are only evaluated when their condition indicates that they may control the load rating of the bridge. Nebraska — Y Y Engineering judgment Nevada Y New Hampshire N New Mexico N New York — Y Timber, metal North Carolina Y North Dakota N Ohio — Y Engineering judgment Oklahoma Oregon — Y Crossbeams integrated with girders South Dakota N Tennessee Y Texas — Y Utah N Virginia — Y Y Scour, collision damage, unusual geometry Washington — Y Crossbeams integrated with girders West Virginia — Y Steel bents only Wisconsin — Y Engineering judgment Wyoming N Deterioration in Bridge Components How is deterioration considered in evaluation of weight limits for posted bridges? ( ) Using AASHTO’s condition factor, ( ) Using section properties computed from field-measured dimensions of deteriorated members ( ) Using stress limits based on tests of coupons or cores collected from bridges ( ) Other.

96 TABLE A29 SURVEY RESPONSES—USE OF CONDITION OF COMPONENTS IN LOAD POSTING State AASHTO Condition Factor Section Properties, Field Measurement Stress Limits, Coupon Test Alabama Alaska Y Y Arizona Y California Y Y Y Colorado Y Y Delaware Y Y Y Florida Y Y Y Georgia Y Hawaii Y Y Idaho Y Illinois Y Y Indiana Y Iowa Y Kansas Kentucky Y Y Louisiana Y Y Y Maine Y Y Maryland Y Massachusetts Y Y Michigan Y Y Y Minnesota Y Y Mississippi Y Missouri Y Montana Y Nebraska Y Nevada Y Y New Hampshire Y Y New Mexico Y New York Y North Carolina Y Y North Dakota Y Ohio Y Y Oklahoma Y Y Y Oregon Y Y Y South Dakota Y Tennessee Y Texas Y Y Utah Y Y Virginia Y Y Washington Y Y Y West Virginia Y Wisconsin Y Y Y Wyoming Y Additional notes on deterioration of bridge components in load rating?

97 TABLE A30 SURVEY RESPONSES—STATES’ NOTES ON USE OF CONDITION OF COMPONENTS IN LOAD POSTING State Notes on Deterioration Alabama Guidelines for Operations (pp. 123–127) of the link below. http://www.dot.state.al.us/maweb/frm/Bridge%20Inspection %20Pocket%20Guide.pdf Alaska Arizona California Material strength is reduced based on evaluation for timber. Section loss is determined for steel/reduced capacity. Reduced capacity section loss is also considered. Colorado Member capacity calculations are based on reduced section and compared with demand to arrive at maximum weight limit at bridges. Delaware We used all methods mentioned in question 32. Florida Factors may be adjusted using average deterioration, extent of the maximum deterioration for specific component, and engineering judgment. Georgia We measure section loss. Hawaii Condition factors used based on The Manual for Bridge Evaluation. Idaho Illinois The load rating is re-evaluated when the condition rating drops to “4” or below. Indiana Iowa Kansas Superstructure health index is used as a condition factor on load ratings until posting level is reached. All ratings below posting level must be backed up with calculations and engineering judgment. Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland If a structure has significant deterioration in its primary structural elements, the load rating computations would take into account these reduced section properties. Massachusetts Actual section properties are used in the numerical calculations. Also, if material properties are unknown, coupons and cores are used to establish the actual material properties and these are used in the calculations as well. Michigan Bridge condition is typically included when section loss exceeds 25% in most cases. Condition factor may be used in absence of more detailed information for LRFR ratings. Minnesota We use measured section loss when it is available. Mississippi When there is loss of section in a structural member of a bridge, the remaining section properties are computed and used to determine the load carrying capacity of the structure. Missouri We use field measurements to reduce the section of deteriorated members in our load rating software to evaluate weight limits of posted bridges. Montana We have a lot of timber bridges. When members of timber bridges are in poor condition, we typically used a reduced strength when load rating that member. For other bridges, such as steel girders with section loss, we used the reduced section properties given the measurements of section loss provided to us by our bridge inspectors. Nebraska Only if in poor condition by NBIS inspection standards or if engineering judgment suggests to rate. Nevada New Hampshire New Mexico NMDOT requires field measurements for load rating structurally deficient bridges to determine amount of section loss or other section properties. New York The operating capacity of the bridge is reduced by a factor that is partially based on the bridge’s condition. North Carolina Structural member capacity is computed on the basis of section properties that are computed from field-measured dimensions. North Dakota Loss of section is used to determine the remaining capacity in the members to rate the bridge. Additional overburden is also subtracted from the available live load. Ohio When physical deterioration in a bridge is discovered during inspection, we go back and determine the extent of deterioration and section losses and include in the revised load rating of the bridge to determine if a posting for the reduced load limits is warranted. Oklahoma Use reduced section properties Oregon We modify the condition factor during load rating based on the condition determined from the bridge inspection. For steel and timber members, the field-measured dimensions of deteriorated members will also be used in the analysis. South Dakota Tennessee The available live load capacity may be reduced by computing properties based upon reduced cross- sectional area of deteriorated members and/or a reduction in the allowable stress of the material. Texas See the TxDOT Bridge Inspection Manual—Chapter 5 for a flowchart outlining the methodology. (continued on next page)

98 State Notes on Deterioration Utah Information is incorporated in load rating that leads to posting. As conditions change new load rating is performed and weight limits revisited. Virginia Condition factor—good/satisfactory/fair = 1.0; poor = 0.9. Section properties are computed from field measured dimensions of deteriorated members. Washington Reduce resistance factor, or use section properties based on field measurements. West Virginia We apply section loss where it occurs. Wisconsin We would typically modify section properties as required and run our posting analysis based on the modified section. Wyoming LOAD RATING VEHICLES What loads are used in evaluation of weight limits for posted bridges? ( ) AASHTO HS20 ( ) AASHTO Type 3, 3S2 and 3-3 ( ) AASHTO SU4, SU5, SU6 and SU7 ( ) State-specific legal loads ( ) State-specific routine permit loads TABLE A31 SURVEY RESPONSES—USE OF RATING VEHICLES State AASHTO State Specific HS20 Type 3, 3S2, 3-3 SU4, SU5, SU6, SU7 Legal loads Routine permit loads Alabama Y Y Y Alaska Y Y Y Arizona Y California Y Colorado Y Y Delaware Y Florida Y Georgia Y Y Y Hawaii Y Y Idaho Y Illinois Y Indiana Y Iowa Y Y Kansas Y Y Kentucky Y Y Louisiana Y Y Y Y Maine Y Y Maryland Y Y Massachusetts Y Y Michigan Y Y Y Minnesota Y Y Y Mississippi Y Y Missouri Y Montana Y Y Nebraska Y Y Nevada Y New Hampshire Y New Mexico Y Y Y New York Y Y North Carolina Y North Dakota Y Y Ohio Y Oklahoma Y Y Y TABLE A30 (continued)

99 State AASHTO State Specific HS20 Type 3, 3S2, 3-3 SU4, SU5, SU6, SU7 Legal loads Routine permit loads Oregon Y Y Y Y South Dakota Y Tennessee Y Y Y Texas Y Y Y Utah Y Y Y Y Virginia Y Y Y Washington Y Y Y West Virginia Y Y Y Wisconsin Y Y Y Y Y Wyoming Y Y Research Related to Load Posting Is your state developing knowledge (research), practices or policies on special vehicles or loads for load rating or posting? (husbandry loads, for example) ( ) No ( ) Yes. Description or URL? TABLE A32 SURVEY RESPONSES—RESEARCH ON SPECIAL VEHICLES OR LOADS FOR LOAD RATING OR POSTING State Note Alabama Alaska Arizona California Colorado Specialized hauling vehicles. Notional rating vehicle. Delaware Florida SU4 dump truck http://www.dot.state.fl.us/statemaintenanceoffice/LRManual82012.pdf Georgia Not at this time Hawaii Idaho Illinois Study of the Impacts of Implements of Husbandry on Bridges. Traditional bridge design and bridge rating are based on codified procedures that examine a bridge’s capability to resist traditional highway-type vehicles (e.g., trucks). It is known, however, that other vehicles (e.g., farm/agricultural vehicles or implements of husbandry) use these bridges. These farm vehicles have characteristics that are quite different from traditional vehicles; specifically, they tend to have different wheel spacing, different gage widths, different wheel footprints, dynamic coupling characteristics, and others. Further, these vehicles are carrying heavier loads as the agriculture industry has desired them to do so. Currently, the Iowa Department of Transportation Bridge Rating Engineer must make assumptions about how highway bridges resist these non-traditional vehicles. Thus, a research study is needed to more accurately characterize how applied loads from these implements of husbandry are resisted. Specifically, it is desired to understand how these agriculture loads are distributed through the structural elements comprising the bridge and to assess the magnitude of the dynamic loads these vehicles impose. Further, it is desired to know what methods of analyzing bridges for these loads are acceptable, so that accurate bridge ratings may be produced. The objective of this study is to determine how the implements of husbandry distribute their load within a bridge structural system and to provide recommendations for accurately analyzing bridges for these loading effects. To achieve this objective the distribution of live load and dynamic impact effects for different types of agricultural vehicles will be determined by load testing and evaluating two general types of bridges. The types of equipment studied will include, but will not be limited to, grain wagons/grain carts, manure tank wagons, agriculture fertilizer applicators, and tractors. Once the effect of these vehicles has been determined, recommendations for the analysis of bridges for these non-traditional vehicles will be developed. http://www.pooledfund.org/Details/Study/460 TABLE A31 (continued) (continued on next page)

100 State Note Indiana Iowa Pooled fund study on implements of husbandry. http://www.pooledfund.org/Details/Study/460 Kansas Kentucky No Louisiana Develop LA design/rating vehicle based on WIM data Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Yes, participates in pooled-fund Study of the Impacts of Implements of Husbandry on Bridges. Oregon South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia WV SU4 and coal haulers using WV Coal Resource Transportation System Roads Wisconsin The Effects of Implements of Husbandry Farm Equipment on Rigid Pavement Performance Wyoming Is your state developing knowledge (research), practices or policies on special load factors for load posting? Special load posting equation or calibration? ( ) No ( ) Yes. Description or URL? TABLE A33 SURVEY RESPONSES—RESEARCH ON SPECIAL LOAD FACTORS FOR LOAD POSTING State Note Alabama Alaska Arizona California Colorado Delaware Florida Georgia Not at this time Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky No TABLE A32 (continued)

101 State Note Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma No Oregon Calibration of LRFR Live Load Factors for Oregon State-Owned Bridges Using Weigh-In-Motion Data Live load factors for bridge rating have been calculated using Oregon weigh-in-motion (WIM) data. These factors have been calculated for four sites, including state and Interstate routes around the state and at different seasons. This report presents the analysis methods used to determine the site-specific live load factors and the resulting live load factors based on WIM data. ftp://ftp.odot.state.or.us/Bridge/LoadRating/Tier-2/Calibration/ South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia No Wisconsin Wyoming Is your state developing knowledge, practices or policies on load testing for load posting? Special load posting equation or calibration? ( ) No ( ) Yes. Description or URL? TABLE A34 SURVEY RESPONSE—RESEARCH ON LOAD TESTING FOR LOAD POSTING State Note Alabama Alaska Structural Health Monitoring and Condition Assessment of the Chulitna River Bridge Arizona California Colorado Delaware Effective Width of Concrete Slab Bridges will be provided if requested and approved by the authors Internal research report Florida Georgia Not at this time Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Demonstration of capacities and benefits of bridge load rating through physical testing TABLE A33 (continued) (continued on next page)

102 State Note Kentucky Yes Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Structural load testing and flexure analysis of the Route 701 Bridge in Louisa County, Virginia: supplemental report A continuous slab bridge in Louisa County, Virginia, on Route 701 developed a planar horizontal crack along the length of all three spans. This project was designed to determine if the current 12-ton posted load restriction of the bridge (instituted in January 2002) could be raised and to determine if the horizontal crack causes degradation in the structural integrity, specifically stiffness, over time. These objectives were accomplished through field tests performed in November 2003 and October 2004. One truck (loaded to three different weights) was used to perform static and dynamic tests on the bridge, and the truck was oriented in three test lanes. Vertical displacement sensors, or deflectometers, attached to the underside of the bridge slab were used to measure deflections during truck passes. The recorded deflections were analyzed and normalized to document the current behavior of the bridge. The 2003 values were compared to estimated design values in accordance with the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. Under the testing loads, the bridge behaved elastically; thus raising the load rating of the bridge to 27 tons was considered safe. Normalized deflections from both years were compared to determine if there was progressive damage to the bridge attributable to crack growth. The researchers concluded that no degradation of the stiffness of the bridge occurred over the last year of service. Carrying out the recommendation of this report to remove the posting that restricts loading of the structure will not incur any significant cost. The benefit of removing the posting would be that trucks weighing more than 12 tons, but not exceeding the legal limit, could cross the structure. This would allow the Virginia DOT to defer superstructure replacement, at an estimated cost of $350,000, thus freeing up funds to address more pressing needs. http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/06-r14.pdf Washington West Virginia No Wisconsin Effects of OSOW Vehicles on Complex Bridges In-progress (not yet initiated) Wyoming Other new knowledge, practices or policies on load posting? ( ) No ( ) Yes. Description or URL? Kansas TABLE A34 (continued)

103 TABLE A35 SURVEY RESPONSES—OTHER RESEARCH ON LOAD POSTING State Note Alabama Alaska Arizona California Colorado Delaware Florida Georgia Not at this time Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri We’re currently doing research on how fill heights affect the live load for the load rating of box culverts. Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Mexico We are in the process of awarding a research project titled “Load Rating Bridges with No As-built Plans.” New York New York State conducted a research project with City College of New York based on LRFR methodology for load rating and posting bridges in NYS. Link as follows: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/44000/44400/44422/C-06-13__vol_1_Final_Report.pdf North Carolina North Dakota Agriculture-related loads receive a 10% increase over legal loads during harvest time. Ohio Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Tennessee TDOT is considering initiating a research project to investigate load testing for load posting. This research project is currently only in the planning state. Texas Utah Virginia Additional load testing and bridge research information in Virginia is available through the Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research (VCTIR): http://vtrc.virginiadot.org/default.htm Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Analysis of Permit Vehicle Loads in Wisconsin: http://wisdotresearch.wi.gov/wp- content/uploads/WisDOT-WHRP-project-0092-08-15-final-report.pdf Wyoming