Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations, Volume 3: Coding and Marking Guidelines (2016)

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.

2016 N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 833 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations Volume 3: Coding and Marking Guidelines Michael J. Olsen Andre Barbosa Patrick Burns Alireza Kashani Haizhong Wang OregOn State UniverSity Corvallis, OR Marc Veletzos MerriMack cOllege North Andover, MA Zhiqiang Chen UniverSity Of MiSSOUri Kansas City, MO Gene Roe MPn cOMPOnentS, inc. Hampton, NH Kaz Tabrizi advanced infraStrUctUre deSign, inc. Hamilton, NJ Subscriber Categories Bridges and Other Structures • Security and Emergencies Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coor- dinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Asso- ciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AAS- HTO) in 1962 initiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited for this pur- pose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transporta- tion subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of commu- nications and cooperation with federal, state, and local govern- mental agencies, universities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the Academies is an insurance of objectivity; and TRB main- tains a full-time staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators and other staff of the high- way and transportation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AAS- HTO Standing Committee on Research (SCOR), and each year SCOR’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Directors and the Academies. Research projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the Academies and TRB. The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make significant contributions to solving highway transporta- tion problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate, other highway research programs. Published research reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to http://www.national-academies.org and then searching for TRB Printed in the United States of America NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 833, VOLUME 3 Project 14-29 ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 978-0-309-44593-1 Library of Congress Control Number 2016953492 © 2016 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for edu- cational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not neces- sarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Acade- mies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sci- ences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was developed for NCHRP Project 14-29 by Oregon State University (OSU), Merrimack College, University of Missouri–Kansas City (UMKC), MPN Components, Inc., and Advanced Infrastructure Design, Inc. (AID). The authors of the report are: Michael J. Olsen (OSU), Andre Barbosa (OSU), Patrick Burns (OSU), Marc Veletzos (Merrimack), Zhiqiang Chen (UMKC), Gene Roe (MPN), Kaz Tabrizi (AID), Alireza Kashani (OSU), and Haizhong Wang (OSU). The authors appreciate those who responded to the questionnaire and provided the research team with information regarding current processes of state DOTs. In addition, we are thankful for the detailed reviews of the project panel that improved the content of the products of this project. CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 833, VOLUME 3 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Amir N. Hanna, Senior Program Officer Natasha R. Donawa, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Natalie Barnes, Senior Editor NCHRP PROJECT 14-29 PANEL Field of Maintenance—Area of Maintenance of Way and Structures Nevin L. Myers, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg, PA (Chair) Erik D. Andersen, Tennessee DOT, Nashville, TN Herby Gerard Lissade, California DOT, Sacramento, CA Pingbo Tang, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ Peter J. Weykamp, Colonie, NY Everett Matias, FHWA Liaison James W. Bryant, Jr., TRB Liaison

This report presents a process for assessing highway structures in emergency situations and guidelines for related coding and marking that can be recognized by highway agencies and other organizations that respond to emergencies resulting from natural or man-made disasters. This information will help highway and other emergency response agencies deal more effectively with these emergencies and provide a safer condition for the public. The material contained in the report should be of immediate interest to the personnel at state agencies and other organizations that generally respond to emergency situations affecting highway structures. The assessing, coding, and marking of highway structures are necessary for ensuring safety in the event of emergencies resulting from natural or man-made disasters, and several state DOTs have adopted processes for performing these activities. However, there are currently no processes that provide a uniform means for conducting these assessments or a common form of coding and marking; neither do current processes explicitly consider the practices of other organizations that often respond to such emergencies with assistance. Also, these processes do not generally address the full range of emergency events, the different highway structure types, or the ranges of traffic levels. These issues tend to impede the effectiveness of involved organizations in dealing with these situations and may lead to undesirable con- sequences. Research was needed to develop a process for assessing highway structures and guidelines for related coding and marking that can be recognized and adopted by highway agencies and other organizations. These uniform processes and guidelines would help coor- dinate the emergency response effort in a safe and efficient manner. Under NCHRP Project 14-29, “Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations,” Oregon State University worked with the objective of developing (a) a process for assessing highway structures in emergency situations, (b) guidelines for cod- ing and marking, and (c) material to facilitate the acceptance and adoption of the developed process and guidelines by state agencies and other organizations. The research was conducted in two phases. The first phase collected background infor- mation through a literature review and a survey of state departments of transportation. The review dealt with common hazards, critical highway structures, inspection technolo- gies, emergency management and response, assessment procedures, and coding and marking practices. Specific hazards considered included earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados, hurricanes, storm surge, high winds, flooding, scour, and fire. Highway structures considered included bridges, tunnels, culverts, walls, embankments, and overhead signs. This work identi- fied assessment, coding, and marking technologies that can be practically implemented by transportation and other emergency response agencies. An evaluation of these technologies led to the identification of methods that could be used in each stage in the process for rapid assessment of highway structures in emergency situations. The second phase of research focused on developing the (a) Assessment Process Manual and (b) Coding and Marking Guidelines. The Assessment Process Manual—intended for man- agers who will oversee the emergency response—identifies technologies that are appropriate for each structure type and addresses prioritization, coordination, communication, and redun- F O R E W O R D By Amir N. Hanna Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

dancy. The Coding and Marking Guidelines are intended as a field manual for Preliminary Damage Assessment responders who will evaluate the highway structures. In addition, the proj- ect produced Preliminary Damage Assessment Forms for each structure type, development guidelines to help create a mobile device smart application for the assessment process, and four types of training material to further help highway agencies and other emergency response organizations with the implementation of the developed manual and guidelines. This training material includes: (a) general training for the general audience who will interface with those involved in the assessment process, (b) basic training for damage assessment responders, (c) specialized training for managing engineers who will oversee the assessment process, and (d) a quick refresher for damage assessment responders on the most relevant procedures for Preliminary Damage Assessment. The Research Overview, which provides background information and an overview of the process, supporting manuals, and training materials, and Assessment Process Manual are pub- lished as Volumes 1 and 2, respectively, of this report. Guidelines for Development of Smart Apps for Assessing, Coding, and Marking Highway Structures in Emergency Situations is avail- able on the TRB website (www.trb.org) as NCHRP Web-Only Document 223. To facilitate use, the assessment forms and training material are posted on the NCHRP Research Report 833 summary page, available by searching the TRB website for NCHRP Research Report 833.

xi Figures xv Tables xvii Preface P A R T I Background 3 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Purpose and Scope 3 1.2 Organization of the Manual 4 1.3 Definitions of Key Terms 6 2 Overview of Highway Structure Safety Evaluation 6 2.1 Assessment Stages 7 2.2 Response Levels 9 2.3 Coding and Marking System 12 2.4 Use of Judgment Required 13 3 Preliminary Damage Assessment 13 3.1 PDA Strategy 13 3.2 Conservative vs. Unconservative Assessments 14 3.3 Element Damage Levels 15 3.4 PDA Procedure 16 3.5 Filling out Placards and Assessment Forms 18 3.6 PDA Technologies 20 4 Overview of Emergency Events 20 4.1 Overview 21 4.2 Damage Matrix 21 4.3 Earthquake 22 4.4 Tsunami 23 4.5 Tornado and High Winds 23 4.6 Hurricane and Storm Surge 24 4.7 Flooding 24 4.8 Fire 25 4.9 Scour P A R T I I Preliminary Damage Assessment of Highway Structures 29 5 Bridges 30 5.1 PDA Procedure for Bridges 32 5.2 Bridge Damage States 35 5.3 Bridge Assessment Form 37 6 Tunnels 38 6.1 PDA Procedure for Tunnels 40 6.2 Tunnel Cracking Types 40 6.3 Tunnel Damage States 42 6.4 Tunnel Assessment Form C O N T E N T S

44 7 Culverts 45 7.1 PDA Procedure for Culverts 46 7.2 Culvert Damage States 49 7.3 Culvert Assessment Form 51 8 Walls 54 8.1 PDA Procedure for Walls 54 8.2 Wall Damage States 57 8.3 Wall Assessment Form 59 9 Overhead Signs 60 9.1 PDA Procedure for Overhead Signs 61 9.2 Overhead Sign Damage States 64 9.3 Overhead Sign Assessment Form P A R T I I I Damage Photos 69 10 Bridge Damage Photos 70 10.1 Approach/Embankment 71 10.2 Parapets, Handrails, and Curb Line 72 10.3 Deck 73 10.4 Expansion Joint 75 10.5 Abutments and Wingwalls 77 10.6 Girder 80 10.7 Bearings 82 10.8 Bent Cap and Column 84 10.9 Foundation 85 10.10 Geotechnical Problems 88 11 Tunnel Damage Photos 89 11.1 Ceiling/Roof Slab (Roadway, Upper Plenum, and/or Lower Plenum) 91 11.2 Roadway Slab 92 11.3 Walls 95 11.4 Safety Walks and Railings 97 12 Culvert Damage Photos 98 12.1 Embankment 99 12.2 Roadway 100 12.3 Culvert Condition 104 12.4 Headwall/Wingwall 106 12.5 Invert 107 12.6 Scour 109 13 Wall Damage Photos 111 14 Overhead Sign Damage Photos 112 14.1 Foundation 113 14.2 Anchor Bolts 115 14.3 Base Plate 116 14.4 Column Support 118 14.5 Column to Arm/Chord Connection 119 14.6 Truss Chords/Arms 121 14.7 Truss Struts 122 14.8 Chord Splice Connections 123 14.9 Sign Frame and L-brackets 125 14.10 Sign Panel 125 14.11 Catwalk

127 15 Scour Damage Photos 130 Appendix A PDA Equipment List 131 Appendix B Field Safety 132 Appendix C Contact List Form 135 Appendix D Emergency Routes 137 Appendix E Example of a Completed Assessment Form 139 References 141 Acronyms and Abbreviations

8 2-1 Assessment stages and subsequent primary level of coding 9 2-2 Example marking placard 10 2-3 Marking codes for PDA (left) and DDA (right) 30 5-1 Bridge schematic illustrating basic elements 35 5-2 Bridge assessment form 37 6-1 Circular tunnel schematic and clock system designations 42 6-2 Tunnel assessment form 44 7-1 Common types and cross sections of pipe culverts (top four) and box culverts (bottom two) 45 7-2 Culvert schematic 49 7-3 Culvert assessment form 57 8-1 Wall assessment form 59 9-1 Overhead sign schematic 64 9-2 Overhead sign assessment form Bridge Damage 70 10-1 Moderate damage—Approach settlement between 1 and 6 inches 70 10-2 Severe damage—Settlement of the bridge approach slab over 6 inches 71 10-3 Minor damage—Parapet crushing/spalling 71 10-4 Moderate damage—Bowing of parapet and railing 72 10-5 Severe damage—Bridge parapet failure due to storm surge 72 10-6 Moderate damage—Vertical offset between decks 73 10-7 Severe damage—Severe deck cracking and collapse 73 10-8 Minor damage—Misaligned finger joint 74 10-9 Moderate damage—Movement of expansion joints between 1 and 6 inches 74 10-10 Severe damage—Excessive transversal movement at joint over 6 inches 75 10-11 Minor damage—Shearing cracking at the abutment backwall and wingwall 75 10-12 Moderate damage—Longitudinal displacement at the abutment seat 76 10-13 Severe damage—Foundation movement, longitudinal displacement, and rotation of the abutment footing 76 10-14 Moderate damage—Abutment damage from scour and erosion 77 10-15 Minor damage—Shear cracks beginning to develop near the supports 77 10-16 Moderate damage—Flexural cracks in a concrete box girder bridge 78 10-17 Severe damage—Excessive damage to the superstructure and substructure causing partial collapse 78 10-18 Minor damage—Sheared rivets at the steel truss plate 79 10-19 Moderate damage—Buckled flanges and webs of the steel girders and bearing failure 79 10-20 Severe damage—Buckling of the steel girders 80 10-21 Minor damage—Cracks induced by steel bearing F I G u R E S

80 10-22 Moderate damage—Crushed bearing assembly and slightly elongated bolts 81 10-23 Severe damage—Displacement of the steel girder off the bearing support 81 10-24 Severe damage—Deformation/pulling out of anchor bolts 82 10-25 Minor damage—Torsional/shear cracking throughout the column length 83 10-26 Moderate damage—Shear failure of the column with cracking propagating into the core concrete 83 10-27 Severe damage—Shear failure in column (left) and reinforcement cage and core concrete confinement failure (right) 84 10-28 Minor damage—Minor scour adjacent to wing wall 84 10-29 Moderate damage—Scour around base of pier 85 10-30 Severe damage—Scour to masonry arch, causing loss of voussoirs at arch springing 85 10-31 Minor damage—Ground movement indicating possible foundation movement 86 10-32 Moderate damage—Disturbed soil at the base of a column 86 10-33 Moderate damage—Separation of soil at column base of pier 87 10-34 Moderate damage—Soil failure due to fault movement through reinforced concrete bridge piers Tunnel Damage 89 11-1 Moderate damage—Spalling with section loss in the exposed reinforcing steel on underside of roof ceiling 89 11-2 Severe damage—Significant spalling of tunnel roof 90 11-3 Severe damage—Damaged ceiling panels with misalignment, holes, and surface deterioration 90 11-4 Severe damage—Bowed ceiling hangers 91 11-5 Minor damage—Minor spall in the concrete wearing surface 92 11-6 Moderate damage—Moderate map cracking in the concrete wearing surface 92 11-7 Minor damage—Damaged and missing tiles on wall 93 11-8 Moderate damage—Spall with section loss to the exposed reinforcing steel 93 11-9 Severe damage—Large area of missing and delaminated tile with water seeping through wall joint 94 11-10 Severe damage—Spall with up to 100% section loss to the exposed reinforcing steel 95 11-11 Minor damage—Minor misalignment in railing 96 11-12 Moderate damage—Missing section of mid-height rail 96 11-13 Severe damage—Large full-depth hole with 100% section loss to reinforcing steel Culvert Damage 98 12-1 Moderate damage—Roadway embankment raveling and sloughing away and guide rail posts being undermined 98 12-2 Severe damage—Roadway embankment eroding, guide rail posts completely exposed, and roadway slab undermined 99 12-3 Moderate damage—Asphalt pavement settled 3 inches with respect to concrete slab 99 12-4 Severe damage—Asphalt settled 1–2 inches along full length of joint angle 100 12-5 Minor damage—1⁄8-inch longitudinal crack 100 12-6 Moderate damage—¼-inch longitudinal crack 101 12-7 Severe damage—Partial collapse of culvert 101 12-8 Minor damage—Minor cracking around bolt holes

102 12-9 Moderate damage—Deterioration along bolt holes 102 12-10 Severe damage—Severe deterioration along seams 103 12-11 Minor damage—Minor isolated tears 103 12-12 Moderate damage—Multiple tears along culvert 104 12-13 Severe damage—Large tear over 1 inch in width 104 12-14 Minor damage—Erosion at the end of the wingwall 105 12-15 Moderate damage—Wingwall is heavily spalled 105 12-16 Severe damage—Wingwall is cracked and deeply spalled full height 106 12-17 Minor damage—Minor corrosion and pitting 106 12-18 Moderate damage—Significant deterioration, pitting, and holes developing along the invert 107 12-19 Severe damage—Loss of invert material, holes developed in invert, and buckling along invert 107 12-20 Minor damage—Section of rip-rap bank protection has sloughed into stream 108 12-21 Moderate damage—Channel scouring along abutment and wingwall. Vertical face of footing exposed 108 12-22 Severe damage—Deep scour pocket under end section at outlet Wall Damage 109 13-1 Severe damage—Partially collapsed wall 110 13-2 Severe damage—Ruptured retaining wall 110 13-3 Severe damage—Collapsed reinforced earth wall Overhead Sign Damage 112 14-1 Minor damage—Minor cracking with concrete rings 112 14-2 Moderate damage—Radial cracking at anchor bolt 113 14-3 Severe damage—Deteriorated grout pad 113 14-4 Minor damage—Minor corrosion. No washer under the turned element 114 14-5 Moderate damage—Anchor bolt is misaligned 114 14-6 Severe damage—Fractured anchor bolt 115 14-7 Minor damage—Minor corrosion 115 14-8 Moderate damage—Corrosion and surface pitting 116 14-9 Severe damage—Cracked aluminum base plate 116 14-10 Minor damage—Poor post alignment 117 14-11 Moderate damage—Corrosion at base of post 117 14-12 Severe damage—Cracked post 118 14-13 Minor damage—Minor misalignment or fit-up at hinge 118 14-14 Moderate damage—Gap between upper chord 119 14-15 Severe damage—Fractured U-bolts 119 14-16 Minor damage—Minor surface corrosion 120 14-17 Moderate damage—4-inch diameter ding in lower chord and right rear end cap missing 120 14-18 Severe damage—Missing secondary member 121 14-19 Minor damage—~2-inch diameter defect in aluminum strut 121 14-20 Severe damage—1.5-inch and 2.5-inch tears in strut member 122 14-21 Minor damage—Corrosion on bolt threads 122 14-22 Moderate/severe damage—Gap in chord splice 123 14-23 Severe damage—Severely deteriorated splice bolt 123 14-24 Minor damage—Missing one U-bolt at the lower chord to vertical sign member 124 14-25 Moderate damage—Cracked hanger at wind-beam connection 124 14-26 Severe damage—Severe impact damage with missing members and hardware 125 14-27 Severe damage—Severe impact damage with approximately half the lower section of the sign panel missing

125 14-28 Moderate damage—Moderate impact damage 126 14-29 Portion exhibits severe impact damage and has been removed from this section Scour Damage 128 15-1 Water is flowing against the bridge superstructure and water levels may continue to rise and flow over the bridge, causing overtopping 128 15-2 Severe debris buildup of tree branches, caught against the bridge blocking more than 25% of the span opening 129 15-3 Extreme settlement damage in the abutment 129 15-4 Settlement damage in the abutment due to scour underneath the bridge abutment

7 2-1 Highway structure assessment methods 11 2-2 Highway structure coding and marking classifications 14 3-1 Element damage level descriptions 18 3-2 Recommended technologies for PDA 19 3-3 Recommended PDA tools and equipment 20 4-1 Common damages/modes of failure 21 4-2 Damage matrix in terms of emergency event types and highway structures 22 4-3 Most likely earthquake damages 22 4-4 Most likely tsunami damages 23 4-5 Most likely tornado and high wind damages 23 4-6 Most likely hurricane and storm surge damages 24 4-7 Most likely flooding damages 24 4-8 Most likely fire damages 25 4-9 Codes in NBI field 113 29 5-1 National Bridge Inspection Standards coding for bridge material (43A) and design (43B) 31 5-2 Bridge inspection checklist 32 5-3 Damage states for bridge approach/embankment 32 5-4 Damage states for parapet, handrail, and curb line 32 5-5 Damage states for deck 32 5-6 Damage states for expansion joint 33 5-7 Damage states for abutments and wingwalls 33 5-8 Damage states for concrete girder 33 5-9 Damage states for steel girder 33 5-10 Damage states for bearings 34 5-11 Damage states for bent cap and column 34 5-12 Damage states for foundation 34 5-13 Damage states for geotechnical elements 39 6-1 Tunnel inspection checklist 40 6-2 Damage states for scaling 40 6-3 Damage states for cracking 41 6-4 Damage states for spalling 41 6-5 Damage states for pop-outs 41 6-6 Damage states for leakage 41 6-7 Damage states for corrosion 45 7-1 Culvert inspection checklist 46 7-2 Damage states for culvert embankment 46 7-3 Damage states for roadway 47 7-4 Damage states for concrete culvert 47 7-5 Damage states for metal culvert 47 7-6 Damage states for plastic culvert 48 7-7 Damage states for headwall/wingwall 48 7-8 Damage states for inverts 48 7-9 Damage states for scour 51 8-1 Classification of wall structural types 52 8-2 Primary and secondary wall elements T A B L E S

53 8-3 Wall elements that should be rated based on the wall structural type 55 8-4 Damage states for wall performance 55 8-5 Damage states for corrosion/weathering 55 8-6 Damage states for cracking/breaking 56 8-7 Damage states for distortion/deflection 56 8-8 Damage states for lost bearing/missing elements 56 8-9 Damage states for primary and secondary wall elements 60 9-1 Overhead sign inspection checklist 61 9-2 Damage states for foundation 61 9-3 Damage states for bolts 61 9-4 Damage states for base plate 62 9-5 Damage states for column support 62 9-6 Damage states for column to arm/chord connection 62 9-7 Damage states for truss chords/arms 62 9-8 Damage states for truss struts 63 9-9 Damage states for chord splice connections 63 9-10 Damage states for sign frame and L-brackets 63 9-11 Damage states for sign panel 63 9-12 Damage states for catwalk

The assessing, coding, and marking (or sometimes referred to as “posting”) of highway structures is necessary to ensure the integrity and usability of highway structures before, during, and after emergency events such as earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados, hurricanes, storm surge, high winds, flooding, scour, and fire. Orderly evacuation, when necessary, and subsequent emergency response require that bridges, tunnels, walls, culverts, embank- ments, and overhead signs be capable of safely supporting necessary loads and functioning satisfactorily. In addition, geotechnical and hydrological issues affecting these structures such as slope stability, liquefaction, settlements, and scour must also be considered. Not only is the highway network relied upon to transport people, but it is also the eco- nomic lifeline of the affected region, facilitating the movement of emergency supplies and services. Restoring power, supplying fuel, transporting injured residents, and providing food stocks can be just a few of the critical needs of a region affected by a catastrophic event. As seen over the past few years with disastrous events such as the 2012 Hurricane Sandy and the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the need for emergency prepared- ness planning is essential to a coordinated, timely, and effective response, particularly in terms of communication between the various agencies that need to be involved. The extent of advance notice will depend on the type of event, but, in all cases, the greater the level of planning and interagency discussions that can be performed to analyze a range of what-if scenarios, the better. One of the critical components of any emergency response plan is the process for inspec- tors to assess the integrity of highway structures impacted by an event. To date, a uni- form methodology for rapidly assessing, coding, and marking highway structures after an emergency event does not exist. Current processes do not generally address the different highway structure types, the full range of emergency events, the range of traffic levels (i.e., the amount of traffic that a highway structure normally carries), or methods employed by other responding agencies. To this end, the primary purpose of this report is to establish a uniform methodology along with a consistent framework for coordinating the emergency response effort in a safe and efficient manner. This scalable approach provides guidance on response levels based on the severity of the event. In fact, this recommended approach to the issue of structural assessment is based on a “First You Plan” strategy. During this vital planning phase, regional factors, interagency needs, and communication issues can be identified and addressed in a non-emergency envi- ronment. Access by inspectors to all available information (which can vary significantly) can be planned and tested under simulated event conditions (e.g., ShakeOut earthquake drills). The assessment process presented in this report consists of four stages: Fast Reconnais- sance (FR), Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA), Detailed Damage Assessment (DDA), and Extended Investigation (EI). This hierarchal approach accounts for the need for rapid yet reliable information at the early periods of the emergency situation followed by progressively more detail as the pro- cess continues to ensure appropriate allocation of resources during the repair and recov- ery phase. The approach also accounts for the diverse skill sets and capabilities of persons needed for the assessment process. Finally, it provides guidance for determining appropri- ate response levels and mobilization based on incoming warnings or information for each emergency event. Given the immense scope and ranges of damages from the plethora of emergency events possible across the country, the assessment procedure was developed with a simplified tax- P R E F A C E

onomy in order to group common forms of damages so that a systematic process could be implemented that is nearly independent of the hazard type. A coding and marking procedure was developed for use after the assessment is completed where each structure is physically marked with a placard and digitally marked in a database to improve communication between responders for various organizations. The coding and marking following a PDA stage establishes whether a structure has been INSPECTED or is UNSAFE. Quick-response (QR) codes are also used on these placards to link and com- municate important structural or other information to field responders. Technology is a critical component for recording and communicating these assessment results. It can help improve the process if staff are appropriately trained and prepared to utilize the technology. For example, a geographic information system database for the struc- tures that was prepared (and continually updated) prior to the event can be used to help pri- oritize assessment routes, track progress, and analyze the condition of the highway network in order to provide decision makers with up-to-date information. Incoming data from video networks, crowdsourcing, and other sources can be quickly collected to help determine the optimal locations to send personnel for rapid inspections. While a human-centered, visual assessment process is recommended for the PDA stage, this process can be guided and enhanced through the use of applications on smart devices that enable information to be systematically recorded and routed back to the central office. In the later stages, performing more detailed assessments can also benefit from more advanced tools and resources. Providing PDA responders (from all responding agencies) with a uniform process will help to support the overall emergency response framework, regardless of the scale of the event. Nonetheless, it is recognized that each agency will have different capabilities, resources, organizational structures, challenges, and priorities. Hence, the assessment process was developed to identify and recommend methodologies that can be practically implemented by today’s state highway agencies, along with the training materials to sup- port these activities.