Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data (2019)

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.

D-1 APPENDIX D Field Exercise Plan

D-2 Contents D.1  FIELD TRIAL OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................... D-5  D.2  FIELD EXERCISE PLANS ....................................................................................................... D-5  D.2.1  Training on Use of the Guidelines .............................................................................. D-6  D.2.2  Exercise Tasks ............................................................................................................. D-6  D.2.3  Selection of Field Exercise Test Bridges .................................................................... D-6  D.2.4  Control Inspections ..................................................................................................... D-7  D.3  INDIANA FIELD EXERCISES ................................................................................................. D-7  D.3.1  Background ................................................................................................................. D-9  D.3.2  Indiana Test Bridges ................................................................................................. D-10  D.3.3  Bridge I1 & I2 Inspection Exercise Tasks ................................................................ D-18  D.4  TESTING AT THE S-BRITE CENTER ................................................................................. D-21  D.4.1  Protocol for testing .................................................................................................... D-22  D.4.2  Task S-BRITE 1-5: Spatial Estimating Tasks .......................................................... D-23  D.5  MICHIGAN FIELD EXERCISES .......................................................................................... D-30  D.5.1  Michigan Test Bridges .............................................................................................. D-31  D.5.2  Bridge M1 and M2 Elements and Condition State Rating ........................................ D-33  D.5.3  Inspection Tasks ........................................................................................................ D-35  D.5.4  Test Bridges M3 and M4 .......................................................................................... D-37  D.5.5  Michigan bridge M3 inspection exercise task ........................................................... D-39  D.5.6  Bridge M4 Elements and Condition State Rating ..................................................... D-41  D.5.7  Michigan bridge M4 inspection exercise tasks ......................................................... D-42  D.5.8  Participant Instructions ............................................................................................. D-43  D.5.9  Pre-Test Questionnaires ............................................................................................ D-44  D.5.10  Post-Test Questionnaires ........................................................................................... D-44  D.6  SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................................... D-45  D.6.1  Indiana ....................................................................................................................... D-45  D.6.2  Field test days in Michigan ....................................................................................... D-45  APPENDIX A: PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................... D-46  APPENDIX B: INSPECTION FORMS FOR FIELD EXERCISES AND S-BRITE TASKS ... D-51 

D-3 List of Figures Figure D-1. Location of test bridges and the S-BRITE Center at Purdue University, Indiana (Google Earth). ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8  Figure D-2. Photograph of test bridges I1 (ID #I65-179-05487 BNBL) and I2 (ID # I65-179-05487 BSBL). ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9  Figure D-3. Reinforced Concrete Bridge Deck Delamination/Spall/Patched Area. ................................... 12  Figure D-4. Wearing Surface Delamination/Spall/Patched Area/Pothole. ................................................. 12  Figure D-5. Reinforced Concrete Approach Slab Delamination/Spall/Patched Area and Cracking. ........ 13  Figure D-6. Corrosion damage at the beam end of Bridge I1. ................................................................... 13  Figure D-7. Example of fascia girder coating on bridge I1. ...................................................................... 14  Figure D-8. Movable bearing from bridge I1 with corrosion damage. ....................................................... 14  Figure D-9. Reinforced Concrete Bridge Deck Delamination/Spall/Patched Area. ................................... 16  Figure D-10. Wearing Surface Delamination/Spall/Patched Area/Pothole. ............................................... 16  Figure D-11. Reinforced Concrete Approach Slab Delamination/Spall/Patched Area and cracking. ....... 17  Figure D-12. Steel Open Girder/Beam corrosion damage at the beam end. ............................................... 17  Figure D-13. Movable Bearing damaged by corrosion. .............................................................................. 18  Figure D-14. Diagrams of damage in wearing surface for bridges I1 and I2. ........................................... 20  Figure D-15. Image of a Snellen eye test chart. ......................................................................................... 22  Figure D-16. Typical plate used to assess color blindness. ........................................................................ 23  Figure D-17. Photograph of plate girder showing schematic representation of simulated damage. .......... 24  Figure D-18. Example of a page test for estimating area based on percentage showing 5% (top) and 13% (bottom). ..................................................................................................................................................... 27  Figure D-19. Diagram of web plate with damage area applied of 6 % (top) and 18% (bottom). .............. 27  Figure D-20. Steel truss to be used for linear length estimation. ............................................................... 30  Figure D-21. Examples of corrosion damage on the truss bridge. ............................................................. 30  Figure D-22. Photograph of elevation view of bridge M2. ........................................................................ 32  Figure D-23. Bridges M3 and M4 aerial view. ........................................................................................... 32  Figure D-24. Locations of test bridges in Michigan (Google Earth). ........................................................ 33  Figure D-25. Prestressed Concrete Girder/Beam in bridge M2 showing spalling at the beam end, and bulging/splitting of the elastomeric bearings. ............................................................................................. 34  Figure D-26. Reinforced concrete columns and pier cap in bridge M1. ..................................................... 35  Figure D-27. Aerial view of bridge M3 showing area to be assessed during the field exercise. ............... 38  Figure D-28. Delaminated and patched areas of the M3 deck. ................................................................... 39  Figure D-29. Damage in span 5 of bridge M3. .......................................................................................... 40  Figure D-30. Slope at east end of bridge M3 (MDOT) ............................................................................... 41  Figure D-31. Photograph showing damaged areas on the deck of bridge M4. .......................................... 42  Figure D-32. Diagram showing damage in deck M4, spans 1-3. ............................................................... 43 

D-4 List of Tables Table D-1. NBI data test bridges I1 and I2. ................................................................................................. 9  Table D-2. Element listing for bridge I1. .................................................................................................... 11  Table D-3. Bridge I2 element condition CS ratings. ................................................................................... 15  Table D-4. Steel open girder/beam elements in bridge I1 and I2. ............................................................. 19  Table D-5. Elements to be assessed during task I.2. .................................................................................. 19  Table D-6. Substructure elements of bridges I1 and I2. ............................................................................ 21  Table D-7. Areas of defect to be used for the spatial estimating task. ....................................................... 25  Table D-8. Summary of data and methods for Task E. .............................................................................. 26  Table D-9. Elements of the truss bridge at S-BRITE. ................................................................................ 29  Table D-10. NBI data for bridges M1 and M2. .......................................................................................... 33  Table D-11. Elements assessed for bridges M1 and M2. ............................................................................ 34  Table D-12. NBI data for test bridge M3 .................................................................................................... 38  Table D-13. Elements and defects for bridge M3 ...................................................................................... 39  Table D-14. NBI data for test bridge M4. ................................................................................................... 41  Table D-15. Bridge M4 element condition state rating. .............................................................................. 42  Table D-16. Element listing for inspection of bridge M1 and M2. ............................................................ 44 

D-5 D.1 Field Trial Overview This portion of the report describes the test bridges and inspection protocols for the field exercises described in the research. These included test bridges in Indiana and Michigan to be used as field test sites for evaluating the effect of using newly developed guidelines (i.e., the visual guide) in the field. Several proposed changes to the Manual for Bridge Element Inspection (MBEI) were assessed using the field test sites. Portions of the field exercises were completed at the Steel Bridge Research, Inspection, Training, and Engineering (S-BRITE) Center at Purdue University. The controlled environment of the S-BRITE Center was used to assess accuracy of inspection procedures used to produce condition state (CS) quantity estimates and evaluate potential changes in the units used to describe different elements. The experimental approach proposed for the field exercises was the Control Bridge Model (CBM). The CBM is characterized by using a small number of “control bridges” to evaluate the quality of inspection results. Each participant in the study conducted a routine inspection of the elements of the control bridges and completed a study-based bridge inspection report for the bridge. The study-based bridge inspection report documented the relevant elements to be assessed in the bridge to meet the needs for the study. The results of the inspections were analyzed to assess the variation in results between different inspectors and the effect of using the visual guide. The results were also compared to reference inspections by a reference “control” team that completed all the field exercise tasks similar to each inspector in the study. The objectives of the field exercise were to evaluate the use of a newly developed guideline, intended to improve the quality of element-level data, and to evaluate the quality of element-level data. The guidelines used in the field exercises consisted primarily of the visual guide and several spatial estimating tools that are included in the visual guide. Certain potential changes to the existing MBEI were also assessed through the field exercises. To provide data for comparison of using the newly developed guide with existing inspection procedures, the inspectors at the bridge site were divided into two groups. Test group A (TGA) utilized the newly developed guide, while Test Group B (TGB) utilized their respective existing inspection methods and procedures. The results from these two groups of state inspectors were compared to each other and the control inspection. These data provided a foundation for assessing the effect of using the visual guide and the variation in element-level data. A secondary objective of the field exercises was to capture data on the impact of making changes to the MBEI. The changes included changing the unit of certain elements to improve the quality of data and using different CSs for certain elements that have challenging descriptions in the current manual. This included using ft instead of ea for columns and using ft instead of sq ft for steel bridge coatings. Finally, the data from the field exercises provided data on the quality of element-level data overall. These data were needed for rational assessment of tolerances (i.e. accuracy requirements) for inspection results used for preservation, maintenance, and repair decision-making. D.2 Field Exercise Plans This portion of the report describes the test bridges that were used during the field exercises. There were a total of six bridges included in the field exercises. This included two pairs of twin bridges, i.e., bridges of the same design and construction date, but with different element conditions. These bridges provided the opportunity to assess similar bridge elements with different levels of damage to provide quantitative data on the quality of inspection results. There were two bridges where only the bridge deck was assessed. These decks were selected to provide test specimens with significant damage in CS 3 for the important element of bridge decks. The field exercises were completed in the states of Indiana and Michigan. The population of inspectors were 14 inspectors in Indiana and 10 in Michigan. The field exercise in Indiana took place in a single day.

D-6 The Michigan inspection exercise was completed on two days with two groups of five inspectors on each day, due to unavailability of all inspectors on the same day. The inspectors were qualified bridge inspectors currently conducting routine inspection for highway bridges using element-level data collection. Data on the inspector’s characteristics were documented using a pretest questionnaire. The pre-test questionnaire was completed in an office setting just before the inspectors went to the field for the inspection exercises. The pre-test questionnaire is shown in Appendix A. D.2.1 Training on Use of the Guidelines The visual guide developed as part of the research has been designed to be in a format that is familiar to inspectors that are familiar with the MBEI. Therefore, substantial training for the inspectors on the use of the guide was not necessary. However, some prior training and development of a familiarity with the guide was needed to make the field exercises most effective. This training was addressed through a webinar for inspectors participating in the field exercises. This webinar lasted 60 minutes, and provided an overview of the objectives and purpose of the study, a review of the visual guide, and an overview of the inspection tasks to be completed in the field. Inspectors that utilized the visual guide in the field were provided with a hardcopy of the visual guide as a stand-alone document suitable for field use on the day of inspection exercise. D.2.2 Exercise Tasks Field exercise tasks are described for each test bridge, including the elements to be evaluated during the inspection and analyzed to meet the objective of the testing. Each individual task is identified so as to organize data and analyze the data following the field exercises. During the field exercises, participants conducted the inspections generally using their normal inspection procedures and practices. The individual tasks identified in the following sections are organizational tools for research and to simplify review of the plan. Generally, these tasks separate key elements of the test bridge for analysis and clarify the purpose for inclusion of those elements in the overall work plan. Results from the inspection tasks were recorded on study-based inspection forms. These forms identify the inspector by an inspector number provided at the time of the testing, and the assigned study group (TGA or TGB). The forms included the elements to be assessed for each bridge, appropriate space for recording defect elements, and pages for notes. The inspection forms are included in Appendix B. D.2.3 Selection of Field Exercise Test Bridges The field exercises took place in Indiana and Michigan. Bridges were down-selected based on the criteria listed below. Twin prestressed girder/beam bridges were selected in Michigan for evaluation of the superstructure and substructure elements. Two separate bridge decks were selected for analysis in Michigan. Twin bridges with steel superstructures were chosen for the Indiana field testing. The field exercises in Indiana were supplemented by some targeted inspection procedures such as spatial and length estimation, which were performed at the S-BRITE center at Purdue University. The proposed bridges for the field testing were selected based on the following rationale for each selected site: 1. The bridges should contain common elements. 2. The bridges should contain common defects. 3. Each bridge should have multiple elements with CS3 present in significant portions. 4. Primary materials of construction should be common and representative. For bridges in Michigan, concrete superstructures as described; in Indiana, steel superstructures as described. 5. The bridges should require minimal or no traffic control to inspect.

D-7 6. The bridges should be of ordinary size. The ideal bridge is 2 spans and has a length of 120 ft or less. These criteria were used to down-select from available test bridges in order to meet the objective of the research. Consideration was also given to providing coverage of the elements included in the visual guide to the extent practical. Additional rationale for the selection of bridges included a location within a reasonable driving distance from the base locations of the inspection sites, which were West Lafayette, Indiana and Lansing, Michigan. In summary, two similar steel girder/beam bridges were selected in the state of Indiana. These bridges provide suitable test sites for the evaluation of damage in steel bridge members, including corrosion damage and protective coatings, and deck damage. In Michigan, twin prestressed concrete girder bridges were selected. These bridges have damage such as spalling of concrete and cracking in prestressed elements. However, these bridges are located along a busy interstate, such that inspection of the deck by a group of study participants could be impractical, given traffic control constraints at the locations. Therefore, two other bridges were selected for the inspection of the deck only. The selected decks have significant damage (CS3 10 to 20%, based on previous inspection reports) in the range where decision-making tolerances commonly exist. This allowed for the evaluation of accuracy for bridge decks when decks have sufficient damage for making preservation, maintenance, or repair decisions. The following sections describe the control inspections to be completed, each of the test bridges, the element conditions as documented in the most recent routine inspection, and the planned focus of the field exercises for each bridge. The focus areas are each documented as separate tasks for planning purposes. The inspections were completed in each state according to their customary practices for routine inspections that meet the requirements of the NBIS. Generally, that means that the inspections were completed without the use of under bridge inspection trucks (UBITs) or lane closures on the deck. The test bridges were selected with consideration of the need for good access to successfully conduct routine inspections within these constraints. D.2.4 Control Inspections The control inspection consisted of a routine inspection performed on each of the test bridges. The control inspections were intended to provide a baseline measure (i.e., reference) of the condition of the bridges and accurate estimates of the damage quantities. To provide a suitable measure for comparison, the procedures and practices used in the control inspection were similar to the common practices implemented in the individual states. This was necessary to provide suitable inspection results for comparison with routine inspections conducted by the study participants. If entirely different inspection procedures had been used for the control inspections, the data provided would be an apples to oranges comparison. For example, sounding or chain drag could be used to characterize the subsurface damage in the bridge deck. This would yield a different result from a visual inspection, since areas of delamination are not visually observable. These data would be useful for determining the variation between sounding and not sounding a deck but would not be a measure of the quality of visual inspection results, since different procedures were used in for the inspection. Consequently, the control inspections should be conducted using the procedures commonly used for the routine inspection of bridges. This means that the primary method for damage assessment involved using visual inspection. D.3 Indiana Field Exercises The Indiana field exercises consisted of routine bridge inspection tasks and inspection tasks at the S- BRITE center. This portion of the report addresses the routine inspection tasks; the S-BRITE tasks are reported separately.

D-8 Two twin bridges with steel superstructures were chosen for the field exercises in Indiana (ID # I65-179- 05487 BNBL and BSBL, north and south bound). The location of the bridges relative to the S-BRITE Center is shown in Figure D-1. Both bridges are steel girder/beam bridges constructed in 1968 with damaged coatings and corrosion. The rationale for selecting these bridges included the bridges’ common design and age, common elements, and the element of protective coating (515), which was evaluated in terms of different measurement units (ft instead of sq ft). The bridges have nearly identical design and age, but had different levels of damage in the superstructure and deck. Consequently, the bridges provided good samples for collecting data on the variation in inspection results, since the design characteristics and situational factors (e.g., access) are identical, and therefore, not a factor in any variation between inspection results between the two bridges. For ease of referencing in the experiment and data analysis, bridge ID # I65-179-05487 BNBL was identified as bridge I1, and bridge ID # I65-179-05487 BSBL as bridge I2. The bridges are 3-span continuous steel girder bridges with cast-in-place concrete decks over Burnett Creek, located about 8.0 miles away from Purdue University. Figure D-2 shows photographs of the bridges. The detailed description of each bridge and their elements is included in the following section of the report. Figure D-1. Location of test bridges and the S-BRITE Center at Purdue University, Indiana (Google Earth).

D-9 Figure D-2. Photograph of test bridges I1 (ID #I65-179-05487 BNBL) and I2 (ID # I65-179-05487 BSBL). Table D-1 shows NBI data for the twin bridges in Indiana, including the year of construction, geometric data, and the condition ratings for the deck, superstructure, and substructure. The bridges were constructed in 1962 and have an ADT of 14,122 with 10% trucks. The length of each bridge is the same; the width of the roadways varies by less than 1 ft. For bridge I1, the superstructure was rated Fair (5), the deck was rated Fair (5), and the substructure had a rating of Satisfactory (6). The wearing surface of bridge I1 was rated Poor (4). Bridge I2 had a deck rating of Fair (5), a superstructure rating of Fair (5), and the substructure rated Good (7). The wearing surface of bridge I2 was rated Fair (5). Table D-1. NBI data test bridges I1 and I2. D.3.1 Background Element-level data collection for steel bridge superstructures commonly involves the assessment of corrosion and coatings damage in the primary elements of the bridge, such as the steel superstructure and steel bearings. The assessment of corrosion damage requires the inspector to identify the correct CS based on the portion of the member that has section loss and the portion of the member that has corrosion damage Code Value Code Value [27] Year Built 1968 [108A] Wearing Surface 3-Latex Concrete or sim. [49] Structure Length 140.0 ft [29] Average Daily Traffic 14,122 [45] No. of spans 3 [30] ADT Year 2004 [51] Width (Curb-to-Curb) ~41ft [109] Average DailyTrack Traffic 10% [52] Deck Width (Out-to- Out) ~44 ft [58] Deck 5 [43A] Main Series Steel Continuous [59] Superstructure 5 [107] Deck str. Type Concrete CIP [60] Substructure I1 = 6 I2 = 7

D-10 without section loss. The amount of section loss is not quantified in the current defect description for defect element 1000 - Corrosion. Therefore, there is a need to assess the consistency with which the current defect element of corrosion is applied in the field. These bridges provided a unique opportunity to make that assessment for two bridges in different conditions, but with exactly the same design characteristics. Additionally, the assessment of protective coating damage is a very challenging aspect of element-level data collection. The assignment of defect quantities into different CSs requires an estimate of the area (sq ft) of damage, which may very challenging in field conditions. The guideline developed for the research included spatial estimation diagrams that may provide for more consistent assignment of quantities. The bridge selected had the same design, but different condition states for the protective coatings element, which made it a good test site for assessing the variation in inspection results. The use of the unit of ft for coating assessment was also studied and compared with the estimate of sq ft. D.3.2 Indiana Test Bridges This section of the report describes the test bridges that were used in the Indiana field exercises. This includes a description of the twin bridges, and key elements of those bridges assessed during the field exercises. D.3.2.1 Test Bridge I1 Elements and Condition State Ratings The elements of Bridge I1 and their CS ratings from an inspection on January 19, 2016, are shown in Table D-2. This table indicates the different NBEs and BMEs and the associated quantities in each CS, as well as the defect elements identified by INDOT inspectors. As shown in the table, the bridge has small quantities of damage documented for the deck, wearing surface, steel members, and protective coating. To provide an example of the damage that was assessed during the field exercise, several key elements are discussed below.

D-11 Table D-2. Element listing for bridge I1. Element 12-Reinforced Concrete Deck has 92/6090 sq ft (1.5%) damage in CS 2 and CS 3. This includes 87.0 sq ft of Defect 1130-Cracking (RC and Others) and 5.0 sq ft of Defect 1080- Delamination/Spall/Patched area. Figure D-9 shows an example of damage in the soffit area of the deck. Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qu. Unit Condition State Rating CS 1 CS2 CS3 CS 4 12 Reinforced concrete deck 6090 sq ft 5998 87 5 0 1080 Delamination/Spall/Patched area 5 0 0 5 0 1130 Cracking (RC and Other) 87 0 87 0 0 510 Wearing Surfaces 5670 sq ft 5461 159 50 0 3210 Delamination/Spall/Patched area/Pothole 54 0 4 50 0 3220 Crack 155 0 155 0 0 107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 816 ft 792 0 24 0 1000 Corrosion 24 0 0 24 0 515 Steel Protective Coating 6817 sq ft 6793 0 0 24 3440 Effectiveness 24 0 0 0 24 210 Reinforced Concrete Pier Wall 6 ft 0 4 2 0 1080 Delamination/Spall/Patched area 5 0 3 2 0 1130 Cracking (RC and Other) 1 0 1 0 0 215 Reinforced Concrete Abutment 91 ft 91 0 0 0 302 Compression Joint Seal 86 ft 0 0 86 0 2310 Leakage 86 0 0 86 0 321 Reinforced Concrete Approach Slab 1784 sq ft 1668 108 8 0 1080 Delamination/Spall/Patched area 11 0 3 8 0 1130 Cracking (RC and Others) 105 0 105 0 0 313 Fixed Bearing 6 ea. 6 0 0 0 311 Movable Bearing 18 ea. 0 0 18 0 1000 Corrosion 18 0 0 18 0 331 Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing ~280 ft 3 0 0 0 7000 Damage 3 0 0 3 0

D-12 Figure D-3. Reinforced Concrete Bridge Deck Delamination/Spall/Patched Area. Element 510-Wearing Surface The wearing surface of the deck has 209/5670 sq ft (~3.7%) damage. This includes Defect 3220-Cracking with 155 sq ft reported in CS 2. The remaining portion is defect 3210-Delamination/Spall/Patched area/Pothole with 4.0 sq ft in CS 2 and 50 sq ft in CS 3. An image of the bridge wearing surface showing delamination/spall/patched area/pothole is shown in Figure D-4. As shown in this figure, there is a large area of patching in the deck. Element 321-Reinforced Concrete Approach Slab Defect 1130-Cracking (RC and others) shares about 105 sq ft in CS 2, and defect 1080- Delamination/Spall/Patched area 3.0 sq ft in CS 2 and 8.0 sq ft in CS 3. An image showing the approach slab defects is shown in Figure D-5. Figure D-4. Wearing Surface Delamination/Spall/Patched Area/Pothole.

D-13 Figure D-5. Reinforced Concrete Approach Slab Delamination/Spall/Patched Area and Cracking. Element 210-Reinforced Concrete Pier wall is damaged by defect 1080-Delamination/Spall/Patched Area 3.0 ft in CS 2, 2.0 ft in CS 3, and defect 1130-Cracking (RC and Others) 1.0 ft in CS 2. Element 107-Steel Open Girder/Beam is rated for defect 1000-Corrosion and its quantity is 24 ft of damage in CS 3. The corrosion damage in the element is primarily at the beam’ ends, as shown in Figure D-6. This area has easy access for evaluation by participants. \ Figure D-6. Corrosion damage at the beam end of Bridge I1. Element 515-Steel Protective Coating is rated for defect 3440-Effectiveness. This includes 24.0 sq ft in CS 4, with the rest of the coating rated in CS 1. A photograph of the coating condition along the fascia girder is shown in Figure D-7.

D-14 Figure D-7. Example of fascia girder coating on bridge I1. Element 302-Compression Joint Seal is rated for defect 2310 Leakage with 86/ 86 ft in CS 3. Element 311 Movable Bearing - The bridge has 18 movable bearings like that shown Figure D-8. The movable bearings are all rated in CS 3, indicating that the bearings have section loss or pack rust. Figure D-8. Movable bearing from bridge I1 with corrosion damage. D.3.2.2 Test Bridge I2 Elements and Condition State Ratings Bridge I2 elements and CS ratings from an inspection on January 19, 2016, are shown in Table D-3. As shown in the table, the amount of damage documented for this bridge is much larger than the damage documented for bridge I1. For example, both the deck and the wearing surface have almost 40% of the area documented as damaged, with much of the recorded damage in CS2. The steel protective coating has

D-15 about 99% of its surface area recorded in CS 2, as compared with bridge I1 which has 99% of its area in CS 1. Table D-3. Bridge I2 element condition CS ratings. Key elements of Bridge I2 are discussed below, along with example of the damage that was assessed during the field exercise. Element 12-Reinforced Concrete Deck has 2374/6210 sq ft (38%) damage in CS 2. This includes 350 sq ft of Defect 1080-Delamination/Spall/Patched and 2024 sq ft of Defect 1130-Cracking (RC and Others). Figure D-9 shows an example of damage in the soffit area of the deck. There were also several large patches in the deck, some of which were full depth patching as shown in the figure. Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qu. Unit Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 12 Reinforced concrete deck 6210 sq ft 3836 2374 0 0 1080 Delamination/Spall/Patched area 350 0 350 0 0 1130 Cracking (RC and Other) 2024 0 2024 0 0 510 Wearing Surfaces 5790 sq ft 3297 2273 220 0 3210 Delamination/Spall/Patched area/Pothole 249 0 249 0 0 3220 Cracking (wearing surface) 2244 0 2024 220 0 107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 816 ft 691 120 5 0 1000 Corrosion 125 0 120 5 0 515 Steel Protective Coating 6817 sq ft 0 6775 0 42 3440 Effectiveness 6817 0 6775 0 42 210 Reinforced Concrete Pier Wall 87 ft 85 2 0 0 1080 Delamination/Spall/Patched area 1 0 1 0 0 1130 Cracking (RC and Other) 1 0 1 0 0 215 Reinforced Concrete Abutment 91 ft 91 0 0 0 302 Compression Joint Seal 86 ft 62 24 0 0 2350 Leakage 24 0 24 0 0 321 Reinforced Concrete Approach Slab 1819 sq ft 1712 7 100 0 1080 Delamination/Spall/Patched area 23 0 7 16 0 1130 Cracking (RC and Other) 84 0 0 84 0 313 Fixed Bearing 6 ea. 6 0 0 0 311 Movable Bearing 18 ea. 6 9 3 0 1000 Corrosion 12 0 9 3 0 331 Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing ~280 ft 180 0 0 0

D-16 Figure D-9. Reinforced Concrete Bridge Deck Delamination/Spall/Patched Area. Element 510-Wearing Surface The wearing surface of the deck had damage over approximately 43% of its area. This included Defect 3220-Cracking with 2273 sq ft reported in CS 2 and 220 sq ft in CS 3. The remaining portion was defect 3210-Delamination/Spall/Patched area/Pothole with 249 sq ft in CS 2. An image of the bridge wearing surface showing delamination/spall/patched area/pothole is shown in Figure D-10. Element 321-Reinforced Concrete Approach Slab Defect 1130-Cracking (RC and others) shared about 84 sq ft in CS 3, defect 1080- Delamination/Spall/Patched area 7 sq ft in CS 2 and 16 sq ft in CS 3. An image showing an approach slab defect is shown in Figure D-11. Figure D-10. Wearing Surface Delamination/Spall/Patched Area/Pothole.

D-17 Figure D-11. Reinforced Concrete Approach Slab Delamination/Spall/Patched Area and cracking. Element 210-Reinforced Concrete Pier wall was damaged by defect 1080-Delamination/Spall/Patched Area 1 lft in CS 2 and defect 1130-Cracking (RC and Others) with a single crack in CS 2 (1 ft). Element 107-Steel Open Girder/Beam was rated for defect 1000-Corrosion and its quantity was 125 ft with 120 ft in CS 2 and 5 ft in CS 3. Section loss in bearing area is shown in Figure D-12. This portion of the bridge was useful for evaluating the consistency of section loss rating for the corrosion defect element. Element 515-Steel Protective Coating was rated for defect 3440-Effectiveness, with the coating rated in a damaged condition. This included 6775 sq ft in CS 2 (99%) and 42 sq ft in CS 4. Figure D-12. Steel Open Girder/Beam corrosion damage at the beam end. Element 311 Movable Bearing - This bridge has 18 movable bearings like that shown in Figure D-13. The movable bearings were rated in different CSs-6 were rated in CS 1, 9 were rated in CS 2, and 3 were rated in CS 3. Because the bridge had bearing in a variety of different condition states, which are different than bridge I1, it provided a useful measure of the accuracy of assigning CS states to this element.

D-18 Figure D-13. Movable Bearing damaged by corrosion. D.3.3 Bridge I1 & I2 Inspection Exercise Tasks This section of the report describes the individual tasks completed on bridges I1 and I2. The focus of the field exercise was the assessment of steel members for corrosion damage. The bridge deck and wearing surface, movable bearings, and seals were also recorded and analyzed. In addition, the use of ft for documenting the CS of the coating was compared with the conventional use of sq ft. Task I.1 Assessment of Open Steel Beam/Girders Task I.1 included inspection of element 107-Steel Open Girder/Beam. During this task, participants assigned CS to the steel member with anticipated defects of corrosion and coating damage. Both bridges had section loss in the area of the bearing, but in different amounts in each bridge. As shown in Table D- 4, bridge I1 had about 3% of the steel member assigned a defect (CS 3), while bridge I2 has about 15% damage, mostly assigned in CS 2. This task evaluated the estimates from the different teams for the quantity of corrosion damage and variation in the assigned CS. The steel protective coating system was also assessed. Previous inspections had indicated that bridge I1 had 99 % of its coating in CS 1, while bridge I2 had 99% of its coating in CS 2. Both bridges had some coating in CS 4, though different amounts. It was anticipated that using the visual images available in the guidelines would yield a different distribution of the CSs for the coating damage element. Additionally, it was expected that the different inspectors using the MBEI descriptions were likely to provide different CSs and distributions. As part of this task, all inspectors were asked to provide a second rating of the protective coating, using linear feet instead of the area (sq ft). If the unit for protective coatings were changed from the current practice of using area to using linear feet, these data points will provide insight regarding the distribution of the results.

D-19 Table D-4. Steel open girder/beam elements in bridge I1 and I2. Task I.1 Outcome The outcome of this task provided data on the assessment of corrosion and coating damage for the two twin bridges. Completion of this task yielded the following outcomes.  Comparison of the use of visual guide with traditional inspection approach  Variation in CS assignment for defect element 1000 and 3440  Assignment of unit of ft as compared with sq ft for protective coatings Task I.2 Assessment of Deck, Approach Slab and Joint This task consisted of the evaluation of the concrete deck, wearing surface, joint, and the approach slab. Table D-5 indicates the elements assessed during this task and shows the comparison between the quantities and CS assigned for bridge I1 and bridge I2. As shown it the table, the deck of bridge I1 has only about 1.5% areas assigned to damage, while bridge I2 has 38 % of the deck area identified as damaged, mostly cracking in CS 2. The concrete railing will also be assessed during this task. Table D-5. Elements to be assessed during task I.2. El. # Element/Defect Name Br. Tot. Qu. Unit Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 107 Steel Open Girder/Beam I1 816 ft 792 0 24 0 I2 816 691 120 5 1000 Corrosion I1 24 0 0 24 0 I2 125 0 120 5 0 515 Steel Protective Coating I1 6817 sq ft 6793 0 0 24 I2 6817 0 6775 0 42 3440 Effectiveness I1 24 0 0 0 24 I2 6817 0 6775 0 42 El. # Element/Defect Name Br. Tot. Qu. Unit Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 12 Reinforced concrete deck A 6090 sq ft 5998 87 5 0 B 6210 3836 2374 0 510 Wearing Surfaces A 5670 sq ft 5461 159 50 0 B 5790 3297 2273 220 0 302 Compression Joint Seal A 86 ft 0 0 86 0 B 86 62 24 0 0 321 Reinforced Concrete Approach Slab A 1784 sq ft 1668 108 8 0 B 1819 1712 7 100 0

D-20 These damaged areas provided a means of evaluating the ability of inspectors to accurately describe the damage areas. Figure D-14 shows diagrams of the damage in bridges I1 and I2, to illustrate the difference in the amount of damage recorded on the surface of the wearing surface. As noted on the diagram, bridge I2 has numerous transverse cracks spaced at ~ 3 ft along the length of the deck, 46 in total. Figure D-14. Diagrams of damage in wearing surface for bridges I1 and I2. Task I.2 Outcomes The expected outcome of the task was different estimates of CS and spatial estimates. In particular, the crack defects in the wearing surface were rated in CS 2 and CS 3. Task I.3 Assessment of Substructure and Bearing Elements This task included inspection of element 210-Reinforced Concrete Pier wall, element 215-Reinforced Concrete Abutment and the bearing elements (313 and 311). For this bridge, no defect was reported for the abutment and the reinforced concrete pier walls had isolated damage in the form of delamination and cracking. The movable bearings differed in condition between the two bridges, as shown in Table D-6.

D-21 Table D-6. Substructure elements of bridges I1 and I2. Task I.3 Outcome Task I.3 was focused on the substructure and bearing elements of the test bridges. The substructure elements had small amounts of damage, including cracking and spalling. The assessment of these elements provided data for assessing the detection rate when damage is isolated and small. For example, two piers in the bridge had single vertical cracks; the rate of detection of this isolated damage was assessed from the test results. Additionally, it was expected that TGA is likely to provide a different CS than TGB, based on the use of the visual guide. The bearing elements had significantly more damage, and the rating of the 36 bearings (18 + 18) provided data on the variation in inspection results for these elements. D.4 Testing at the S-BRITE Center This portion of the report describes the portion of the field exercises that were completed at the S-BRITE Center at Purdue University. The objectives of this portion of the field exercise were to:  Assess capabilities of inspectors for estimating quantities of damage  Analyze different methods of making quantity estimate o Tallying individual areas o Percentage basis  Evaluate the variability of truss element assessments  Assess potential changes to the MBEI proposed through the research o Change of units from ea. to ft o Change of units from sq ft to ft The S-BRITE center will provide a highly controlled environment for the testing. This controlled environment allows for a unique study to evaluate different methods of estimating element quantities. The potential manual changes to be evaluated are the change of protective coatings for steel from an assessment unit of sq ft to ft. These changes will be evaluated in two ways - by using simulated damage on a plate girder and assigning coating values to painted truss elements. The field exercises conducted at the S-BRITE center are numbered S-BRITE 1- 6. El. # Element/Defect Name Br. Tot. Qu. Unit Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 210 Reinforced Concrete Pier Wall A 6 ft 0 4 2 0 B 87 85 2 0 0 215 Reinforced Concrete Abutment A 91 ft 91 0 0 0 B 91 91 0 0 0 313 Fixed Bearing A 6 ea. 6 0 0 0 B 6 6 0 0 0 311 Movable Bearing A 18 ea. 0 0 18 0 B 18 6 9 3 0

D-22 D.4.1 Protocol for testing D.4.1.1 Introduction and Testing During this task, the study participants will be introduced to the field inspection exercise and provided a short refresher on use of the guideline. This task will refresh information previously provided in a webinar. Participants in the study that will use the new visual guide will be provided with the visual guide ahead of the testing, such that they can familiarize themselves with the visual guide Upon arriving at the S-BRITE facility, the participants will be assessed using a couple of basic tools; this will include vision test and a color blindness test. The purpose of these tests is to simply characterize the population of inspectors participating in the test relative to the overall population, or other groups of inspectors participating in future (or past) studies. The testing will establish if the participants have “typical” characteristics of vision, or if there is some anomaly in the vision characteristics that should be noted. For example, individuals would typically be expected to have 20/20 vision with correction; if all of the participants in fact had 20/40 or worse, it would be desirable to have that information. A person with 20/40 vision can see at 20 ft with the same acuity of a person with 20/20 vision can see from 40 ft. The vision test that the participants will complete will be using a Snellen eye chart, which is a very common vision test that should be familiar to participants. The Snellen eye test will be used to evaluate if there are any vision deficiencies among the participants. The eye exam uses the chart shown in Figure D-15, which is observed from a distance of 20 ft. This eye test was selected over the previously proposed Jaeger eye test because the Snellen test is more appropriate for assessing distance vision. The Jaeger eye test is a near- vision test that is suitable for up-close tasks like hands-on inspections for cracks in fracture critical members. For routine inspection, where observation distance are typically larger, the Snellen eye test provides a suitable measure. Figure D-15. Image of a Snellen eye test chart.

D-23 The color vision test to be completed by participants is a Ishihara test, which is a color perception test for red-green color deficiencies. Again, this test will be familiar to participants, and is a simple method of identifying if inspectors have any sort or red-green color vision deficiency. Such deficiencies are common, affecting about 5-8 % of men and a smaller proportion of woman. A red-green color deficiency could potentially effect inspection results for such elements and protective coatings, where discriminating areas. A typical test plate from an Ishihara test is shown in Figure D-16; there can be up to 38 different color plates used for assessing color deficiencies. It is proposed that a 14 plates test be used because it is rapid to implement and sufficiently accurate for the purpose of identifying a color deficiency (as opposed to full diagnosis). The 14 plate test is typical for occupational settings; each plate is observed for 3 seconds and the participant identifies the number on the plate. Figure D-16. Typical plate used to assess color blindness. Once the participants have completed the physiological testing, the participants will be divided into two groups for the testing. Test Group A (TGA) and Test Group B (TGB). TGA will be provided the visual guide for use in the testing, while TGB will use their typical procedures during the tests. D.4.2 Task S-BRITE 1-5: Spatial Estimating Tasks D.4.2.1 Background The survey conducted as part of the research indicated that agencies are using different approaches to estimating quantities of damage. In some cases, inspectors will estimate individual areas (e.g. sq ft or ft of damage), and subsequently tally the total area of damage. Measurement of each individual area of damage using a tape measure or other device may be a part of making the diagram. Other agencies are estimating the area of damage based on percentage visually, without a specific measurement, and then multiplying that percentage by to total amount of that element. For example, estimating a deck with an area of 1000 sq ft has a 5% damage = 50 sq ft, as compared with tallying each damage area. For many agencies, the method used in the field may not be well known, or may vary between different inspectors or inspection teams. For agencies using the percentage of area and multiplying by the total amount of that element, the visual guide includes spatial estimating visual guides intended to improve the accuracy of the estimate. Tallying individual areas is a more time-consuming task, which may or may not include actually physically measuring areas of damage. Tallying individual areas may provide increased accuracy as compared with estimating based on a percentage, but also requires more time to complete the inspection. This is a well- known effect in visual inspection that has been discussed in previous reports, namely the speed-accuracy trade-off (SATO). The objective of this task is to develop data on the effect of these different approaches on the accuracy and efficiency of inspection to assess the SATO. These data will be useful in the analyzing

D-24 the accuracy requirements for element-level bridge inspection, and identifying suitable procedures for element-level data collection. Additionally, this task will study the effect of changing the units of measure for elements, for example, element 515, Steel Protective Coating. This element is currently rated based on sq ft, but a typical parent element 107 Steel Open Girder/Beam is estimated based on linear feet. Corrosion damage and other defects are applied based on linear feet, to match the parent element. The estimate of protective coatings based on area has the advantage of aligning with bridge management needs in terms of estimating the area of repair (e.g. recoating) needed. It also has the potential for providing a higher level of accuracy if, for example, one side of the web has a coating damage and the other side of the same web does not have coating damage. However, there are also several limitations. First, the area of an open section, which includes the surface area of the web and the top and bottom of the flange, can be difficult to estimate efficiently. Second, not all surface areas of a member may be observable in the field. For example, the top of the bottom flange may not be available for inspection when inspections are conducted from the ground. Third, the estimate of area may be more time consuming than simply estimating the linear feet. During this task, a comparison of the different methods of documenting the damage in a steel girder will be evaluated. Through this testing, the difference in accuracy resulting from applying different units of measure to can be assessed. For this task, simulated damage in the form of color appliques will be mounted on the surface of a steel plate girder to provide an idealized model of damage in a bridge member. The plate girders are 77 ft in length with a 6 ft tall web section, providing four available surface for testing with each measuring 462 sq ft each. Appliques of different sizes and shapes will be used to simulate damage quantities of different amounts. Figure D-17 illustrates the test arrangement schematically. Figure D-17. Photograph of plate girder showing schematic representation of simulated damage. As shown in the image, irregular shapes were be attached to the steel girder, and inspectors will be asked to make an estimate of the area of the irregular shapes as a percentage of area of the plate girders (462 sq ft). The areas to be placed on the surface of the member are shown in Table D-7. These areas were selected to provide a relevant number for decision-making: ~ 5%, 10%, 20% and more than 30%. The specific values shown in the table are linearly related with a slope of three to provide support analysis of results. The slope was selected for convenience in selecting quantities close to typical decision-making thresholds. As shown in the table, the damage areas will be varied during the execution of the tasks to ensure the assessment completed by the inspector are not bias by repeating the same estimates. Two estimating tasks

D-25 will be completed (S-BRITE 2 and S-BRITE 3), and then the appliques will be rearranged with different total quantities for two other tasks (S-BRITE 4 and S-BRITE 5). The use of simulated areas of damage in the form of appliques applied to the surface of the plate girder will allow for the measurement of spatial estimating capabilities. The rationale for using these idealized representations of damage on the surface of the steel is to remove any inconsistencies that could be related to undefined boundaries of areas in different condition states, or different inspectors assigning different condition states to areas of the element. In this way, the test approach will provide higher quality data for analysis. The variation in assignment of quantities and CS will be assessed through the field exercise on test bridges. Table D-7. Areas of defect to be used for the spatial estimating task. Side Areas Area (sq ft) Task E2 and E3 1 6% 28 2 12% 56 3 18% 83 4 36% 166 Task E4 and E5 Side Areas Area (sq ft) 1 21% 97 2 15% 69 3 30% 139 4 9% 42 The measurement of an inspector’s ability to estimate an area of damage based on visual inspection will be accomplished by using several different approaches. A comparison of visual images in which an inspector makes an estimate of shaded areas on an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper will be used as a fundamental test and a method of uniform evaluation of inspector capabilities; this will provide data on the characteristics individual participants that can be later used in the analysis of results. Participants will also provide estimates of area and linear feet of damage on the test girders several different approaches, as previously discussed. These includes making an ad-hoc estimate as a percentage of area, without the use of any measurement device or visual guide, using a visual guide, or tallying the areas individually on a diagram. Both sq ft and ft estimates will be made. The different tasks to be competed are summarized in Table D-8.

D-26 Table D-8. Summary of data and methods for Task E. Task Activity Test Group Method Time Accuracy Time S-BRITE1 Standard test of area estimation on a page All % area - x 20 min S-BRITE2 Use of visual guide for area estimate TGA % area x x 30 min Ad hoc assessment of area TGB % area x x S-BRITE 3 Tallying individual areas based on estimates TGA sq ft x x 60 min. Tallying individual areas using a measurement device TGB sq ft x x S-BRITE 4 Use of visual guide for ft estimate. TGA ft x x 30 min. Ad hoc estimate of ft TGB ft x x S-BRITE 5 Tallying ft based on estimates TGA ft x x 60 min Tallying ft using a measurement device TGB ft x x Task S-BRITE 1 Visual Estimation of Area (20 minutes) This task consists of each inspector making a visual estimate of area percentage based on areas printed on an 8.5 x 11 paper sheet, as shown in Figure D-18. The objective of this task is to provide fundamental data on the capabilities of an individual to make a visual estimate on an area on a percentage basis. This measurement will also provide data on the fundamental capabilities of each test group TGA and TGB. An example of a visual standard is provided in Figure D-18 to illustrate the process. In this figure, an area with irregular shapes comprise different portions of the area. In this example, the top figure shows an area of 5% and the bottom figure shows an area of 13%. The intrinsic capability of an inspector to estimate a given area can be assessed by using this simple tool. Similar spatial representations are included in the guidelines to assist an inspector in the field; during this test, TGA will have the visual guide available and TGB will not have the visual guide. Outcome The successful completion of this task will provide baseline data on an inspector capability for estimating area and the effect of having a visual aid to assist in making the estimate. Comparison of use of a visual guide with the traditional inspection approach. This task will also evaluate a potential performance test standard for inspectors in the field to assess if a given inspector has an adequate capability for estimating areas to perform quality inspections. Data from the test will be assessed as compared with the testing on the plate girder to determine if there is a correlation between the estimates made on paper sheets as compared with those made on the full-sized specimens.

D-27 D Figure D-18. Example of a page test for estimating area based on percentage showing 5% (top) and 13% (bottom). Task S-BRITE 2 (30 min) Estimating areas based on overall percentage of damage During this task, inspectors will make area estimates of the damaged area using the idealized model consisting of irregular shapes mounted to the web of a plate girder. As mentioned previously, this task will allowed for a measurement of the capabilities of an inspector to assess the area of damage on a member, without considering the assignment of a condition state. Figure D-19 shows an example of the appliques applied to the surface of the girder web, representing different amounts of area of damage. Figure D-19. Diagram of web plate with damage area applied of 6 % (top) and 18% (bottom). In this task, the participants were asked to estimate area based solely on a visual inspection without the use of any measurement device and without drawing a diagram of individual areas of damage. Each inspector made four estimates, one for each side of the plate girders. During this task, TGA used the area estimating guides provided in the guideline to assist in making an estimate of the area. TGB provided an estimate of the total area of damage based on an ad-hoc (i.e., without the use of the guide) basis. This task was timed to determine how quickly an area estimate is made for each test group.

D-28 Outcomes: The completion of this task provided data on the accuracy of an area estimate based on the percentage of area, with a comparison between using a visual guide and not using a visual guide. The expected outcome was an improvement in the accuracy of the estimate using the visual guide. Specifically, the task yielded the following data:  Accuracy of area estimates based on percentage using a visual guide.  Accuracy of area estimates based on percentage without a visual guide.  Data for the comparison of the efficiency of different estimating methods (estimating % as compared with tallying individual areas). Task S-BRITE 3 (60 minutes) Estimating area quantities by tallying individual areas The objective of this task was to provide data on the effect of documenting individual areas of damage as part of the inspection process. During this task, inspectors estimated the total area by tallying individual areas. Participants in TGA developed a diagram of the damage areas based on visual estimate of the area of damage. Participants in TGB were allowed to use a measurement device such as a tape measure or wheel. This task was timed to compare the time difference between using a visual estimate made of individual areas as compared with estimates based on a percentage (Task S-BRITE 2). Outcomes: The completion of this task provided data on the accuracy of area estimate based on tallying individual areas, with or without the use of a measurement device. The completion of this task yielded the following data:  Accuracy of area estimates based on visual inspection and tallying individual areas without a measurement device.  Accuracy of area estimates based on visual inspection and tallying individual areas using a measurement device.  Data for the comparison of the efficiency (time requirements) of different estimating methods (estimating % as compared with tallying individual areas). The outcomes of Tasks S-BRITE 2 and S-BRITE 3 provided data on the quantity accuracy for tallying individual areas as compared with estimating the area on a percentage basis, with or without using the visual guide. These data provided information of the time-accuracy trade-off to be considered in developing inspection procedures in the field. Task S-BRITE 4 (30 minutes) Estimating Linear Feet based on Percentage The objective of this task was to provide data on the efficiency and accuracy of using ft as the unit of measure for an element. Specifically, the task provided data on the efficiency if, for example, protective coatings were rated based on linear feet as compared with the current practice that is based on square feet. Additionally, the data from these tests illustrated the effect of this approach on the accuracy of the resulting estimates. Prior to the execution of this task, the damage areas on the surface of the plate girder were rearranged as indicated in Table D-7. Participants in TGA estimated using the visual guide. Participants in TGB assessed the areas of damage on the structure based on a linear foot percentage of the overall length, without the use of the visual guide. In this test, the inspectors made four different estimates, one for each side of the girder. The time required to complete the testing was recorded for comparison with making an area estimate vs using linear feet and for comparison with tallying areas. Outcomes: The completion of this task provided data on the accuracy of ft estimate based on the percentage of length, with a comparison between using a visual guide and not using a visual guide. The expected outcome was an improvement in the accuracy of the estimate using the visual guide. Specifically, the task yielded the following data:  Accuracy of length estimates based on percentage using a visual guide.  Accuracy of length estimates based on percentage without a visual guide.

D-29  Data for the comparison of the efficiency of different estimating methods (estimating % as compared with tallying individual lengths). Task S-BRITE 5 Estimating Linear Feet based on Tallying Areas (30 minutes) During this task, the inspectors were asked to provide an estimate of the linear feet of damage based on tallying individual areas. As with task S-BRITE 3, TGA was asked to develop their diagram without the use of any measurement device. TGB was allowed the use of a tape measure or measuring wheel. Outcomes: The completion of this task provided data on the accuracy of length estimate based on tallying individual lengths, with or without the use of a measurement device. Task S-BRITE6 Truss and Gusset Plate Elements (60 minutes) This task consisted of inspection of the panel members of a decommissioned steel truss erected at the S- BRITE center shown in Figure D-20. As shown in the figure, the single-span through-truss has corrosion damage and protective coating damage throughout the truss. There are 36 gusset plates in the structure. The truss element was assessed based on the linear feet of truss panel measured longitudinally along the travel way; the steel protective coating was assessed based on square feet, and the gusset plates were assessed based on units of each. Therefore, this task included each of the element measurement units included in the MBEI (i.e., sq ft, ft and ea). This test bridge has unobstructed access to the truss members, such that effect of access was included in the results. During this testing, the steel truss with corrosion damage was used to assess how much variability there is in the quantity assessments made by the inspectors for a truss, measured in ft of truss panel. Inspectors also assessed the linear feet of floor beams, and protective steel coatings for both the floor beams and truss panels. Finally, the participants rated the 72 gusset plates in the truss. In this way, each of the units of measure used in the MBEI was assessed during these tasks. Examples of the corrosion damage in the truss element are shown in Figure D-21, which shows a gusset plate with severe section loss and truss members. Table D-9 shows the elements that were evaluated through this task. During this task, TGA had the assistance of the visual guide, including images of the corrosion damage element and linear estimating guides. TGA assessed the steel protective coating in terms of linear feet for both the truss and the floor beams. TGB did not use the visual guide and used the conventional units of sq ft for the steel protective coating. The time required to complete the inspection was recorded. Table D-9. Elements of the truss bridge at S-BRITE. Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Unit Tot Qu. Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 120 Steel Truss ft 182 18 37 91 36 1000 Corrosion ft 18 37 91 36 152 Steel Floor Beam ft 264 0 80 184 0 1000 Corrosion ft 0 80 184 0 515 Steel Protective Coating sq ft 4854 1000 1200 2154 500 3440 Effectiveness sq ft 1000 1200 2154 500 162 Gusset Plates ea 72 0 12 24 0 1000 Corrosion ea 72 0 12 24 0

D-30 Figure D-20. Steel truss to be used for linear length estimation. Figure D-21. Examples of corrosion damage on the truss bridge. D.5 Michigan Field Exercises The approach to the field exercises in Michigan was to capitalize on a pair of twin bridges, located adjacent to each other and with good access, to assess the consistency of superstructure and substructure CS assignments and quantities. In particular, each bridge has columns in different conditions, which was useful for analyzing variations in assigning the units of ea. The columns also provided the opportunity to compare the assessment using different units of measure by having the inspection teams rate the element in ft as well as ea. This provided data for analysis of the effect of changing the unit of measure for columns and piles both in terms of the increased accuracy as compared with the actual conditions in the field, and the increased time necessary to assess the columns in terms of ft as compared with ea. The columns in the twin bridges had damage such as spalling and delamination, but in small amounts. Consequently, the results of the inspections and comparison of different units illustrated the effect of changing the unit of measure for columns and other substructure members currently using units of ea.

D-31 The superstructure members had similar amounts of damage that is common for prestressed girders, namely cracking and spalling near the supports. It was expected that the assessment of this element would provide a measure of the variation in quantities and defect assignment for elements measured in ft. In particular, the elements had PSC cracking; the CS assignment for this cracking was expected to vary depending on the use of the quantitative crack width values, images in the visual guide, and/or conventional inspection. The deck elements of bridge M3 and M4 were inspected as part of the field exercises. The assignment of CSs and quantities to deck elements without a wearing surface is challenged by the need to assess damage in both the surface and the soffit of the deck, and yield a total deck area that matches the total quantity for the elements. Bridge decks received much of the focus of preservation and repair activities, because the deck provides the riding surface for the bridge, and the service life of the deck is typically shorter than the superstructure and substructure elements of a bridge. Therefore, in terms of bridge management and decision making, the bridge deck is possibly the most important element in the bridge for which accurate data is needed. Therefore, field exercises tasks focused on the deck element were planned to provide the opportunity to assess the accuracy of deck CS and quantity assignment, and the effect of using the visual guide in the field. D.5.1 Michigan Test Bridges This portion of the report describes the bridges selected for the Michigan field exercise and the field exercise protocol for executing the tests. The bridges selected in Michigan included twin bridges with prestressed concrete superstructures and damaged columns and pier caps. Bridge 3804 and 3805 are twin 3 span prestressed concrete girder/beam bridges. The bridges carry I-96 over Washington Avenue in Ingham County. These bridges are of identical design and age, and presented the opportunity to assess significant portions of superstructure and substructure elements with good access over a local road. These bridges are identified as bridge M1 (3804) and bridge M2 (3805). Figure D-22 shows a photograph of bridge M2. Bridges M1 and M2 did not provide good access for deck inspection due to high traffic volumes and limited shoulder areas. Consequently, different bridges were selected for conducting inspection focused only on the deck of the structures. Bridges 2253 and 2254 are located south of Lansing over I-69. These bridges are identified as follows: bridge 2253 is identified as bridge M3, and bridge 2254 is identified as bridge M4. Figure D-23 shows an aerial view of these two bridges. Use of these bridges allowed for assessment of the accuracy of deck evaluation with the primary defects in the deck being delamination, spalling, and patches. These decks had significant areas of damage in the surface of the deck, including cracking, spalling, and patches, and damage on the underside of the deck. The location of these bridges with respect to the Michigan Department of Transportation is shown in Figure D-24.

D-32 Figure D-22. Photograph of elevation view of bridge M2. Figure D-23. Bridges M3 and M4 aerial view. It should be noted that the element identification currently used in Michigan identifies elements using a different numbering system than the current MBEI, and defect elements were not in use during the previous inspections. MDOT is transitioning to the use of the MBEI, but had not yet transitioned at the time the most recent inspection report was completed. However, the bridge inspection notes provided information regarding the types of defects present in the structures. From these inspection notes, anticipated defects have been identified and are shown in certain tables in this section.

D-33 Figure D-24. Locations of test bridges in Michigan (Google Earth). D.5.2 Bridge M1 and M2 Elements and Condition State Rating Table D-10 shows standard inventory data for bridges M1 and M2. The bridges were constructed in 1962 and have a length of 108 ft. The bridges have matching design characteristics, as shown in the table. Table D-10. NBI data for bridges M1 and M2. Code Value Code Value [27] Year Built 1962 [108A] Wearing Surface Latex Concrete or sim. [49] Structure Length 107.9 ft [29] Average Daily Traffic 20,997 [45] Number of Main Spans 3 [30] Year 2007 [51] Bridge Roadway Width (Curb-to-Curb) 39.4 ft [109] Average Daily Truck Traffic 19% [52] Deck Width (Out-to-Out) 43.6 ft [58] Deck M1 5 M2 4 [43] Main Series PSC- Stringer/Girder [59] Superstructure M1 5 M2 5 [107] Deck Str. Type Concrete CIP [60] Substructure M1 6 M2 6 Table D-11 shows the elements and relevant CS ratings for each bridge from previous inspection report. The total quantities of the elements are the same for each bridge. Also shown in the table are the expected defect elements for each of the elements, derived from inspection notes from the most recent NBIS inspection. Some examples of the conditions that were found on the bridges are illustrated below.

D-34 Table D-11. Elements assessed for bridges M1 and M2. Element 109-Bridges M1 and M2 each have 755 ft of Prestressed Concrete Girder/Beam with 25 ft rated in CS 2 and 56 ft rated CS 3 in each bridge. An image of this element is shown in Figure D-25, which shows the damage defect at the end of beams on the pier cap. Reported defects in the prestressed elements includes spalling and fine cracks near the supports. Figure D-25. Prestressed Concrete Girder/Beam in bridge M2 showing spalling at the beam end, and bulging/splitting of the elastomeric bearings. Element 205-Reinforced Concrete Column. There are 16 concrete columns recorded among the two bridges and all the columns have defects, such as surface spalling and cracks. Bridge M1 has one column in CS 2 and six columns in CS 3. Bridge M2 has 3 columns in CS2 and 6 columns in CS 3. The columns in bridge M1 are shown in Figure D-26. El. # Element Name Def. # Defect Name Total Qu. Un. Br. Condition State CS1 CS2 CS3 109 PSC Girder/Be am 1110 Cracking 1080 Delam./Spall/Patch 755 ft M1 674 25 56 M2 674 25 56 205 RC Column 1080 Delam./Spall/Patch 1130 Cracking 8 ea. M1 1 1 6 M2 3 3 2 234 RC Pier Cap 1080 Delam./Spall/Patch 1130 Cracking 89 ft M1 84 4 1 M2 85 0 4 215 RC Abutment 1080 Delam./Spall/Patch 1130 Cracking 89 ft M1 80 9 0 M2 84 4 1 313 Fixed Bearing 2220 Alignment 1000 Corrosion 14 ea. M1 0 10 4 M2 0 3 11 310 Elast. Bearing 2220 Alignment 1000 Corrosion 28 ea. M1 0 12 16 M2 0 6 22

D-35 Figure D-26. Reinforced concrete columns and pier cap in bridge M1. Element 234-Each bridge has 89 ft of pier cap recorded. Bridge M1 has 4 ft recorded in CS 2 and only 1 ft in CS 3, while bridge M2 has 4 ft recorded in CS 3. The pier cap can be seen in Figure D-26. Element 313 - Fixed Bearing - The bridges each have 14 fixed bearings. Bridge M1 has ten bearings rated in CS 2 and four rated in CS 3, while bridge M2 has three bearing rated in CS 2 and ten bearings in CS 3. The defect element identified for these bearings is defect 1000, corrosion. Element 310-Elastomeric Bearing. There are 28 elastomeric bearings in each bridge. Bridge M1 has 12 elastomeric bearings rated in CS 2 and 16 elastomeric bearing rated in CS 3, while bridge M2 has 6 bearings rated in CS 2 and 22 are rated in CS 3. The defect identified in these elastomeric bearings is element 2230, bulging, splitting or tearing. Figure D-25 shows the bulging of the elastomeric bearings on bridge M2. D.5.3 Inspection Tasks For clarity, the inspection process for these two bridges is divided into individual tasks. During the execution of the field exercises, the participants were free to inspect items in whatever order or procedure they chose, with the exception that the participants were asked to assess the columns in ft as a separate task, after completing the normal inspection procedure. The individual tasks were part of the planning and data collection process for the research and were not explicitly conveyed to the participants. Items such as the overall test protocol, access for the inspection, and other miscellaneous data is included is the next section. Task M.1 Assessment of PS Elements This task included inspection of element 109-Prestressed Concrete Girder/Beam. The inspection exercise provided the opportunity to evaluate the use of the visual guide, which includes photographs of cracking in prestressed elements, as compared with the normal inspection procedures that use the descriptions provided in MBEI. TGA used the visual guide to inspect this element for the applicable defects and assigned the correct condition state for each defect; also, the use of the available linear estimates in the visual guide were used to measure the quantities accurately. TGB inspected these elements using their normal procedures.

D-36 Task M.1 Outcome Each bridge had a similar level of damage in the prestressed elements and the bridges are of the same design with the same access for inspection. Therefore, the inspection results provided data on the variation in inspection results of five inspections that used the new visual guide and five inspections that did not use the visual guide. These data were analyzed to determine the variation in inspection results and to compare the use of the visual guide to the conventional approach. This task also provided data on the variation of the reported quantities between these two bridges. Successful completion of task M.1 yielded the following outcomes.  Comparison of accuracy of quantity estimates stemming from using the spatial estimating guidelines.  Correct assignment of condition states for each applicable defect stemming from using the visual guide.  Frequency of use of measurement devices for determining the CS of prestressed elements. Task M.2 Assessment of Columns This task included inspection of element 205/227-Reinforced Concrete Column or Pile. As noted above, the bridges have different numbers of columns assigned to CS 2 and CS 3. During this task, each team assessed the columns using the normally applied unit of ea. Each team was asked to provide a measurement of the columns using the units of ft under a separate task. Task M.2 Outcome The outcome of this task provided data on the variation in inspection results for the concrete columns, which have different levels of damage in each bridge. Data were also provided through a later task that described the CS of the column in terms of ft, for comparison with the conventional units of ea. Task M.3 Assessment of Pier Caps, Abutment, and Bearing Elements This task included the inspection of element 215-RC Abutment, element 234-RC Pier Cap, element - 313-Fixed Bearing, and element 310-Elastomeric Bearing. The CS ratings and quantities for these elements are shown in Table D-11. During this task, both groups provided the appropriate CS assignments and quantities based on their ratings. A focus of this task was to measure the variation in results for quantities and CS assignments for the bearing elements. Although each bridge has the same number of bearings, the CS assignments for this element were different in each bridge, as shown in Table D-11. Task M.3 Outcome The data from this task provided information on the variation of CS assignments for bearing. There are a total of 56 elastomeric bearings between the two bridges of which 38 have been assigned CS 3 and 18 have been assigned CS 2. There are also 28 total fixed bearings: 15 of these have previously been rated in CS 3 and 13 have been previously been rated CS 2. The inspection results revealed the dispersion (variation) in CS assignments, and possible variation in the assigned defect, because the bearing plates had corrosion and the elastomeric pads had bulging and splitting. Successful completion of the task M.3 yielded the following outcomes.  Comparison of the use of the visual guide with a traditional inspection approach.  Comparison of accuracy of quantity estimates for element with unit of ea. (bearings).  Quantities for limited damage in the abutment.

D-37 Task M.4 Assessment of columns using units of ft During this task, all participants were asked to assess the columns of the bridge using the unit of ft rather than the conventional unit of ea. A key element of this task was to gather data on the accuracy of the data collected using ft as compared with the actual condition of the columns, and to measure the time required to make the assessment. Task M.4 Outcome The outcome of this task was data on the time required and the accuracy of the data stemming from using a different unit of measure for columns. Based on the condition of the columns, the outcome of the inspection illustrated the effect of using the units of ft on the accuracy of the inspection results. These data will support decision regarding changing the unit currently used in the MBEI. D.5.4 Test Bridges M3 and M4 Bridge M3 and M4 were field exercise sites focused on the assessment of bridge deck conditions. These two bridge are located about 2.0 miles away from each other over I-69. Each of these bridges had significant damage in the deck of the bridge. This included defects of cracking, spalling, and patches. The purpose of these test was to assess the accuracy and consistency of element-level data for bridge decks with damage. The bridges were selected because each bridge has significant areas of damage in the bridge deck, both on the driving surface of the deck and on the bridge deck soffit. Additionally, the bridges have low ADT, such that access to the shoulder areas of the bridge for inspection was achieved without exposing study participants to high volumes of traffic during the tasks. There was good access to the underside of the bridge deck for assessment of the soffit area. The following sections provide details of these two test bridges. D.5.4.1 Bridge M3 Elements and Condition State Ratings Bridge M3 was constructed in 1972 and data from the SI&A sheet for this bridge are shown in Table D- 12. This structure has an overall length of more than 600 ft; only a portion of the overall length was utilized during the field exercises. The portion of the bridge deck that was assessed during the field exercise is the spans of the bridge that extend across a large grass median, where access to the underside of the bridge deck was achieved without interacting with traffic. This portion of the bridge is highlighted in Figure D- 27. Additionally, this portion of the bridge was selected to make the area of decks assessed in bridges M3 and M4 similar, and to ensure that the field exercise could be completed in a timely manner.

D-38 Table D-12. NBI data for test bridge M3 Code Value Code Value [27] Year Built 1972 [108A] Wearing Surface 1-Monoconcrete [49] Structure Length 655.2 ft [29] Average Daily Traffic 140 [45] Number of Main Span 7 [30] Year 1993 [51] Bridge Roadway Width (Curb- to-Curb) 36.7 ft [109] Average Daily Track Traffic 3% [52] Deck Width (Out-to-Out) 40.4 ft [58] Deck 6 [43] Main Series 3 - Steel [59] Superstructure 6 [107] 1- ConcreteCIP [60] Substructure 7 Figure D-27. Aerial view of bridge M3 showing area to be assessed during the field exercise. The quantity and CS rating for bridge M3 is shown in Table D-13. This bridge deck was rated based on a proportion of the deck total quantity in one of the four CSs, but without information on the specific defects for this element. From available inspection reports, this bridge had a significant number of patches, cracks and spalls in the deck, and the soffit of the deck had map cracking, efflorescence, and spalling. The anticipated defect elements are shown in the table.

D-39 Table D-13. Elements and defects for bridge M3 Figure D-28 shows the bridge deck with noticeable spalling and patching. Spalls such as those shown in Figure D-28 are likely to be patches now, but based on the history of this deck, new spalls are likely to have emerged. Figure D-28. Delaminated and patched areas of the M3 deck. D.5.5 Michigan bridge M3 inspection exercise task Task M3.1 Assessment of Deck Elements of Bridge M3 This task included inspection of element 12– Reinforced Concrete deck. This task focused specifically on assessing the accuracy of deck condition estimates. A diagram of the damage in span 5 of bridge M3 is shown in Figure D-29. This diagram was made for a scoping report completed in 2015, and shows visible damage, patches, and sounding results. During this task, the participants recorded only the damage that can be observed visually. The portions of the deck inspected in this task was spans 3-5 of the bridges, which extend across a large grass median. This area of the bridge has good access for assessment of the soffit area of the bridge. The total deck area inspected during this task is 12,200 sq ft. Element # Element Name Defect # Defect Name Total Qu. Unit Condition State CS 1 CS 2 CS 3 CS 4 12 (800) RC deck 1080 Delamination/Spall/Patched area 26458 sq ft 15518 4400 6540 0 1130 Cracking (RC and Other) 1190 Abrasion/Wear 1120 Efflorescence/Rust Staining 300 Strip seal 2330 Seal damage 121 ft 0 119 2 0 301 Pourable joint seal 2330 Seal damage 81 ft 0 48 25 0

D-40 Figure D-29. Damage in span 5 of bridge M3. During this task, TGA used the visual guide to inspect this element for the applicable defects and assign the correct condition state for each defect, and made the use of the available area estimates in the visual guide to measure the quantities accurately. TGB inspected these elements using the MBEI manual. Task M3.1 Outcome The outcome of task M3.1 provided data on the variation in bridge deck CS and quantity data between the two groups of inspectors, as well as within each group of inspectors. Successful completion of Task M3.1 yielded the following outcomes.  Comparison of the use of visual guide with traditional inspection approach,  Comparison of accuracy of quantity estimates stemming from using area estimating guidelines,  Correct assignment of condition states for each applicable defect stemming from using the visual guide, and  Time required to complete the inspection Task M3.2 Assessment of Joints The bridge joints in the deck of bridge M3 were assessed during this task. The bridge includes both strip seal and pourable joint seals; portions of these seals are rated in CS 3 as shown in Table D-15. Task M3.2 Outcome The outcome of this task provided data on the consistency of joint seal assessments. These data were valuable for determining the quality of these data, and for comparison with results from other bridges in the study. The Sherwood Road had relatively low ADT (140 vpd in 1993) and the inspectors used the shoulders on Sherwood Road to complete the inspection.

D-41 Figure D-30. Slope at east end of bridge M3 (MDOT) D.5.6 Bridge M4 Elements and Condition State Rating The deck of bridge M4 was also assessed. Bridge M4 was built in 1972 and has low ADT. The NBI data for this bridge is shown in Table D-14. Table D-14. NBI data for test bridge M4. Code Value Code Value [27] Year Built 1972 [108A] Wearing Surface 1-Mono. concrete [49] Structure Length 364.8 ft [29] Average Daily Traffic 850 [45] Number of Main Spans 6 [30] Year 1988 [51] Bridge Roadway Width (Curb-to-Curb) 39.7 ft [109] Average Daily Track Traffic 3 % [52] Deck Width (Out-to-Out) 44.3 ft [58] Deck 5 [43] Main Series 3-Girder/Floor Beam System [59] Superstructure 7 [107] Deck Str. Type 1- Concrete CIP [60] Substructure 7 The quantity and CS rating for bridge M4 deck element from previous inspection report are shown in Table D-15. As shown in the table, this bridge deck has significant areas of damage in CS 2 and CS 3 in the bridge deck. A photograph of the damage in the bridge deck is shown in Figure D-31.

D-42 Table D-15. Bridge M4 element condition state rating. Figure D-31. Photograph showing damaged areas on the deck of bridge M4. D.5.7 Michigan bridge M4 inspection exercise tasks This section of the report describes the individual tasks completed on test bridge M4. Task M4.1 Assessment of Deck Element of Bridge M4 This task included inspection of element 12 (800)-Reinforced Concrete deck. Bridge M4 had significant areas of damage and patches on the driving surface of the deck, and areas of cracking, spalling and leaching in the deck soffit. Figure D-32 shows a diagram of the damage in the surface of the deck of bridge M4 in spans 1-3. Spans 4-6 have a similar level of damage. This diagram was made for a scoping report completed in 2015, and shows visible damage, patches, and sounding results. During this task, the participants recorded only the damage that can be observed visually. The entire deck of bridge M4 was assessed during this task. Element # Element Name Defect # Defect Name Total Quantit y Unit Condition State CS 1 CS 2 CS 3 CS 4 12 (800) Reinforced concrete deck 1080 Delamination/Spall/Patched area 16210 sq ft 9210 4000 3000 0 1130 Cracking (RC and Other) 1190 Abrasion/Wear 1120 Efflorescence/Rust Staining 300 Strip seal 2330 Seal damage 89 ft 45 44 0 0 301 Pourable joint seal 2330 Seal damage 89 ft 55 20 14 0

D-43 Figure D-32. Diagram showing damage in deck M4, spans 1-3. Task M4.1 Outcome The outcome of task M4.1provided data on the variation in bridge deck CS and quantity data between the two groups of inspectors, as well as with each group of inspectors. Successful completion of Task M3.1 yielded the following outcomes.  Comparison of the use of visual guide with traditional inspection approach,  Comparison of accuracy of quantity estimates stemming from using area estimating guidelines,  Correct assignment of condition states for each applicable defect stemming from using the visual guide, and  Time required to complete the inspection. Task M4.2 Assessment of Joints The bridge joints in the deck of bridge M4 were assessed during this task. The bridge includes both strip seal and pourable joint seals that were assessed by the participants. Task M4.2 Outcome The outcome of this task provided data on the consistency of joint seal assessments. These data were valuable for determining the quality of these data. D.5.8 Participant Instructions To promote consistency in the execution of the field exercises, a standard set of instructions was provided to each of the participants in the study. These instructions were specific to the particular test bridge and tasks completed for each bridge. The following paragraphs illustrate a typical instruction set provided to each of the participants. This example is based on the inspections conducted on bridges M1 and M2. These instructions were provided in hard-copy format to the participants. “Please inspect these bridges using the methods and procedures you would commonly use in your day to day activities. Please be aware that this is not a test of inspectors; for the data to be useful to us in our research, the inspections must be common and ordinary. Therefore, you are asked to refrain from taking any extraordinary efforts or activities in conducting your inspections. Please perform the inspection as you would on any ordinary working day, for a bridge of this type and size. The inspection results you provide will be anonymous. You have been provided with an inspector number to be used to identify the inspection results you provide. Please enter your inspector number in the appropriate space on the inspection data sheet. During this task, you are asked to rate elements shown in Table D-16.

D-44 Table D-16. Element listing for inspection of bridge M1 and M2. El. # Element Name Total Quant. Unit Condition State CS1 CS2 CS3 CS 4 109 PSC Girder/Beam 755 ft 205 RC Column 8 ea. 234 RC Pier Cap 89 ft 215 RC Abutment 89 ft 313 Fixed Bearing 14 ea. 310 Elast. Bearing 28 ea. Please provide ratings and quantities using your normal inspection procedure. If you are a member of TGA, please use the visual guides provided to you in determining the CS of elements, and use the spatial estimation diagrams as needed to assist in your evaluation. If you make any diagrams during your inspection, please submit the diagrams with the inspection forms at the end of the exercise. Please enter data on the inspection data sheet provided for you. This sheet includes spaces for the entry of defect elements. There are sheets provided for you to make a diagram, if needed. You are not required or expected to make any diagrams. There is a space on the inspection data sheet for you to mark the time you begin the inspection and for when you complete the inspection. Please remember to mark these times. Once you have completed inspecting the element listed in Table D-16 please mark your completion time of the form provided. After you have completed the inspection and marked your finish time, please return to the columns on each bridge and reassess the CS and quantities for these elements using units of ft. There is a space provided for you to mark the time you begin this task, and another space for marking the time you complete this task. Please enter time appropriately in these spaces. The instructions were slightly different for each of the tasks, and were used to convey any special needs or tasks to be completed, such as identifying clearly what elements are to be assessed, the limits of the inspection in the case of bridge M3, and other details of the field test to be completed. D.5.9 Pre-Test Questionnaires The purpose of the pre-test questionnaire was to get information about the highest education level completed by an inspector, whether s/he is a team leader, whether s/he wears glasses and has color blindness, whether s/he has completed inspection training courses, his/her level of involvement in bridge inspection, and some questions about inspection process about the deck, and superstructure. The pre-test questionnaire is available in Appendix A. D.5.10 Post-Test Questionnaires Data were collected on the inspectors’ experience during the field exercise through a post-test questionnaire. The purpose of the post-test questionnaire was to allow the inspectors to identify any potential issues with the field exercise, provide feedback on the use of the guidelines, and to document certain procedures used during the field exercises. In particular, the post-test questionnaire recorded if the inspector used a percentage x total area, or tallying of individual areas, when estimating quantities for CS assignment. The post-test questionnaire is shown in Appendix A.

D-45 D.6 Schedule This section of the report describes the schedule for the field exercises in each state. As described previously, the duration of the testing for each inspector was limited to one day to facilitate scheduling. The specific dates for the field exercises were determined when Phase III of the research was approved to proceed. D.6.1 Indiana The field exercises in Indiana included two different inspection activities, one conducted at the S-BRITE Center on the campus of the Purdue University, and the other at bridges I1 and I2. The twin bridges assessed during this task are relatively short-span bridges with good access, and the inspection included only key elements of the bridges. The inspection exercise took place on July 12, 2017. Indiana field test schedule (8:00-8:30) am Inspector’s vision test, color vision test, and spatial area estimate of simulated damages printed on (8.5 x 11) in sheets of papers (9:00-11:00) am Performed targeted inspection procedures at the S-BRITE Center (11:00-12:00) pm Lunch and traveled to the bridge sites (12:00-2:50) pm Field exercises at test bridges D.6.2 Field test days in Michigan The field exercises in Michigan took place for two days on Oct 25 and 26, 2017 and included inspections at two different locations. There were five inspectors in each day. The participants completed vision screening tests at the beginning of the day at MDOT’s Operations Field Services building. The following shows the time schedule of the Michigan inspections. Michigan field test schedule (8:00-8:30) am Meet the inspectors at MDOT’s Operations Field Services building (6333 Lansing Rd., Lansing MI, 48917), Inspector’s vision testing, and spatial area estimates of simulated damages printed on 8.5 x 11 in sheets of papers (9:00-11:15) am Completed inspection task for bridges M1 and M2 (11:00-12:50) pm lunch and drive to bridge M3 (12:50-3:45) pm Completed inspection of decks for bridges M3 and M4 These schedules are updated based on the actual inspection durations recorded on each day of the inspection exercise.

D-46 Appendix A: Pre-Test and Post-Test Questionnaire This appendix includes the pre-test and post-test questionnaires that were given to the inspectors before and after the field exercises.

D-47 NCHRP 12-104 “Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data” Pre-test questionnaire What is the highest education level that you have completed? 1. High school 2. Trade or technical school 3. Associates Degree (choose one: CE Technology Other) 4. Bachelor’s Degree (choose one: CE Technology Other) 5. Master’s Degree (choose one: CE Technology Other) Other: ________________________________________ Are you qualified as a Team Leader? Yes No Do you wear glasses? Yes……… No………. Do you have any form of color blindness? How many years of bridge inspection experience do you have? How many years element-level data collection do you have? Please indicate which of the following training courses you have attended: Training Course In the last 5 years More than 5 years ago NHI 130053 Bridge Inspection Refresher Training NHI 130055 Safety Inspection of In-Service Bridges NHI 130078 Fracture Critical Inspection Techniques for Steel Bridges FHWA Introduction to Element Level Bridge Inspection State Specific Bridge Inspection Refreshing Training What portion of your job duties is dedicated to bridge inspection? 10%...., 25%...., 50%..., 75%...., 90%...., 100%.... Blank for future use Inspection Process

D-48 1. When inspecting a deck, which of the following methods do you use to assess the area of damage in the deck (circle) A. Draw each area of damage (spall, crack, etc.) on a diagram with estimated dimensions, and then tally up the total area. B. Estimate the total area of damage as a percentage, and then multiply by the total quantity for that element. C. Measure each area of damage individually with a ruler, and then sum the total area. D. Other (Explain 2. When inspecting a superstructure, which of the following methods do you use to assess the length (ft) damage? (circle) E. Draw each length of damage (spall, crack, etc.) on a diagram with estimated dimension, and then tally up the total length. F. Estimate the total length of damage as a percentage, and then multiply by the total quantity for that element. G. Measure each length of damage individually with a ruler, and then sum the total length H. Other (Explain

D-49 NCHRP 12-104 “Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data” Post-test questionnaire Have you inspected this bridge before? Were these bridges similar to bridges you commonly inspect? If not, please describe any differences. Did you perform this inspection in any way differently than you conduct a normal inspection? Please explain: Please estimate how long it took you to make an estimate of the LF of column? Please estimate how long it took you to make the estimate of the column using unit of EA? How did you determine the quantity of damage in the PSC beams? 1. Made an estimate visually of the length where the beam was damaged. 2. Measured the length of damage with a tape measure or rule. 3. By drawing a scale diagram 4. Other (describe) ………………………………… Did you use a crack comparator in determining the CS for cracks in the PSC? Yes  No  Please circle any tools that you used during the inspection. Hammer Crack comparator Pick/probe Tape measure Binoculars Ladder Magnifying glass Other (Please list) For Members of TGA

D-50 Please rate the ease of the use of the visual guide. Easy Easiest 1 2 3 4 5 Based on your experience during the field exercise, do you feel that the guideline would assist you in rating bridge element in the field? In your opinion, does the guideline help in understanding the different condition states that should be assigned to an element? Do you have any suggestions for ways in which the visual guide could be improved? For Members of Both TGA and TGB Please provide any other feedback or comment you want to share with us about this inspection exercise. You may use the back of this page for additional space if needed.

D-51 Appendix B: Inspection Forms for Field Exercises and S-BRITE Tasks This appendix includes the inspection forms that were used for the field exercises. A separate form was used for each bridge. The form included a general header with bridge ID, and start and end time for the inspection. A table was provided for the inspectors to enter the condition state quantities for the elements and defects. For bridges M1 and M2, the form was divided into two parts: Part A and Part B. Part A of the form was utilized for the inspection of the elements using the units specified in the MBEI. On Part B of the form, inspectors were asked to evaluate the reinforced concrete columns using units of ft. Inspectors were asked to track their time to perform the tasks on Part B separately from Part A. This appendix also includes the visual estimation forms that were used for the S-BRITE Tasks. A separate form was used for each task. The form includes a general header with the task ID, and start and end time for the inspection. Tables were provided for the inspectors to enter the results for each task. Each task included instructions, including both general direction and specific directions for TGA and TGB.

Inspection Form Bridge I1 (BNBL) Task 1 D-52 NCHRP 12-104 “Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data” Bridge I1 (BNBL) Task 1 Inspection Form Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Unit Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 12 Reinforced Concrete Deck 6090 sq ft Comment: 510 Wearing Surfaces 5670 sq ft Comment: 107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 816 ft Comment: Start Time End Time Notes:  The following table contains elements and space to provide applicable defects for inspection exercise of Bridge I1.  The total quantity of the element is provided for each element in the table.  TGA will inspect and rate the elements based on the available defects listed for each element using the provided visual guide for elements/defect and linear/spatial estimate diagrams.  TGB will inspect and rate the elements based on the available defects listed for each element using MBEI description for the defects.  At the bottom of each element there is space to provide any comments specific to that element or its defects. If the space provided is not enough, please use the last blank page attached to this inspection form and write the element and defect name the comment pertains to.

Inspection Form Bridge I1 (BNBL) Task 1 D-53 Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Unit Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 515 Steel Protective Coating 6817 sq ft Comment: 210 Reinforced Concrete Pier Wall 87 ft Comment: 215 Reinforced Concrete Abutment 91 ft Comment: 302 Compression Joint Seal 86 ft Comment: 321 Reinforced Concrete Approach Slab 1784 sq ft Comment: 313 Fixed Bearing 6 ea. Comment:

Inspection Form Bridge I1 (BNBL) Task 1 D-54 Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Unit Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 311 Movable Bearing 18 ea. Comment: 331 Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing 280 ft Comment:

Inspection Form Bridge I2 (BSBL) Task 1 D-55 NCHRP 12-104 “Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data” Bridge I2 (BSBL) Task 1 Inspection Form Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Unit Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 12 Reinforced Concrete Deck 6210 sq ft Comment: 510 Wearing Surfaces 5670 sq ft Comment: 107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 816 ft Comment: Start Time End Time Notes:  The following table contains elements and space to provide applicable defects for inspection exercise of Bridge I2.  The total quantity of the element is provided for each element in the table.  TGA will inspect and rate the elements based on the available defects listed for each element using the provided visual guide for elements/defect and linear/spatial estimate diagrams.  TGB will inspect and rate the elements based on the available defects listed for each element using MBEI description for the defects.  At the bottom of each element there is space to provide any comments specific to that element or its defects. If the space provided is not enough, please use the last blank page attached to this inspection form and write the element and defect name the comment pertains to.

Inspection Form Bridge I2 (BSBL) Task 1 D-56 Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Unit Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 515 Steel Protective Coating 6817 sq ft Comment: 210 Reinforced Concrete Pier Wall 6 ft Comment: 215 Reinforced Concrete Abutment 91 ft Comment: 302 Compression Joint Seal 86 ft Comment: 321 Reinforced Concrete Approach Slab 1784 sq ft Comment: 313 Fixed Bearing 6 ea. Comment:

Inspection Form Bridge I2 (BSBL) Task 1 D-57 Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Unit Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 311 Movable Bearing 18 ea. Comment: 331 Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing 280 ft Comment:

Inspection Form Bridge I2 (BSBL) Task 2 D-58 NCHRP 12-104 “Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data” Bridge I2 (BSBL) Task 2 Inspection Form Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Unit Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 515 Steel Protective Coating 816 ft Comment: Start Time End Time Notes:  The following table contains element 515 Steel protective coating and space to provide applicable defects measured in unit of linear feet.  The total quantity of the element is provided for each element in the table.  TGA will inspect and rate the elements based on the available defects listed for each element using the provided visual guide for elements/defect and linear/spatial estimate diagrams.  TGB will inspect and rate the elements based on the available defects listed for each element using MBEI description for the defects.  At the bottom of each element there is space to provide any comments specific to that element or its defects. If the space provided is not enough, please use the last blank page attached to this inspection form and write the element and defect name the comment pertains to.

Inspection Form Bridge M1 (Part A) D-59 NCHRP 12-104 “Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data” Bridge M1 (3804) Inspection Form (Part A) Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Unit Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 109 Prestress Conc Girder / Beam 755 ft Comment: 215 Reinforced Concrete Abutment 89 ft Comment: 205 Reinforced Concrete Column 8 ea. Comment: Start Time (Part A) End Time (Part A) Notes:  The following table contains elements and space to provide applicable defects for inspection exercise of Bridge M1.  The total quantity of the element is provided for each element in the table.  TGA will inspect and rate the elements based on the available defects listed for each element using the provided visual guide for elements/defect and linear/spatial estimate diagrams.  TGB will inspect and rate the elements based on the available defects listed for each element using MBEI description for the defects.  At the bottom of each element there is space to provide any comments specific to that element or its defects. If the space provided is not enough, please use the last blank page attached to this inspection form and write the element and defect name the comment pertains to.

Inspection Form Bridge M1 (Part A) D-60 Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Unit Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 234 Reinforced Concrete Cap 89 ft Comment: 313 Fixed Bearing 14 ea. Comment: 310 Elastomeric Bearing 28 ea. Comment:

Inspection Form Bridge M1 (Part A) D-61 Please rate the following NBIS elements: Item Number/Name N -N ot A pplicable 9-Excellent 8-V ery good 7 - G ood 6-Satisfactory 5-Fair 4-Poor 3-Serious 2-C ritical 1-Im m inent Failure 0 - Failed 59- Superstructure 60- Substructure

Inspection Form Bridge M1 (Part B) D-62 NCHRP 12-104 “Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data” Bridge M1 (3804) Inspection Form (Part B) Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Unit Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 205 Reinforced Concrete Column 88 ft Comment: Start Time (Part B) End Time (Part B) Notes:  The following table contains elements and space to provide applicable defects for inspection exercise of Bridge M1.  The total quantity of the element is provided for each element in the table. Please note the alternate units shown and record your quantities using these alternate units.  TGA will inspect and rate the elements based on the available defects listed for each element using the provided visual guide for elements/defect and linear/spatial estimate diagrams.  TGB will inspect and rate the elements based on the available defects listed for each element using MBEI description for the defects.  At the bottom of each element there is space to provide any comments specific to that element or its defects. If the space provided is not enough, please use the last blank page attached to this inspection form and write the element and defect name the comment pertains to.

Inspection Form Bridge M2 (Part A) D-63 NCHRP 12-104 “Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data” Bridge M2 (3805) Inspection Form (Part A) Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Unit Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 109 Prestress Concrete Girder / Beam 755 ft Comment: 215 Reinforced Concrete Abutment 89 ft Comment: Start Time (Part A) End Time (Part A) Notes:  The following table contains elements and space to provide applicable defects for inspection exercise of Bridge M2.  The total quantity of the element is provided for each element in the table.  TGA will inspect and rate the elements based on the available defects listed for each element using the provided visual guide for elements/defect and linear/spatial estimate diagrams.  TGB will inspect and rate the elements based on the available defects listed for each element using MBEI description for the defects.  At the bottom of each element there is space to provide any comments specific to that element or its defects. If the space provided is not enough, please use the last blank page attached to this inspection form and write the element and defect name the comment pertains to.

Inspection Form Bridge M2 (Part A) D-64 Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Unit Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 205 Reinforced Concrete Column 8 ea. Comment: 234 Reinforced Concrete Cap 89 ft Comment: 313 Fixed Bearing 14 ea. Comment:

Inspection Form Bridge M2 (Part A) D-65 Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Unit Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 310 Elastomeric Bearing 28 ea. Comment: Please rate the following NBIS elements: Item Number/Name N -N ot A pplicable 9 - Excellent 8 V ery good 7 - G ood 6-Satisfactory 5 - Fair 4 - Poor 3 - Serious 2-C ritical 1-Im m inent Failure 0 - Failed 59 - Superstructure 60 - Substructure Additional Comments:

Inspection Form Bridge M2 (Part B) D-66 NCHRP 12-104 “Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data” Bridge M2 (3805) Inspection Form (Part B) Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Unit Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 205 Reinforced Concrete Column 88 ft Comment: Start Time (Part B) End Time (Part B) Notes:  The following table contains elements and space to provide applicable defects for inspection exercise of Bridge M2.  The total quantity of the element is provided for each element in the table. Please note the alternate units shown and record your quantities using these alternate units.  TGA will inspect and rate the elements based on the available defects listed for each element using the provided visual guide for elements/defect and linear/spatial estimate diagrams.  TGB will inspect and rate the elements based on the available defects listed for each element using MBEI description for the defects.  At the bottom of each element there is space to provide any comments specific to that element or its defects. If the space provided is not enough, please use the last blank page attached to this inspection form and write the element and defect name the comment pertains to.

Inspection Form Bridge M3 D-67 NCHRP 12-104 “Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data” Bridge M3 (2253) Inspection Form Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Uni t Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 12 Reinforced Concrete Deck 12200 sq ft Comment: Element/D efect# Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Uni t Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 300 Strip Seal 171 ft Comment: Start Time End Time Notes:  The following table contains elements and space to provide applicable defects for inspection exercise of Bridge M3 (Spans 3, 4, 5 for bridge deck and joints).  The total quantity of the element is provided for each element in the table.  TGA will inspect and rate the elements based on the available defects listed for each element using the provided visual guide for elements/defect and linear/spatial estimate diagrams.  TGB will inspect and rate the elements based on the available defects listed for each element using MBEI description for the defects.  At the bottom of each element there is space to provide any comments specific to that element or its defects. If the space provided is not enough, please use the last blank page attached to this inspection form and write the element and defect name the comment pertains to.

Inspection Form Bridge M3 D-68 Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Uni t Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 301 Pourable joint seal 57 ft. Comment: Please rate the following NBIS element: Item Number/Name N -N ot A pplicable 9 - Excellent 8 - V ery good 7 - G ood 6-Satisfactory 5 - Fair 4 - Poor 3 - Serious 2-C ritical 1-Im m inent Failure 0 - Failed 58 Deck Additional Comments:

Inspection Form Bridge M4 D-69 NCHRP 12-104 “Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data” Bridge M4 (2254) Inspection Form Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Un it Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 12 Reinforced Concrete Deck 16210 sq ft Comment: Element/D efect# Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Un it Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 300 Strip Seal 89 ft Comment: Start Time End Time Notes:  The following table contains elements and space to provide applicable defects for inspection exercise of Bridge M4.  The total quantity of the element is provided for each element in the table.  TGA will inspect and rate the elements based on the available defects listed for each element using the provided visual guide for elements/defect and linear/spatial estimate diagrams.  TGB will inspect and rate the elements based on the available defects listed for each element using MBEI description for the defects.  At the bottom of each element there is space to provide any comments specific to that element or its defects. If the space provided is not enough, please use the last blank page attached to this inspection form and write the element and defect name the comment pertains to.

Inspection Form Bridge M4 D-70 Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Un it Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 301 Pourable joint seal 220 ft. Comment: Please rate the following NBIS element: Item Number/Name N -N ot A pplicable 9 - Excellent 8 - V ery good 7 - G ood 6-Satisfactory 5 - Fair 4 - Poor 3 - Serious 2-C ritical 1-Im m inent Failure 0 - Failed 58 Deck Additional Comments:

Visual Estimation Form Task SBRITE 1 D-71 NCHRP 12-104 “Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data” Task S-BRITE1 Visual Estimation Form 1. Area covered by shapes (%), Plate 1 ______________________________ 2. Area covered by shapes (%), Plate 2 ______________________________ 3. Area covered by shapes (%), Plate 3 ______________________________ 4. Area covered by shapes (%), Plate 4 ______________________________ 5. Area covered by shapes (%), Plate 5 ______________________________ 6. Area covered by shapes (%), Plate 6 ______________________________ Start Time End Time Notes:  Please estimate the percentage area covered by shapes on the 8.5 x 11 sheet provided.  TGA will have the visual guide available.  TGB will not have the visual guide available.

Visual Estimation Form Task SBRITE2 D-72 NCHRP 12-104 “Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data” Task S-BRITE2 Visual Estimation Form Side Damaged Area (%) 1 2 3 4 Start Time End Time Notes:  Please estimate the percentage of damaged area for each of the four sides of the plate girder and record your estimates in the table below.  TGA will use the area estimating guides provided in the guideline to assist in making an estimate of the area.  TGB will provide an estimate of the total area of damage based on an ad-hoc (i.e., without the use of the guide) basis.  Please make your estimates visually without the use of any measurement device and without drawing a diagram of individual areas of damage.

Visual Estimation Form Task SBRITE3 D-73 NCHRP 12-104 “Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data” Task S-BRITE3 Visual Estimation Form Side Damaged Area (sq ft) 1 2 3 4 Start Time End Time Notes:  Please estimate the sq ft of damaged area for each of the four sides of the plate girder by tallying individual areas and record your estimates in the table below.  TGA will develop a diagram of the damage areas based on visual estimate of the area of damage.  TGB will be allowed to use a measurement device such as a tape measure or wheel.

Visual Estimation Form Task SBRITE4 D-74 NCHRP 12-104 “Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data” Task S-BRITE4 Visual Estimation Form Side Damage (ft) 1 2 3 4 Start Time End Time Notes:  Please estimate the linear ft of damage for each of the four sides of the plate girder and record your estimates in the table below.  TGA will make the estimate using the visual guide.  TGB will assess the areas of damage on the structure based on a linear foot percentage of the overall length, without the use of a visual guide.

Visual Estimation Form Task SBRITE5 D-75 NCHRP 12-104 “Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data” Task S-BRITE5 Visual Estimation Form Side Damage (ft) 1 2 3 4 Start Time End Time Notes:  Please estimate the linear ft of damage for each of the four sides of the plate girder by tallying individual damage and record your estimates in the table below.  TGA will be asked to develop the diagram without the use of any measurement device.  TGB will be allowed the use of a tape measure or measuring wheel.

Visual Estimation Form Task SBRITE6 D-76 NCHRP 12-104 “Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data” Task S-BRITE6 Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Unit Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 120 Steel Truss 182 ft 1000 Corrosion ft Comment: 515 Steel Protective Coating (Truss only) (TGA) 182 ft 3440 Effectiveness ft Comment: Start Time (Part B) End Time (Part B) Notes:  The following table contains elements and applicable defects for the inspection of the truss in Task S-BRITE6.  The total quantity of the element is given for each element in the table.  TGA will inspect and rate the elements based on the available defects listed for each element using the provided visual guide for elements/defect and linear/spatial estimate diagrams.  TGB will inspect and rate the elements based on the available defects listed for each element using MBEI description for the defects.  TGA will use units of ft for steel protective coating for both the truss and the floor beams.  TGB will use units of sq ft for steel protective coating for both the truss and the floor beams.  At the bottom of each element there is space to provide any comments specific to that element or its defects. If the space provided is not enough, please use the last blank page attached to this inspection form and write the element and defect name the comment pertains to.

Visual Estimation Form Task SBRITE6 D-77 Element /Defect # Element/Defect Name Tot. Qty. Unit Condition State Rating CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 515 Steel Protective Coating (Truss only) (TGB) 4854 sq. ft 3440 Effectiveness sq. ft Comment: 162 Gusset Plates 72 ea. 1000 Corrosion Comment: 515 Gusset Plate Protective Coating 480 sq ft Comment: