Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges (2020)

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.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-1 A P P E N D I X B Survey Response Data 1. Considering the provided definitions, how does your agency define the end of service life for its bridges? State/Agency Response Vermont Cost-benefit study on repair/rehabilitation vs. replacement Nebraska Level of deterioration South Dakota We consider both level of deterioration and cost-benefit of rehab vs replacement Ohio Level of deterioration Wyoming Level of deterioration Georgia Cost-benefit study on repair/rehabilitation vs. replacement Colorado Level of deterioration Florida Level of deterioration, Cost-benefit study, Functional Obsolescence Pennsylvania Level of deterioration Kansas Level of deterioration Delaware Cost-benefit study on repair/rehabilitation vs. replacement Arkansas Level of deterioration Wisconsin Level of deterioration New York Level of deterioration Iowa Cost-benefit study on repair/rehabilitation vs. replacement Louisiana Structure has reached a life equal to the duration of the design limit state (e.g., 75 years) New York Level of deterioration, Cost-benefit study on repair/rehabilitation vs. replacement Rhode Island Level of deterioration Maryland Level of deterioration Nevada Level of deterioration Missouri Level of deterioration New Hampshire Level of deterioration North Carolina Level of deterioration Mississippi Level of deterioration Oklahoma Level of deterioration Arizona Level of deterioration Alabama Level of deterioration Maine Level of deterioration Minnesota Both level of deterioration and a cost-benefit study on repair vs. replacement are considered Kentucky Level of deterioration North Dakota Level of deterioration California Level of deterioration Massachusetts Meets the definition of Structural Deficiency

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-2 New Mexico Level of deterioration Connecticut Level of deterioration Montana Level of deterioration Idaho Level of deterioration Utah Level of deterioration Illinois Cost-benefit study on repair/rehabilitation vs. replacement Alaska Cost-benefit study on repair/rehabilitation vs. replacement Indiana Cost-benefit study on repair/rehabilitation vs. replacement New Jersey Level of deterioration Michigan Cost-benefit study on repair/rehabilitation vs. replacement Oregon Level of deterioration

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-3 2. Rank the following environmental factors in the order your agency considers to have the most significant impact on bridge service life. (1 = most significant; 5 = least significant) State/Agency Response Precipitation Temperature Proximity to the coast or other body of water Pollution Other Vermont 2 1 3 5 4 Nebraska 1 2 4 5 3 South Dakota 1 2 4 3 5 Ohio 5 3 2 4 1 Wyoming Georgia 3 2 1 4 5 Colorado 3 5 2 4 1 Florida 4 3 1 2 5 Pennsylvania 2 3 1 4 5 Kansas 3 2 5 4 1 Delaware 1 4 2 5 3 Arkansas 2 1 3 4 5 Wisconsin 2 1 5 4 3 New York 1 3 2 4 5 Iowa 2 3 5 4 1 Louisiana 3 4 2 5 1 New York 5 4 2 3 1 Rhode Island 3 4 2 5 1 Maryland 1 3 2 4 5 Nevada 1 2 3 4 5 Missouri 2 1 3 5 4 New Hampshire 1 3 2 4 5 North Carolina 1 3 2 4 5 Mississippi 2 1 3 4 5 Oklahoma 1 2 3 4 5 Arizona 1 2 3 4 5 Alabama 3 4 2 5 1 Maine 3 2 1 4 5 Minnesota 3 2 5 4 1 Kentucky 4 3 2 5 1 North Dakota 2 3 4 5 1 California 4 3 1 5 2 Massachusetts 1 2 3 4 5 New Mexico 1 2 3 4 5 Connecticut 2 3 1 4 5 Montana 2 1 3 5 4 Idaho 2 4 3 5 1 Utah 2 3 5 4 1 Illinois 1 2 3 4 5 Alaska 2 3 1 4 5 Indiana 1 3 4 5 2 New Jersey 3 2 1 4 5 Michigan Oregon 3 2 1 4 5

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-4 3. Rank the following design factors in the order your agency considers to be of the most significant impact on bridge service life. (1 = most significant; 10 = least significant) State/Agency Response Span length Joints / structural continuity Superstructure type Deck type (e.g., grid, concrete, orthotropic) Deck type (e.g., non- composite vs composite deck) Girder stiffness Number, spacing of girders Skew Bridge Profile (clear distance from the bottom of bridge to top of water) Other Comments Vermont 9 1 2 3 6 4 8 5 7 10 Nebraska 10 1 7 8 9 4 5 2 3 6 South Dakota 7 1 4 2 3 5 8 6 9 10 Ohio 6 1 8 3 9 4 5 7 2 Wyoming 9 1 2 5 8 7 6 3 4 Georgia 3 2 1 9 6 5 4 7 8 10 Colorado 4 1 5 6 7 3 8 2 9 Florida 4 1 8 3 9 6 7 5 2 Pennsylvania 5 1 9 7 6 2 3 4 8 10 Kansas 6 1 3 9 7 5 4 2 8 10 Delaware 9 2 3 8 7 6 5 4 1 Arkansas 1 Wisconsin 4 2 1 9 8 3 6 5 7 10 New York 1 8 3 7 6 4 5 9 2 10 Iowa 3 1 2 9 8 5 4 7 6 10 Louisiana 6 1 4 2 3 7 9 8 10 5 live load design vehicle due to our extreme truck permit issues and lack of enforcement of truck weights New York 1 2 3 4 Rhode Island 4 1 3 2 6 7 5 9 8 10 Maryland 4 2 7 5 6 3 8 9 1 10

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-5 State/Agency Response Span length Joints / structural continuity Superstructure type Deck type (e.g., grid, concrete, orthotropic) Deck type (e.g., non- composite vs composite deck) Girder stiffness Number, spacing of girders Skew Bridge Profile (clear distance from the bottom of bridge to top of water) Other Comments Nevada 8 1 6 4 5 7 9 2 3 10 Missouri 3 1 5 8 7 4 6 2 9 10 New Hampshire 9 1 7 2 5 6 8 3 4 10 North Carolina 8 2 1 5 7 4 6 9 3 10 Other = N/A Mississippi 2 3 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Oklahoma 5 3 4 8 7 6 1 2 9 10 Arizona 8 3 7 1 2 4 5 6 9 10 Alabama 8 4 2 7 6 9 10 5 3 1 Maine 5 1 2 6 9 8 7 4 3 10 Minnesota 6 3 2 1 7 5 8 4 9 10 Kentucky 8 1 6 4 3 9 7 2 5 10 North Dakota 5 2 7 10 9 6 4 3 8 California 2 4 5 7 6 3 10 9 1 Massachusetts 10 1 2 9 3 4 5 8 7 New Mexico 7 1 6 3 2 8 4 5 9 10 Connecticut 9 1 6 5 4 8 7 2 3 10 Montana 5 1 3 2 6 7 8 4 10 9 Idaho 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 Utah 4 2 3 8 9 5 6 1 7 Illinois 4 1 6 8 9 2 5 3 7 10 Alaska 2 1 3 4 Indiana 9 1 2 7 8 3 6 4 5 10 New Jersey 8 1 6 7 3 4 9 5 2 10 Michigan 7 1 3 4 5 6 8 2 9 10 Oregon 9 1 4 3 2 6 8 5 7 10

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-6 4. Rank the following loading factors in the order your agency considers to be of the most significant impact on bridge service life. (1 = most significant; 4 = least significant) State/Agency Response Frequency (ADT, ADTT) Axle weights/spacing Speed Other Vermont 2 1 3 4 Nebraska 1 2 3 4 South Dakota 2 1 3 4 Ohio 2 1 3 4 Wyoming 2 1 3 Georgia 2 1 3 4 Colorado 2 1 3 Florida 2 1 3 Pennsylvania 1 2 4 3 Kansas 1 2 3 4 Delaware 2 1 3 Arkansas 1 2 Wisconsin 1 2 3 4 New York 1 2 3 4 Iowa 2 1 3 4 Louisiana 1 2 4 3 New York 1 2 Rhode Island 3 1 4 2 Maryland 2 1 3 4 Nevada 2 1 3 4 Missouri 2 1 3 4 New Hampshire 2 1 3 North Carolina 1 2 3 Mississippi 2 1 3 4 Oklahoma 2 1 3 4 Arizona 1 2 3 Alabama 3 2 4 1 Maine 1 2 3 4 Minnesota 2 1 Kentucky 2 1 3 4 North Dakota 2 3 1 California 2 1 3 Massachusetts 2 1 3 4 New Mexico 2 1 3 4 Connecticut 1 2 3 4 Montana 1 2 4 3 Idaho 2 1 3 4 Utah 2 1 3 Illinois 2 1 3 4 Alaska 1 2 3 Indiana 1 2 3 New Jersey 1 2 3 4 Michigan 2 1 3 4 Oregon 2 1 3 4

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-7 5. Rank the following owner actions in the order your agency considers to be of the most significant impact on bridge service life. (1 = most significant; 10 = least significant) State/Agency Response Selection of Materials Applicati on of deicing salts on bridge Application of deicing salts below bridge Type of deicing salts applied Frequency with which deicing salts applied Frequency of maintenance Frequency of cleaning Load permitting Bridge preservation activities Other Comments Vermont 1 5 8 6 7 4 3 9 2 10 Nebraska 8 2 6 5 1 4 7 9 3 10 South Dakota 7 1 6 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 Ohio 9 1 3 4 2 5 6 8 7 Wyoming 8 2 3 6 5 4 7 9 1 Georgia 1 7 8 5 6 2 9 3 4 10 Colorado 6 1 7 9 8 3 2 5 4 Florida 1 9 8 7 6 4 5 2 3 Pennsylvania 9 1 2 4 3 6 7 8 5 10 Kansas 6 2 7 3 1 5 8 9 4 10 Delaware 3 1 6 7 2 4 9 8 5 Arkansas 1 2 Wisconsin 4 1 2 9 3 6 7 8 5 10 New York 4 7 9 5 6 1 2 8 3 10 Iowa 8 1 4 2 3 6 5 9 7 10 Louisiana 1 6 9 8 7 2 3 4 5 10 New York 2 6 3 4 5 1 Use of Jointless Bridges Rhode Island 8 2 6 1 3 4 5 9 7 10 Maryland 3 4 5 7 6 2 9 8 1 10 Nevada 9 1 3 4 2 6 7 8 5 10 Missouri 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 New Hampshire 8 4 5 6 7 3 1 9 2 10 North Carolina 2 4 5 6 3 7 8 9 1 Mississippi 4 7 8 6 5 3 2 9 1 10

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-8 State/Agency Response Selection of Materials Applicati on of deicing salts on bridge Application of deicing salts below bridge Type of deicing salts applied Frequency with which deicing salts applied Frequency of maintenance Frequency of cleaning Load permitting Bridge preservation activities Other Comments Oklahoma 6 2 3 9 1 4 8 5 7 10 Arizona 6 1 9 7 2 3 4 8 5 Alabama 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Maine 1 5 6 7 8 3 4 9 2 10 Minnesota 1 2 4 6 5 3 deck rebar type and concrete cover Kentucky 5 1 4 3 2 8 9 7 6 North Dakota 4 1 5 6 2 3 9 8 7 California 2 4 5 7 6 3 9 8 1 Massachusetts 9 1 2 4 3 5 7 8 6 10 New Mexico 9 1 8 4 2 5 3 6 7 10 Connecticut 9 1 5 4 2 3 8 7 6 10 Montana 9 2 7 4 3 6 5 8 1 10 Idaho 8 1 7 6 2 5 9 3 4 10 Utah 1 5 9 4 8 2 3 7 6 Illinois 9 5 8 3 2 1 4 7 6 10 Alaska 3 2 4 1 Initial construction quality Indiana 9 1 2 3 4 6 5 8 7 10 New Jersey 1 2 7 8 4 3 9 6 5 Michigan 7 1 2 4 3 6 8 9 5 10 Oregon 4 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 1 10

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-9 6. What is the average age (years) of a bridge that is replaced by your agency primarily due to deterioration? State/Agency Response < 40 41 - 45 46 - 50 51 -55 56 - 60 61 - 65 66 - 70 71 - 75 > 75 No resp. Vermont 1 Nebraska 1 South Dakota 1 Ohio 1 Wyoming 1 Georgia 1 Colorado 1 Florida 1 Pennsylvania 1 Kansas 1 Delaware 1 Arkansas 1 Wisconsin 1 New York 1 Iowa 1 Louisiana 1 New York 1 Rhode Island 1 Maryland 1 Nevada 1 Missouri 1 New Hampshire 1 North Carolina 1 Mississippi 1 Oklahoma 1 Arizona 1 Alabama 1 Maine 1 Minnesota 1 Kentucky 1 North Dakota 1 California 1 Massachusetts 1 New Mexico 1 Connecticut 1 Montana 1 Idaho 1 Utah 1 Illinois 1 Alaska 1 Indiana 1 New Jersey 1 Michigan 1 Oregon 1

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-10 7. Does your agency observe different durability problems depending on the environments (e.g., location, climate) within your State/jurisdiction? State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration Yes Maryland Transportation Authority Yes Montana DOT Yes Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Yes Ohio DOT Yes Missouri DOT No Florida DOT Yes Colorado Dept. of Transportation Yes RI Department of Transportation Yes Mississippi DOT Yes Oklahoma DOT Yes SCDOT Yes New Jersey Turnpike Authority Yes Delaware DOT Yes Louisiana DOTD Yes New York State Bridge Authority Yes TBTA Yes California Department of Transportation Yes Hawaii Dept. of Transportation No VDOT Yes Minnesota Department of Transportation No TDOT No NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (NYSDOT) Yes Texas DOT Yes Iowa DOT Yes Port Authority of NY & NJ Yes NCDOT Yes WYDOT Yes NMDOT Yes Illinois Dept. of Transportation Yes Utah DOT Structures Division Yes Caltrans Yes Alaska DOT&PF Yes Connecticut Department of Transportation No SDDOT Yes NJDOT Yes Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT)

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-11 7b. Please explain the types of environment dependent durability problems State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration Bridges in our eastern shore region have problems associated with salt and brackish water. Bridges in the far wester regional of the state received high chlorides in the winter for deicing. Maryland Transportation Authority We use extensive deicing salts during the cold season, which we have found causes durability issues with the joints, bearings, beam end and zone paint regions. We also have several structures over marine, salt water environments. These areas have issues with the substructures having concrete deterioration and are prone to large amounts of bird dung exposure, which damages paint and corrodes steel. Montana DOT Increased concrete deterioration on the wet side of the State. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission The Allegheny Plateau and the Pocono Mountain regions have more frequent and longer periods of winter precipitation. This requires a greater use of deicing chemicals as compared to the rest of the system. The durability problems are associated with more corrosion of steel and concrete in these areas. Ohio DOT In the northeast part of the state, Ohio gets more snow due to the lake effect (Lake Erie). Therefore much more salt is used in the northeastern part of the state than in the rest of the state, especially the southern part of the state. Missouri DOT Florida DOT In salt/Brackish water (coastal water) Colorado Dept. of Transportation concrete durability due to freeze-thaw cycles, road salting/deicing RI Department of Transportation Refer to answers to questions that follow. Weathering steel durability problems close or over tidal waters. Mississippi DOT Northern part of the State will receive freezing conditions that require salting, but the southern portion of the does not. Oklahoma DOT Freeze-thaw cycles, deicing chemicals, scour susceptibility SCDOT Corrosion from roadway salts in upstate and corrosion in substructure and underside of superstructure along coast New Jersey Turnpike Authority More snowfall in northern half of the state. Delaware DOT Steel structures corrode more quickly in the southern two counties compared to New Castle County Louisiana DOTD Temperature, humidity, moisture from a large amount of annual rain, hurricane events, wind events New York State Bridge Authority deicing salts, rust, thermal expansion TBTA MARINE AND URBAN ENVIRONMENTS POSE SEVERE CORROSION AND HEAVY TRAFFIC AND POLLUTION DRIVEN DEGRADATION California Department of Transportation We typically experience more corrosion related issues along the coast and in the mountains Hawaii Dept. of Transportation VDOT We are creating four different environments in BrM: Environment 1 - no joint; Environment 2 - Strip seal or other more highly functioning joint; Environment 3 - less functional joint (strip seal, compression seal, etc.); Environment 4 - exposure to salt or brackish waterways Minnesota Department of Transportation TDOT NYSDOT 1. Use of deicing chemicals on highways and bridges, 2. Freeze & thaw cycles, 3. Marine environment, 4. Chemical exposure in industrialized area, and 5. Scour Texas DOT Corrosion along the coast due to exposure to salt water and other contaminants (e.g. refineries), and in the northern parts of the state due to exposure to deicing salts. Corrosion effects structural steel, reinforced concrete, and pre-stressed concrete (but especially reinforced concrete).

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-12 State/Agency Response Iowa DOT Continuous exposure of weathering steel to moisture or occasional splash of deicing chemicals is harmful to the development of the protective patina. Painted steel may perform differently depending on girder position and exposure. Concrete deck durability is greatly impacted by the application of deicing chemicals, freeze-thaw cycles, and exposure to moisture. Port Authority of NY & NJ Deterioration due to deicing agents, especially in the vicinity of deck joint. Deterioration is due to proximity of salted water. NCDOT Durability issues are a concern for concrete bridge decks in certain areas in the central and western parts of North Carolina due to corrosive road salts and other deicing agents often applied before and during snow and ice events. More extensive durability issues are a concern for concrete and steel components in areas in the eastern part of North Carolina due to corrosive sea salt. WYDOT snow, freeze-thaw cycles, deicing chemicals NMDOT freeze-thaw cycles, use of road salts Illinois Dept. of Transportation Freeze/thaw cycles are more severe in the northern part of the state. The northern part of the state also has higher salt usage and higher ADT's. Utah DOT Structures Division 1. Snow removal / Deicing salts; 2. More concrete cracking in areas with more freeze/thaw cycles Caltrans Freeze/Thaw, coastal, marine, stream scour/degradation, high volume truck routes. Alaska DOT&PF Chloride-induced corrosion issues take place in both marine (ocean) environments and in areas with heavy use of road salts. These areas typically go through many freeze-thaw cycles each year. On the other hand, the interior and northern portions of Alaska tend to have cold dry conditions in a continental climate. They have relatively few freeze-thaw cycles (gets cold and stays cold), and road salt is ineffective at their extremely cold temperatures, so it's not used much. Connecticut Department of Transportation SDDOT Splash Zones NJDOT Freeze-thaw; Deicing agents; marine environment PennDOT

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-13 8. Based on the provided definitions above, what should be the target service life for each of the following service life categories of highway bridges? State/Agency Response Normal service life (i.e., typical highway bridges) Enhanced service life Maximum service life (i.e., maximum achievable under current design standards and utilizing current materials) Maryland State Highway Administration 100 120 150 Maryland Transportation Authority 75 100 125 Montana DOT 100 100 Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission 50 75 100 Ohio DOT 50 75 100 Missouri DOT 75 100 125 Florida DOT 100 150 150 Colorado Dept. of Transportation 100 100 100 RI Department of Transportation 75 75 75 Mississippi DOT 75 90 100 Oklahoma DOT 75 85 100 SCDOT 75 100 150 New Jersey Turnpike Authority 75 75 100 Delaware DOT 75 100 100 Louisiana DOTD 75 100 100 New York State Bridge Authority 75 90 100 TBTA 50 75 100 California Department of Transportation 75 100 150 Hawaii Dept. of Transportation 75 25 100 VDOT 100 125 Minnesota Department of Transportation 75 100 100 TDOT 200 500 100 NYSDOT 50 Texas DOT 100 125 150 Iowa DOT 75 100 125 Port Authority of NY & NJ 75 100 150 NCDOT 60 80 120 WYDOT NMDOT 75 100 110 Illinois Dept. of Transportation 75 100 100 Utah DOT Structures Division 75 100 Caltrans Alaska DOT&PF No opinion Connecticut Department of Transportation 75 100 100 SDDOT 75 100 100 NJDOT Beyond 100 years 100

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-14 State/Agency Response Normal service life (i.e., typical highway bridges) Enhanced service life Maximum service life (i.e., maximum achievable under current design standards and utilizing current materials) Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 100 years - Highway network must be considered as part of the definition taking into account the state of condition of the bridge at end of 100 years. For example, a bridge on low volume road could be posted to 3 tons for years 95- 100. A bridge on the interstate could be classified as SD for years 90-100 but it would not be acceptable to post an interstate bridge. 150 years. Applicable to major bridges in urban areas. Concrete Decks - 50-60 years; Concrete filled steel grid deck 100 years. Concrete and steel superstructure beams - 100 years. Concrete substructures 100 years. Gland for neoprene strip seal 15-20 years.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-15 9. Based on the provided definitions above, what should be the target service life for the following replaceable bridge components? State/Agency Response Replaceable components Joints Bearings Deck Paint Parapet Vermont 20 - 40 years depending on joint type 40 - 80 years depending on bearing type 40 years with conventional materials; 80 years with High Performance Materials 30 40 years with conventional materials; 80 years with High Performance Materials Nebraska 15 15 Life of the bridge (80 years) Life of the bridge (80 years) by use of waterproofing membrane and asphalt overlays 20 40 South Dakota 25 15 - 25 75 75 36 75 Ohio 50 50 50 50 with one overlay included 25 50 Wyoming 15 15 50 30 30 30 Georgia 5 20 75 50 15 50 Colorado 15 - 25 dependent on life cycle cost replacement 75 40 - 75 20 50 - 75 Florida 20 - 30 50 - 75 75 20 50 - 75 Pennsylvania 50 20 50 60 35 60 Kansas 15 - 20 15 - 30 40 40 15 40 Delaware 10 30 50 50 25 50 Arkansas 25 25 75 75 25 75 Wisconsin 12 50 40 27 40 New York 25 25 40 40 25 40 Iowa Louisiana 75 25 30 40 25 30 New York 30 50 40 10 40 Rhode Island varies 5 - 30 depending on the type of joints can be 75 years 50 15 30 Maryland 20 20 80 40 20 40 Nevada 40 20 60 60 40 40 Missouri 30 30 50 40 30 40

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-16 State/Agency Response Replaceable components Joints Bearings Deck Paint Parapet New Hampshire 20 40 60 20 60 North Carolina N/A 5 - 25 based on joint type 40 full design life given preservation 25 - 30 full design life Mississippi 15 10 25 25 20 50 Oklahoma 25 75 40 40 Arizona 15 25 50 25 25 25 Alabama 20 35 40 65 25 70 Maine 8 - 10 40 40 or more 50 30 40 or more Minnesota 25 60 60 20 60 Kentucky North Dakota 10 20 75 40 25 40 California 75 15 - 30 75 75 Marine 15, Other 25 75 Massachusetts 15 20 50 30 20 75 New Mexico 15 20 30 30 25 30 Connecticut Montana 30 50 75 75 60 75 Idaho Utah Illinois 40 10 30 50 20 50 Alaska 20 35 35 Indiana 5 30 45 15 30 New Jersey 30 60 100 60 35 60 Michigan 10 - 15 50 - 75 50 - 75 30 - 40 20 - 30 Oregon 20 20 40 50 40 40

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-17 10. Rank the following bridge components in the order of most frequently repaired/replaced by your agency (1 = most frequent; 8 = least frequent) State/Agency Response Deck (including parapet/railing) Parapet/railing (excluding deck, except as minimally necessary to replace parapet/railing) Superstructure (complete replacement from bearings up) Partial superstructure (cut out and replace or reinforce beam end) Piers, walls and/or abutments Foundations Joints (including minimal deck work, as required) Bearings Other Vermont 1 5 4 6 7 8 2 3 9 Nebraska 2 3 5 4 7 8 1 6 9 Ohio 2 3 7 4 5 8 1 6 9 South Dakota 1 3 6 5 7 8 2 4 9 Wyoming 2 4 5 6 7 8 1 3 9 Georgia 4 7 5 2 6 8 1 3 9 Colorado 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Florida 1 8 5 4 7 9 2 6 3 Pennsylvania 4 2 6 5 7 8 1 3 9 Kansas 2 3 7 6 5 8 1 4 9 Arkansas 1 4 7 3 6 8 2 5 9 Rhode Island 3 5 4 1 6 7 2 8 9 Wisconsin 2 3 5 4 6 7 1 8 9 Louisiana New York 6 5 8 2 4 3 1 7 9 Iowa 2 4 7 5 6 8 1 3 9 Delaware 2 4 5 6 7 8 1 3 9 New York Maryland 4 2 5 3 6 8 1 7 9 Nevada 2 3 5 7 6 8 1 4 9 Missouri 2 3 5 4 7 8 1 6 9 New Hampshire 1 5 4 7 6 8 2 3 9 Mississippi 3 4 8 5 6 7 1 2 9 Minnesota 4 2 6 7 3 8 1 5 9 Oklahoma 2 7 5 3 4 8 1 6 9 North Carolina 2 6 7 3 4 8 1 5 9

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-18 State/Agency Response Deck (including parapet/railing) Parapet/railing (excluding deck, except as minimally necessary to replace parapet/railing) Superstructure (complete replacement from bearings up) Partial superstructure (cut out and replace or reinforce beam end) Piers, walls and/or abutments Foundations Joints (including minimal deck work, as required) Bearings Other Arizona 1 3 4 7 5 8 2 6 9 Maine 4 3 6 7 5 8 1 2 9 Kentucky 1 5 7 4 6 8 2 3 9 Montana 2 3 9 5 7 8 1 6 4 Virginia 7 5 3 4 5 6 1 2 9 North Dakota 1 2 7 6 5 9 3 8 4 Alabama 5 6 7 4 8 9 2 3 1 New Mexico 1 4 6 5 7 8 2 3 9 California 1 2 8 9 5 3 4 7 6 Massachusetts 1 3 6 5 4 8 2 7 9 Idaho 4 7 5 6 8 9 1 2 3 Connecticut 5 4 6 3 7 8 1 2 9 Utah 1 7 5 3 4 8 2 6 9 Illinois 3 6 4 7 5 8 1 2 9 Indiana 2 4 5 7 6 8 1 3 9 Alaska 3 2 9 8 7 6 1 4 5 New Jersey 1 7 6 3 4 8 2 5 9 Michigan 2 7 4 3 5 8 1 6 9 Oregon 5 2 6 4 7 8 1 3 9

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-19 11. What are the most common durability problems experienced by your agency in relation to concrete superstructure girders, beams, truss members, etc.? State/Agency Response Vermont Corrosion of reinforcement Nebraska Corrosion of reinforcement Ohio Corrosion of reinforcement South Dakota Corrosion of reinforcement Wyoming freeze-thaw attack, AAR, and impact damage Georgia Corrosion of reinforcement Colorado Corrosion of reinforcement Pennsylvania Corrosion of reinforcement Florida Impact damage Kansas Corrosion of reinforcement Arkansas Corrosion of reinforcement Rhode Island Corrosion of reinforcement Wisconsin Corrosion of reinforcement and Freeze-Thaw Louisiana Corrosion of reinforcement New York Corrosion of reinforcement Iowa Corrosion of reinforcement Delaware Corrosion of reinforcement New York Impact damage Maryland Corrosion of reinforcement Nevada corrosion of reinforcement, freeze-thaw, AAR, Chemical damage and impact damage Missouri Impact damage New Hampshire AAR Mississippi Corrosion of reinforcement Minnesota Corrosion of reinforcement Oklahoma Poor detailing (leading to poor performance or difficult maintenance and inspection) North Carolina Corrosion of reinforcement Arizona Impact damage Maine Corrosion of reinforcement Kentucky Corrosion of reinforcement Montana Impact damage Virginia Corrosion of reinforcement North Dakota Corrosion of reinforcement Alabama Impact damage New Mexico Corrosion of reinforcement California Impact damage Massachusetts Freeze-thaw attack Idaho Corrosion of reinforcement Connecticut Corrosion of reinforcement Utah Corrosion of reinforcement Illinois Corrosion of reinforcement Indiana Impact damage Alaska Impact damage New Jersey Corrosion of reinforcement State/Agency Response

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-20 Michigan Corrosion of reinforcement, freeze-thaw attack, AAR, impact damage and fire damage Oregon Corrosion of reinforcement, poor detailing and impact damage

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-21 12. What are the most common durability problems experienced by your agency in relation to concrete piers, walls, and abutments? State/Agency Response Vermont Corrosion of reinforcement Nebraska Corrosion of reinforcement Ohio Corrosion of reinforcement South Dakota Corrosion of reinforcement Wyoming corrosion of reinforcement, freeze-thaw attack, AAR Georgia Abrasion Colorado Corrosion of reinforcement Pennsylvania Corrosion of reinforcement Florida Corrosion of reinforcement Kansas Corrosion of reinforcement Arkansas Corrosion of reinforcement Rhode Island Corrosion of reinforcement Wisconsin corrosion of reinforcement, freeze-thaw, impact damage Louisiana Corrosion of reinforcement New York Corrosion of reinforcement Iowa Corrosion of reinforcement Delaware AAR New York Corrosion of reinforcement Maryland Corrosion of reinforcement Nevada Corrosion of reinforcement, freeze-thaw, AAR and chemical damage Missouri Corrosion of reinforcement New Hampshire AAR Mississippi Corrosion of reinforcement Minnesota Corrosion of reinforcement Oklahoma Poor detailing (leading to poor performance or difficult maintenance and inspection) North Carolina Corrosion of reinforcement Arizona Corrosion of reinforcement Maine Corrosion of reinforcement Kentucky Corrosion of reinforcement Montana Unknown at this time Virginia Corrosion of reinforcement North Dakota Corrosion of reinforcement Alabama Impact damage New Mexico Corrosion of reinforcement California Corrosion of reinforcement Massachusetts Freeze-thaw attack Idaho Corrosion of reinforcement Connecticut Corrosion of reinforcement Utah Corrosion of reinforcement Illinois Corrosion of reinforcement Indiana Corrosion of reinforcement Alaska Abrasion New Jersey Corrosion of reinforcement Michigan Corrosion of reinforcement, freeze-thaw attack, impact damage and fire damage Oregon Corrosion of reinforcement and poor detailing

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-22 13. What are the most common durability problems experienced by your agency in relation to concrete foundations? State/Agency Response Vermont Corrosion of reinforcement Nebraska Corrosion of reinforcement Ohio Poor detailing (leading to poor performance or difficult maintenance and inspection) South Dakota Wyoming Georgia Scour Colorado Corrosion of reinforcement Pennsylvania Scour Florida Corrosion of reinforcement Kansas Scour Arkansas Rhode Island Corrosion of reinforcement Wisconsin Corrosion and freeze-thaw Louisiana Scour and settlement New York Corrosion of reinforcement Iowa Not an issue Delaware Corrosion of reinforcement New York Corrosion of reinforcement Maryland Rare to have problems with foundations Nevada N/A Missouri Corrosion of reinforcement New Hampshire AAR Mississippi Corrosion of reinforcement Minnesota Corrosion of reinforcement Oklahoma Scour North Carolina Abrasion Arizona No known issues Maine Corrosion of reinforcement Kentucky Corrosion of reinforcement Montana Poor detailing (leading to poor performance or difficult maintenance and inspection) Virginia Scour and undermining North Dakota Slope stability Alabama New Mexico Freeze-thaw attack California Construction quality Massachusetts Poor detailing (leading to poor performance or difficult maintenance and inspection) Idaho Corrosion of reinforcement Connecticut Little deterioration in concrete foundations Utah Corrosion of reinforcement Illinois Freeze-thaw attack Indiana Scour Alaska New Jersey Corrosion of reinforcement Michigan Corrosion of reinforcement Oregon Poor detailing (leading to poor performance or difficult maintenance and inspection)

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-23 14. What are the most common durability problems experienced by your agency in relation to concrete bridge decks? State/Agency Response Vermont Corrosion of reinforcement Nebraska Corrosion of reinforcement Ohio Corrosion of reinforcement South Dakota Corrosion of reinforcement Wyoming Georgia Corrosion of reinforcement Colorado Corrosion of reinforcement Pennsylvania Corrosion of reinforcement Florida Cracks Kansas Chemical damage Arkansas Freeze-thaw attack Rhode Island Corrosion of reinforcement Wisconsin Corrosion of reinforcement, freeze-thaw, chemical damage Louisiana Corrosion of reinforcement New York Corrosion of reinforcement Iowa Corrosion of reinforcement Delaware Corrosion of reinforcement New York Corrosion of reinforcement, freeze-thaw attack Maryland Corrosion of reinforcement Nevada Corrosion, freeze-thaw, AAR, chemical damage and abrasion Missouri Corrosion of reinforcement New Hampshire Corrosion of reinforcement Mississippi Corrosion of reinforcement Minnesota Corrosion of reinforcement Oklahoma Poor detailing (leading to poor performance or difficult maintenance and inspection) North Carolina Abrasion Arizona Corrosion of reinforcement Maine Corrosion of reinforcement Kentucky Corrosion of reinforcement Montana Freeze-thaw attack Virginia Corrosion of reinforcement North Dakota Corrosion of reinforcement Alabama Impact damage New Mexico Freeze-thaw attack California Corrosion of reinforcement Massachusetts Freeze-thaw attack Idaho Corrosion of reinforcement Connecticut Corrosion of reinforcement Utah Corrosion of reinforcement Illinois Corrosion of reinforcement Indiana Corrosion of reinforcement Alaska Poor construction QC with inadequate reinforcing cover and early deck deterioration New Jersey Corrosion of reinforcement Michigan Corrosion of reinforcement, freeze-thaw attack, impact damage, fire damage Oregon Corrosion of reinforcement, freeze-thaw attack, abrasion, poor detailing

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-24 15. What are the most common durability problems experienced by your agency in relation to steel superstructure girders, beams, truss members, etc.? State/Agency Response Vermont Corrosion Nebraska Corrosion Ohio Corrosion South Dakota Fatigue Wyoming Corrosion Georgia Corrosion Colorado Fatigue Pennsylvania Corrosion Florida Poor detailing (leading to difficult maintenance and inspection) Kansas Corrosion Arkansas Corrosion Rhode Island Corrosion Wisconsin Corrosion, Chemical damage, Impact damage Louisiana Corrosion New York Corrosion Iowa Corrosion Delaware Corrosion New York Corrosion, Impact damage Maryland Corrosion Nevada Corrosion, Fatigue Missouri Corrosion New Hampshire Corrosion Mississippi Corrosion Minnesota Corrosion Oklahoma Corrosion North Carolina Corrosion Arizona Fatigue Maine Corrosion Kentucky Abrasion Montana Corrosion Virginia Corrosion North Dakota Corrosion Alabama Impact damage New Mexico Corrosion California Corrosion Massachusetts Corrosion Idaho Corrosion Connecticut Corrosion Utah Corrosion Illinois Corrosion Indiana Corrosion Alaska Corrosion New Jersey Corrosion Michigan Corrosion, Fatigue, Impact Damage, and Fire Damage Oregon Corrosion, Fatigue, and Impact Damage

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-25 16. What is the most common durability problem experienced by your agency in relation to steel foundation piles, shaft casings, etc.? (check all that apply) State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration Corrosion Maryland Transportation Authority Corrosion Montana DOT Corrosion Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Corrosion Ohio DOT Corrosion Missouri DOT Corrosion Florida DOT Corrosion Colorado Dept. of Transportation Corrosion RI Department of Transportation Corrosion Mississippi DOT Corrosion Oklahoma DOT Corrosion SCDOT Corrosion New Jersey Turnpike Authority Corrosion Delaware DOT Corrosion Louisiana DOTD Corrosion New York State Bridge Authority Corrosion TBTA Corrosion California Department of Transportation Corrosion Hawaii Dept. of Transportation N/A VDOT Corrosion Minnesota Department of Transportation Corrosion TDOT Corrosion NYSDOT Corrosion Texas DOT Corrosion Iowa DOT Corrosion Port Authority of NY & NJ Corrosion NCDOT Corrosion WYDOT Corrosion NMDOT Corrosion, abrasion Illinois Dept. of Transportation Corrosion Utah DOT Structures Division Corrosion Caltrans Corrosion and pile stability due to channel degradation Alaska DOT&PF Corrosion in marine environments. Typical highway bridge foundations don't experience durability problems in Alaska Connecticut Department of Transportation None SDDOT Corrosion NJDOT None Pennsylvania Department of Transportation None

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-26 17. What is the most common durability problem experienced by your agency in relation to MSE and geosynthetics? (check all that apply) State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration none to report to date Maryland Transportation Authority Loss of material at interlocking joints Montana DOT N/A Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission None Ohio DOT concrete deterioration of MSE wall panels Missouri DOT Corrosion of MSE reinforcement, Chemical attack of geosynthetics, Loss of Select Fill Florida DOT Loss of MSE wall fill Colorado Dept. of Transportation settlement RI Department of Transportation Corrosion of MSE reinforcement Mississippi DOT None Oklahoma DOT None yet. Our oldest MSE walls are about 30 years old SCDOT Corrosion of MSE reinforcement New Jersey Turnpike Authority None Delaware DOT Corrosion of MSE reinforcement Louisiana DOTD Corrosion of MSE reinforcement New York State Bridge Authority N/A TBTA N/A California Department of Transportation Corrosion of MSE reinforcement Hawaii Dept. of Transportation N/A VDOT settlement, failure of facing Minnesota Department of Transportation Corrosion of MSE reinforcement TDOT bad construction NYSDOT Corrosion of MSE reinforcement Texas DOT Corrosion of MSE reinforcement, Construction/installation damage of geosynthetics Iowa DOT None Port Authority of NY & NJ N/A NCDOT None WYDOT Deterioration of facing units on modular block walls NMDOT Corrosion of MSE reinforcement Illinois Dept. of Transportation Corrosion of MSE reinforcement Utah DOT Structures Division Corrosion of MSE reinforcement Caltrans Alaska DOT&PF We have one wire-faced MSE wall that is exhibiting heavy corrosion of the hardware cloth behind the wire facing. Other MSE walls have essentially no durability related problems Connecticut Department of Transportation None SDDOT None NJDOT Corrosion of MSE reinforcement

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-27 State/Agency Response Pennsylvania Department of Transportation NoneFor the vast majority of installations, MSE walls have performed well. A couple of exceptions:1. Approximately 3-5 walls we have experienced major issues with loss of material. Several occurred due to internal hydrostatic pressure that caused complete panel failure. 2. A few bridges built in the 1980s, we are seeing cracking of the panels. It seems to be related to inadequate drainage.3. A couple walls, we have experienced lateral movement of panels, bulging.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-28 18. What is the most common durability problem of joints experienced by your agency? (check all that apply) State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration Leakage, Debris in joints, Damage Maryland Transportation Authority Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage, Jamming and/or locking, Fatigue of metal components, such as finger teeth, bolts, studs, etc. Montana DOT Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage, Jamming and/or locking Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage, Jamming and/or locking, Vertical misalignment of each side of dam Ohio DOT Leakage, Debris in joints, Damage Missouri DOT Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage, Jamming and/or locking Florida DOT Leakage, Debris in joints, Damage Colorado Dept. of Transportation Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage, Jamming and/or locking RI Department of Transportation Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage Mississippi DOT Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Jamming and/or locking Oklahoma DOT Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage, Jamming and/or locking SCDOT Leakage, Material failure New Jersey Turnpike Authority Leakage, Debris in joints, Damage Delaware DOT Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage, Jamming and/or locking Louisiana DOTD Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage, Jamming and/or locking New York State Bridge Authority Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage TBTA Leakage California Department of Transportation Leakage, Material failure, Damage Hawaii Dept. of Transportation Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage VDOT Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage, Jamming and/or locking, Header failure Minnesota Department of Transportation Leakage TDOT Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage, Jamming and/or locking NYSDOT Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage, Jamming and/or locking Texas DOT Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage, Jamming and/or locking Iowa DOT Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure Port Authority of NY & NJ Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage, Jamming and/or locking, Fatigue - bolt failure NCDOT Leakage, Debris in joints WYDOT Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage, Jamming and/or locking NMDOT Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage Illinois Dept. of Transportation Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage, Jamming and/or locking Utah DOT Structures Division Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure Caltrans Leakage, debris, material failure, compression set, fatigue failure of modular components Alaska DOT&PF Leakage, Debris in joints, Damage

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-29 State/Agency Response Connecticut Department of Transportation Leakage, Material failure, Damage SDDOT Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage NJDOT Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage, Misalignment of finger joints Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Leakage, Debris in joints

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-30 19. What is the most common durability problem of bearings experienced by your agency? (check all that apply) State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion Maryland Transportation Authority Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion, Material failure, Over tilted rocker bearings, and floating bearings after blast cleaning Montana DOT Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion, Misalignment of Vertical Position Ohio DOT Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Steel corrosion Missouri DOT Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion, Material failure Florida DOT Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Steel corrosion, Walking of neoprene pads Colorado Dept. of Transportation Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion, Material failure, over rotation, leaking pot joints RI Department of Transportation Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion Mississippi DOT Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Steel corrosion Oklahoma DOT Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Steel corrosion SCDOT Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion New Jersey Turnpike Authority Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion Delaware DOT Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion Louisiana DOTD Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion, Material failure New York State Bridge Authority Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings TBTA Freezing and/or locking California Department of Transportation Steel corrosion Hawaii Dept. of Transportation Material failure VDOT Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion, bridge movement makes bearings out of plumb Minnesota Department of Transportation Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings TDOT Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion NYSDOT Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion, Material failure Texas DOT Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion, Material failure Iowa DOT Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings Port Authority of NY & NJ Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion, Material failure, Deterioration of the reinforced seat NCDOT Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Steel corrosion WYDOT Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion NMDOT Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion Illinois Dept. of Transportation Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion Utah DOT Structures Division Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-31 State/Agency Response Caltrans Material failure of elastomeric bearing material Alaska DOT&PF We don't typically have durability problems with bearings; however, we have had 4 or 5 bridges where the bearing anchor bolts have sheared off due to long-term ground movement. Connecticut Department of Transportation Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Steel corrosion SDDOT Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Steel corrosion NJDOT Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion, Material failure Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-32 20. For the bridge components listed below, please provide initial design strategies (e.g., specific material, detail) that your agency uses to achieve and/or increase the service life. a. Superstructure girders, beams, truss members, etc. State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration Steel over highways and concrete over water Maryland Transportation Authority Assumes answers for new bridges: protect superstructure by using jointless construction, maintain coatings to avoid section loss from starting; weathering steel with painting of the fascia girders, beam ends and splices; no fatigue prone details; no fracture critical; for concrete beams, no voids; for concrete beam, minimum 2 inches cover Montana DOT pre-stress concrete Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Three coat paint system for structural steel. Sometimes galvanizing and painting critical areas Ohio DOT don't build a truss. Steel beams - paint or weathering steel. concrete - seal with an epoxy urethane sealer Missouri DOT weathering steel, pre-stressed concrete Florida DOT Concrete cover, admixture, weathering resistant materials Colorado Dept. of Transportation precast, galvanization or weathering steel, paint ends near joints RI Department of Transportation Metallizing, Looking into the use of composites for pedestrian bridges Mississippi DOT longer spans with less open joints, neoprene bearings, link slabs Oklahoma DOT Use of weathering steel, limiting pc beam stresses SCDOT Use concrete or pre-stressed concrete girders as much as possible New Jersey Turnpike Authority Painted steel in corrosive environments. When weathering steel is used, areas of steel near joints are painted. We are evaluating galvanizing ends of steel beams in joint areas. Delaware DOT jointless bridges, coating ends of steel girders Louisiana DOTD increased concrete cover and high performance concrete New York State Bridge Authority Avoid details that trap water and create difficult areas to clean and paint TBTA USE OF GALVANIZED MEMBERS California Department of Transportation Epoxy coated reinforcement, modified concrete mix, additional pre- stressing Hawaii Dept. of Transportation concrete spall repairs VDOT Jointless (initial construction); joint elimination or improvement - existing structures; 3 coat zinc coatings; Carbon or stainless steel strand in new pre-stressed members; improved grouting procedures for post-tensioned supers Minnesota Department of Transportation Weathering steel, paint, coating the ends of PCBs with protective sealer, pre-stressing, post-tensioning TDOT coating under expansion joints NYSDOT 1. Reducing number of deck joints, 2. Use of High Performance concrete (HPC), and 3. Galvanizing/metalizing/painting of steel members, Texas DOT Precast Pre-stressed Girders to reduce or eliminate cracking and fabricate elements in controlled environments. Post-tensioned superstructures occasionally (segmental, etc). HPC (low permeability). Concrete with corrosion inhibitors on occasion (calcium nitrite). Weathering steel. Targeted paint systems for steel (where needed). Detailed information can be found here: http://www.txdot.gov/inside- txdot/division/bridge/specifications/super-corrosion.html Iowa DOT Weathering steel, sealing concrete beam ends and painting steel beam ends Port Authority of NY & NJ Weathering steel, galvanized steel, high quality paint

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-33 State/Agency Response NCDOT For Pre-stressed Concrete members (i.e. girders, cored slab units, box beam units) located in corrosive sites, calcium nitrite inhibitor is added to the concrete mix and members are designed for 0 psi tension in the precompressed tensile zone under all loading conditions. For steel girders in noncorrosive sites weathering steel with painted girder ends at joint locations is specified. For steel girders used in "low-level" bridges (bottom of girders are less than 10 ft. above normal water surface), fully-painted steel girders shall be used instead of weathering steel. In corrosive sites, steel girders are not used unless otherwise approved. If steel girders are approved, apply a thermal spray coating (metallization). WYDOT weathering steel, integral abutments (i.e. no joints) NMDOT higher strength concrete for pre-stressed girders Illinois Dept. of Transportation Galvanizing or metalizing beams Utah DOT Structures Division 1. Painting steel girders; 2. Eliminate joints; 3. Use pre-stressed concrete girders where possible for low maintenance Caltrans Strength II design required for CA Design Permit Vehicle Alaska DOT&PF Steel girders are hot dip galvanized or spray metalized prior to erection. Connecticut Department of Transportation Weathering Steel with Painted Beam Ends; Galvanized Beams over Water SDDOT Weathering steel, Pre-stressed Concrete NJDOT HPS Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Nothing specific

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-34 20. For the bridge components listed below, please provide initial design strategies (e.g., specific material, detail) that your agency uses to achieve and/or increase the service life. b. Piers and abutments State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration epoxy coated steel in beam seat area and in front face of elements if within 5' of a traffic lane Maryland Transportation Authority Jointless bridges whenever possible; move joint behind the backwall bearing line; stainless steel in pier caps under joints; apply epoxy coating to the beam seat area; Montana DOT concrete Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Providing epoxy coated reinforcement and/or additional cover to reinforcement. Ohio DOT epoxy coated steel, no joints over piers, integral construction Missouri DOT concrete Florida DOT Concrete cover, admixture, corrosion resistant materials Colorado Dept. of Transportation concrete sealers, epoxy rebar RI Department of Transportation Sealers for pier columns, composite reinforced fiber wrapping Mississippi DOT semi-integral abutments, concrete substructures Oklahoma DOT sloped abutment seats and tops of piers, application of siloxane water repellants, application of urethane membranes to top surfaces SCDOT Use concrete or pre-stressed concrete for exposed pier elements New Jersey Turnpike Authority Coating substructure seats to prevent water intrusion. Use of pedestals to reduce potential for water intrusion. Delaware DOT Coat all concrete surfaces, epoxy coat top of pier/abutment seats Louisiana DOTD increase concrete cover and HPC for permeability New York State Bridge Authority Utilize galvanized rebar TBTA DEPTH OF CONCRETE COVER California Department of Transportation Epoxy coated reinforcement, modified concrete mix Hawaii Dept. of Transportation concrete spall repairs VDOT SCC over shotcrete for patches; sacrificial anodes in patches; Low permeability concrete; Jointless (initial construction); joint elimination or improvement - existing structure Minnesota Department of Transportation Epoxy bars, jointless bridges TDOT sealing of caps NYSDOT 1. Stainless steel/ epoxy coated reinforcement in chloride exposed areas, and 2. HP concrete Texas DOT HPC (low permeability); Concrete with corrosion inhibitors on occasion; Corrosion resistant reinforcing (CRR) (epoxy coated steel still primary method, but stainless reinforcing, ASTM A1035 low carbon/chromium, ASTM A1055 dual coated, Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer, and ASTM A767 hot dipped galvanized are allowed in specifications and have been applied for specific environments or as test cases); Increase clear cover of 2 ½” or more in certain cases; Concrete coatings such as epoxy waterproofing and silicone resin paints in select areas; Sloped caps to drain water in select areas; Semi-integral abutment usage increasing (elimination of bridge joints); Detailed information can also be found here: http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/bridge/specifications/super- corrosion.html Iowa DOT Use of integral and semi-integral abutments, epoxy coated rebar within the splash zone. Protection against impact. Port Authority of NY & NJ proper qa/qc of concrete, epoxy rebar, non-permeable concrete, 2" min. rebar cover silane sealer

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-35 State/Agency Response NCDOT For piers and abutments located in corrosive sites, calcium nitrite inhibitor is added to the concrete. For piers and abutments that may undergo repeated wetting and drying cycles due to tidal fluctuations, 5% of the Portland cement is replaced with silica fume. For pre-stressed piles in highly corrosive sites the concrete mix shall contain a minimum 25% Class F fly ash or a minimum of 40% ground granulated blast furnace slag. The water/cement ratio for concrete piles located in corrosive sites shall not exceed 0.40. Concrete cover is increased and all steel reinforcement is epoxy coated for cast-in-place piers and abutments in corrosive sites. WYDOT jointless bridges, free draining backfill in approach slabs, QC/QA spec for concrete NMDOT precast caps with higher concrete strengths Illinois Dept. of Transportation Eliminating bridge deck joints whenever possible by using integral or semi- integral abutments. Utah DOT Structures Division 1. Eliminate joints; 2. Use coated reinforcing steel (epoxy / galvanized); 3. Concrete sealers in splash zones Caltrans Increased cover required in corrosive soils and splash zones Alaska DOT&PF Connecticut Department of Transportation Additional Concrete Cover SDDOT Integral abutments NJDOT No Joints over Piers; moving joints behind backwall Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Epoxy coated reinforcement when pier/abutment subject to salt spray. Epoxy coated bars projecting from the footing into the pier stem or abutment wall. Also, we require a waterproofing membrane at the interface of footing to stem or wall. Epoxy coated reinforcement bars in the beam seat. For piers, we require the shear reinforcement to have internal legs - to provide shear reinforcement in the event the concrete cover of the pier cap is deteriorated.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-36 20. For the bridge components listed below, please provide initial design strategies (e.g., specific material, detail) that your agency uses to achieve and/or increase the service life. c. Foundations State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration Nothing to report Maryland Transportation Authority Include sacrificial thickness on piles to allow for deterioration Montana DOT Situation dependent Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Sulfate-resisting cement when necessary and epoxy coated reinforcement. Ohio DOT epoxy coated steel Missouri DOT drilled shafts Florida DOT Concrete cover, admixture, corrosion resistant materials, sacrificial steel thickness Colorado Dept. of Transportation RI Department of Transportation Pipe piles, shell thickness increased to act sacrificially for corrosion. Mississippi DOT coated and marine grade steel pipe piles, concrete piles Oklahoma DOT increased cover on drilled shafts, epoxy coated reinforcement on drilled shafts, coal tar epoxies on steel piling, encased piles below abutment seats. SCDOT Use concrete or pre-stressed concrete in exposed foundation elements New Jersey Turnpike Authority Utilize deep foundations to reduce settlement issues. Delaware DOT coated steel piles in water, prefer concrete piles over steel in water Louisiana DOTD increased concrete cover and HPC New York State Bridge Authority Maintain adequate cover of rebar TBTA COVER California Department of Transportation Epoxy coated reinforcement, modified concrete mix Hawaii Dept. of Transportation n/a VDOT Carbon or stainless steel strand in new pre-stressed members; Proper subsurface preparation Minnesota Department of Transportation Sufficient frost depth TDOT nothing special NYSDOT Deep foundations for water crossings Texas DOT Using HPC and increasing the cover requirements; Steel piling guidance: ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/brg/geotechnical/steel-pilings.pdf Precast pre-stressed piles for trestle bents and foundations Iowa DOT Use of concrete encasements for pile bents Port Authority of NY & NJ proper qa/qc of concrete, epoxy rebar, addl. concrete cover, sacrificial anodes NCDOT For foundations located in corrosive sites, calcium nitrite inhibitor is added to the concrete. For foundations that may undergo repeated wetting and drying cycles due to tidal fluctuations, 5% of the Portland cement is replaced with silica fume except in mass concrete use fly ash. For foundations in highly corrosive sites the concrete mix shall contain a minimum 25% Class F fly ash or a minimum of 40% ground granulated blast furnace slag. For steel piles located in corrosive sites, apply a thermal spray coating (metallization) and paint portions of piles embedded into concrete. Concrete cover is increased and all steel reinforcement is epoxy coated for cast-in-place foundations in corrosive sites. WYDOT QC/QA concrete spec NMDOT N/A. We haven't done anything different State/Agency Response

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-37 Illinois Dept. of Transportation Concrete encasement to at least 2.5 feet below ground to a level of reduced oxygen/corrosion. Utah DOT Structures Division Use coated reinforcing steel Caltrans Seismic design of all bridges; increased cover requirements in corrosive soils and splash zones; epoxy coated bars in precast piles; SCMs for worst cases Alaska DOT&PF The top 40 of exposed piles are galvanized. Connecticut Department of Transportation N/A SDDOT NJDOT Account for corrosion in design of steel. Use M270 Grade 50 steel. Coat coal tar epoxy on those piles that are within 2 feet of the mudline. Minimum H pile section is 12 inches. Increase pile section if they may be subjected to abrasive actions. Class P concrete for PS concrete piles. HPC in aggressive environments. Grit impregnated epoxy coated pre- stressing steel strands in marine environments. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation For integral abutment bridges, we require the h-piles to be galvanized. The galvanizing is to protect the pile in the region that the steam water level fluctuates and to protect the hpile at the concrete interface.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-38 20. For the bridge components listed below, please provide initial design strategies (e.g., specific material, detail) that your agency uses to achieve and/or increase the service life. d. Concrete bridge decks State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration Add future 1/2 wearing surface, increase cover to top mat of rebar and use epoxy coated rebar in entire deck Maryland Transportation Authority Jointless decks and stainless rebar for interstate bridges; include sufficient deck thickness to accommodate an LMC overlay Montana DOT Improve the concrete quality by controlling shrinkage Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Specifying HPC. Using a latex modified concrete (LMC) or epoxy wearing surface on critical bridges. Ohio DOT epoxy coated steel, seal decks Missouri DOT concrete Florida DOT Concrete cover Colorado Dept. of Transportation overlay w/ waterproofing membrane, stainless rebar, polymer overlay RI Department of Transportation HPC with Galvanized rebar. Mississippi DOT waterproofing admixtures, increased cover Oklahoma DOT Epoxy coated reinforcement in all steel, performance tested siloxanes, moving away from the empirical deck design method, post construction sealing of cracks with high molecular weight methacrylates, evaporation control during deck pours, saw cut grooving in lieu of tining. SCDOT Galvanized rebar where conditions warrant New Jersey Turnpike Authority Use HPC concrete and high performance reinforcement such as galvanized and stainless steel. Delaware DOT epoxy coated rebar, low permeability concrete, shrinkage reducing admixture and fibers added to concrete Louisiana DOTD increased concrete cover and HPC New York State Bridge Authority Utilize link slabs and galvanized rebar TBTA DESIGN FOR ACTUAL SITE SPECIFIC LOADS BASED ON WIM DATA California Department of Transportation epoxy or stainless reinforcement, modified concrete mix design, additional cover, transverse pre-stressing or additional longitudinal pre-stressing Hawaii Dept. of Transportation concrete spall repairs VDOT Overlays (rigid and thin bonded); Low permeability concrete; low cracking deck concrete; corrosion resistant reinforcement Minnesota Department of Transportation Epoxy bars/stainless steel bars, low permeability/HPC, TDOT epoxy reinforcing steel NYSDOT 1. Use of HP concrete, 2. Stainless steel/ epoxy coated reinforcement, 3. Sealing of decks, and 4. Protection of fresh concrete Texas DOT HPC (low permeability); CRR (epoxy coated steel still primary method, but stainless reinforcing, ASTM A1035 low carbon/chromium, ASTM A1055 dual coated, Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer, and ASTM A767 hot dipped galvanized are allowed in specifications and have been applied for specific environments or as test cases); Increased top clear cover to 2 ½” statewide; Increased standard bridge deck thickness to 8 ½” (to accommodate above); Empirical deck designs to reduce steel consumption (and possible corrosion damage), as well as orient steel to better resist shrinkage cracking; Utilize bare concrete decks with asphaltic pavements that hold chloride laden moisture against bridge decks; Mechanical grooving for surface texture after curing instead of raked texture while concrete is still plastic Iowa DOT Use of HPC, epoxy rebar, stainless steel rebar, avoid expansion joints, minimize construction joints, and proper deck drainage. Port Authority of NY & NJ increased rebar cover, maximize aggregate size to reduce shrinkage, stainless rebar, non-permeable concrete, proper qa/qc State/Agency Response

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-39 NCDOT Bridge decks in noncorrosive sites, epoxy coated reinforcing steel is detailed in the top mat. For bridge decks in corrosive sites, detail epoxy coated steel for all reinforcement. For bridge decks located in corrosive sites and where road salt is a concern, fly ash or granulated blast furnace slag shall be added to the concrete. In corrosive sites, pre-stressed concrete deck panels are preferred and are designed for 0 psi tension in the precompressed tensile zone under all loading conditions. WYDOT thin bonded overlays NMDOT Jointless decks to protect superstructure and substructure components, special mix designs to prevent shrinkage cracks Illinois Dept. of Transportation Epoxy coating reinforcement. Utah DOT Structures Division 1. Increase deck concrete life (use low shrinkage and fiber reinforced concrete to reduce cracking); 2. Use coated or stainless reinforcing steel; 3. Increase reinforcing steel cover; 4. Overlays ( thin bonded polymer, polyester concrete); 5. HMWM (high molecular weight methacrylate) treatment Caltrans heavily reinforced deck design. Limit shrinkage to 0.032%. Add shrinkage reduction admixture to mix. Add synthetic fibers to mix. add a polyester concrete overlay. Alaska DOT&PF A waterproofing membrane and asphalt overlay are typically installed during initial construction. Connecticut Department of Transportation Epoxy Coated/Galvanized Rebar with additional cover; Low Permeability Concrete SDDOT Increased cover, epoxy coated and Stainless Steel rebar, fly ash in concrete NJDOT HPC; PPC overlay Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Concrete mix design that minimizes cracking. For continuous spans, require the top mat top steel to be placed longitudinally (Based on NYSDOT).

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-40 20. For the bridge components listed below, please provide initial design strategies (e.g., specific material, detail) that your agency uses to achieve and/or increase the service life. e. Joints State/Agency Response Agency/Affiliation Maryland State Highway Administration Use troughs beneath all joints. Also, try to eliminate joints from bridges. Maryland Transportation Authority Eliminate whenever possible; using strip seals on new bridges Montana DOT Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Using continuous bridges over bridges with multiple single spans. Using modular expansion joints in lieu of tooth dams. Ohio DOT eliminate where possible Missouri DOT Avoid them Florida DOT Replacement when needed Colorado Dept. of Transportation eliminate & reduce when possible, galvanization, fatigue design for modulars RI Department of Transportation Asphaltic plug joints where thermal expansion is less or equal one inch in the temperature range specified by AASHTO. Also carrying the bridge end joints behind the backwalls. Mississippi DOT less of them, reduce the use of finger joints, modular and preform joints Oklahoma DOT Prayers SCDOT Use elastomeric materials New Jersey Turnpike Authority Delaware DOT move joints off bridge or eliminate joints where possible, coat steel for joint system Louisiana DOTD New York State Bridge Authority Utilize link slabs where possible TBTA DESIGN FOR IMPACT LOADS California Department of Transportation Hawaii Dept. of Transportation replacement VDOT pointless (initial construction); joint elimination or improvement - existing structures; require better joints on higher traffic roads; do not allow low- functioning joints; improve header materials Minnesota Department of Transportation Jointless bridges, strip seal extrusions (4" typical, but with allowance for 5" while limiting predicted movement of 4" to handle racking) TDOT avoid where possible NYSDOT Elimination of deck joints Texas DOT Minimize number of expansion joints as much as practically possible, using continuous decks (but not continuous for live load); Semi-integral abutment usage increasing (elimination of bridge joints); Avoidance of modular bridge joints as much as possible Iowa DOT Eliminate joints. Require joint leak test at construction. Port Authority of NY & NJ replacement details that facilitate replacement of wear components more easily, removal of debris on a regular basis, NCDOT The type of joint or seal to be used at a deck joint is generally determined by the length of expansion the joint must accommodate, the skew angle of the joint, the location of the bridge and whether the volume of vehicular or truck traffic warrants armoring the joint. A thermal spray coating (metallization) is typically applied to the steel components of a joint. WYDOT NMDOT Place joints off the bridge (i.e. jointless bridge deck) Illinois Dept. of Transportation Troughs under finger plate joints. Galvanizing steel elements of joints. Utah DOT Structures Division Eliminate joints

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-41 State/Agency Response Caltrans Good communication between the designer/Str.Const. Rep and contractor to ensure that mild reinforcement ties the joint into the superstructure. Sufficient gap below the joint box during installation so that concrete can flow below (or even use SCC). Alaska DOT&PF We have commonly covered strip seals with a sliding steel plate to protect the seal from debris impact. Connecticut Department of Transportation Eliminate/Relocate; Link Slabs SDDOT Integral abutments NJDOT No Joints; Armoring; Use of Strip Seal; elimination of Preformed Compression Sealer Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Nothing specific

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-42 20. For the bridge components listed below, please provide initial design strategies (e.g., specific material, detail) that your agency uses to achieve and/or increase the service life. f. Bearings State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration nothing to report with the exception of eliminating joints over bearings. Maryland Transportation Authority Typically use either Maryland State Highway's standard bearings for steel or elastomeric bearings; when using elastomeric bearing, we install a keeper bar to hold the pads in place Montana DOT Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Using neoprene bearings wherever possible. Ohio DOT use elastomeric bearings anywhere you can Missouri DOT laminated neoprene Florida DOT Neoprene pads have long service life, Replacement. Colorado Dept. of Transportation integral abutments when possible (eliminate), prefer disc bearings, galvanizing, eliminate joints RI Department of Transportation Metalizing or galvanizing. Introduction of plastic disc bearing pads Mississippi DOT neoprene or weathering steel disc bearings Oklahoma DOT Stainless steel components for anchor plates and bolts. SCDOT Use elastomeric materials New Jersey Turnpike Authority Use elastomeric and HLMR bearings only. Delaware DOT move joints off bridges, use elastomeric bearings Louisiana DOTD New York State Bridge Authority Utilize seismic bearings as required TBTA N/A California Department of Transportation Use elastomeric bearing when possible Hawaii Dept. of Transportation replacement VDOT Greater use of elastomerics; eliminate or do not build joints above Minnesota Department of Transportation Curved plate bearings TDOT proper construction techniques NYSDOT 1. Use of elastomeric bearings, and 2. Reducing number of deck joints Texas DOT Heavy reliance on simpler elastomeric bridge bearings; Avoidance of pot bearings; Use of HLMR disc bearings in high load demand situations only Iowa DOT Allow for future maintenance and replacement (provide jacking points) Port Authority of NY & NJ stainless steel plates and shapes, galvanized anchor bolts, metallization of parts NCDOT The type of bearing used is determined by the maximum expansion length and the bearing load capacity. Steel reinforced elastomeric bearing pads in combination with steel sole plates are preferred due to their overall performance and low maintenance. Depending on the bearing type, steel components of a bearing are either metallized or galvanized. WYDOT elastomeric bearing w/ keeper bars NMDOT For bridge preservation, replace rocker bearings with elastomeric bearings. Illinois Dept. of Transportation Galvanizing plates. Utah DOT Structures Division 1. Use elastomeric bearings for low maintenance; 2. Use integral abutments Caltrans For PTFE bearings, the upper convex plate is now made of stainless steel. use steel reinforced elastomeric bearings in lieu of fiber reinforced elastomeric bearings. We no longer use fiber reinforced elastomeric bearing pads. Steel reinforced only. State/Agency Response

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-43 Alaska DOT&PF Attempt to use elastomeric bearing pads whenever feasible. Connecticut Department of Transportation Elastomeric SDDOT NJDOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Nothing specific

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-44 21. For the bridge components listed below, please provide any design strategies that your agency has used in the past but no longer uses to achieve and/or increase the service life. a. Superstructure girders, beams, truss members, etc. State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration use of steel girders over water unless it can't be avoided due to span lengths Maryland Transportation Authority A number of bridges avoided welding to the bottom flange, which has caused web gap and fatigue cracking. We now weld connections to the bottom flanges, including in box girders. We no longer use voided concrete box beams of any configuration, due to significant observed fabrication and durability issues. Montana DOT Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Painting with Aluminum Mastic Systems Ohio DOT n/a Missouri DOT timber Florida DOT Colorado Dept. of Transportation RI Department of Transportation Mississippi DOT short simple spans Oklahoma DOT SCDOT New Jersey Turnpike Authority We used to utilize continuous spans as much as possible to reduce the number of deck joints. We now will utilize simple spans 2 span bridges where similar materials and details may be more efficient. We have limited the use of precast, pre-stressed concrete beams because they are difficult to repair when damaged are deteriorated. We are also limiting the use of post-tensioned concrete beam bridges because they are difficult to re- deck. Delaware DOT coat steel girders (now prefer weathering steel) Louisiana DOTD New York State Bridge Authority A588 steel for box sections TBTA California Department of Transportation Hawaii Dept. of Transportation VDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation N/A TDOT N/A NYSDOT 1. Use of simple spans for multispan structures, 2. Reduce number of trusses, and 3. Fatigue prone details Texas DOT 1.Expansion joints on simple span bridges no longer applied at every bent. Now utilize continuous decks. 2. Abandoned continuous for live load on pre-stressed beam bridges due to unintended cracking in diaphragms (and promote construction simplicity). Iowa DOT No longer use aluminum for sign support structures Port Authority of NY & NJ NCDOT Pre-stressed Concrete Channel Beams WYDOT NMDOT treated timber, fracture critical, fatigue prone details, pin and hanger Illinois Dept. of Transportation NA Utah DOT Structures Division

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-45 State/Agency Response Caltrans none Alaska DOT&PF We have some weathering steel superstructures that never formed the proper patina, and we eventually had to paint them. We will probably limit the use of weathering steel in the future to very dry climates. Connecticut Department of Transportation N/A SDDOT NJDOT ASD Pennsylvania Department of Transportation N/A

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-46 21. For the bridge components listed below, please provide any design strategies that your agency has used in the past but no longer uses to achieve and/or increase the service life. b. Piers and abutments State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration Maryland Transportation Authority Montana DOT Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Epoxy resin protective coatings. Ohio DOT n/a Missouri DOT timber Florida DOT Colorado Dept. of Transportation RI Department of Transportation Mississippi DOT abutments integrated into the roadway surface Oklahoma DOT SCDOT Used epoxy rebar New Jersey Turnpike Authority We are evaluating the use of wall piers because they are typically more cost efficient and easier to maintain. We will no longer utilizing MSE wall construction for abutments due to complexity of construction and difficulty to repair if damaged. Delaware DOT Louisiana DOTD New York State Bridge Authority TBTA California Department of Transportation Hawaii Dept. of Transportation VDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation N/A TDOT N/A NYSDOT Avoid deck joints over piers Texas DOT none of note Iowa DOT Limit the use of stub abutments Port Authority of NY & NJ NCDOT N/A WYDOT NMDOT Treated timber Illinois Dept. of Transportation NA Utah DOT Structures Division Caltrans no longer use diaphragm type abutment with sliding bearing on top of footing. Alaska DOT&PF Connecticut Department of Transportation N/A SDDOT NJDOT ASD Pennsylvania Department of Transportation N/A

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-47 21. For the bridge components listed below, please provide any design strategies that your agency has used in the past but no longer uses to achieve and/or increase the service life. c. Foundations State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration Maryland Transportation Authority Montana DOT Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission The use of bituminous coatings on the foundation concrete. Ohio DOT n/a Missouri DOT timber Florida DOT Colorado Dept. of Transportation RI Department of Transportation Mississippi DOT uncoated steel piling, Oklahoma DOT SCDOT Used epoxy rebar New Jersey Turnpike Authority We are avoiding shallow foundations due to settlement issues. Delaware DOT Louisiana DOTD New York State Bridge Authority TBTA California Department of Transportation Hawaii Dept. of Transportation VDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation N/A TDOT N/A NYSDOT Spread footings for water crossings Texas DOT none of note Iowa DOT Port Authority of NY & NJ NCDOT N/A WYDOT NMDOT spread footings in channels susceptible to scour, treated timber piling Illinois Dept. of Transportation NA Utah DOT Structures Division Caltrans none Alaska DOT&PF Connecticut Department of Transportation N/A SDDOT NJDOT ASD; Also, Southern Timber Pine and Douglas Fir piles use to receive Creosote. Exposed Steel piles used to receive 3 coats of paint consisting of inorganic rich primer, epoxy intermediate coating, urethane finish, now they receive 2 coats of coal tar epoxy. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation N/A

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-48 21. For the bridge components listed below, please provide any design strategies that your agency has used in the past but no longer uses to achieve and/or increase the service life. d. Concrete bridge decks State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration Maryland Transportation Authority Montana DOT Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission The use of a LMC wearing surface on every new bridge Ohio DOT top mat epoxy coated steel with bottom mat black steel Missouri DOT NA Florida DOT Colorado Dept. of Transportation RI Department of Transportation Eliminating of epoxy bars Mississippi DOT none Oklahoma DOT SCDOT New Jersey Turnpike Authority No longer use Class A concrete Delaware DOT lmc overlays (now use bare concrete decks) Louisiana DOTD New York State Bridge Authority TBTA California Department of Transportation Hawaii Dept. of Transportation VDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation Epoxy top mat, black bottom mat of rebar TDOT N/A NYSDOT 1. Non-HP concrete, 2. Uncoated reinforcement, 3. Precast form panels, and 4. Precast decks with joint material other than Ultra High Performance Concrete (UHPC) Texas DOT 1. Abandoned use of concrete surface treatments such as linseed oil and silane/siloxane Iowa DOT Port Authority of NY & NJ uncoated rebars NCDOT N/A WYDOT NMDOT Joints on bridge decks where permissible Illinois Dept. of Transportation NA Utah DOT Structures Division 1. Silica Fume / LMC overlays (bond issues); 2. GFRP reinforcing steel; 3. Asphalt overlays with waterproofing membranes except to replace in-kind Caltrans none Alaska DOT&PF Connecticut Department of Transportation N/A SDDOT Rubberized asphalt overlays NJDOT ASD Pennsylvania Department of Transportation N/A

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-49 21. For the bridge components listed below, please provide any design strategies that your agency has used in the past but no longer uses to achieve and/or increase the service life. e. Joints State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration Maryland Transportation Authority We historically built a lot of simple span bridges with a variety of joint types. We are now focused on eliminating joints, and when joints are required seek to install long life systems on the first install. Maintenance after the first install, includes cheaper replacements, like pourable or rubber V seals. These become a maintenance headache, but are cheaper to replace routinely than installing a 2nd strip seal. Montana DOT Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission The use of neoprene compression seals. Ohio DOT n/a Missouri DOT NA Florida DOT Colorado Dept. of Transportation RI Department of Transportation Eliminating the use of strip seal joints with epoxy mastic concrete. Mississippi DOT finger joints, poured silicon joints Oklahoma DOT SCDOT New Jersey Turnpike Authority Delaware DOT Louisiana DOTD New York State Bridge Authority TBTA California Department of Transportation Hawaii Dept. of Transportation VDOT Compression seals; modular joints; Minnesota Department of Transportation N/A TDOT N/A NYSDOT Armored joints with compression seals Texas DOT 1. Abandoned preformed joint seals in expansion joints and utilize strip seals almost exclusively Iowa DOT No longer use compression seal sliding plate type Port Authority of NY & NJ NCDOT N/A WYDOT NMDOT sliding steel plates, evazote Illinois Dept. of Transportation NA Utah DOT Structures Division Caltrans We no longer use aluminum joint seal assemblies. We do not place pourable joint seals in freeze-thaw zones. Alaska DOT&PF Connecticut Department of Transportation N/A SDDOT NJDOT State/Agency Response

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-50 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation N/A

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-51 21. For the bridge components listed below, please provide any design strategies that your agency has used in the past but no longer uses to achieve and/or increase the service life. f. Bearings State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration Maryland Transportation Authority No longer use rocker bearings in newly designed bridges Montana DOT Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Ohio DOT n/a Missouri DOT steel rockers Florida DOT Colorado Dept. of Transportation RI Department of Transportation Eliminate the use of rocker bearings Mississippi DOT painted rockers and pot bearings Oklahoma DOT SCDOT New Jersey Turnpike Authority No longer specify rocker bearings Delaware DOT Louisiana DOTD New York State Bridge Authority TBTA California Department of Transportation Hawaii Dept. of Transportation VDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation N/A TDOT N/A NYSDOT Rocker and steel sliding bearings Texas DOT none of note Iowa DOT No longer use rocker bearings Port Authority of NY & NJ grease fittings NCDOT Rocker Bearings WYDOT NMDOT Steel rocker bearings, steel bearings, pot bearings Illinois Dept. of Transportation NA Utah DOT Structures Division Caltrans We no longer use fiber reinforced elastomeric bearing pads. Steel reinforced only Alaska DOT&PF Connecticut Department of Transportation N/A SDDOT NJDOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportation N/A

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-52 22. Which of the following requirements related to the reduction of corrosion in bridge decks does your agency have? (Check all that apply) State/Agency Response Vermont Use top and bottom mats of non-ferrous rebar, Use top and bottom mats of corrosion resistant alloy rebar Nebraska Use empirical deck reinforcing to reduce steel in top mat, Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar, Use of waterproofing membrane with asphalt overlays, Epoxy Polymer overlays in some situations, Extended wet cure to control shrinkage cracks South Dakota Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar, Use top and bottom mats of corrosion resistant alloy rebar Ohio Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar Wyoming Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar Georgia Use top mat of coated rebar, Concrete cover depends on geographic region Colorado Use top mat of corrosion resistant alloy rebar, Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar, Use top and bottom mats of corrosion resistant alloy rebar Florida No requirements for reinforcing in bridge decks Pennsylvania Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar Kansas Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar Delaware Use empirical deck reinforcing to reduce steel in top mat, Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar Arkansas Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar Wisconsin Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar New York Use top mat of coated rebar, Use top mat of corrosion resistant alloy rebar Iowa Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar Louisiana No requirements for reinforcing in bridge decks, Use good cover and use permeability specifications for our structural concrete New York Rhode Island Use top and bottom mats of galvanized steel rebar Maryland Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar Nevada No requirements for reinforcing in bridge decks Missouri Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar New Hampshire Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar North Carolina Use top mat of coated rebar, Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar Mississippi No requirements for reinforcing in bridge decks Oklahoma Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar Arizona Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar Alabama No requirements for reinforcing in bridge decks Maine Make use of corrosion resistant rebar in both top and bottom mat Minnesota Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar, Increase concrete cover, stainless steel bars Kentucky Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar North Dakota Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar California Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar, top and bottom mats of stainless rebar Massachusetts Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar New Mexico Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar, Use top and bottom mats of stainless clad rebar, Use top and bottom mats of corrosion resistant alloy rebar Connecticut Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar, Use top and bottom mats of corrosion resistant alloy rebar, galvanized

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-53 State/Agency Response Montana Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar, Use top and bottom mats of stainless clad rebar, Use top and bottom mats of corrosion resistant alloy rebar Idaho Use top mat of coated rebar Utah Use empirical deck reinforcing to reduce steel in top mat, Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar, Use top and bottom mats of stainless steel rebar Illinois Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar Alaska Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar, Waterproofing membrane between deck surface and AC wearing course Indiana No requirements for reinforcing in bridge decks New Jersey Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar Michigan Use empirical deck reinforcing to reduce steel in top mat, Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar, Use top and bottom mats of stainless clad rebar Oregon Use top and bottom mats of non-ferrous rebar, Use top and bottom mats of corrosion resistant alloy rebar

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-54 23. Does your agency allow the use of galvanized reinforcing bars in the construction of concrete deck slabs and concrete barriers? State/Agency Response Vermont No Nebraska Yes South Dakota No Ohio Yes Wyoming Colorado No Florida No Pennsylvania Yes Kansas No Arkansas No Wisconsin N/A Delaware N/A Virginia No Louisiana Yes New York Yes New York Yes Iowa No Rhode Island Yes Maryland Yes Nevada N/A Georgia N/A Missouri Yes New Hampshire Yes Mississippi N/A Oklahoma N/A North Carolina N/A Alabama N/A Minnesota Yes Maine Yes Kentucky No North Dakota No Arizona No California N/A New Mexico Yes Montana No Connecticut Yes Idaho N/A Massachusetts Yes Utah Yes Illinois No Alaska Yes Indiana N/A New Jersey Yes Michigan Yes Oregon No

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-55 24. What measures are recommended by your agency for the protection of driven piles? (check all that apply) State/Agency Response Vermont Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles Virginia Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles, Increased cover to reinforcing in P/S piles, CRR and strands (e.g., stainless steel, carbon fiber reinforced polymer) in P/S piles South Dakota Ohio N/A Nebraska Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles, Exposed piling is coated with a zinc rich primer (in place). Pilot project is underway to precoat piling before driving Wyoming Georgia Corrosion protective coating for steel piling, CRR and strands (e.g., stainless steel, carbon fiber reinforced polymer) in P/S piles, Limit structural resistance of H-Piles to Grade 36 steel Colorado Corrosion protective coating for steel piling Florida Corrosion protective coating for steel piling, Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles, CRR and strands (e.g., stainless steel, carbon fiber reinforced polymer) in P/S piles Pennsylvania Corrosion protective coating for steel piling, Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles Kansas Cathodic protection for steel or P/S concrete piles, composite steel/concrete New York coal tar epoxy used to protect piles in corrosive soil or water Delaware Corrosion protective coating for steel piling, Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles, Increased cover to reinforcing in P/S piles, CRR and strands (e.g., stainless steel, carbon fiber reinforced polymer) in P/S piles Arkansas Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles Wisconsin None Louisiana Corrosion protective coating for steel piling, Increased cover to reinforcing in P/S piles, CRR and strands (e.g., stainless steel, carbon fiber reinforced polymer) in P/S piles New York N/A Iowa We are looking at options Rhode Island Corrosion protective coating for steel piling, Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles, Cathodic protection for steel or P/S concrete piles Maryland None except occasional fiber glass jackets in waterway Nevada Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles Missouri Corrosion protective coating for steel piling New Hampshire Corrosion protective coating for steel piling, Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles North Carolina Corrosion protective coating for steel piling, Admixtures to P/S Concrete Piles Mississippi Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles, Increased cover to reinforcing in P/S piles Oklahoma Corrosion protective coating for steel piling, Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles Maine Corrosion protective coating for steel piling, Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles, Cathodic protection for steel or P/S concrete piles, Use thin lining or Linex coating on exterior of pipe piles Alabama Corrosion protective coating for steel piling, Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles Minnesota Corrosion protective coating for steel piling, Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles State/Agency Response

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-56 Kentucky North Dakota Nothing Arizona Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles California Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles, Increased cover to reinforcing in P/S piles New Mexico Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles Montana Connecticut Corrosion protective coating for steel piling, Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles, Cathodic protection for steel or P/S concrete piles Idaho Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles Massachusetts Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles Utah Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles Illinois Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles Alaska Corrosion protective coating for steel piling, Cathodic protection for steel or P/S concrete piles Indiana Corrosion protective coating for steel piling New Jersey Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles Michigan Oregon Corrosion protective coating for steel piling, Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-57 25. Does your agency account for the type and severity of environment as part of the bridge design phase? State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration No Maryland Transportation Authority Yes Montana DOT No Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission No Ohio DOT No Missouri DOT No Florida DOT Yes Colorado Dept. of Transportation No RI Department of Transportation Yes Mississippi DOT No Oklahoma DOT No SCDOT Yes New Jersey Turnpike Authority No Delaware DOT Yes Louisiana DOTD Yes New York State Bridge Authority Yes TBTA Yes California Department of Transportation Yes Hawaii Dept. of Transportation Yes VDOT Yes Minnesota Department of Transportation Yes TDOT Yes NYSDOT Yes Texas DOT Yes Iowa DOT Yes Port Authority of NY & NJ Yes NCDOT Yes WYDOT No NMDOT Yes Illinois Dept. of Transportation No Utah DOT Structures Division No Caltrans Yes Alaska DOT&PF Yes Connecticut Department of Transportation No SDDOT Yes NJDOT Yes PennDOT

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-58 25b. Please explain such environment related design strategies. State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration Maryland Transportation Authority This handled case-by-case, but environmental factors will guide decisions related to coatings, MSE wall reinforcing, and deck steel Montana DOT Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Ohio DOT Missouri DOT Florida DOT Three classes, mild, moderate and extremely aggressive environments Colorado Dept. of Transportation RI Department of Transportation Apply metallizing. Avoid using weathering steel close or over Tidal waters Mississippi DOT Oklahoma DOT SCDOT Increasing clear cover of concrete or use galvanized rebar New Jersey Turnpike Authority Delaware DOT do not allow steel beams over tidal waterways Louisiana DOTD If near the coast, we look at wave surge forces and also the use of increase concrete cover and possible use of other types of rebar New York State Bridge Authority Eliminate details that hold water and can't be maintained TBTA HPC, COVER TO REBAR, USE OF GALVANIZED REBAR California Department of Transportation Bridge location (coastal, mountain), Freeze/thaw environment, substructure in salt water environment, ice, salting, etc Hawaii Dept. of Transportation more concrete cover for bridges exposed to seawater VDOT Any pre-stressed superstructure or substructure element must use either stainless or carbon fiber strand for pre-stressing if exposed to salt or brackish water Minnesota Department of Transportation Class 1 vs. class 2 for crack control; More restrictive for pier caps and bridge decks TDOT avoid steel if possible in areas of continuous high moisture, seismic zone considerations NYSDOT 1. Use of corrosion inhibitors and penetrating sealers, 2. Use of HP concrete, 3. Use of pile foundations to avoid scour issues, 4. Curing of concrete, 5. Reducing number of deck joints, 6. Use of elastomeric bearings, 7. Use of stainless steel/epoxy coated reinforcement, and 8. Protective coating for steel members Texas DOT corrosion resistant reinf for norther districts and districts on the coast http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot- info/library/pubs/bus/bridge/district_corrosion.pdf Iowa DOT Use epoxy coated rebar within the splash zone Port Authority of NY & NJ use of corrosion resistant base material, and coatings, QA/QC of fabrication and construction NCDOT NCDOT Structures Management has identified areas of the state vulnerable to corrosive deicing agents/salts and other areas vulnerable to corrosive sea salt. The NCDOT Structure Design manual specifies the corrosion protection that is necessary depending on the bridge site. WYDOT

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-59 State/Agency Response NMDOT In higher elevations where moisture is greater, road salts are heavily used and/or freeze-thaw cycles are high, we consider using corrosion resistant rebar; epoxy overlays to protect the deck; thicker bridge deck (sacrificial), more deck drains to get water/salts off quicker, details to prevent superstructure and substructure elements from getting wet or contaminated (drip grooves, pier and abutment caps narrower than bridge deck, etc.); thicker concrete pier columns (sacrificial) or thicker steel pilings for corrosive soils and abrasive channels. Steel protection plates around concrete pier columns to protect against high flows (rocks, abrasive channels). Illinois Dept. of Transportation Utah DOT Structures Division Caltrans Increase cover and epoxy coated reinforcement in marine and coastal environment. Increase deck cover and use epoxy coated reinforcement add a polyester concrete overlay in freeze-thaw areas. Alaska DOT&PF Corrosion protection measures as mentioned above. Connecticut Department of Transportation SDDOT Type V cement or Class F fly ash in areas of high sulfates. NJDOT Marine environment; foundation exposed to scour. PennDOT

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-60 26. In the marine environment or other corrosion-prone environment, what material does your agency recommend for use in primary superstructure members? (check all that apply) State/Agency Response Vermont Metallized A709/A992 non-weathering grade steel, Galvanized A709/A992 non-weathering grade steel Nebraska Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands Virginia We do not have written material, guidance, policy, etc. Ohio Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands, Metallized A709/A992 non-weathering grade steel, Galvanized A709/A992 non- weathering grade steel South Dakota N/A Wyoming Georgia Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands Colorado Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands, Epoxy coating of deck reinforcing Delaware Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands, Post-tensioned concrete girder with carbon steel strands and flexible filler, Metallized A709/A992 non-weathering grade steel Florida Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands, Post-tensioned concrete girder with carbon steel strands and flexible filler Pennsylvania Other Kansas Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands Arkansas Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands Wisconsin Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands Louisiana Pre-stressed concrete beam with stainless steel strands, Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon fiber strands, Post-tensioned concrete girder with carbon fiber strands and grouted tendons, Post-tensioned concrete girder with stainless steel strands and grouted tendons, Post-tensioned concrete girder with carbon steel strands and flexible filler, Metallized A709/A992 non-weathering grade steel, Galvanized A709/A992 non- weathering grade steel New York N/A New York Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands, Metallized A709/A992 non-weathering grade steel, Galvanized A709/A992 non- weathering grade steel Iowa Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands, Stainless steel (A1010) Rhode Island Post-tensioned concrete girder with carbon steel strands and flexible filler, Metallized A709/A992 non-weathering grade steel Maryland Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands Nevada N/A Missouri Galvanized A709/A992 non-weathering grade steel North Carolina Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands, Calcium Nitrite Corrosion Inhibitor added to Pre-stressed Concrete Girders New Hampshire Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands, Metallized A709/A992 non-weathering grade steel Mississippi Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands Oklahoma Arizona Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands Alabama Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands Minnesota N/A, our state is not in a saltwater marine environment Maine Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands, Post-tensioned concrete girder with carbon steel strands and flexible filler, Metallized A709/A992 non-weathering grade steel, Galvanized A709/A992 non- weathering grade steel

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-61 State/Agency Response Kentucky Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands North Dakota None California Caltrans does not recommend a particular superstructure type in a marine environment, but does require corrosion mitigation measures. Increased cover, lower W/C-ratio, epoxy coated rebar, use of supplemental entry materials for concrete structures and sacrificial thickness for steel Massachusetts Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands, Metallized A709/A992 non-weathering grade steel, Galvanized A709/A992 non- weathering grade steel New Mexico Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands, corrosion resistant rebar for stirrups in pre-stressed girders Montana Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands Connecticut Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands, Metallized A709/A992 non-weathering grade steel, Galvanized A709/A992 non- weathering grade steel Idaho Epoxy coated reinforcement in decks Utah Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands, A709 painted Illinois Metallized A709/A992 non-weathering grade steel, Galvanized A709/A992 non-weathering grade steel Alaska Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands Indiana do not have marine environment New Jersey Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands Michigan Pre-stressed concrete beam with stainless steel strands, Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon fiber strands, Stainless steel (A1010) Oregon Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-62 27. In marine environments, or other corrosion-prone environments, what type of reinforcement does your agency recommend for use in substructures? (check all that apply) State/Agency Response Vermont Stainless reinforcing steel, Other Fiber Reinforced Polymer reinforcement (e.g., aramid, glass, basalt) Nebraska Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel Virginia Stainless reinforcing steel, A1035 reinforcing steel, Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) reinforcement, Stainless and CFRP are only recommended for pre-stressed piles in certain locations Ohio Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Galvanized A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Stainless reinforcing steel South Dakota N/A Wyoming Georgia Uncoated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Utilize stainless steel reinforcement in PSC piling Colorado Uncoated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel Delaware Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel Florida Uncoated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel Pennsylvania Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel Kansas Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel Arkansas Uncoated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel Wisconsin Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel Louisiana Stainless reinforcing steel New York Galvanized A615 or A706 reinforcing steel New York Stainless reinforcing steel Iowa Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel Rhode Island Galvanized A615 or A706 reinforcing steel Maryland Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel Nevada N/A Missouri Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel North Carolina Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Calcium Nitrite Corrosion Inhibitor and Silica Fume added to Concrete New Hampshire Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Stainless reinforcing steel Mississippi Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Stainless reinforcing steel Oklahoma Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel Arizona Uncoated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel Alabama Uncoated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel Minnesota N/A, our state is not in a saltwater marine environment Maine Policy on rebar use is being updated Kentucky Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel North Dakota None California Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel Massachusetts Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel New Mexico Uncoated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Galvanized A615 or A706 reinforcing steel Montana Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel Connecticut Uncoated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Galvanized A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Stainless reinforcing steel Idaho A615

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-63 State/Agency Response Utah Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Galvanized A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Stainless reinforcing steel Illinois Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel Alaska Uncoated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel Indiana Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel New Jersey Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Galvanized A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Stainless reinforcing steel Michigan Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Stainless reinforcing steel Oregon Stainless reinforcing steel, Other Fiber Reinforced Polymer reinforcement (e.g., aramid, glass, basalt)

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-64 28. What type of specifications does your agency use when designing for durability? Provide link to specifications in comments. State/Agency Response Comments Vermont Performance based specifications https://www2.dor.state.ne.us/storefront/Store/tabid/78/CatID/8/ Publications.aspx NDOR would like to know that specification limits are coordinated with other States when possible to facilitate vendor participation, in coordination with the Midwest Bridge Preservation Partnership group. Nebraska Combination South Dakota N/A Ohio N/A Wyoming Georgia N/A Colorado Performance based specifications Florida Agency specific, prescriptive specifications Pennsylvania N/A Kansas Combination Delaware I don't understand this question Arkansas N/A Wisconsin Combination New York N/A Iowa Agency specific, prescriptive specifications Louisiana Agency specific, prescriptive specifications Louisiana Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges, Table 903-1 for Concrete mix design. New York Agency specific, prescriptive specifications Rhode Island Agency specific, prescriptive specifications Maryland N/A Nevada Agency specific, prescriptive specifications Missouri N/A New Hampshire Performance based specifications https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/highwaydesign /specifications/documents/2016NHDOTSpecBookWeb.pdf (Especially Section 520.) North Carolina Agency specific, prescriptive specifications NCDOT Design Manual (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Structures/StructureReso urces/LRFDManual(Dec2016).pdf) Mississippi We do not design for durability Oklahoma N/A Arizona N/A Alabama N/A Maine N/A Minnesota Combination Prescriptive regarding things such as rebar type, concrete cover, air entrainment. Performance based regarding concrete mix designs. Kentucky N/A North Dakota Agency specific, prescriptive specifications California Agency specific, prescriptive specifications

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-65 State/Agency Response Comments Massachusetts N/A New Mexico N/A Connecticut Agency specific, prescriptive specifications Montana N/A Idaho Agency specific, prescriptive specifications Utah N/A Illinois N/A Alaska Combination Indiana N/A New Jersey Combination Michigan N/A Oregon Agency specific, prescriptive specifications

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-66 29. Has your agency used a formalized service life design process? State/Agency Response Vermont No Nebraska No South Dakota No Ohio No Wyoming No Georgia No Colorado Would use as a guide specification, if available Florida No Pennsylvania No Kansas No Delaware No Arkansas No Wisconsin No New York No Iowa Yes, as a pilot Louisiana No New York No Rhode Island Yes, on a major signature bridge Maryland No Nevada No Missouri No New Hampshire No North Carolina No Mississippi No Oklahoma No Arizona No Alabama No Maine No Minnesota Yes, on a major signature bridge Kentucky Yes, on a major signature bridge North Dakota No California Yes, as a pilot Massachusetts No New Mexico Planning to try as a pilot Connecticut No Montana No Idaho No Utah No Illinois No Alaska No Indiana Would use as a guide specification, if available New Jersey No Michigan No Oregon Yes, as a pilot; would use as a guide specification, if available

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-67 30. Are there any design provisions related to durability or service life not currently required in Standards used by your agency that you believe should be implemented? State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration Yes Maryland Transportation Authority Yes Montana DOT No Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Yes Ohio DOT No Missouri DOT No Florida DOT Yes Colorado Dept. of Transportation No RI Department of Transportation No Mississippi DOT No Oklahoma DOT No SCDOT No New Jersey Turnpike Authority No Delaware DOT No Louisiana DOTD No New York State Bridge Authority No TBTA No California Department of Transportation N/A Hawaii Dept. of Transportation No VDOT No Minnesota Department of Transportation No TDOT No NYSDOT Yes Texas DOT No Iowa DOT No Port Authority of NY & NJ No NCDOT No WYDOT No NMDOT No Illinois Dept. of Transportation No Utah DOT Structures Division No Caltrans Yes Alaska DOT&PF No Connecticut Department of Transportation Yes SDDOT No NJDOT Yes Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Yes

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-68 30b. Please list the design provisions you propose. State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration increase steel girder width to thickness requirements that are more stringent than AASHTO Maryland Transportation Authority We occasionally make reference to VDOT provisions for service life, such as CRR Steels (IIM-S&B-81.7) and jointless bridge detailing. Montana DOT Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission The use of stainless steel reinforcement bars. Moving the expansion joints off the bridge and into the bridge approach area. More use of disc bearings. More use of bridge deck overlays. Ohio DOT Missouri DOT Florida DOT Concrete cover and admixture are based on the severity of the exposure. use of corrosion resistant material in coastal waters. Colorado Dept. of Transportation RI Department of Transportation Mississippi DOT Oklahoma DOT SCDOT New Jersey Turnpike Authority Delaware DOT Louisiana DOTD New York State Bridge Authority TBTA California Department of Transportation Hawaii Dept. of Transportation VDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation TDOT NYSDOT 1. Find new ways to eliminate deck joints, 2. Use of galvanizing/metalizing for protection of steel members, and 3. Use of UHPC for joints between precast deck panels Texas DOT Iowa DOT Port Authority of NY & NJ NCDOT WYDOT NMDOT Illinois Dept. of Transportation Utah DOT Structures Division Caltrans Use stainless steel reinforcement where salt corrosion is a possibility. Alaska DOT&PF Connecticut Department of Transportation Low Permeability Concrete; Sealants SDDOT NJDOT Use of stainless steel

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-69 State/Agency Response Pennsylvania Department of Transportation See responses to question 20b and 20d. Also, from NCHRP SHRP2 100 year service life project, if would be helpful to quantify the required chloride migration coefficient threshold for different concrete applications (decks, barriers, substructures, ps beams, etc.) The requirements could be added into Chapter 5 of BDS.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-70 31. Has your agency experienced issues resulting in reduced durability which could have been avoided if AASHTO or State design specifications included additional durability design requirements? If yes, please explain. State/Agency Response Comments Vermont No Nebraska Yes We are continually reviewing specifications for beneficial improvements. South Dakota Ohio No Wyoming No Georgia No Colorado No Florida No Pennsylvania Yes Staged construction reduces construction quality and thus service life. We should consider deflection limits be added to the AASHTO spec. to limit differential deflection during staged construction. Kansas No Delaware No Again, I don't understand the question Arkansas No Wisconsin No New York No Iowa No Louisiana Yes Additional requirements now exist for concrete permeability. New York No Rhode Island No Maryland No Nevada No Missouri No New Hampshire No North Carolina No Mississippi No Oklahoma No Arizona No Alabama No Maine No Minnesota Yes This question seems too vague on its intent. Reduced durability has occurred due to unforeseen circumstances, i.e., plain rebar used in decks before deicing salts began being used in large amounts. Kentucky No North Dakota No California No Massachusetts No New Mexico No

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-71 State/Agency Response Comments Connecticut Montana No Idaho No Utah Illinois No Alaska No Indiana No New Jersey No Michigan No Oregon No

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-72 32. What durability related practices should be avoided in new designs, based on your experiences? State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration Maryland Transportation Authority Avoid joints; avoid one size fits all solutions (design case-by-case) - not every bridge needs to have 100 years, particularly in areas where bridges replacements based on traffic demand are high, but monumental structures should be; Montana DOT Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Back-to-back steel angle members. Bolted steel cover plates. Crevices in steel joints that can trap water. Grades on bridge decks that are relatively flat which can cause water ponding in the water table. Longitudinal open deck joints, such as a median joint. Bridges with minimum vertical clearance over roadways with high traffic volumes, especially truck traffic, which causes a lot of salt spray. Ohio DOT joints over piers, joints anywhere, placing piers immediately adjacent to shoulders on free ways, using weathering steel too close to water or where there is poor air flow (where steel will stay wet) Missouri DOT NA Florida DOT N/A Colorado Dept. of Transportation RI Department of Transportation Refer to answers to questions 21d, 21e, 21f, and 22. Mississippi DOT use of steel items exposed in the deck. Oklahoma DOT SCDOT None New Jersey Turnpike Authority Open deck joints. Delaware DOT Louisiana DOTD epoxy coated rebars New York State Bridge Authority Avoid confined space details that don't allow for cleaning and painting TBTA OVERLY FAST SETTING HIGH EARLY CONCRETE California Department of Transportation Building decks that are too thin or lack cover in corrosive environments, Widening with different structure type, excessive use of joints Hawaii Dept. of Transportation VDOT new steel culverts; polymer liners of existing steel culverts Minnesota Department of Transportation Mixed rebar types in deck, timber piling, bridge deck joints over piers TDOT exotic concrete mixes NYSDOT Eliminate deck joints as part of bridge rehabilitation or repairs. Texas DOT Specifying a lot of different types of reinforcement for different locations. That makes sense if limited to critical areas (e.g. stainless steel in coastal splash zones) but best not to get overly creative in what types of bars should go where. TxDOT also shies away from protective overlays in new construction. Better to focus on good corrosion protection measures in the major components than to try to add coatings or overlays to protect since they typically have much shorter service lives than the core elements. The standard requirement to include air entraining admixture in all structural concrete, regardless of climate. We have seen requiring air entrainment can negatively impact the use of Class F fly ash, which we want to promote. Thus, only require air entrainment where really needed. Additionally, TxDOT has tended away from concrete performance requirements related to durability. We have tended to provide prescriptive options that we believe creates durable concrete. Iowa DOT Deck joints, use corrosion inhibitor additives Port Authority of NY & NJ use of silica fume in concrete to reduce permeability. resulted in increased cracking during curing.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-73 State/Agency Response NCDOT N/A WYDOT NMDOT No deck joints. If there are deck joints, protect the girder ends and the bearings from locking up. Illinois Dept. of Transportation NA Utah DOT Structures Division GFRP reinforcing steel -- costly; requires additional girder lines, constructability issues; can't use in all applications Caltrans Alaska DOT&PF Connecticut Department of Transportation High Skew Bridges; Fatigue Sensitive Details SDDOT NJDOT Joints in bridge decks; Fatigue prone details PennDOT

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-74 33. What durability related practices should be encouraged in new designs, based on your experiences? State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration Increased concrete cover and member sizes Maryland Transportation Authority Encourage the use of better materials - in high traffic areas, overlays, redecking, etc. are very impactful, leading to costly staging. Stretching the need for maintenance out thru the use of better materials, can reduce overall impacts making longer service life more of a reality. Montana DOT Deck curing to control strength gain / heat. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission The use of neoprene bearings. Continuous bridges for multiple spans. Moving the expansion joint away from over the supporting members and onto the bridge approach area. The use of disc bearing versus pot bearings. Designing for bearing replacement. Designing for expansion joint maintenance. Better deck design and deck placement schemes to reduce deck cracking. The use of a deck wearing course on critical bridges. Ohio DOT seal concrete, clean scuppers, joints, and shoulders Missouri DOT NA Florida DOT Corrosion resistant materials such as stainless steel and FRP. Design for maintenance such as replaceable joints and bearings or post-tensioning tendons Colorado Dept. of Transportation material choice, avoidance of bad details RI Department of Transportation Refer to answers to questions 21a through 21f. Metallizing Sealers for pier columns, composite reinforced fiber wrapping Pipe piles, shell thickness increased to act sacrificially for corrosion HPC with Galvanized rebar Asphaltic plug joints where thermal expansion is less or equal one inch in the temperature range specified by AASHTO. Also carrying the bridge end joints behind the backwalls Metalizing or galvanizing. Introduction of plastic disc bearing pads Mississippi DOT as much concrete as possible with minimal joints Oklahoma DOT SCDOT Increase concrete cover New Jersey Turnpike Authority Thicker decks. Delaware DOT jointless bridges, improved concrete mixes, UHPC joints Louisiana DOTD HPC for concrete permeability New York State Bridge Authority Details that allow for proper cleaning and painting TBTA N/A California Department of Transportation Whenever possible design structures that are well balanced, match structure types whenever possible for widenings, minimize number of joints, Hawaii Dept. of Transportation shrinkage reducing admixtures in concrete VDOT jointless construction; joint elimination; Any pre-stressed superstructure or substructure element must use either stainless or carbon fiber strand for pre-stressing if exposed to salt or brackish water; low permeability concrete; strip seals as the preferred joint when; low cracking deck concrete; concrete culverts; hydromilling to prepare for rigid overlays; 3 coat zinc coatings; sacrificial anodes in deck and substructure patches; provisions to ensure appropriate amount of water is used in concrete patches; encourage SCC over shotcrete Minnesota Department of Transportation Jointless bridges, low permeability/HPC, more durable rebar, stainless steel rebar connecting approach panel to bridge deck. TDOT epoxy coated reinforcing steel, do not design to the limits of stress

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-75 State/Agency Response NYSDOT Use of deck joints except where it is unavoidable. Texas DOT Use HPC (include supplementary cementitious materials) and add concrete cover – in terms of durability there is no substitute for high quality concrete with good cover. Don’t go too far, though. We’ve seen so much cover specified that at some point you have to consider it unreinforced concrete (3.0 to 3.5” should be about the max). Utilize calcium nitrite corrosion inhibitors in pre-stressed concrete for added durability expectation. Elimination or reduction of number of bridge joints. Alternate reinforcements. Iowa DOT Use of stainless steel and other corrosion resistant rebars. Deck overlays in early life. Port Authority of NY & NJ exceeding minimum requirements for strength, crack control, concrete cover, minimizing deck joints NCDOT Concrete Admixture Designs, Increased Concrete Cover, Strategic Use/Elimination of Joints, Consider using GFRP bars and/or CFRP Strands WYDOT use of weathering steel, integral abutments (no joints) NMDOT Jointless decks, crack seal and apply epoxy overlays to protect decks, deck drains to get water/salts off quicker, piers and abutments narrower than bridge deck to shelter them from the elements, deck edge drip grooves, penetrating water-repellent on concrete elements, galvanize or powder coat metal bridge railings. Illinois Dept. of Transportation Eliminating deck joints by using integral or semi-integral abutments. Galvanizing or metalizing beam ends and/or beams for structures exposed to heavy salt spray resulting from high ADT or areas that are difficult to access in the future. Utah DOT Structures Division 1. Low shrinkage / fiber reinforced deck concrete 2. Deck overlays 3. Eliminate joints 4. Painting vs weathering steel (use weathering steel in correct environment) 5. Use of pre-stressed concrete girders (lower maintenance) Caltrans Develop link slab design methodology and materials so bridge joints can be eliminated. Alaska DOT&PF Connecticut Department of Transportation Minimize Joints; Continuous Spans; Sealants; HPC; Evaluate Protective Levels for Specific Exposure Zones SDDOT Elimination of joints. Use of the latest materials. Careful attention to details. NJDOT Jointless bridges/ minimize deck joints. Improvement in HPC to prevent/minimize deck cracking. Use of precast elements where practical. Develop simple details to move joints behind abutment backwall. Use of stainless steel in bridge decks. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Durable concrete for bridge decks. Concrete in decks that have mix designs to minimize the compressive strength which results in less deck cracking.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-76 34. In making decisions regarding extending the service life of existing bridges, what information is gathered to determine what components should be salvaged and/or repaired? What new information, not available now, would be useful? State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration We take concrete cores and perform visual inspections. A better way to determine fatigue life would be beneficial. Maryland Transportation Authority Every bridge should be evaluated in a case-by-case basis. Field inspection data (such as degrees of section loss), maintenance history, plans, and cost evaluations are needed to make sound decisions around salvaging/repairing bridges. The question of when to continue investments in fixing a bridge vs. replacing or major rehab is one that is typically made by engineering judgment with supporting info within our agency. A clear national level analysis approach to guide this decision process would be helpful. Montana DOT Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Methods are needed to better access the remaining life of reinforced concrete. Ohio DOT chloride content for concrete items Missouri DOT NA Florida DOT Structural capacity, Conditions and remaining service life Colorado Dept. of Transportation lifecycle information for different materials, joints, bearing styles, etc. RI Department of Transportation Review of inspection reports and load capacity analyses. Mississippi DOT none Oklahoma DOT SCDOT Sometimes gather corings of bridge deck. New Jersey Turnpike Authority No comment. Delaware DOT Louisiana DOTD Corrosion, petrographic concrete testing, concrete cores, fatigue life, load ratings, bridge inspection reports. GPR to determine corrosion, deck thickness, rebar corrosion, etc. New York State Bridge Authority material deterioration TBTA n/a California Department of Transportation Hawaii Dept. of Transportation bridge inspection reports VDOT delamination, depth and concentration of chlorides; half cell potential; condition states of other elements Minnesota Department of Transportation Component age and condition, chloride profile, rebar type (coated vs. uncoated) TDOT condition of component NYSDOT 1. Collection of element level data during biennial bridge inspections, and 2. Chloride profiling of concrete exposed to chlorides. Texas DOT We check chloride and carbonation levels at different depths. We also try to determine extent of corrosion in reinforcement. If too far gone it becomes very difficult to stop even with a good repair. Iowa DOT Fatigue vulnerability, fracture critical details, fatigue retrofits, patina testing on weathering steel, foundation type and condition, chloride content and penetration, corrosion level, general deterioration. Port Authority of NY & NJ extent of section loss, number of years remaining before planned replacement of bridge, Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) of repairs vs. replacement of components NCDOT Currently use Bridge Inspection Reports and element data. Information that would be useful to determine remaining service life of component would be in-service loads, stresses, and deflections that components have experienced. WYDOT

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-77 State/Agency Response NMDOT Determine load carrying capacity of existing girders, analysis of substructure components under current code to determine if they can be reused or have to be strengthened or replaced; field inspection and assessment of bridge components and their condition, scour analysis to determine if bridge is stable or if scour countermeasures will be needed, traffic capacity analysis. Illinois Dept. of Transportation Partial and full concrete deck deterioration Steel and concrete member deterioration Steel protection type and condition Overlay condition Fatigue and fracture critical details Bearing condition and performance Pile type and capacity Substructure type and stability Superstructure and substructure load capacity Seismic issues Scour damage and potential Economic evaluation New information , not available now that would be useful: Cost-effective timeframe for first overlay Cost effectiveness of 2nd generation overlays Existing substructure capacity (including scour potential) Utah DOT Structures Division 1. Cost of repair vs replace 2. Track actual life of alternatives (Bare decks vs thin bonded polymer overlays vs polyester concrete overlays vs HMWM treatment) 3. Deck condition (>30% potholes (by area) requires hydrodemolition or replacement Caltrans The soundness of concrete and the corrosive degradation of the reinforcement.. The amount of corrosion of reinforcement would be useful information. Alaska DOT&PF Connecticut Department of Transportation Evaluate the Actual Condition of Concrete Decks - Better than GPR Method SDDOT Existing condition, past service history of similar details, available treatments, etc. NJDOT Information gathered are physical/visually detectable such as: cracks (steel/concrete), spalls, misalignments, etc. New useful information: 1) Cracks precursor (steel not yet visible); 2) Methods for determining when abutments should be replaced or repaired which will determine either deck replacement w/ superstructure rehabilitation OR total bridge replacement PennDOT

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-78 35. In your opinion, has your agency collected sufficient element level data that would be useful in developing deterioration models? State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration No Maryland Transportation Authority No Montana DOT No Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission No Ohio DOT No Missouri DOT N/A Florida DOT Yes Colorado Dept. of Transportation No RI Department of Transportation Yes Mississippi DOT No Oklahoma DOT No SCDOT No New Jersey Turnpike Authority Yes Delaware DOT Yes Louisiana DOTD No New York State Bridge Authority Yes TBTA Yes California Department of Transportation N/A Hawaii Dept. of Transportation Yes VDOT No Minnesota Department of Transportation No TDOT Yes NYSDOT Yes Texas DOT No Iowa DOT No Port Authority of NY & NJ No NCDOT Yes WYDOT No NMDOT Yes Illinois Dept. of Transportation Yes Utah DOT Structures Division Yes Caltrans Alaska DOT&PF Maybe, although we have been collecting PONTIS data for over 20 years, the quality of the data may be too coarse to make an effective deterioration model. The element level data currently being collected should be more useful; however, it might take a decade or two to obtain enough data points for effective modeling. Connecticut Department of Transportation Yes SDDOT Yes NJDOT Yes Pennsylvania Department of Transportation No

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-79 36. Does your agency have any current or past research projects related to bridge durability and service life? If yes, provide project name(s) and link to relevant documents. State/Agency Response Comments Vermont No Ohio No South Dakota No Nebraska Yes Numerous projects that are possibly applicable: http://www.roads.nebraska.gov/business-center/research/bridges/ Wyoming No Georgia No Colorado No Pennsylvania Yes Bridge Deck Cracking: Effects on In-Service Performance, Prevention and Remediation By Penn State University Florida Yes www.fdot.gov/research/ Kansas No Arkansas No Wisconsin No Delaware No Louisiana No Rhode Island No Iowa No New York No New York Maryland No Nevada No Missouri No New Hampshire No Mississippi No Oklahoma No Alabama No North Carolina Yes Deck Chlorides, Document not available in digital format. Minnesota No Maine Yes We received a $100,000 SHRP2 Implementation Assistance Program grant to demonstrate the bridge service life design tool on the Jonesport-Beals project. Working with the design consultant on primarily concrete durability specifications and implementation. Tasks include incorporating durability review into plans and specifications, chloride profile testing and petrographic analysis of existing bridge concrete, concrete mix shrinkage crack testing, chloride migration coefficient testing and analysis, develop service life analysis report. Kentucky No North Dakota No Virginia Yes Arizona No New Mexico No California Yes http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/earthquake_engineering/Research/SSRP_200.pdfINV ESTIGATION OF INTEGRITY ANDEFFECTIVENESS OF RC BRIDGEDECK REHABILITATION WITH CFRPCOMPOSITES Massachusetts No Montana No Idaho No

NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-80 State/Agency Response Comments Connecticut No Utah Yes UT14.403 Development of a Concrete Bridge Deck Preservation Guide (in progress) Illinois No Indiana No Alaska No New Jersey No Michigan Yes Oregon No