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.
112 A P P E N D I X C Tabulated State DOT Survey Responses
Responses to Survey Question 1: How often does your agency use the following types of abutments? Typical schematics of each type of abutment listed are provided below for reference. Possible Answers: Never | Rarely | Previously, but not Currently | Occasionally | Often | Always State and the District of Columbia Integral abutments Semi-integral abutments Stub abutments Mechanically- stabilized abutments Full-height, closed abutments Full-height, spill- through abutments Alabama Never Previously Always Never Never Never Alaska Previously Often Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Arkansas Often Never Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Often Colorado Always Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Rarely Rarely Connecticut Often Occasionally Often Never Often Occasionally D.C. Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Previously Delaware Rarely Often Often Often Often Previously Florida Never Never Often Rarely Rarely Often Hawaii Occasionally Often Rarely Occasionally Rarely Never Idaho Often Occasionally Rarely Never Rarely Previously Illinois Often Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Never Indiana Often Often Occasionally Rarely Rarely Occasionally Iowa Often Occasionally Occasionally Never Rarely Never Kansas Often Occasionally Often Never Rarely Never Kentucky Often Rarely Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Louisiana Rarely Never Often Rarely Never Never Maine Often Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Often Occasionally Maryland Rarely Occasionally Often Rarely Often Previously Massachusetts Often Occasionally Always Never Always Never Minnesota Often Often Often Rarely Occasionally Rarely Mississippi Never Occasionally Previously Never Occasionally Always Missouri Often Occasionally Rarely Often Previously Previously Montana Often Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Previously Nebraska Always Always Occasionally Occasionally Previously Rarely Nevada Often Often Often Never Occasionally Rarely New Jersey Rarely Rarely Rarely Occasionally Often Rarely New Mexico Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Often North Carolina Often Never Often Never Never Never North Dakota Often Never Rarely Never Never Never
Responses to Survey Question 1 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Integral abutments Semi-integral abutments Stub abutments Mechanically- stabilized abutments Full-height, closed abutments Full-height, spill- through abutments Ohio Occasionally Often Occasionally1 Oklahoma Often Rarely Often Rarely Occasionally Never Oregon Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally2 Pennsylvania Often Rarely Often Often Often Never Rhode Island Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Often Never South Carolina Often Rarely Rarely Never Rarely Never South Dakota Often Occasionally Occasionally Never Rarely Previously Tennessee Always Never Never Never Rarely Never Texas Previously Rarely Always Never Previously Never Utah Always Often Rarely Never Often Occasionally3 Vermont Often Often Previously Occasionally Occasionally Previously Washington Rarely Often Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Rarely West Virginia Often Often Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Previously Wisconsin Occasionally Often Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Previously Wyoming Often Occasionally Often Rarely Rarely Previously 1This section is not necessarily my forte. Others will need to assist. 2We have used all types of abutments depending on situation for each project. 3Integral and semi-integral abutments are standard for Utah DOT bridges, including both the closed and spill-through conditions.
Responses to Survey Question 2: Please indicate the types of approach pavement or slabs used by your agency and their typical length and thickness, as applicable. Part 1: Reinforced concrete slab approach State and the District of Columbia Reinforced concrete slab approach Included in Thickness (in.) Length (ft) Alabama Standard Specifications/Plans Min. 10 20 Alaska Standard Specifications/Plans 12 20 Arkansas Standard Specifications/Plans 14.5 Colorado Standard Specifications/Plans 12 20 Connecticut Standard Specifications/Plans 15 16 D.C. Standard Specifications/Plans 15 Delaware Standard Specifications/Plans 12 to 18 Max. 30 Florida Standard Specifications/Plans 12 Hawaii 14 20 Idaho Standard Specifications/Plans 12 20 Illinois Standard Specifications/Plans - - Indiana Standard Specifications/Plans 12 to 14 20.5 Iowa Standard Specifications/Plans 12 40 Kansas Standard Specifications/Plans Same as driving lanes Depends Kentucky Standard Specifications/Plans 17 25 Louisiana Standard Specifications/Plans 18 20 or 40 Maine Standard Specifications/Plans 3 15.5 Maryland Do not use Massachusetts Standard Specifications/Plans 10 15 Minnesota Standard Specifications/Plans 12 20 Mississippi Standard Specifications/Plans 12 10 Missouri Standard Specifications/Plans 12 20 Montana Standard Specifications/Plans - - Nebraska Standard Specifications/Plans 14 50 Nevada Standard Specifications/Plans 12 24 New Jersey Standard Specifications/Plans 18 25 New Mexico Standard Specifications/Plans - - North Carolina Standard Specifications/Plans 14 12, 15, or 25 North Dakota Standard Specifications/Plans - - Ohio Standard Specifications/Plans - 10, 15, 25 or as necessary Oklahoma Standard Specifications/Plans 13 20 to 30
Responses to Survey Question 2, Part 1 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Reinforced concrete slab approach Included in Thickness (in.) Length (ft) Oregon1 Standard Specifications/Plans 12 or 14 20 or 30 (if t = 12" or 14", respectively) Pennsylvania Standard Specifications/Plans 16 or 18 25 or 30 Rhode Island Standard Specifications/Plans 14 14 South Carolina Standard Specifications/Plans 12 20 South Dakota Standard Specifications/Plans 9 20 Tennessee Standard Specifications/Plans 12 24 Texas Standard Specifications/Plans 13 20 Utah Standard Specifications/Plans 13 25 Vermont Standard Specifications/Plans 15 to 18 15 to 25 Washington Standard Specifications/Plans 13 25 West Virginia Standard Specifications/Plans 12 20 Wisconsin Standard Specifications/Plans 12 Min. 15; varies Wyoming Standard Specifications/Plans 10 to 12 25 1We have 2 different sizes of approach slab depending on the criteria. We use 30' approach slab when the bridge is on Interstate highway and other highways with 20-year projected average daily truck traffic > 100.2, skew > 30.3, abutment depth > 20â, otherwise 20' approach slab will be specified.
Responses to Survey Question 2: Please indicate the types of approach pavement or slabs used by your agency and their typical length and thickness, as applicable. Part 2: Unreinforced concrete slab approach State and the District of Columbia Unreinforced concrete slab approach Included in Thickness (in.) Length (ft) Alabama Not Used Alaska - Arkansas Not Used Colorado Not Used Connecticut - D.C. Not Used Delaware Not Used Florida Not Used Hawaii Not Used Idaho Not Used Illinois Not Used Indiana Not Used Iowa Standard Specifications/Plans 12 30 Kansas Not Used Kentucky - Louisiana Not Used Maine Not Used Maryland Not Used Massachusetts Not Used Minnesota Not Used Mississippi Not Used Missouri - Montana Not Used Nebraska Not Used Nevada Not Used New Jersey - New Mexico Not Used North Carolina Not Used North Dakota Not Used Ohio Not Used Oklahoma Not Used
Responses to Survey Question 2, Part 2 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Unreinforced concrete slab approach Included in Thickness (in.) Length (ft) Oregon - Pennsylvania Not Used Rhode Island Not Used South Carolina Not Used South Dakota - Tennessee Not Used Texas Not Used Utah Not Used Vermont Not Used Washington Not Used West Virginia Not Used Wisconsin Not Used Wyoming -
Responses to Survey Question 2: Please indicate the types of approach pavement or slabs used by your agency and their typical length and thickness, as applicable. Part 3: Rigid pavement (no approach slab) State and the District of Columbia Rigid pavement (no approach slab) Included in Thickness (in.) Length (ft) Alabama Not Used Alaska - Arkansas Not Used Colorado - Connecticut - D.C. Not Used Delaware Not Used Florida Not Used Hawaii Not Used Idaho Standard Specifications/Plans 12 Illinois Not Used Indiana Not Used Iowa Not Used Kansas Not Used Kentucky - Louisiana Not Used Maine Not Used Maryland Not Used Massachusetts Not Used Minnesota Not Used Mississippi Not Used Missouri - Montana Standard Specifications/Plans Nebraska Not Used Nevada Not Used New Jersey - New Mexico Not Used North Carolina Not Used North Dakota Not Used Ohio Not Used Oklahoma Not Used
Responses to Survey Question 2, Part 3 Continued: State and District of Columbia Rigid pavement (no approach slab) Included in Thickness (in.) Length (ft) Oregon - Pennsylvania Standard Specifications/Plans Rhode Island Not Used South Carolina Not Used South Dakota - Tennessee Not Used Texas Standard Specifications/Plans Varies Varies Utah Not Used Vermont Not Used Washington Not Used West Virginia Not Used Wisconsin Not Used Wyoming -
Responses to Survey Question 2: Please indicate the types of approach pavement or slabs used by your agency and their typical length and thickness, as applicable. Part 4: Flexible pavement (no approach slab) State and the District of Columbia Flexible pavement (no approach slab) Included in Thickness (in.) Length (ft) Alabama Not Used Alaska - Arkansas Not Used Colorado1 Not Used Connecticut - D.C. Not Used Delaware Standard Specifications/Plans Per pavement design Not applicable (NA) Florida Not Used Hawaii Not Used Idaho Standard Specifications/Plans 4 Illinois Not Used Indiana Not Used Iowa Not Used Kansas Not Used Kentucky - Louisiana Not Used Maine Standard Specifications/Plans Maryland2 Standard Specifications/Plans Massachusetts3 Not Used Minnesota Not Used Mississippi Not Used Missouri4 Standard Specifications/Plans 12 20 Montana5 Standard Specifications/Plans Nebraska6 Not Used Nevada Not Used New Jersey - New Mexico Not Used North Carolina Not Used North Dakota Not Used Ohio7 Not Used Oklahoma Not Used
Responses to Survey Question 2, Part 4 Continued: State and District of Columbia Flexible pavement (no approach slab) Included in Thickness (in.) Length (ft) Oregon - Pennsylvania8 Standard Specifications/Plans Rhode Island Not Used South Carolina Not Used South Dakota Standard Specifications/Plans Tennessee Not Used Texas Standard Specifications/Plans Varies Varies Utah Not Used Vermont Not Used Washington Not Used West Virginia9 Standard Specifications/Plans 6.5 50 Wisconsin Standard Specifications/Plans NA NA Wyoming - 1Flexible pavement (no approach slab) is roadway asphalt pavement used when abutment embankment has no settlement critical. 2For concrete pavement, HMA is used at bridge approach. 3Our RC approach slabs are buried under 14" of backfill and asphalt pavement. We do not use rigid pavement. 4We consider the flexible pavement as an optional approach slab on minor routes. We have two types of approach slabs, with one for major routes and one for minor routes. The contractor has the option of using a more lightly reinforced concrete approach slab or the asphalt approach slab for the minor route. We also eliminate the sleeper slab for the minor route approach slab type. 5Thickness varies depending on soil type and vehicle type/counts, length of rigid sections typically 20' but varies. 6Our approach slab consists of two segments: (1) 20 ft approach slab sitting on abutment with deep pile foundation and grade beam, which also has deep pile foundation (jump span), and (2) a 30 ft segment sits on the grade beam and connects the highway pavement with expansion joint (see BOPP manual online). 7We tend to use longer approach slabs of varying lengths in new alignment construction to span to the un-excavated embankment. We also sometimes bury our approach slabs then put multiple lifts of asphalt concrete (AC) pavement over them. 8We identify 5 types of approach slabs in our standards BD-628M (attached). Types 3 and 5 are preferred since they are rigidly attached to the diaphragm and have expansion joints on the roadway side of the approach slab. Type 3 is 18" thick and 30' long. Type 5 is 18" thick and 25' long. For bridges with ADT, 750 do not require approach slabs. Also see BD-667M sheet 7 (attached) for minimum approach slab lengths for integral abutment bridges. 9Reinforced concrete approach slabs are required on all bridges, except for those on state local service roads with ADT less than 500 vpd and average daily truck traffic less than 100 vpd. All integral abutments with total anticipated thermal movement that exceeds 1/2 inch requires reinforced concrete approach slabs regardless of the route.
Responses to Survey Question 3: Are the abutment and the approach slab/pavement rigidly tied so they move together, or are they jointed such that they may move independently of each other? If you have further details on the connection, such as steel bar/dowel size and spacing, please provide it in the comments box. Possible Answers: Rigidly tied together | Move independently of each other | Not applicable State and the District of Columbia Integral abutments Semi-integral abutments Stub abutments Mechanically- stabilized abutments Full-height, closed abutments Full-height, spill- through abutments Alabama NA Rigid Rigid NA NA NA Alaska NA Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid NA Arkansas Rigid NA - Independently Rigid Rigid Colorado1 Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid NA NA Connecticut Rigid Rigid Rigid NA Rigid Rigid D.C. Rigid Rigid Independently Independently Independently - Delaware Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid NA NA Florida NA NA Independently Independently NA Independently Hawaii Rigid Independently NA Independently NA NA Idaho Rigid Rigid Rigid NA Rigid NA Illinois Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid NA Indiana Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid2 Iowa Independently Rigid Rigid NA Rigid NA Kansas Rigid Rigid Rigid NA Rigid NA Kentucky Rigid - - - Rigid3 - Louisiana Rigid NA Rigid Rigid NA NA Maine Rigid Rigid Ind Independently Independently NA Maryland NA NA NA NA NA NA Massachusetts Independently Independently Rigid NA Rigid NA Minnesota4 Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Mississippi NA Independently NA NA Independently Independently Missouri Rigid5 Independently Rigid Rigid NA NA Montana Rigid Independently Independently Rigid Rigid NA6 Nebraska Rigid Rigid Rigid NA7 Independently - Nevada Independently Rigid Independently NA Rigid Rigid New Jersey Independently Independently Independently Independently Independently Independently New Mexico Independently Independently Independently Independently Independently Independently North Carolina Rigid NA NA Independently NA NA North Dakota Rigid NA Rigid NA NA NA
Responses to Survey Question 3 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Integral abutments Semi-integral abutments Stub abutments Mechanically- stabilized abutments Full-height, closed abutments Full-height, spill- through abutments Ohio8 - - - - - - Oklahoma Rigid - Rigid - - - Oregon Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid9 Pennsylvania Rigid10 NA Rigid Independently Rigid NA Rhode Island Independently Independently Independently NA Independently NA South Carolina11 Rigid Rigid Rigid NA Independently NA South Dakota Rigid12 Rigid Rigid NA NA NA Tennessee Rigid NA NA NA Rigid NA Texas NA Rigid13 Rigid NA NA NA Utah Rigid Rigid Independently NA Rigid Rigid Vermont Rigid Rigid NA Independently Independently NA Washington NA Rigid Rigid Rigid NA NA West Virginia Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid NA14 Wisconsin15 - - - - - - Wyoming Rigid Independently Independently NA Independently NA 1We currently use no joint at abutments, and move it to the ends of approach slabs supported by sleeper slab. 2Our approach slabs are always tied to the abutment. 31.5" dowels at 18" center to center. 4#6 stainless steel rebars at 12" max spacing. 5#5 bars at 12" spacing; semi-integral abutments have #5 bars at 12" centers that function as dowels that are inserted in sleeves to allow lateral movement. 6The choice to rigidly tie the approach section to the abutment is usually driven by the bridge type, length, and seismic demands and load path. 7Nebraska uses jointless bridges since 1980. We have converted most of the old bridges to jointless system. 8I will refer to our structure folks for this question. 9#5 dowel x 3'-6"-long spacing at 12" with one 180-deg hook end cast in the approach slab and the other end (straight) cast in abutment beam. 10Preferred type 3 and 5 approach slabs are rigidly attached to the diaphragm (not the abutment) with #6 bars at 9". Types 1, 2 and 4 are not rigidly attached. 11Generally #19 bars at 12" spacing for integral abutments, which is our preferred abutment type. We set the dowels to behave as a pinned connection. 12#7 tie bar spaced at 18". 13For semi-integral, we are currently using a system that ties the abutment and approach slab together, but allows for rotation. 14Number 5 hook bar spaced at 12 in. 15Varies. For the structural approach slabs, they are rigidly tied. For conventional roadway approach slabs they are not.
Responses to Survey Question 4: Does your agency use precast approach slabs or any other experimental bridge approach systems? If so, please describe the system. State and the District of Columbia Response Alabama No Alaska No Arkansas No, but we are thinking about using more precast elements in the future for accelerated bridge construction. Colorado We have tried to use precast approach slab, but the contractors seem to oppose to use it and prefer VE by replacing it with C-I-P concrete slab instead. Connecticut No D.C. Not at this time. Delaware We have used only 1-2 times. Florida Yes, for accelerated construction. Longitudinal slabs with longitudinal joints. Hawaii No Idaho Rarely for accelerated bridge construction. Illinois Precast approach slabs with concrete topping/wearing surface are used on structures longer than 260 ft. Full-depth precast panels are used on experimental basis. Indiana We have not utilized precast approach slabs yet. Iowa Seldom but occasionally we have used precast approach slabs. Kansas No Kentucky No Louisiana No Maine - Maryland No Massachusetts We do use precast approach slabs that are also buried. They are installed so that there is a gap between the soil and the bottom of the slab. This gap is filled with non-excavatable flowable fill to provide full bearing contact. Minnesota No Mississippi No Missouri We have developed precast approach slabs and to my knowledge used them on one project several years ago. Montana - Nebraska Yes. We have developed standard precast approach slab which we have used few times for accelerated bridge construction (ABC) projects. Nevada - New Jersey Yes, precast approach slab. New Mexico No, not currently.
Responses to Survey Question 4 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Response North Carolina NA North Dakota No Ohio We have used some experimental approach systems in the past. Oklahoma - Oregon Yes for ABC projects. The system includes a number of precast slabs (size limited by width and weight for transport) connected using ultra- high performance concrete on site. Pennsylvania No Rhode Island N/A South Carolina We have precast approach slabs on one experimental project. They are similar to 12" thick cast in place slabs, with closure pours between sections. South Dakota No Tennessee We have used precast approach slabs on ABC type projects. Texas No Utah We have used precast approach slabs with integral abutment bridges. A closure pour is used to connect the precast approach slab with the bridge abutment to connect the two elements. Vermont Precast approach slabs for ABC projects; GRS/IBS bridge system. Washington Occasionally West Virginia No Wisconsin Very few precast used. Contractors are now pouring approach slab monolithically w/ bridge decks on occasion. Wyoming No
Responses to Survey Question 5: If you use an approach slab, is a sleeper slab typically used to support it in your currently preferred design? State and the District of Columbia Yes No State and the District of Columbia Yes No Alabama X Montana X Alaska X Nebraska6 X Arkansas X Nevada X Colorado1 X New Jersey X Connecticut X New Mexico X D.C. X North Carolina X Delaware2 X North Dakota X Florida X Ohio7 - - Hawaii X Oklahoma X Idaho X Oregon X Illinois X Pennsylvania8 X Indiana X Rhode Island NA NA Iowa3 X South Carolina9 X Kansas X South Dakota X Kentucky X Tennessee X Louisiana X Texas10 X Maine X Utah X Maryland Vermont11 X Massachusetts4 NA NA Washington X Minnesota X West Virginia X Mississippi X Wisconsin12 X Missouri5 X Wyoming13 X 1Because there is an expansion joint installed at the end of approach slab. 2It depends. If we use a jointless bridge where the joint is pushed to the end of the approach slab, we also have a sleeper slab. For traditional approach slabs we do not have a sleeper slab. 3We have several different standards for approach slab and one includes a sleeper but most do not. 4Not needed because the approach slab is buried. 5For minor routes we eliminate the sleeper slab. 6Sleeper slab or (grade beam) supported on piles. 7It varies, we occasionally will use sleeper slabs. Depends on the project and district. 8Yes, types 1 through 5 are supported on a sleeper slab. 9For prestressed bridges, sleep slabs are used with integral abutments when continuous spans exceed 30. For continuous steel spans 240'. 10We only use sleeper slabs when the approach pavement is concrete. 11Sleeper slabs where there is large movement only. Rarely used. 12For structural approach slabs only. 13Previous designs do not use sleeper slabs, but we are starting to tie approach slabs to abutments and move joint to sleeper slab.
Responses to Survey Question 6: What types of backfill materials are specified by your agency for use behind abutments? State and the District of Columbia Granular or porous granular material Controlled-density fill material Crushed gravel/rock Manufactured sand Material is not specified Other Alabama X Alaska X X Arkansas X X X Colorado1 Structure Backfill (Class I) Connecticut X D.C. X Delaware X X Florida X2 Hawaii X Idaho X X Illinois X Indiana X Iowa X Kansas3 X X Kentucky4 Structure granular backfill Louisiana X X X5 Maine X Maryland X6 Massachusetts X Minnesota7 X Mississippi X X X Missouri X Montana X X X Nebraska X Nevada X New Jersey X New Mexico X X North Carolina X X North Dakota X Ohio8
Responses to Survey Question 6 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Granular or porous granular material Controlled-density fill material Crushed gravel/rock Manufactured sand Material is not specified Other Oklahoma X Oregon9 X Pennsylvania10 X Rhode Island X South Carolina X South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas11 X X X Cement stabilized and flowable fill Utah X Vermont X Washington X West Virginia12 X Wisconsin X Wyoming13 X 1Sometimes flowfill is used to replace Structure Backfill (Class I). 2Embankment material 3See attached pdfs "Aggregates for Backfill specification" and "br104cc." 4KYTC Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 2019 ed. At transportation.ky.gov website. 5We use a layer of "bedding materialâ directly under the approach slab that consists of stone, recycled portland cement concrete, or a mixture of either recycled portland cement concrete, gravel, crushed slag, or stone combined with granular material. Beneath that, the embankment material is not specified. 6No. 57 stone is specified. 7D.2 Structural Backfillâprovide 100% virgin structural backfill meeting the requirements of Table 3149-3, and the following: Table 3149-3 Structural Backfill Requirements % Passing ¾ in Sieve 100%; Percent Passing Ratio No. 40/No. 10 0 - 65%; Percent Passing Ratio No. 200/No. 10 0 - 10%; (1) Provide screened material meeting the requirements of 3137.2.B.3, "Classification," for Class C; (2) Provide material with a minimum angle of friction (Φ) of 34Ë in accordance with AASHTO T 236. 8Depending on the project backfill materials will be specified and they will vary. 9In some situations, where consolidation could create problems other lightweight backfill material is considered. 10According to Pub 408 section 205.2 Material, Structure Backfill is AASHTO No. 1, No. 2A, No. 3, or No. 57 coarse aggregate meeting at least Type C quality requirements of 703.2 Table B and 703.2 Table C. 11Varies by district and availability of material. 12Material conforming to gradation limits as determined by AASHTO T 27. Bottom/fly ash and steel slag not considered as select granular backfill. Plasticity Index not to exceed 6 (AASHTO T 90), angle of internal friction no less than 34°, substantially free of shale or other soft poor durable particles, resistivity greater than 3,000 ohm centimeters (AASHTO T 288), Ph 5-10 (AASHTO T 289), chlorides less than 100 parts per million (AASHTO T 291), Sulfates less than 200 parts per million (AASHTO T 290), 1% maximum organic content (AASHTO T 267). 13WYDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Grading L material in reinforced backfill zone.
Responses to Survey Question 7: Please indicate which of the following properties of the backfill are specified by your agency, and their requirements, as applicable: State and the District of Columbia Moisture content at placement Required compaction Gradation according to AASHTO or USCS Limit of fines (% passing No. 200 sieve) Other Alabama1 - - - - - Alaska Yes Yes, 98% No No No Arkansas No Yes, >/= 95% No No Colorado Yes, +/- 2% Yes, 95% Yes, AASHTO T 180 Yes, 5 to 20 No Connecticut No Yes Yes, see pdf Yes, 5 D.C. No Yes, 95% Yes No Delaware No Yes Yes, Table 1001-12 Yes, Max 25%2 No2 Florida No Yes, 100 Std Proctor Yes, A3 Material Yes, 15% Hawaii No No Yes, AASHTO T 180 Yes, 0-15 No Idaho Yes, not sure Yes, Class A No No No Illinois No Yes, 90 to 95% density No No Indiana - - - - Iowa No No No No Flooded backfill3 Kansas No Yes, Type B Yes, see pdf Yes, 8% to 20%4 Kentucky5 Yes, +/- 2% based on KM 64-511 Yes, 95% of max density based on KM 64-511 Yes, Section 805.11 table (Structure Granular Backfill) Yes, 0 to 5% Louisiana6 No No Yes Yes, 0 to 5% or 0 to 2% Maine Yes Yes, 98 Yes Yes, 0 to 20 No Maryland7 Yes, +/- 2% Yes, at least 92% of max dry density per T 180; min 97% for top foot Yes, Size No. 57 No, Soft requirement where up to 5% may pass No. 8 sieve Massachusetts No Yes, 95% Yes, 1/2" sieve: 50 to 85% No. 4: 40 to 75% No. 50: 8 to 28% No. 200 0 to 10% Yes, 0 to 108 Minnesota No Yes, See Q6 comment Yes, See Q6 comment Yes, See Q6 comment No Mississippi Yes, 96 No No No Missouri Yes Yes No No No Montana - - - - Nebraska Yes, based on Proctor Yes, one pass with a walk behind the sand plate Yes, state gradation Yes, max 3% by weight
Responses to Survey Question 7 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Moisture content at placement Required compaction Gradation according to AASHTO or USCS Limit of fines (% passing No. 200 sieve) Other Nevada No Yes Yes Yes No New Jersey No Yes Yes Yes New Mexico Yes Yes No No North Carolina No Yes, compacted to the satisfaction of the Engineer Yes, according to NCDOT Standard Specifications No Installed in 8" to 10" lifts North Dakota No Yes, T ND 180 No No No Ohio9 - - - - Oklahoma - - - - Oregon Yes, +4% and -2% optimum, determined by ODOT Test Method TM 223 Yes, we require moisture placement and 95% compaction according to T 99 with coarse particle correction. Within 3 ft behind abutment, walk- behind compactor roller is required. Yes, according to AASHTO T 27 Yes, 15% Plasticity Index should not exceed 6 according to AASHTO T 90 Pennsylvania No No Yes, AASHTO No. 1, No. 2A, No. 3, or No. 57 coarse aggregate meeting at least type C quality requirements of 703.2 Table B and 703.2 Table C Yes, 10 Rhode Island Yes Yes, 95% Yes, 1.5 sieve size 30-55 Yes, 0-8% No South Carolina No Yes, 95% No No No South Dakota Yes Yes Yes No Tennessee No Yes, 100% No No No Texas Yes Yes Yes Yes10
Responses to Survey Question 7 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Moisture content at placement Required compaction Gradation according to AASHTO or USCS Limit of fines (% passing No. 200 sieve) Other Utah No Yes, meet minimum density test average of 96 percent of maximum laboratory density with no single determination lower than 92 percent Yes, classification A-1. 3 inch maximum No No Vermont No Yes, 95% max density Yes, 0 to 6 Yes, AASHTO Washington No Yes, 95% No No No West Virginia No Yes, compacted in layers not to exceed 4 in. after compaction No No No Wisconsin No No No Yes, varies depending on type No Wyoming11 Yes, + 2% or -4% Yes, 95% of AASHTO T 180 max density Yes, Table 803.14-1 Yes, 0 to 4% - 1Don't know 2See Standard Specifications at https://deldot.gov/Publications/manuals/standard_specifications/pdfs/2016/2016_standard_specifications_08- 2016.pdf?cache=1579783368478 (see Sections 207 and 209 and the respective materials sections). 3We have a prescriptive construction specification for placing backfill behind abutments that includes flooding granular material for compaction. 4Gradation by KDOT Specification. 5See spec book referenced at question 6. Current research looking at shredded auto tires. 6Gradation requirements are defined by our own specifications rather than AASHTO or USCS. % passing No. 200 is 0 to 5% for sand-aggregate and 0 to 2% for gravel. 7See Maryland Standard Specifications available online for these requirements. 81/2" sieve: 50-85%, No. 4: 40-75%, No. 50: 8-28%, No. 200: 0-10%. 9I will defer to our structures and construction folks. 10Material requirements vary by material specified. 11WYDOT Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction Section 301.4.2.3.
Responses to Survey Question 8: What material unique from the backfill is required to be placed behind the abutment backwall? State and the District of Columbia Waterproofing membrane system Geosynthetic Expanded polyurethane Geocomposite drain No material is specified Other Alabama X Alaska X Arkansas1 X Colorado Geotextile reinforcement Connecticut X D.C. X X Delaware2 X Florida X Hawaii X Idaho X X Illinois X Indiana X X Iowa X Kansas3 X Geofoam Kentucky Geotextile fabric Type IV Louisiana4 X Maine X Maryland X Massachusetts X Minnesota 4" perforated pipe drains at base of abutment Mississippi - - - - - - Missouri X Montana5 X X X X Nebraska X Nevada X New Jersey X New Mexico X X North Carolina X North Dakota X Ohio6 - - - - - - Oklahoma X
Responses to Survey Question 8 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Waterproofing membrane system Geosynthetic Expanded polyurethane Geocomposite drain No material is specified Other Oregon Drainage pipe or prefabricated vertical drain is required behind abutment backwall depending on soil type Pennsylvania7 X X 2" preformed cellular polystyrene, BC-667M, sheet 4 Rhode Island X South Carolina8 Stone aggregate underdrain with perforated drainpipe South Dakota X X X Tennessee X Texas X Utah X Vermont Sometimes GEO foam or expanded polystyrene foam Washington X West Virginia9 X Wisconsin X Wyoming10 - - - - - - 1Waterproofing membrane used on abutments with staged-construction. 2Waterproofing membrane for semi-integral abutments. 3See attached Geofoam specification and Bridge Backwall Protection System pdf files. 4We are considering adding a geocomposite drain option to our standards. 5These are specified occasionally, depending on site specific conditions and structure type. 6I will defer to our structures and construction folks. 7Have used geosynthetic with integrals on a few pilot projects. 8Aggregate underdrains are required for beam supported bridges and when wingwalls are parallel to traffic. 9Engineered filter fabric along perimeter of select material for backfilling, 10Form a 2â to 4â gap at rear face abutment with honeycomb cardboard.
Responses to Survey Question 9: Does your agency use ground improvement methods for the subgrade soil? If so, please describe them. State and the District of Columbia Yes No State and the District of Columbia Yes No Alabama X Montana Alaska X Nebraska X Arkansas1 X Nevada X Colorado2 X New Jersey X Connecticut3 X New Mexico X D.C. North Carolina X Delaware4 X North Dakota X Florida5 X Ohio12 Hawaii X Oklahoma13 Idaho6 X Oregon14 X Illinois X Pennsylvania X Indiana X Rhode Island X Iowa7 X South Carolina15 X Kansas8 X South Dakota X Kentucky9 X Tennessee16 X Louisiana10 Texas17 X Maine X Utah18 X Maryland X Vermont X Massachusetts X Washington X Minnesota X West Virginia19 X Mississippi X Wisconsin20 X Missouri11 X Wyoming21 X 1Undercutting and backfilling Rammed-aggregate piers. 2Subexcavation of clay layer and replace it with Structure Backfill (Class I). 3Not typically used. 4Very rarely 5Occasional cement stabilization. 6Over excavate 12 in. for stub abutments. 7Not typically. Some projects have wick drains in the approach fill area. 8Lime treatment, cement treatment, or fly ash treatment 9Lime or cement-treated base if needed. Rarely used.
10We typically do not use ground improvement methods on a regular basis, but will occasionally use surcharging, wick drains, or possible other methods if needed. 11This is done rarely and most often with MSE abutments. If necessary, we could over excavate problem soils and backfill with better material, use stone columns, use wick drains or add surcharge to increase settlement rate. 12I will defer to our structures and construction folks. 13If required; test rolling, monitoring of settlement due to consolidation, phasing construction to allow for settlement, surcharging embankments, wick drains. 14We have used various types of ground improvement for seismic mitigation. Examples include jet grouting, stone columns, precast concrete piles, soil mixing columns, and wick drains. 15Stone columns, geogrid reinforced fills, earthquake drains, compaction grouting. 16Open graded stone in 9" layers with geogrid between the layers for a total depth of 27". 1715 or more years ago. The cement or lime treatment used for the pavement was carried forward to under the approach slab. This is no longer practiced. 18Surcharge loading as recommended by the geotechnical investigation. 19Only in rare occasions for deep fill sections or when mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls are being used. A specified depth of subgrade will be removed and replaced with select material. 20Not always, but in certain situations. 21Reinforced backfill in 8" to 12" lifts. Geotextile used as reinforcement.
Responses to Survey Question 10: Does your agency specify any construction acceptance or performance criteria of the approach after construction (e.g., ride quality)? If yes, please describe the performance metric(s) and their passing criteria below. State and the District of Columbia Yes No Description Alabama X Alaska X Arkansas X Colorado X Smoothness Process Control test: Bare concrete or asphalt overlay surface areas will be measured for 10-ft straightedge, and high spots of more than 3/16" in 10 ft shall be marked and diamond ground until the high spot does not exceed 3/16". Connecticut 10' straightedge 1/4" limit requirement on surface paving. D.C. Delaware X Ride quality per the deck concrete spec. Florida Yes, profilograph. Hawaii X Idaho Illinois X Indiana Iowa X Kansas X Kentucky X [perhaps] 10' rolling straightedge? Louisiana X We are currently working on a ride quality specification based on IRI but it has not been implemented yet. Maine Maryland X Massachusetts X Minnesota X Mississippi X Missouri X To my knowledge there is not a specific criteria. Montana Nebraska X Straightedge method 1/8" in 10 ft. Nevada New Jersey X As per ASTM E1926 NJDOT Standard Specification Section 400. New Mexico X North Carolina X Approach slab shall meet a 0.125" in 10 ft straightedge check made atop the slab both transversely and longitudinally.
Responses to Survey Question 10 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Yes No Description North Dakota X Ohio Yes, we have PN 555 which uses localized and overall IRI requirements for each lane of the bridge. Overall, each lane must meet an average IRI of 130 in./mi or less if no corrective work is required. If that is not met, each lane must be corrected to below 100 in./mi. Localized IRI criteria using a sliding 25' base length for calculation with a limit of 250 in./mi if no steel armor is within the base length and a limit of 250 in./mi if armor is within the base length. Oklahoma X Yes; approach slab and bridge deck smoothness is provided for payment factors. Oregon X We don't have direct acceptance criteria. We set acceptance based on tolerance limits for joints. The out-of- straightness should be less than 1/8" vertical over the length of joint nor more than 1/16" from a 12-ft straightedge. For the approach slab itself, we require the out-of-straightness to be less than 1/8" in any direction using a 12-ft straightedge. Pennsylvania X We have a standard special provision for ride quality across bridge decks and approach slabs (attached). Bridge encounters >=265' long, IRI max is 130 in./mi. Bridge encounters < 265', use localized roughness, max of 250 in./mi. Rhode Island NA South Carolina X Must meet rideability specifications in SCDOT Standard Specifications. South Dakota X 1/8 inch in 10 ft. Tennessee Texas X Criteria is covered in Item 422 in the Standard Specifications. Utah X Incentive/Disincentive for smoothness based on the final surface MRI<60: Incentive, MRI>70: Disincentive. Areas of localized roughness require repair when IRI with base length of 25 ft is greater than 250. Vermont X Not typically but on large projects there often is. Washington X West Virginia X Per specification, only requirement is to be reasonably close conformity with the lines, grades and dimensions specified on the plans or established by the Engineer. Wisconsin X Not currently. Wyoming X
Responses to Survey Question 11: Is water runoff from the bridge deck and approach slab/pavement captured and redirected using surface drains such as gutters, flume, and paved ditches? State and the District of Columbia Yes, water from both the bridge and the approach is captured and redirected Only water from the bridge deck is captured and redirected Only water from the approach is captured and redirected Water is not captured from either the approach or the bridge deck Alabama X Alaska X Arkansas X Colorado X Connecticut1 X D.C. Delaware X Florida X Hawaii X Idaho X Illinois X Indiana2 X Iowa X Kansas3 X Kentucky4 X Louisiana5 Maine X Maryland Massachusetts6 X Minnesota X Mississippi X Missouri X Montana X Nebraska X Nevada X New Jersey X New Mexico X North Carolina X North Dakota X
Responses to Survey Question 11 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Yes, water from both the bridge and the approach is captured and redirected Only water from the bridge deck is captured and redirected Only water from the approach is captured and redirected Water is not captured from either the approach or the bridge deck Ohio7 Oklahoma X Oregon X Pennsylvania8 X Rhode Island X South Carolina X South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas9 X Utah10 X Vermont X Washington X West Virginia X Wisconsin X Wyoming X 1Preferred approach. 2Only a small portion of water from the reinforced concrete bridge approach is not captured. 3Our preference is to use our open Corral Rail barrier which allows water to drain over the side of the bridge. When drainage over the side is not allowed then gutters and/or flumes are used. 4Only if curb & gutter approach, only if bridge has continuous barrier wall. 5This varies depending on the type of the bridge and the bridge location. Sometimes, deck drains are allowed on the bridge, so collection of water at the ends is unnecessary. Some bridges require closed drain (catch basins) at the end, and some bridges in rural settings may require an open drain (paved ditch) to funnel water away from the approach slab and down the embankment. Deck drains are commonly used except for bridges that cross over roadways and/or railroads. 6All bridges have curbs that extend beyond the guardrail transition. When a closed drainage system is required, catch basins are used, otherwise the water is allowed to drain onto the approach slopes. 7I'm not the best person to answer. I'm certain it varies by location. 8Bridge deck drainage is provided where hydraulic computations show they are needed. Roadway inlet(s) provided on the low side of the bridge after the approach slab. Inlets are also provided on the high side when in cut, curbed section or with significant possibility of drawing roadway water over the bridge exists. 9Depending on the project, water may be captured or may not be captured. 10Flow greater than 0.1 cubic feet per second must be captured by drains in the approach slab before crossing the expansion joint.
Responses to Survey Question 12: Where is water collected from the bridge deck and/or approach ultimately released? State and the District of Columbia Openly onto the surface of a slope Openly at the bottom of a slope Openly into the underlying backfill or embankment fill An open draining system is generally specified, but specifics are not provided Into a culvert, storm drain, or other closed system Other Alabama X Alaska1 X X X Arkansas X X Colorado2 X Connecticut3 X D.C. Delaware X X Florida X X X X X Hawaii X Idaho X X Illinois X X Indiana X Iowa4 X Kansas X X Kentucky X Louisiana5 X X Maine X Maryland Massachusetts X X Minnesota X X Mississippi X X Missouri6 X X X Montana X Nebraska X Nevada X X New Jersey X New Mexico Other: detention pond or down concrete rundowns North Carolina X X
Responses to Survey Question 12 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Openly onto the surface of a slope Openly at the bottom of a slope Openly into the underlying backfill or embankment fill An open draining system is generally specified, but specifics are not provided Into a culvert, storm drain, or other closed system Other North Dakota X Ohio7 Oklahoma X Oregon X X X Pennsylvania X X Rhode Island X X South Carolina8 Concrete paved flume South Dakota X Tennessee9 X Texas10 X X X X X Utah X X Vermont X X Washington X West Virginia X X Wisconsin X X X Wyoming11 X 1Varies for each project. Sometimes direct to a rock-lined drainage swale constructed down the face of the roadway embankment slope. 2Runoff will be captured by concrete curb, a bridge rail, and a drop inlet which are occasionally installed at bridge ends if it is required by the drainage design. 3Typical 4The water is typically directed to a rock flume on the embankment. 5We have an open drainage system in our standard approach slab details that can be used when required. It details a paved open ditch of specified width and thickness and reinforcement. We also have a closed drain system in our standards that can be used when required. 6The open drainage system does have specifics. Most often a drain flume or drainpipe releases water into a ditch at the bottom of the side slope. In urban environments there may be a closed system to handle all storm water. 7I'm not the best person to answer. I'm certain it varies by location. 8Concrete paved flume extends to toe of fill and generally ends at riprap pad. 9A rock flume is used to transport the water to the bottom of the slope. 10District preference and project-specific. 11Concrete chutes.
Responses to Survey Question 13: Is a drainage pipe typically used in the backfill underneath the approach slab/pavement for sub-surface drainage? If so, please describe the preferred types of pipe, the presence of any geosynthetic or waterproofing membrane, subdrain location, and other pertinent requirements. State and the District of Columbia Yes No State and the District of Columbia Yes No Alabama X Montana15 Alaska X Nebraska X Arkansas1 X Nevada X Colorado2 X New Jersey16 X Connecticut3 X New Mexico X D.C. North Carolina17 X Delaware4 X North Dakota18 X Florida X Ohio19 Hawaii X Oklahoma20 X Idaho X Oregon X Illinois5 X Pennsylvania X Indiana6 X Rhode Island X Iowa7 X South Carolina21 X Kansas8 X South Dakota22 X Kentucky9 X Tennessee23 X Louisiana10 X Texas X Maine X Utah X Maryland Vermont X Massachusetts11 X Washington X Minnesota12 X West Virginia24 X Mississippi13 X Wisconsin X Missouri14 X Wyoming25 X 1We typically only specify drainage pipes for our integral abutments. 2There is sloped geotextile installed on top of Structure Backfill (Class I), below the roadway's sub-base course, to capture seepage water from the roadway runoff and it allows to convey seepage to the lower drainage system by using sloped strip drain (geocomposite) at end slope of Structure Backfill (Class I); see Worksheet B-206-M2. A 6-inch preformed pipe is also installed to collect water draining from the end of cut slope to the filter material wrapped by geotextile at the bottom of Backfill (Class I), and then water drains to daylight at lower wingwall. 3Can be a 6" perforated pipe on top of footing, or bagged stone w/ weep holes. 4For full-height abutments, we typically specify an underdrain with outlets through the abutment. Stub and MSE wall abutments typically do not have drains. 5Parallel to abutment, 1.5 ft from back of abutment, pipe is "sock-type" and placed in French drain.
6A perforated pipe is used behind the end bent. 7Perforated subdrain made from polyethylene corrugated tubing is used. 8Perforated pipe used behind the abutment and non-perforated pipe is spliced on to run the length until it daylights with slope surface. Limits are shown for a waterproofing membrane (Bridge Backwall Protection System). Pipe is placed near the bottom of the abutment at a minimum 1% slope to drain on the downstream side of the abutment. See attached details "Abutment Aggregate Drain" (br104cc) and "Abutment Strip Drain" (br104c). 9See special provision 69G. 10We specify thermoplastic pipe cross drains underneath the sleeper slab and adjacent to the backwall/abutment. We also specify polyethylene sheeting directly under the approach slab, on top of the bedding material. 11For full height abutments, a drainpipe is run through the abutment stem. For integral abutments, a perforated PVC drainpipe is placed at the base of the abutment stem and parallel to the abutment and drains out the sides. In both cases, crushed stone is used around the pipe openings to help drain the backfill. 12Download "Update 19-06" from the following website: https://standardplans.dot.state.mn.us/StdPlan.aspx. 134-inch plastic in geosynthetic material in crushed rock. 14Contractor option to use 6" diameter corrugated steel, 4" diameter PVC, or 4" diameter corrugated polyethylene. 15Subsurface drains specified as needed depending on site specific conditions. 16HDPE pipe 17Perforated schedule 40 PVC drainage pipe is located 3' away and 6" below the abutment. The approach slab backwall is contained within a geotextile. 184â diameter corrugated perforated fabric wrapped PE pipe inside a layer of small aggregate. 19I'm not the best person to answer. I'm certain it varies by location. 20Corrugated pipe, coarse cover material, filter fabric, and filter sand. 21Perforated pipe wrapped in filter sock is placed at bottom of aggregate underdrain (located at bottom of bent cap and daylighted beneath wingwalls). 224â diameter drainpipe at bottom of integral abutment and under sleeper slab. 236" perforated pipe located under the granular backfill on top of a compacted layer of dense graded aggregate. 24Perforated pipe included within select material for backfilling and engineered filter fabric unless weep drains are used in the abutment. 25Perforated pipes in reinforced zone which connects to non-reinforced pipes which slope to daylight.
Responses to Survey Question 14: Where do you typically place an expansion joint(s) in your currently preferred design? Refer to the following graphic for location definitions. Possible answers: Location 1 | Location 2 | Either Location 1 or 2 (not specified) | No expansion joint is used | Not applicable State and the District of Columbia Integral abutments Semi-integral abutments Stub abutments Mechanically- stabilized abutments Full-height, closed abutments Full-height, spill- through abutments Alabama NA Location 1 Location 2 NA NA NA Alaska NA Location 1 Either Location 1 Location 2 NA Arkansas None used NA Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 Colorado Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 NA NA Connecticut Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 - Location 2 Location 2 D.C. - - - - - - Delaware Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 NA Florida NA NA Location 2 None used Location 2 Location 2 Hawaii NA NA Either Either Either NA Idaho Location 1 Location 1 Location 2 NA Location 2 - Illinois Location 1 Location 1 Location 2 Either1 Location 2 NA Indiana Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 NA Location 1 Iowa Location 2 Location 1 Location 1 NA Location 1 NA Kansas2 Other Other Other Other Other Other Kentucky NA Location 2 Location 2 - - - Louisiana Location 1 NA Either Either NA NA Maine None used None used Location 1 Location 1 - NA Maryland - - - - - - Massachusetts Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 NA Location 2 NA Minnesota Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 Mississippi NA Location 2 NA NA Location 2 Location 2 Missouri Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 NA NA Montana Either Either Either Either Either NA Nebraska Location 1 Location 1 Location 2 - NA - Nevada Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 NA Location 2 Location 2 New Jersey Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 New Mexico Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 North Carolina None used NA Location 2 NA NA NA North Dakota Location 1 NA Location 1 NA NA NA Ohio3 - - - - - -
Responses to Survey Question 14 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Integral abutments Semi-integral abutments Stub abutments Mechanically- stabilized abutments height, closed Full- abutments Full-height, spill- through abutments Oklahoma Location 1 - Location 2 - Location 2 - Oregon Location 14 Location 1 Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 Pennsylvania Location 1 NA Location 1 Location 2 Location 1 NA Rhode Island Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 NA South Carolina Location 1 Either Either NA Location 2 Location 2 South Dakota Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 NA Location 1 NA Tennessee Location 1 NA NA NA Location 1 NA Texas NA Location 1 Either NA NA NA Utah Location 1 Location 1 Location 2 NA Location 1 Location 1 Vermont Location 1 Location 1 NA Location 1 Location 2 NA Washington Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 NA NA West Virginia Location 1 Location 1 Location 2 Location 1 Location 2 NA Wisconsin None used None used Location 2 None used - NA Wyoming Either either Location 2 NA Location 2 NA 1MSE abutment joint location dependent on the abutment type placed on the MSE wall. For integral or semi-integral, Location 1 is used. For stub or closed, Location 2 is used. 2KDOT has a 3 panel approach slab. Therefore, the expansion joint is placed at the end of the 13' panel, which would be located between Locations 1 and 2 in your graphic. See attached "Rd" pdf files for various approach slab details. 3I'm not the best person to answer. However, we always have an expansion joint at Location 2 for all integral designs. We always use an expansion joint at location 1 when the main roadway pavement is portland cement concrete. We will never have an expansion joint if the main roadway pavement is full depth asphalt concrete as it is considered to function as such. Not sure it really does in practice. 4Even though we don't have an expansion joint at the end of approach slab where it connects to the main roadway, we specify a relief joint consisting of sleeved dowel to allow movement between the approach slab and roadway pavement topped with hot applied joint sealant.
Responses to Survey Question 15: What types of expansion joints are used? State and the District of Columbia Compression seal Strip seal Backer rod and sealant Other Alabama X Alaska X X Arkansas X X Colorado1 X X Modular expansion joint Connecticut2 X X Asphaltic plug joints D.C. - - - - Delaware3 X X Asphaltic plug joints Florida X X Hawaii X Idaho X X Asphaltic plug joint Illinois4 X X Indiana X Iowa5 X X Kansas6 Membrane sealant Kentucky - - - - Louisiana7 X X Yes, but not described Maine X X X Maryland - - - - Massachusetts X Asphaltic plug; no joint, just a saw cut in the pavement Minnesota8 X Mississippi X Missouri Full depth 3/4" thick joint filler Montana X X X Nebraska9 X X X Nevada X X X New Jersey X X X New Mexico X X North Carolina X Foam joint & expansion joint seal North Dakota X Ohio10 X X 4' AC pressure relief joint, and others Oklahoma X
Responses to Survey Question 15 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Compression seal Strip seal Backer rod and sealant Other Oregon X X X We also use precompressed foam silicone and asphaltic plug joints for joint rehabilitation and modular joints for new expansion joints with large movement. Pennsylvania X Tooth expansion dam, modular expansion dam Rhode Island X X X South Carolina X X X Finger joints South Dakota X X Precompressed membrane and sealant Tennessee X X X Texas X X X Utah11 X X X Vermont X X X Washington X West Virginia12 X X Wisconsin X Wyoming X X 1We are researching [a] new flexible joint product and plan to replace (0-4") strip joint. 2As well as preformed, precompressed joints (EMSEAL or V-SEAL) ⦠modular. 3Strip seal is most common. Compression seal is used if low movement is expected. 4Compression seals were used on all approaches until recently, when we switched to strip seals. 5Strip seals, modular joints and finger joints are used between the bridge deck and backwall. 6See attached Membrane Sealant Specification. 7The joint between our approach slab and concrete pavement roadways is 4" wide joint filled with preformed polyurethane foam filler. The joint between the approach slab and the bridge deck is a backer rod and sealant for slab span bridges, or a preformed strip-seal type joint for most girder-type bridges. Longer steel span bridges may require a finger joint at this location. 8Check out list of approved products at: https://www.dot.state.mn.us/products/concrete/PreformedE8expansionjointseal.html. 9Location 1 is at the sleeper slab or grade beam. 10I'm not the best person to answer. I'm certain it varies by location. 11The type of joint material depends on the anticipated movement range of the joint. Pourable joint seals are permitted in joints with movement less than 2 in., although we have not felt that performance of these joints is holding up well and are using more compression seals even into this range. Compression seals are used in joints with movement of 3 in. and less, and strip seals are used in joints with movement ranges in the 2-in. to 4-in. range; again we have been preferring compression seals even to strip seals, so the applicable range is more like 3 in. to 4 in. 12Compression seal (or EMSEAL product) used when total anticipated movement less than 2 in., otherwise, strip seals are used.
Responses to Survey Question 16: How often does your agency typically replace the seal of the joint adjacent to the approach slab/pavement? State and the District of Columbia Compression seals Strip seals Sealants used with backer rods Other seals Alabama1 Alaska NA 10 to 15 years 5 to 10 years Arkansas Colorado 2 to 4 7 to 10 1 to 2 20 to 25 Connecticut As needed During repaving or as needed During repaving or as needed D.C. Delaware 15 20 to 25 10 to 15 7 to 15 Florida 30 60 10 Hawaii Idaho 10 20 5 Illinois2 When necessary When necessary Indiana3 Iowa4 Kansas5 5 to 10 10 to 15 Kentucky Louisiana We no longer permit the use of compression seals for bridges 15 to 20 years at best 10 to 15 years Varies. Poor installation practices with a finger joint might require replacement within a decade. Otherwise, they may last 20 years or longer. Maine 10 to 15 10 to 15 5 to 10 NA Maryland Massachusetts When it fails When it fails Minnesota 5 to 8 years 25 years Mississippi 5 to 7 years Missouri As needed, and I am unaware of a standard frequency Montana6 Nebraska 8 years 15 years 20 years Nevada New Jersey As and when needed As and when needed As and when needed New Mexico 0 0 0 0
Responses to Survey Question 16 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Compression seals Strip seals Sealants used with backer rods Other seals North Carolina 10 - 15 years Foam joint 3 - 6 years Exp joint 10 - 15 years North Dakota 20 years 20 years Ohio7 Oklahoma8 Oregon9 5 to 7 years 10 to 12 years 3 to 5 years Pennsylvania10 Rhode Island Approximately every 20 years Approximately every 20 years Approximately every 10 years South Carolina No data available No data available No data available No data available South Dakota11 Approximately 20 years Varies greatly Tennessee 5 to 10 years 10 to 15 years 5 to 10 years Texas12 Rarely to never Rarely to never Rarely to never Utah13 Vermont 10 to 15 although thereâs been some problem compression joints lately. 10 to 15 years 8 to 10 Washington 10 to 20 10 to 20 West Virginia14 10 15 NA NA Wisconsin15 Wyoming 10 to 20 10 to 20 1Don't know 2"When necessary" is when the seal is protruding from the joint and may be caught by a snowplow. 3We currently are only being reactive to replacement and doing it when they have been noted as failing by our inspectors. 4Replacements are typically reactive and not proactive. Time varies. Currently do not have planned cyclic maintenance for joint seals. 5Strip seals not used often on approach slabs. 6There is no standard schedule for joint resealing. 7I'm not the best person to answer. I'm certain it varies by location. 8As needed or available; probably not as often as we should. 9All joints are inspected during the routine inspection. Seals are marked for repair, if leaking. We have a significant backlog. 10With periodic maintenance to remove anti-skid material, we expect 30â50 years or to match bridge deck life. 11Just started using precompressed membrane and have no maintenance history. 12Only when there is a failure that is causing a problem, 13Unfortunately, when it comes to replacing seals, we are more reactive. There is not a standard time frame for replacement and it varies on when they need to be replaced. 14Estimated expected life. 15As needed, not routine.
Responses to Survey Question 17: What type(s) of joint between the approach slab/pavement and the wingwalls/traffic barriers is typically used by your agency? State Unsealed joint Sealed joint Sealed joint only if the joint width is larger than the following limit (please specify) No joint; two elements are tied together by reinforcement Alabama X Alaska1 X Arkansas X Colorado2 X Connecticut X Delaware3 X Florida4 Hawaii X Idaho5 X Illinois X Indiana X Iowa X Kansas X Kentucky Louisiana X Maine X Maryland Massachusetts6 - Minnesota X Mississippi X Missouri7 X Montana8 X Nebraska9 X Nevada X New Jersey X New Mexico X North Carolina X North Dakota X Ohio10
Responses to Survey Question 17 Continued: State Unsealed joint Sealed joint Sealed joint only if the joint width is larger than the following limit (please specify) No joint; two elements are tied together by reinforcement Oregon11 X Pennsylvania12 X Rhode Island X South Carolina13 X South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas X Utah X Vermont X Washington X West Virginia14 X Wisconsin X Wyoming X 1Poured joint sealant in ½-inch-wide gap. 2Use 1/2" expansion joint material filled in a gap when the approach slab is against wingwalls. If it is a wide gap between them, 6" thick asphalt pavement is used. 3Hot poured joint. 4Approach slab on top of wall, use EPS for separation. 5Approach slab continues over wing and integral with parapet. 6Since the approach slab is buried, sealing the joint is not required and we just use 1/2" closed cell foam. 73/4" joint filler. 8Pourable seals typically used with rigid pavements only. 9Approach slab goes over the wingwall with bond breaker. 10I'm not the best person to answer. I'm certain it varies by location. 11We use preformed expansion joint filler topped with hot applied joint sealant. 12Approach slabs for either slide on top of wingwall or are doweled to moment slab. 13Filler material with cold poured sealant on top. 14Longitudinal joints along edges of approach slab sealed with silicone joint sealer.
Responses to Survey Question 18: Does your agency conduct periodic inspection of the following types of distress/deterioration? If so, please specify the inspection frequency. Part 1: Differential settlement (bump), frequency State and the District of Columbia Differential settlement (bump) Frequency Alabama1 - Alaska Yes 24 months Arkansas - Colorado2 Yes 2-year routine inspection Connecticut3 - D.C. - Delaware Florida - Hawaii - Idaho Yes Illinois - Indiana Yes 24 months with bridge inspection Iowa4 Yes 24 months Kansas5 Yes 2-year routine inspection Kentucky - Louisiana Yes 2 years Maine Maryland - Massachusetts Yes During NBIS inspections Minnesota6 Yes Every 2 years Mississippi7 Missouri8 Yes Montana9 - Nebraska Yes Our approach slab sits on sleeper slab on piles. Bump is prevented at this location. Nevada - New Jersey10 Yes 2 years New Mexico North Carolina11 Yes 2 years North Dakota Ohio12 Yes Biannually Oklahoma
Responses to Survey Question 18 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Differential settlement (bump) Frequency Oregon Yes 24 months Pennsylvania13 Yes 2 years Rhode Island Yes 24 months South Carolina Yes 2 years South Dakota Yes NBI inspection Tennessee Yes 2 years Texas14 Yes Utah15 - Vermont Yes 2 to 5 years Washington West Virginia Yes 2 years (NBIS) Wisconsin16 Yes Wyoming17 Yes
Responses to Survey Question 18: Does your agency conduct periodic inspection of the following types of distress/deterioration? If so, please specify the inspection frequency. Part 2: Joint seal failure, frequency State and the District of Columbia Joint seal failure Frequency Alabama1 - Alaska Yes 24 months Arkansas - Colorado2 Yes 2-year routine inspection Connecticut3 - D.C. - Delaware Yes Biennial inspection Florida - Hawaii - Idaho Yes Illinois - Indiana Yes 24 months with bridge inspection Iowa4 Yes 24 months Kansas5 Yes 2-year routine inspection Kentucky - Louisiana Yes 2 years Maine Yes 24 months Maryland - Massachusetts Yes During NBIS inspections Minnesota6 Yes Every 2 years Mississippi7 Missouri8 Yes Montana9 - Nebraska Yes 10 years Nevada - New Jersey10 Yes 2 years New Mexico Yes 0 North Carolina11 Yes 2 years North Dakota Yes 2 years Ohio12
Responses to Survey Question 18, Part 2 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Joint seal failure Frequency Oklahoma Yes 2 years Oregon Yes 24 months Pennsylvania13 Yes 2 years Rhode Island Yes 24 months South Carolina Yes 2 years South Dakota Yes NBI inspection Tennessee Yes 2 years Texas14 Yes Utah15 - Vermont Yes 2 to 5 years Washington Yes 24+ months West Virginia Yes 2 years (NBIS) Wisconsin16 Yes Wyoming17 Yes
Responses to Survey Question 18: Does your agency conduct periodic inspection of the following types of distress/deterioration? If so, please specify the inspection frequency. Part 3: Void formation or approach embankment erosion under slab, frequency State and the District of Columbia Void formation or approach embankment erosion under slab Frequency Alabama1 - Alaska Yes 24 months Arkansas - Colorado2 Yes 2-year routine inspection Connecticut3 - D.C. - Delaware Florida - Hawaii - Idaho Yes Illinois - Indiana Iowa4 Yes 24 months Kansas5 Yes 2-year routine inspection Kentucky - Louisiana Yes 2 years Maine Maryland - Massachusetts Minnesota6 Yes Every 2 years Mississippi7 Missouri8 Yes Montana9 - Nebraska Yes Always Nevada - New Jersey10 Yes 2 years New Mexico North Carolina11 North Dakota Yes 2 years Ohio12
Responses to Survey Question 18, Part 3 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Void formation or approach embankment erosion under slab Frequency Oklahoma Yes 2 years Oregon Yes 24 months Pennsylvania13 Yes 2 years Rhode Island Yes 24 months South Carolina Yes 2 years South Dakota Yes NBI inspection Tennessee Texas14 Yes Utah15 - Vermont Washington West Virginia Yes 2 years (NBIS) Wisconsin16 Yes Wyoming17 Yes
Responses to Survey Question 18: Does your agency conduct periodic inspection of the following types of distress/deterioration? If so, please specify the inspection frequency. Part 4: Lateral spread of the approach embankment, frequency State and the District of Columbia Lateral spread of the approach embankment Frequency Alabama1 - Alaska Arkansas - Colorado2 Yes 2-year routine inspection Connecticut3 - D.C. - Delaware Florida - Hawaii - Idaho Illinois - Indiana Iowa4 Kansas5 Kentucky - Louisiana Yes 2 years Maine Maryland - Massachusetts Minnesota6 Mississippi7 Missouri8 Yes Montana9 - Nebraska Yes We use 20 ft Nevada - New Jersey10 Yes 2 years New Mexico North Carolina11 North Dakota Ohio12
Responses to Survey Question 18, Part 4 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Lateral spread of the approach embankment Frequency Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania13 Yes 2 years Rhode Island Yes 4 years South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas14 Yes Utah15 - Vermont Washington West Virginia Wisconsin16 Yes Wyoming17 Yes
Responses to Survey Question 18: Does your agency conduct periodic inspection of the following types of distress/deterioration? If so, please specify the inspection frequency. Part 5: Other distress type and frequency of inspection, frequency State and the District of Columbia Other distress type and frequency of inspection Frequency Alabama1 - Alaska Arkansas - Colorado2 Yes 2-year routine inspection Connecticut3 - D.C. - Delaware Yes Biennial inspection Florida - Hawaii - Idaho Illinois - Indiana Iowa4 Yes 24 months Kansas5 Yes 2-year routine inspection Kentucky - Louisiana Yes 2 years Maine Maryland - Massachusetts Minnesota6 Yes Every 2 years Mississippi7 Missouri8 Yes Montana9 - Nebraska Yes Cracks at the connection of the approach slab and sleeper slab Nevada - New Jersey10 New Mexico North Carolina11 Yes Approach slab distress 2 years North Dakota
Responses to Survey Question 18, Part 5 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Other distress type and frequency of inspection Frequency Ohio12 Oklahoma Yes 2 years Oregon Pennsylvania13 Yes 2 years Rhode Island South Carolina Yes 2 years South Dakota Tennessee Texas14 Utah15 - Vermont Washington West Virginia Wisconsin16 Wyoming17 Yes 1Don't know. 2Maintenance crew will notify if there is any joint failure when daily highway drive-by in the bridge areas. 3Not typically, except for information gathered as part of routine bridge inspection or pre-paving assessment. 4Included with the NBIS inspections. 5Other distress types include cracks and spalls in the approach slab. 6General approach panel condition is assessed along with the bridge inspection every 2 years. 7No. 8As part of the typical bridge inspection cycle. 9These items are observed and documented during routine bridge inspections. 10Regular 2-year inspection cycle. 11Approach slab is inspected during the NBIS inspection process. 12We have a new web map tool that plots localized roughness in excess of a particular limit which is tied to specific structures if the roughness occurs at or near a structure. 13Done with biennial NBIS inspection. 14At least annually and biannually when the bridge is inspected. 15Our biannual inspections look for all types of distress applicable to the bridge structure. The inspectors are not directed to search for these deficiencies in specific but note deficiencies such as this as they see them. 16This is done every 24 months as part of the routine inspection. 17Looked at during routine inspections (every 2 years).
Responses to Survey Question 19: What method(s) does your agency use to quantify the severity of the differential settlement/bump? Alabama1 - Alaska2 Arkansas - Colorado Connecticut X D.C. - Delaware X Florida - Hawaii X Idaho X Illinois - Indiana3 X X Iowa4 X Kansas5 Kentucky - Louisiana6 Maine X Maryland - Massachusetts7 X Minnesota Mississippi8 - Missouri X Montana X Nebraska Nevada X New Jersey X New Mexico X North Carolina String line or straightedge across differential settlement/bump 1-5 rating String line North Dakota X Ohio9 X Oklahoma X Oregon X X X X X X X X State and the District of Columbia Severity is not quantified IRI Rolling straight edge Qualitative Other
Responses to Survey Question 19 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Severity is not quantified IRI Rolling straight edge Qualitative Other Pennsylvania10 X X X Rhode Island X X South Carolina X South Dakota11 X Tennessee X Texas X Utah12 X X Vermont X Washington X West Virginia13 X Wisconsin14 - Wyoming X 1Don't know. 2Generally describe ride as "good, fair, or poor." 3Our road asset management team runs IRI on a regular basis (yearly, I believe). 4IRI data collection continues over the bridge. 5Qualitative description of ride quality only in special cases. 6As previously mentioned, we are currently working on an IRI specification. 7Due to our use of buried approach slabs, differential settlement is not a major issue. The approach slab mitigates this condition. 8None 9Complaints from traveling public as well or safety related issues to excessive vehicle bouncing. 10Qualitative description performed at NBIS inspection. Also, see standard special provision for ride quality across bridge decks. 11Considering IRI. 12IRI is used at project closeout, but continuing settlement and bump over time is typically just qualitative assessments. 13Ride quality is described in NBIS bridge safety inspection narrative (i.e., acceptable transitions, abrupt transition, 1" height transition differential, etc.). 14Measurement of the settlement heave. WisDOT uses an assessment to rate good/fair/poor/severe based on measurement (and other items).
Responses to Survey Question 20: What metrics are used to assess ride quality of the main roadway, the approach slab/pavement, and the bridge deck, and across the joints between these sections? If ride quality is not assessed, then please indicate so. State and the District of Columbia Main roadway Approach slab/pavement Bridge deck Joints Alabama1 None Alaska2 Ride quality not assessed Arkansas Colorado NA NA NA NA Connecticut3 Ride quality not assessed D.C. Delaware Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Florida Hawaii Riding surface conditions shall be selected based on field observations and judgment of the inspector during bridge inspections. Riding surface conditions shall be defined as follows: 3 â smooth riding surface at approaches, bridge deck, and expansion joints; 2 â minor surface deviations or depressions; and 1 â approach and bridge deck conditions with bumps, sags, or other major surface deviations and discontinuities. Riding surface conditions shall be selected based on field observations and judgment of the inspector during bridge inspections. Riding surface conditions shall be defined as follows: 3 â smooth riding surface at approaches, bridge deck, and expansion joints; 2 â minor surface deviations or depressions; and 1 â approach and bridge deck conditions with bumps, sags, or other major surface deviations and discontinuities. Idaho Smoothness specification Smoothness specification Smoothness specification Illinois Indiana - - - - Iowa - - - - Kansas4 Measure pavement profiles None None None Kentucky - - - - Louisiana5 We have no quantitative metrics at the moment. Qualitative assessment is used.
Responses to Survey Question 20 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Main roadway Approach slab/pavement Bridge deck Joints Maine Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Maryland Massachusetts Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Minnesota None Straightedge None Mississippi6 None Missouri Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Montana - - - - Nebraska IRI Profile index 0.5"/100 ft Profile index 0.5"/100 ft None Nevada - - - - New Jersey Rolling straightedge New Mexico IRI Straightedge Straightedge Unknown North Carolina IRI Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative North Dakota7 Not assessed Ohio8 IRI lot and localized criteria Part of bridge encounter, IRI overall and localized criteria Part of bridge encounter, IRI overall and localized criteria Part of bridge encounter, IRI overall and localized criteria Oklahoma By profilograph By profilograph Oregon Less than 1/8" in any direction using a 12-ft straightedge Less than 1/8" vertical over the length of joint nor more than 1/16" from a 12-ft straightedge Pennsylvania IRI IRI IRI IRI Rhode Island IRI NA < 100 dB /concrete scarification NA South Carolina Not assessed in measured manner Not assessed in measured manner Not assessed in measured manner Not assessed in measured manner South Dakota9 IRI 1/8" in 10 ft 1/8" in 10 ft
Responses to Survey Question 20 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Main roadway Approach slab/pavement Bridge deck Joints Vermont10 No metrics is used Washington11 NA West Virginia Not assessed Straightedge testing (surface not to exceed 1/8 inch deviation using 10-ft rolling straightedge) Straightedge testing (surface not to exceed 1/8 inch deviation using 10-ft rolling straightedge) Not assessed Wisconsin12 Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Wyoming13 Observation and/or input from maintenance and district personnel 1None. 2Ride quality not assessed. 3Ride quality not assessed. 4The elements above related to the bridge are assessed post construction as a QC measure for construction. 5We have no quantitative metrics at the moment. Qualitative assessment is used. 6None. 7Not assessed. 8If PN 555 is not used, then 1/8th inch in 10' rolling straightedge on the deck and approach slab. 9Considering using IRI on approach slabs and bridge decks, but not there yet. 10No metrics is used. 11NA 12Roadway maintenance may use metrics but bridge does not. 13Observation and/or input from maintenance and district personnel. Tennessee IRI Same as deck Reinhart Profilograph with published criteria in the standard specs Same as deck Texas IRI and PMIS Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Utah Smoothness MRI < 60: Incentive >70: Disincentive Smoothness MRI < 60: Incentive >70: Disincentive Smoothness MRI < 60: Incentive >70: Disincentive Excluded
Responses to Survey Question 21: What criterion or criteria does your agency use to trigger repair or rehabilitation of a bump between the approach and the abutment or bridge deck, or between the approach and the main roadway? State and the District of Columbia No criterion is used to trigger repair or rehabilitation User-complaint criterion Safety criterion Smoothness/ride quality criterion Other Alabama X Alaska1 X Arkansas - Colorado X Connecticut X D.C. - Delaware2 X Florida - Hawaii X Idaho X X X X Illinois - Indiana3 - Iowa X X Other: NBIS inspections Kansas Inspector recommendation Other: rarely repair the bump as its own project. Would address with a larger project Kentucky - Louisiana X X X Maine Other: Damage to joint caused by impact Maryland - Massachusetts4 Other: see comment Minnesota X Other: review of inspection data Mississippi X X Missouri Other: qualitative based on maintenance personnel assessment Montana X Nebraska X
Responses to Survey Question 21 Continued: State and the District of Columbia No criterion is used to trigger repair or rehabilitation User-complaint criterion Safety criterion Smoothness/ride quality criterion Other Nevada - New Jersey X Other: regular inspection every 2 years New Mexico X X North Carolina If the driving public's safety becomes a concern then repair or rehab is investigated North Dakota X Ohio Sometimes this causes investigation and action Sometimes this causes investigation and action From network inertial profiler data analysis Oklahoma X Other: seat of pants Oregon X X Rated by bridge inspector, which will be used in load rating for the impact factor Pennsylvania X Rhode Island Multiple call-ins From inspection South Carolina X South Dakota Other: Ride quality as perceived by area or region inspectors Tennessee X Texas5 X X Utah No explicit trigger threshold No explicit trigger threshold Vermont X X Washington X
Responses to Survey Question 21 Continued: State and the District of Columbia No criterion is used to trigger repair or rehabilitation User-complaint criterion Safety criterion Smoothness/ride quality criterion Other Wisconsin6 Other: Inspector/PM recommendation based on inspection Wyoming X X X 1Generally addressed based on local maintenance staff perception of need. Sometimes recommended as a work candidate in biennial inspection reports. 2If we receive a complaint and agree that the issue warrants repair. 3We don't have binary criteria, a combination of all these have led us to a statewide repair of our terminal joints. 4As noted above, this is not a major issue. 5There is no defined criteria. 6Occasionally user complaint or safety issue. West Virginia If a large amount of complaints received, agency assesses the situation and project is considered for funding If agency determines transition is a safety hazard, project is considered for funding
Responses to Survey Question 22: What maintenance/repairs are used by your agency to restore ride quality and how frequently must they be carried out? Part 1: Injection of a portland cement grout underneath approach slab/pavement, frequency State and the District of Columbia Injection of a portland cement grout underneath approach slab/pavement Frequency Alabama X Don't know Alaska1 Arkansas - Colorado Connecticut2 Comment response D.C. - Delaware X Occasionally Florida - Hawaii - Idaho X Rarely Illinois - Indiana3 X Iowa Kansas X As needed Kentucky - Louisiana Maine Maryland - Massachusetts4 Minnesota X 1-2 bridges per year Mississippi X Missouri Montana5 X Nebraska X Often Nevada - New Jersey New Mexico X North Carolina X Utilized when differential settlement results in safety concerns North Dakota Ohio6 X
Responses to Survey Question 22 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Injection of a portland cement grout underneath approach slab/pavement Frequency Oklahoma X Oregon X For filling void, not frequent about 1-2 times/year Pennsylvania X As needed and funds available Rhode Island South Carolina X A couple of times South Dakota X Occasionally Tennessee X Case-by-case basis Texas7 X Utah8 Comment response Vermont9 Washington X 24+ months West Virginia10 Wisconsin Wyoming
Responses to Survey Question 22: What maintenance/repairs are used by your agency to restore ride quality and how frequently must they be carried out? Part 2: Injection of expanded polyurethane underneath approach slab/pavement, frequency State and the District of Columbia Injection of expanded polyurethane underneath approach slab/pavement Frequency Alabama X Don't know Alaska1 X Rarely done Arkansas Colorado Connecticut2 D.C. Delaware X Occasionally Florida Hawaii Idaho X Rarely Illinois Indiana3 Iowa X Seldom but as necessary Kansas X As needed Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts4 Minnesota Mississippi X Missouri X As needed Montana5 X Nebraska X Often Nevada New Jersey New Mexico X North Carolina North Dakota X Only if other work is required Ohio6 X
Responses to Survey Question 22, Part 2 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Injection of expanded polyurethane underneath approach slab/pavement Frequency Oklahoma X Oregon X For approach slab (AS) jacking and filling void, not frequent about 1-2 times/year. Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina X Once South Dakota X Rarely Tennessee X Case-by-case basis Texas7 X Utah8 Vermont9 Washington West Virginia10 X 5 years Wisconsin X Wyoming X Rarely
Responses to Survey Question 22: What maintenance/repairs are used by your agency to restore ride quality and how frequently must they be carried out? Part 3: Replacement of approach slab/pavement, frequency State and the District of Columbia Replacement of approach slab/pavement Frequency Alabama X Don't know Alaska1 Arkansas Colorado Connecticut2 D.C. Delaware X If bad enough Florida Hawaii Idaho X Rarely Illinois Indiana3 X Rarely Iowa X As necessary Kansas X As needed Kentucky Louisiana X Varies. Often this is only conducted when more extensive rehabilitation of the bridge is being conducted, unless the ride quality constitutes an obvious safety hazard. Maine X As necessary Maryland Massachusetts4 Minnesota X 1-2 bridges per year Mississippi X Rarely Missouri X As needed Montana5 X Nebraska X Very often Nevada New Jersey New Mexico X North Carolina North Dakota
Responses to Survey Question 22, Part 3 Continued State and the District of Columbia Replacement of approach slab/pavement Frequency Ohio6 X Oklahoma X Oregon X Rarely, since it is very expensive and can disrupt traffic. Construction staging is required. It is typically avoided, unless the approach slab is in very poor condition. Pennsylvania X As needed and funds available Rhode Island X When needed South Carolina South Dakota X As needed Tennessee X Case-by-case basis Texas7 X Utah8 Vermont9 X Rarely Washington West Virginia10 X Unknown Wisconsin Wyoming X Frequent
Responses to Survey Question 22: What maintenance/repairs are used by your agency to restore ride quality and how frequently must they be carried out? Part 4: Other repair (please specify), frequency State and the District of Columbia Other repair (please specify) Frequency Alabama X Don't know Alaska1 Arkansas Colorado Replace asphalt overlay Every 2-3 years Connecticut2 D.C. Delaware Remove AS if bridge old enough and settlement anticipated to be complete Florida Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana3 Also cap out asphalt terminal joint with polymer modified asphalt Frequently when done with other work Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine As necessary Maryland Massachusetts4 See comment Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Asphalt wedging Montana5 Nebraska Asphalt overlay Nevada New Jersey Depends on type and extent of repairs New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota
Responses to Survey Question 22, Part 4 Continued State and the District of Columbia Other repair (please specify) Frequency Ohio6 In-house or contractor performed ride corrections by variable depth mill and finish Oklahoma Oregon Occasionally (not often) we grind approach slabs to restore grade Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Occasionally overlay AS Tennessee Texas7 Level with HMA Utah8 Vermont9 Washington West Virginia10 Additional asphalt wearing surface 2-3 years Wisconsin Mudjacking or asphalt wedges Wyoming 1Use foam injection to level a slab after a major earthquake. 2All 3 methods have been used, however, failure of approach slabs is not common. 3All new terminal joints are built to our new standard specifications. 4If a bump occurs the depression is filled with asphalt. 5Frequency as needed. 6Greatly depends on specific location and the district. 7Repairs are done on an as-needed basis. 8We do not generally put together projects to address ride. We do at times incorporate ride improvements as part of a project. I know in the past there has been polyurethane injection under the approach slab (void filling) but have not had much success as they usually re-settle over time. We now do deep soil injection which densifies the soil beneath, and lifts and densifies the soil at the same time, reducing the potential for future settlement. I know that hydraulic cement has been used in the past, but have no information on it. 9Very few. 10Only recently utilized expanded polyurethane underneath approach slab. Frequency yet to be determined.
Responses to Survey Question 23: What are the typical service lives of the three most common bridge approach systems used by your agency? End of service life is when repair or replacement is required exclusive of the joint seal. Please identify "other abutment type" in the comments box. If your agency primarily uses one or two system types, then you may leave the remaining answers blank. System #1: State and the District of Columbia Abutment type Approach slab/pavement type Expansion joint location Typical life in years until rehabilitation/replacement Alabama Semi-integral RC AS AS/RW Unknown Alaska Semi-integral RC AS AS/RW Life of AC roadway pavement (15 years) Arkansas Colorado Integral RC AS Both ends 7 to 10 Connecticut FH [full height], centerline (CL) RC AS AS/BD [bridge deck] Expected to remain until repave/replacement D.C. Delaware FH,CL RC AS AS/BD 25 years Florida Hawaii Semi-integral RC AS No joint 50 years Idaho Integral RC AS AS/RW 40 Illinois Indiana Integral RC AS AS/RW 25 years Iowa Integral RC AS AS/D [deck] 30 Kansas Integral RC AS 15 to 201 Kentucky Louisiana Stub RC AS Both 25-302 Maine Integral RC AS No JT [joint] 10 to 15 for wearing surface, 50 to 60 for deck slab repairs typical. Not needed for AS. Maryland Massachusetts FH, CL Flex PV [pavement] AS/BD 20 to 30 Minnesota Integral RC AS AS/RW Wide range 40-60 years Mississippi Semi-integral RC AS AS/BD 30 years Missouri Integral RC AS AS/RW 25 3
Responses to Survey Question 23: System #1: Continued State and the District of Columbia Abutment type Approach slab/pavement type Expansion joint location Typical life in years until rehabilitation/replacement Montana4 Nebraska Integral RC AS AS/RW 35 years Nevada New Jersey Stub RC AS AS/BD New Mexico Integral RC AS AS/BD 0 North Carolina Integral RC AS None Life of the structure North Dakota Integral RC AS AS/RW 20 years Ohio5 Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania6 Rhode Island FH,CL RC AS AS/BD 50-75 South Carolina Integral RC AS None No data available South Dakota Integral RC AS AS/RW Approximately 20 years Tennessee Integral RC AS AS/RW 10 Texas Stub RC AS AS/BD 7 Utah Integral RC AS AS/RW 8 Vermont Integral RC AS AS/RW 75 years Washington Semi-Integral RC AS AS/RW West Virginia Integral RC AS AS/RW 10 Wisconsin Wyoming
Responses to Survey Question 23: What are the typical service lives of the three most common bridge approach systems used by your agency? End of service life is when repair or replacement is required exclusive of the joint seal. Please identify "other abutment type" in the comments box. If your agency primarily uses one or two system types, then you may leave the remaining answers blank. System #2: State and the District of Columbia Abutment type Approach slab/pavement type Expansion joint location Typical life in years until rehabilitation/replacement Alabama Stub RC AS AS/BD Unknown Alaska MSE RC AS AS/RW Life of AC roadway pavement (15 years) Arkansas Colorado Semi-Integral RC AS Both ends 7 to 10 Connecticut Stub RC AS AS/BD Expected to remain until repave/replacement D.C. Delaware MSE RC AS AS/BD 25 years Florida Hawaii Int Flex PV 50 years Idaho Semi-Integral RC AS AS/RW 40 Illinois Indiana Semi-Integral RC AS AS/RW 25 years Iowa Stub RC AS AS/RW 30 Kansas Integral RC AS 15 to 201 Kentucky Louisiana Stub RC AS Both 25-302 Maine FH, CL RC AS Between AS&BD/ABT [abutment] 10 to 15 for wearing surface 50 to 60 for deck slab repairs typical. Not needed for AS 10 to 15 year joint replacement Maryland Massachusetts Integral Flex PV AS/BD 20 to 30 Minnesota Semi-Integral RC AS AS/RW Wide range 40-60 years Mississippi FH-CL RC AS AS/BD 30 years Missouri Integral Flex PV No JT 15 Montana4 Nebraska Semi-Integral RC AS AS/RW 35 years Nevada 3
Responses to Survey Question 23: System #2 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Abutment type Approach slab/pavement type Expansion joint location Typical life in years until rehabilitation/replacement New Jersey FH, CL RC AS AS/BD New Mexico Semi-Integral RC AS AS/BD 0 North Carolina Stub RC AS AS/BD Life of the structure North Dakota Ohio5 Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania6 Rhode Island FH,CL RC AS AS/BD 50-75 South Carolina Other abutment type RC AS AS/BD No data available South Dakota Semi-Integral RC AS AS/RW Approximately 20 years Tennessee FH, CL RC AS AS/RW 10 Texas Stub RC AS AS/RW 7 Utah Semi-Integral RC AS AS/RW 8 Vermont Semi-Integral RC AS AS/RW 75 years Washington MSE AS/BD West Virginia Semi-Integral RC AS AS/RW 15 years Wisconsin Wyoming
Responses to Survey Question 23: What are the typical service lives of the three most common bridge approach systems used by your agency? End of service life is when repair or replacement is required exclusive of the joint seal. Please identify "other abutment type" in the comments box. If your agency primarily uses one or two system types, then you may leave the remaining answers blank. System #3: State and the District of Columbia Abutment type Approach slab/pavement type Expansion joint location Typical life in years until rehabilitation/replacement Alabama Alaska FH-CL RC AS AS/BD 30 years Arkansas Colorado Stub RC AS Both ends 7 to 10 Connecticut Integral RC AS AS/BD Expected to remain until repave/replacement D.C. Delaware Stub RC AS AS/BD 25 years Florida Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana FHâspill-through RC AS AS/BD 10 years to replace bridge joint Iowa Semi-Integral RC AS AS/BD Relatively new - unknown estimated 30 years Kansas Integral RC AS 15 to 201 Kentucky Louisiana Stub RC AS Both 25-302 Maine Maryland Massachusetts Stub Flex PV AS/BD 20 to 303 Minnesota Stub RC AS AS/RW Wide range 40-60 years Mississippi FH-spill-through RC AS AS/BD 30 years Missouri Semi-Integral RC AS AS/RW 25 Montana4 Nebraska Stub RC AS Both ends 45 years
Responses to Survey Question 23: System #3 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Abutment type Approach slab/pavement type Expansion joint location Typical life in years until rehabilitation/replacement Nevada New Jersey Integral RC AS AS/BD New Mexico MSE RC AS AS/BD 0 North Carolina North Dakota Ohio5 Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania6 Rhode Island FH,CL RC AS AS/BD 50-75 South Carolina Semi-Integral RC AS AS/BD No data available South Dakota Tennessee Texas Stub Rigid PV AS/RW 7 Utah Stub RC AS AS/BD 8 Vermont FH-CL RC AS AS/BD 75 Washington Stub None West Virginia Stub Flex PV AS/BD 2-5 years Wisconsin Wyoming 1Expansion joint location would be at the end of our 13' panel as shown in the details attached. 2All other types of abutments are used so infrequently that we do not have the necessary data to answer this question. Also note that within the past 5 years or so, we have implemented a new approach slab design that is much more robust than the previous design. We expect the new design to last much longer before requiring rehab or replacement. 3Varies by joint type: saw cutâwhen repaving strip sealâ30 years asphaltic plugâ10 to 20 years. 4Joints fail early and often in Montana. There is no schedule for rehab or replacement. 5I will defer to the structure folks. 650 years for our preferred approach slabs. 7Varies. This is influenced by construction quality and weather events. 8We have no specific information to provide.
Responses to Survey Question 24: What issues do the most common bridge approach systems in your agency typically experience? Please indicate in the comments if there are differences in the issues experienced by Systems #1, #2, and #3. Part 1: State and the District of Columbia Poor ride quality (bump) between approach slab/pavement and abutment or bridge deck Poor ride quality across approach slab/pavement Poor ride quality between approach slab/pavement and main pavement Failed sealant in expansion joint Alabama Occasionally Rarely Often Rarely Alaska Rarely Rarely Occasionally Arkansas - - - - Colorado Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Connecticut Often Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally D.C. - - - - Delaware Often Occasionally Occasionally Often Florida - - - - Hawaii Rarely Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Idaho Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Illinois - - - - Indiana Occasionally Often Often Often Iowa Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Kansas Often Occasionally Occasionally Often Kentucky - - - - Louisiana Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Maine Rarely Rarely Rarely Often Maryland - - - - Massachusetts Rarely Rarely Rarely Often Minnesota Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Often Mississippi Occasionally Occasionally Often Often Missouri Often Occasionally Occasionally Montana Often Occasionally Often Often Nebraska Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Often Nevada Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Often
Responses to Survey Question 24: Part 1 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Poor ride quality (bump) between approach slab/pavement and abutment or bridge deck Poor ride quality across approach slab/pavement Poor ride quality between approach slab/pavement and main pavement Failed sealant in expansion joint New Jersey Rarely Rarely Rarely Occasionally New Mexico Often Often Occasionally Often North Carolina Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Occasionally North Dakota Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Ohio Often Often Oklahoma Often Often Oregon Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Often Pennsylvania Rarely Rarely Often Often Rhode Island Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Often South Carolina Rarely Rarely Occasionally Occasionally South Dakota Occasionally Occasionally Often Often Tennessee Occasionally Rarely Often Rarely Texas Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Often Utah Often Occasionally Often Often Vermont Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Washington Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally West Virginia Rarely Rarely Often Occasionally Wisconsin Often Rarely Occasionally Rarely Wyoming Occasionally Often Often Often
Responses to Survey Question 24: What issues do the most common bridge approach systems in your agency typically experience? Please indicate in the comments if there are differences in the issues experienced by Systems #1, #2, and #3. Part 2: State and the District of Columbia Failed sealant in other joints between approach slab/pavement and traffic barrier, wingwalls, etc. Transverse cracking in approach slab/pavement Longitudinal cracking in approach slab/pavement Alabama Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Alaska Arkansas - - - Colorado Rarely Rarely Rarely Connecticut Never Never D.C. - - - Delaware Rarely Occasionally Rarely Florida - - - Hawaii Rarely Rarely Rarely Idaho Occasionally Rarely Rarely Illinois - - - Indiana Occasionally Rarely Rarely Iowa Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Kansas Rarely Often Rarely Kentucky - - - Louisiana Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Maine Often Rarely Rarely Maryland - - - Massachusetts Occasionally Occasionally Minnesota Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Mississippi Occasionally Rarely Rarely Missouri Occasionally Rarely Rarely Montana Often Rarely Rarely Nebraska Occasionally Rarely Often Nevada Often Rarely Rarely New Jersey Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally
Responses to Survey Question 24: Part 2 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Failed sealant in other joints between approach slab/pavement and traffic barrier, wingwalls, etc. Transverse cracking in approach slab/pavement Longitudinal cracking in approach slab/pavement New Mexico Often Rarely Rarely North Carolina Rarely Rarely Rarely North Dakota Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Ohio Oklahoma Often Oregon Often Occasionally Occasionally Pennsylvania Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Rhode Island Occasionally Rarely Rarely South Carolina Occasionally Rarely Rarely South Dakota Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Tennessee Occasionally Rarely Rarely Texas Often Rarely Rarely Utah Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Vermont Rarely Rarely Rarely Washington Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally West Virginia Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Wisconsin Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Wyoming Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally
Responses to Survey Question 24: What issues do the most common bridge approach systems in your agency typically experience? Please indicate in the comments if there are differences in the issues experienced by Systems #1, #2, and #3. Part 3: State and the District of Columbia Failed paving notch or seat at abutment (paving notch or seat refers to the structure supporting the approach at the abutment) Erosion of backfill material underneath approach slab/roadway Blockage of subdrain pipe Drainage infiltration into fills and subsoils Alabama Rarely Occasionally Rarely Rarely Alaska Arkansas - - - - Colorado Rarely Occasionally Rarely Rarely Connecticut Never Never Occasionally D.C. - - - - Delaware Rarely Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Florida - - - - Hawaii Rarely Rarely Rarely Rarely Idaho Rarely Rarely Occasionally Rarely Illinois - - - - Indiana Rarely Occasionally Rarely Often Iowa Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Rarely Kansas Rarely Often Occasionally Often Kentucky - - - - Louisiana Rarely Often Occasionally Often Maine Occasionally Rarely Rarely Occasionally Maryland - - - - Massachusetts Rarely Rarely Rarely Rarely Minnesota Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Mississippi Rarely Often Occasionally Often Missouri Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Montana Rarely Occasionally Often Occasionally Nebraska Rarely Often Rarely Occasionally Nevada Rarely Occasionally Rarely Occasionally New Jersey Rarely Rarely Rarely Rarely New Mexico Rarely Often
Responses to Survey Question 24: Part 3 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Failed paving notch or seat at abutment (paving notch or seat refers to the structure supporting the approach at the abutment) Erosion of backfill material underneath approach slab/roadway Blockage of subdrain pipe Drainage infiltration into fills and subsoils North Carolina Rarely Occasionally Rarely Rarely North Dakota Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Ohio Occasionally Oklahoma Often Oregon Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Pennsylvania Rarely Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Rhode Island Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally South Carolina Rarely Occasionally Rarely Rarely South Dakota Rarely Occasionally Often Occasionally Tennessee Rarely Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Texas Rarely Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Utah Rarely Occasionally Rarely Often Vermont Rarely Rarely Rarely Washington Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally West Virginia Rarely Often Occasionally Rarely Wisconsin Rarely Often Rarely Often Wyoming Occasionally Rarely Rarely Often
Responses to Survey Question 25: What practices are typically used by your agency to mitigate or prevent issues with bridge approach systems? Please add any additional experiences and comments that you would like to share with researchers and other agencies related to problems with approach slab design and solutions to those problems including experimental or proposed solutions that are not part of current standards. Part 1: State and the District of Columbia Poor ride quality (bump) between approach slab/pavement and abutment or bridge deck Poor ride quality across approach slab/pavement Poor ride quality between approach slab/pavement and main pavement Failed sealant in expansion joint Alabama Alaska Sometimes protect strip seals with steel cover plates. Arkansas Colorado We use 3" asphalt overlay placed on BD & AS. Mill and fill asphalt overlay on deck and AS We use 3" asphalt overlay on AS matched with main PV. Replace it [with] new joint sealant. Connecticut D.C. Delaware Wedge pave across AS or subgrade injection NA Wedge pave Replace seal Florida Hawaii Idaho Grinding or jacking Grinding or jacking Grinding or jacking Replacement Illinois Indiana Updated subgrade and subbases used at these locations Updated expansion joints used, now using precompressed foam joints when possible. Iowa Milling and filling with HMA Replacement or pressure injection Replacement or milling and filling with HMA Replacement with bonded compression seal Kansas Tied AS to abutment, sleeper slab Injection Injection Replace with easily maintained material Kentucky
Responses to Survey Question 25: Part 1 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Poor ride quality (bump) between approach slab/pavement and abutment or bridge deck Poor ride quality across approach slab/pavement Poor ride quality between approach slab/pavement and main pavement Failed sealant in expansion joint Louisiana We have thickened our new approach slab design, and designed it as a simply supported span capable of carrying newer, heavier truck loads. This will prevent approach slab failure which we have seen extensively in the old approach slab design. Our new design added a larger sleeper slab at the roadway end of the approach slab, as well as a layered geotextile fabric system intended to create a block of soil interaction which will spread the sleeper slab loads out into the embankment. This will stabilize the end of the approach slab and create a smoother transition from the roadway. Maine Bituminous pavement treatments N/AâMaine DOT uses buried approach slab system with granular borrow and bituminous pavement to abutment backwall. N/AâMaine DOT uses buried approach slab system with granular borrow and bituminous pavement to abutment backwall. Maryland Massachusetts Use buried approach slab Because we use buried approach slabs, this is a pavement issue so repaving is done. NAâ the approach pavement is the main pavement and it extends to the bridge since we use buried approach slabs. Replace sealant or joint depending on severity Minnesota Thin bituminous overlay added to approach panel Thin bit overlay or panel replacement Thin bit overlay Replacement of expansion joint compression seal Mississippi Fill with asphalt Fill with asphalt None Replace joint seal Missouri Mudjacking or asphalt wedging Overlay Overlay NA Montana Nebraska Piling under the sleeper slab Second mat of steel in the paving section Load transfer dowel No solution Nevada Replacement New Jersey Repave it Local repair/repave it Local repair Replace sealant New Mexico Slab jacking Pavement grinding Replacement
Responses to Survey Question 25: Part 1 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Poor ride quality (bump) between approach slab/pavement and abutment or bridge deck Poor ride quality across approach slab/pavement Poor ride quality between approach slab/pavement and main pavement Failed sealant in expansion joint North Carolina Construction inspection Construction inspection Construction inspection Routine joint replacement North Dakota Lift with foam Replace seal Ohio Oklahoma Mudjack, foam jack, or replacement Replace seal Oregon Joint repair Overlay Approach slab/pavement repair Joint repair Pennsylvania NA Repair at construction Patch filling, concrete fill underneath Replace gland, replace joint Rhode Island Grind or replace or add a layer of asphalt Add a layer of asphalt or replace Grind and add a layer of asphalt Replace South Carolina No specified plan No specified plan Rehab pavement at end of approach slab Replace sealant South Dakota Construction inspection Construction inspection Construction inspection Tennessee Mill and repave roadway Typically not an issue Mill and repave roadway Repair/replace Texas Utah Most common mitigation practice is asphalt fill to even out riding surface. We are experimenting with polyester concrete for this application adjacent to PCCP. Replace sealant with compression type joint seal Vermont Washington Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally West Virginia Reinforced soil mass backfill with geotextile layers None Reinforced concrete sleeper slab at end of approach slab None Wisconsin Wyoming
Responses to Survey Question 25: What practices are typically used by your agency to mitigate or prevent issues with bridge approach systems? Please add any additional experiences and comments that you would like to share with researchers and other agencies related to problems with approach slab design and solutions to those problems including experimental or proposed solutions that are not part of current standards. Part 2: State and the District of Columbia Failed sealant in other joints between approach slab/pavement and traffic barrier, wingwalls, etc. Transverse cracking in approach slab/pavement Longitudinal cracking in approach slab/pavement Failed paving notch or seat at abutment (paving notch or seat refers to the structure supporting the approach at the abutment) Alabama Alaska Arkansas Colorado Replace it [with] new joint sealant. Grout cracks with epoxy grout material Grout cracks with epoxy grout material Repair by replacing damaged notch or seat at the abutment with new concrete. Connecticut D.C. Delaware Replace seal Concrete crack sealer NA NA Florida Hawaii Idaho Maintenance such as resealing Sealant or epoxy overlay Sealant Illinois Indiana We have two mats of rebar in our approach slabs, cracking is not a big issue here. Iowa Re-sealing Panel replacement if severe Panel replacement if severe Paving notch replacement or backwall replacement depending on details Kansas Replace with easily maintained material. Seal them Seal them One time experience and it was a major repair. Kentucky Louisiana Thicker/more robust sleeper slab capable of carrying heavier truck loads Maine Maryland
Responses to Survey Question 25: Part 2 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Failed sealant in other joints between approach slab/pavement and traffic barrier, wingwalls, etc. Transverse cracking in approach slab/pavement Longitudinal cracking in approach slab/pavement Failed paving notch or seat at abutment (paving notch or seat refers to the structure supporting the approach at the abutment) Massachusetts NA Because we use buried approach slabs, this is a pavement issue so repaving is done. Because we use buried approach slabs, this is a pavement issue so repaving is done. NA Minnesota None Replace panel if cracking is severe, otherwise crack seal. Replace panel if cracking is severe, otherwise crack seal. Replace end 5' of panel and paving notch. Mississippi None Seal concrete Seal concrete Remove and replace Missouri Replace seal with silicone or asphalt Overlay Overlay Montana Nebraska No solution NA Working on it NA Nevada Replacement Crack sealant New Jersey Replace sealant Seal with epoxy concrete Seal with epoxy concrete New Mexico Replacement Not sure Not sure Not sure North Carolina NA Approach slab design/biennial inspections Approach slab design/biennial inspections Abutment design North Dakota Replace sealant Replace slab and repair notch Ohio Oklahoma Replace seal Flood coat Flood coat Oregon Joint repair Crack seal Crack seal Seat repair Pennsylvania Concrete patching High molecular weight methacrylate occasionally High molecular weight methacrylate occasionally NA Rhode Island Replace Seal cracks Seal cracks Additional asphalt South Carolina Replace sealant No problems noted No problems noted No problems noted South Dakota Increase reinforcement Increase reinforcement Tennessee Repair/replace Typically not an issue Typically not an issue Typically not an issue Texas Utah Vermont Washington Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally West Virginia None None None None Wisconsin Wyoming
Responses to Survey Question 25: What practices are typically used by your agency to mitigate or prevent issues with bridge approach systems? Please add any additional experiences and comments that you would like to share with researchers and other agencies related to problems with approach slab design and solutions to those problems including experimental or proposed solutions that are not part of current standards. Part 3: State and the District of Columbia Erosion of backfill material underneath approach slab/roadway Blockage of subdrainpipe Drainage infiltration into fills and subsoils Differential settlement Alabama Alaska Special structural fill placed for 50 ft from the abutments - 98% compaction Arkansas Colorado Open voids and use flowfill or short crete to grout voids Replace the pipe Replace the filter Replace new concrete slab and backfill material Connecticut D.C. Delaware Flowable fill NA NA NA Florida Hawaii Idaho Flowable fill Maintenance Illinois Indiana Iowa Typically nothing unless severe - then replacement of approach and repair of fill. Typically nothing due to unknown. Fill behind the abutment is granular draining with a subdrain. Subdrain has redundancy with two outlets. Approach replacement Kansas Grading, drainage improvements Major repair Major rehab, replace abutment drainage system Injection Kentucky Louisiana Same response as the "poor ride quality between AS/PV and main pavement.â Maine Maryland Massachusetts NA NA NA Patch depressions with asphalt Minnesota Slab jack, fix drainage issue None None Slab jack or panel replacement
Responses to Survey Question 25: Part 3 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Erosion of backfill material underneath approach slab/roadway Blockage of subdrainpipe Drainage infiltration into fills and subsoils Differential settlement Mississippi flowable fill None None Flowable fill or expandable foam Missouri Flowable fill or removal and backfill Unknown Unknown Unknown Montana Nebraska Good drainage details Rapped with filler fabric Nevada Replace fill New Jersey New Mexico Generally, nothing unless warranted. Typically erosion will occur at bridge with the steepest spill-through slopes and are hard to access. NA NA North Carolina Backfill construction inspection/biennial inspections Backfill construction inspection Backfill construction inspection Backfill construction inspection North Dakota Ohio1 Oklahoma Flowable fill Oregon Grout or foam injection Drainage curb or joint repair Re-paving using flexible pavement, foam injection or overlay Pennsylvania Patch filling, concrete fill underneath NA NA Patch filling, concrete fill underneath Rhode Island Add backfill materials & resurface with layer of concrete or asphalt PV. Clean Use flowable fill to close gaps. Replace or any of the above South Carolina It depends on severity. From removal and replacement of approach slab and fill to backfilling void with flowable fill. No problems noted. No specified plan No specified plan South Dakota Additional drains Stronger drainpipe/increased maintenance Drainage filter fabric Proper compaction
Responses to Survey Question 25: Part 3 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Erosion of backfill material underneath approach slab/roadway Blockage of subdrainpipe Drainage infiltration into fills and subsoils Differential settlement Tennessee Consider mudjacking, compaction grouting, or foam injection. Typically not an issue Typically not an issue Consider mudjacking, compaction grouting, or foam injection. Texas Utah Soil injection or remove and replace approach slab Vermont Washington Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally West Virginia Reinforced soil mass backfill with geotextile layers None None Reinforced soil mass backfill with geotextile layers Wisconsin Wyoming 1Ride quality issues are more frequently addressed by analyzing project level inertial profiles and then developing a detailed specialized plan specific to a specific end of a given bridge. They generally are characterized by identifying where to cut new butt joints, how much material to variable depth mill such that a uniform course say 2" of AC can be placed to level things out. Sometimes a scratch course is required in addition.
Responses to Survey Question 26: Has your agency made any significant changes to the following items within the last 15 years to address issues with the bridge approach system? (If so, we would be interested in following up for more information.) State Abutment type Abutment foundation type Backfill material and/or properties Approach slab design Expansion joint design Joint maintenance Water runoff collection and release Monitoring of ride quality Alabama - Alaska1 X Arkansas Colorado2 X Connecticut Delaware3 X X X Florida Hawaii Idaho4 X Illinois Indiana5 X X X X X Iowa6 X X Kansas7 X X X Kentucky Louisiana X Maine Maryland Massachusetts8 - Minnesota9 Mississippi X X X X X Missouri10 X X Montana11 X X Nebraska X X X Nevada New Jersey12 X New Mexico X X North Carolina X North Dakota13 X
Responses to Survey Question 26 Continued: State Abutment type Abutment foundation type Backfill material and/or properties Approach slab design Expansion joint design Joint maintenance Water runoff collection and release Monitoring of ride quality Ohio X Oklahoma Oregon14 X X Pennsylvania X X X Rhode Island15 X X South Carolina X X X X X South Dakota X X Tennessee X X Texas16 X Utah Vermont X X X X Washington X West Virginia17 X X X Wisconsin Wyoming18 X X 1Mandated approach slab use for most bridges. 2We have used polyester concrete at modular joint's end dams for quicker construction. We are researching using a flexible joint to replace 0-4" strip seal joint. 3Our current preference is to move the expansion joint from the end of the deck to the end of the approach slab. Also, we have moved more toward semi-integral abutments. 4Move more towards the Jeene joints for compression seals. 5We have continued to expand our limits for using integral and semi-integral bents. We have also made significant changes to our terminal joint details. 6Added semi-integral abutments to our working standards. For short span bridges with movable abutments added a tied approach slab with a sleeper. 7For most bridges KDOT went from the Abutment Strip Drain details to the Abutment Aggregate Drain details. Incorporated sleeper slabs into the design of the approach slab (see details). Changed type of expansion joints. 8The last major change was in 1999 when we extended the deck cantilever beyond the backwall, encased the beams in an end diaphragm, and placed any joint behind the backwall. 9Mounting barriers directly to the top of the approach panel (instead of on top of parallel wingwalls) has significantly reduced performance issues and improved drainage. 10We had a research project where the primary goal was to reduce costs of the approach slab. Some of the other issues typical of approach systems were considered by the researchers, but not pursued. As a result of the research we now have a typical approach slab for major routes and a typical slab for minor routes.
For the minor route type the reinforcement is about half of what is in the major route. The sleeper slab is also eliminated. For the minor route type, the contractor has the option of using an asphalt pavement with the same depth and length as the reinforced concrete option. The minor route type also has different details for water collection. As part of this research, it was decided the length of the approach slab could be reduced from 25 ft to 20 ft. To date I am unaware of any loss of performance by having a less robust type for minor routes or from changing the approach slab length. 11Reduced the use of nonintegral rigid approach slabs and created special design for bridge approach fill and pavement subgrade. 12Using 2 1/2" strip seal joint. 13Some of our approach slabs are supported on pile. 14We have promoted use of integral abutments and provided more details on backfill material placement and improved backfill material specifications. 15Carrying bridge deck behind backwall detail. Using IRI/scarification of deck concrete surface. 16Added the use of cement-stabilized backfill. 17Within the last 5 years, we have modified approach slab to roadway transition to include sleeper slab and joint. Within last 3 years, we have begun requiring reinforced soil mass backfills behind the abutments on our larger bridges. Will know more about how these are performing as time goes on. 18Completed research project with University of Wyoming: Investigation of Approach Slab and Its Settlement for Roads and Bridges, FHWA 15/01F.
Abbreviations and acronyms used without de nitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACIâNA Airports Council InternationalâNorth America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing Americaâs Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation
Practices for Bridge A pproach System s N CH RP Synthesis 566 TRB TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED ISBN 978-0-309-67406-5 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 6 7 4 0 6 5 9 0 0 0 0
