The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 196-275

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 196... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-1 A P P E N D I X B Survey Response Data 1. Considering the provided definitions, how does your agency define the end of service life for its bridges? Read the entire page →
From page 197... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-2 New Mexico Level of deterioration Connecticut Level of deterioration Montana Level of deterioration Idaho Level of deterioration Utah Level of deterioration Illinois Cost-benefit study on repair/rehabilitation vs. replacement Alaska Cost-benefit study on repair/rehabilitation vs. Read the entire page →
From page 198... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-3 2. Rank the following environmental factors in the order your agency considers to have the most significant impact on bridge service life. Read the entire page →
From page 199... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-4 3. Rank the following design factors in the order your agency considers to be of the most significant impact on bridge service life. Read the entire page →
From page 200... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-5 State/Agency Response Span length Joints / structural continuity Superstructure type Deck type (e.g., grid, concrete, orthotropic) Deck type (e.g., noncomposite vs composite deck) Read the entire page →
From page 201... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-6 4. Rank the following loading factors in the order your agency considers to be of the most significant impact on bridge service life. Read the entire page →
From page 202... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-7 5. Rank the following owner actions in the order your agency considers to be of the most significant impact on bridge service life. Read the entire page →
From page 203... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-8 State/Agency Response Selection of Materials Applicati on of deicing salts on bridge Application of deicing salts below bridge Type of deicing salts applied Frequency with which deicing salts applied Frequency of maintenance Frequency of cleaning Load permitting Bridge preservation activities Other Comments Oklahoma 6 2 3 9 1 4 8 5 7 10 Arizona 6 1 9 7 2 3 4 8 5 Alabama 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Maine 1 5 6 7 8 3 4 9 2 10 Minnesota 1 2 4 6 5 3 deck rebar type and concrete cover Kentucky 5 1 4 3 2 8 9 7 6 North Dakota 4 1 5 6 2 3 9 8 7 California 2 4 5 7 6 3 9 8 1 Massachusetts 9 1 2 4 3 5 7 8 6 10 New Mexico 9 1 8 4 2 5 3 6 7 10 Connecticut 9 1 5 4 2 3 8 7 6 10 Montana 9 2 7 4 3 6 5 8 1 10 Idaho 8 1 7 6 2 5 9 3 4 10 Utah 1 5 9 4 8 2 3 7 6 Illinois 9 5 8 3 2 1 4 7 6 10 Alaska 3 2 4 1 Initial construction quality Indiana 9 1 2 3 4 6 5 8 7 10 New Jersey 1 2 7 8 4 3 9 6 5 Michigan 7 1 2 4 3 6 8 9 5 10 Oregon 4 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 1 10 Read the entire page →
From page 204... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-9 6. What is the average age (years) Read the entire page →
From page 205... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-10 7. Does your agency observe different durability problems depending on the environments (e.g., location, climate) Read the entire page →
From page 206... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-11 7b. Please explain the types of environment dependent durability problems State/Agency Response Maryland State Highway Administration Bridges in our eastern shore region have problems associated with salt and brackish water. Read the entire page →
From page 207... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-12 State/Agency Response Iowa DOT Continuous exposure of weathering steel to moisture or occasional splash of deicing chemicals is harmful to the development of the protective patina. Painted steel may perform differently depending on girder position and exposure. Read the entire page →
From page 208... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-13 8. Based on the provided definitions above, what should be the target service life for each of the following service life categories of highway bridges? Read the entire page →
From page 209... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-14 State/Agency Response Normal service life (i.e., typical highway bridges) Enhanced service life Maximum service life (i.e., maximum achievable under current design standards and utilizing current materials) Read the entire page →
From page 210... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-15 9. Based on the provided definitions above, what should be the target service life for the following replaceable bridge components? Read the entire page →
From page 211... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-16 State/Agency Response Replaceable components Joints Bearings Deck Paint Parapet New Hampshire 20 40 60 20 60 North Carolina N/A 5 - 25 based on joint type 40 full design life given preservation 25 - 30 full design life Mississippi 15 10 25 25 20 50 Oklahoma 25 75 40 40 Arizona 15 25 50 25 25 25 Alabama 20 35 40 65 25 70 Maine 8 - 10 40 40 or more 50 30 40 or more Minnesota 25 60 60 20 60 Kentucky North Dakota 10 20 75 40 25 40 California 75 15 - 30 75 75 Marine 15, Other 25 75 Massachusetts 15 20 50 30 20 75 New Mexico 15 20 30 30 25 30 Connecticut Montana 30 50 75 75 60 75 Idaho Utah Illinois 40 10 30 50 20 50 Alaska 20 35 35 Indiana 5 30 45 15 30 New Jersey 30 60 100 60 35 60 Michigan 10 - 15 50 - 75 50 - 75 30 - 40 20 - 30 Oregon 20 20 40 50 40 40 Read the entire page →
From page 212... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-17 10. Rank the following bridge components in the order of most frequently repaired/replaced by your agency (1 = most frequent; 8 = least frequent) Read the entire page →
From page 213... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-18 State/Agency Response Deck (including parapet/railing) Parapet/railing (excluding deck, except as minimally necessary to replace parapet/railing) Read the entire page →
From page 214... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-19 11. What are the most common durability problems experienced by your agency in relation to concrete superstructure girders, beams, truss members, etc.? Read the entire page →
From page 215... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-20 Michigan Corrosion of reinforcement, freeze-thaw attack, AAR, impact damage and fire damage Oregon Corrosion of reinforcement, poor detailing and impact damage Read the entire page →
From page 216... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-21 12. What are the most common durability problems experienced by your agency in relation to concrete piers, walls, and abutments? Read the entire page →
From page 217... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-22 13. What are the most common durability problems experienced by your agency in relation to concrete foundations? Read the entire page →
From page 218... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-23 14. What are the most common durability problems experienced by your agency in relation to concrete bridge decks? Read the entire page →
From page 219... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-24 15. What are the most common durability problems experienced by your agency in relation to steel superstructure girders, beams, truss members, etc.? Read the entire page →
From page 220... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-25 16. What is the most common durability problem experienced by your agency in relation to steel foundation piles, shaft casings, etc.? Read the entire page →
From page 221... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-26 17. What is the most common durability problem experienced by your agency in relation to MSE and geosynthetics? Read the entire page →
From page 222... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-27 State/Agency Response Pennsylvania Department of Transportation NoneFor the vast majority of installations, MSE walls have performed well. A couple of exceptions:1. Read the entire page →
From page 223... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-28 18. What is the most common durability problem of joints experienced by your agency? Read the entire page →
From page 224... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-29 State/Agency Response Connecticut Department of Transportation Leakage, Material failure, Damage SDDOT Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage NJDOT Leakage, Debris in joints, Material failure, Damage, Misalignment of finger joints Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Leakage, Debris in joints Read the entire page →
From page 225... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-30 19. What is the most common durability problem of bearings experienced by your agency? Read the entire page →
From page 226... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-31 State/Agency Response Caltrans Material failure of elastomeric bearing material Alaska DOT&PF We don't typically have durability problems with bearings; however, we have had 4 or 5 bridges where the bearing anchor bolts have sheared off due to long-term ground movement. Connecticut Department of Transportation Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Steel corrosion SDDOT Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Steel corrosion NJDOT Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion, Material failure Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Deterioration due to leaking joints above bearings, Freezing and/or locking, Steel corrosion Read the entire page →
From page 227... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-32 20. For the bridge components listed below, please provide initial design strategies (e.g., specific material, detail) Read the entire page →
From page 228... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-33 State/Agency Response NCDOT For Pre-stressed Concrete members (i.e. girders, cored slab units, box beam units) Read the entire page →
From page 229... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-34 20. For the bridge components listed below, please provide initial design strategies (e.g., specific material, detail) Read the entire page →
From page 230... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-35 State/Agency Response NCDOT For piers and abutments located in corrosive sites, calcium nitrite inhibitor is added to the concrete. For piers and abutments that may undergo repeated wetting and drying cycles due to tidal fluctuations, 5% of the Portland cement is replaced with silica fume. Read the entire page →
From page 231... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-36 20. For the bridge components listed below, please provide initial design strategies (e.g., specific material, detail) Read the entire page →
From page 232... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-37 Illinois Dept. of Transportation Concrete encasement to at least 2.5 feet below ground to a level of reduced oxygen/corrosion. Read the entire page →
From page 233... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-38 20. For the bridge components listed below, please provide initial design strategies (e.g., specific material, detail) Read the entire page →
From page 234... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-39 NCDOT Bridge decks in noncorrosive sites, epoxy coated reinforcing steel is detailed in the top mat. For bridge decks in corrosive sites, detail epoxy coated steel for all reinforcement. Read the entire page →
From page 235... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-40 20. For the bridge components listed below, please provide initial design strategies (e.g., specific material, detail) Read the entire page →
From page 236... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-41 State/Agency Response Caltrans Good communication between the designer/Str.Const. Rep and contractor to ensure that mild reinforcement ties the joint into the superstructure. Read the entire page →
From page 237... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-42 20. For the bridge components listed below, please provide initial design strategies (e.g., specific material, detail) Read the entire page →
From page 238... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-43 Alaska DOT&PF Attempt to use elastomeric bearing pads whenever feasible. Connecticut Department of Transportation Elastomeric SDDOT NJDOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Nothing specific Read the entire page →
From page 239... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-44 21. For the bridge components listed below, please provide any design strategies that your agency has used in the past but no longer uses to achieve and/or increase the service life. Read the entire page →
From page 240... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-45 State/Agency Response Caltrans none Alaska DOT&PF We have some weathering steel superstructures that never formed the proper patina, and we eventually had to paint them. We will probably limit the use of weathering steel in the future to very dry climates. Read the entire page →
From page 241... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-46 21. For the bridge components listed below, please provide any design strategies that your agency has used in the past but no longer uses to achieve and/or increase the service life. Read the entire page →
From page 242... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-47 21. For the bridge components listed below, please provide any design strategies that your agency has used in the past but no longer uses to achieve and/or increase the service life. Read the entire page →
From page 243... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-48 21. For the bridge components listed below, please provide any design strategies that your agency has used in the past but no longer uses to achieve and/or increase the service life. Read the entire page →
From page 244... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-49 21. For the bridge components listed below, please provide any design strategies that your agency has used in the past but no longer uses to achieve and/or increase the service life. Read the entire page →
From page 245... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-50 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation N/A Read the entire page →
From page 246... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-51 21. For the bridge components listed below, please provide any design strategies that your agency has used in the past but no longer uses to achieve and/or increase the service life. Read the entire page →
From page 247... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-52 22. Which of the following requirements related to the reduction of corrosion in bridge decks does your agency have? Read the entire page →
From page 248... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-53 State/Agency Response Montana Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar, Use top and bottom mats of stainless clad rebar, Use top and bottom mats of corrosion resistant alloy rebar Idaho Use top mat of coated rebar Utah Use empirical deck reinforcing to reduce steel in top mat, Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar, Use top and bottom mats of stainless steel rebar Illinois Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar Alaska Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar, Waterproofing membrane between deck surface and AC wearing course Indiana No requirements for reinforcing in bridge decks New Jersey Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar Michigan Use empirical deck reinforcing to reduce steel in top mat, Use top and bottom mats of coated rebar, Use top and bottom mats of stainless clad rebar Oregon Use top and bottom mats of non-ferrous rebar, Use top and bottom mats of corrosion resistant alloy rebar Read the entire page →
From page 249... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-54 23. Does your agency allow the use of galvanized reinforcing bars in the construction of concrete deck slabs and concrete barriers? Read the entire page →
From page 250... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-55 24. What measures are recommended by your agency for the protection of driven piles? Read the entire page →
From page 251... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-56 Kentucky North Dakota Nothing Arizona Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles California Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles, Increased cover to reinforcing in P/S piles New Mexico Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles Montana Connecticut Corrosion protective coating for steel piling, Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles, Cathodic protection for steel or P/S concrete piles Idaho Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles Massachusetts Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles Utah Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles Illinois Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles Alaska Corrosion protective coating for steel piling, Cathodic protection for steel or P/S concrete piles Indiana Corrosion protective coating for steel piling New Jersey Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles Michigan Oregon Corrosion protective coating for steel piling, Over-dimensioning piles for steel piles Read the entire page →
From page 252... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-57 25. Does your agency account for the type and severity of environment as part of the bridge design phase? Read the entire page →
From page 253... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-58 25b. Please explain such environment related design strategies. Read the entire page →
From page 254... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-59 State/Agency Response NMDOT In higher elevations where moisture is greater, road salts are heavily used and/or freeze-thaw cycles are high, we consider using corrosion resistant rebar; epoxy overlays to protect the deck; thicker bridge deck (sacrificial) , more deck drains to get water/salts off quicker, details to prevent superstructure and substructure elements from getting wet or contaminated (drip grooves, pier and abutment caps narrower than bridge deck, etc.) Read the entire page →
From page 255... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-60 26. In the marine environment or other corrosion-prone environment, what material does your agency recommend for use in primary superstructure members? Read the entire page →
From page 256... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-61 State/Agency Response Kentucky Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands North Dakota None California Caltrans does not recommend a particular superstructure type in a marine environment, but does require corrosion mitigation measures. Increased cover, lower W/C-ratio, epoxy coated rebar, use of supplemental entry materials for concrete structures and sacrificial thickness for steel Massachusetts Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands, Metallized A709/A992 non-weathering grade steel, Galvanized A709/A992 nonweathering grade steel New Mexico Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands, corrosion resistant rebar for stirrups in pre-stressed girders Montana Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands Connecticut Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands, Metallized A709/A992 non-weathering grade steel, Galvanized A709/A992 nonweathering grade steel Idaho Epoxy coated reinforcement in decks Utah Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands, A709 painted Illinois Metallized A709/A992 non-weathering grade steel, Galvanized A709/A992 non-weathering grade steel Alaska Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands Indiana do not have marine environment New Jersey Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon steel strands Michigan Pre-stressed concrete beam with stainless steel strands, Pre-stressed concrete beam with carbon fiber strands, Stainless steel (A1010) Read the entire page →
From page 257... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-62 27. In marine environments, or other corrosion-prone environments, what type of reinforcement does your agency recommend for use in substructures? Read the entire page →
From page 258... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-63 State/Agency Response Utah Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Galvanized A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Stainless reinforcing steel Illinois Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel Alaska Uncoated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel Indiana Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel New Jersey Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Galvanized A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Stainless reinforcing steel Michigan Epoxy coated A615 or A706 reinforcing steel, Stainless reinforcing steel Oregon Stainless reinforcing steel, Other Fiber Reinforced Polymer reinforcement (e.g., aramid, glass, basalt) Read the entire page →
From page 259... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-64 28. What type of specifications does your agency use when designing for durability? Read the entire page →
From page 260... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-65 State/Agency Response Comments Massachusetts N/A New Mexico N/A Connecticut Agency specific, prescriptive specifications Montana N/A Idaho Agency specific, prescriptive specifications Utah N/A Illinois N/A Alaska Combination Indiana N/A New Jersey Combination Michigan N/A Oregon Agency specific, prescriptive specifications Read the entire page →
From page 261... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-66 29. Has your agency used a formalized service life design process? Read the entire page →
From page 262... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-67 30. Are there any design provisions related to durability or service life not currently required in Standards used by your agency that you believe should be implemented? Read the entire page →
From page 263... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-68 30b. Please list the design provisions you propose. Read the entire page →
From page 264... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-69 State/Agency Response Pennsylvania Department of Transportation See responses to question 20b and 20d. Also, from NCHRP SHRP2 100 year service life project, if would be helpful to quantify the required chloride migration coefficient threshold for different concrete applications (decks, barriers, substructures, ps beams, etc.) Read the entire page →
From page 265... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-70 31. Has your agency experienced issues resulting in reduced durability which could have been avoided if AASHTO or State design specifications included additional durability design requirements? Read the entire page →
From page 266... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-71 State/Agency Response Comments Connecticut Montana No Idaho No Utah Illinois No Alaska No Indiana No New Jersey No Michigan No Oregon No Read the entire page →
From page 267... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-72 32. What durability related practices should be avoided in new designs, based on your experiences? Read the entire page →
From page 268... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-73 State/Agency Response NCDOT N/A WYDOT NMDOT No deck joints. If there are deck joints, protect the girder ends and the bearings from locking up. Read the entire page →
From page 269... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-74 33. What durability related practices should be encouraged in new designs, based on your experiences? Read the entire page →
From page 270... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-75 State/Agency Response NYSDOT Use of deck joints except where it is unavoidable. Texas DOT Use HPC (include supplementary cementitious materials) Read the entire page →
From page 271... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-76 34. In making decisions regarding extending the service life of existing bridges, what information is gathered to determine what components should be salvaged and/or repaired? Read the entire page →
From page 272... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-77 State/Agency Response NMDOT Determine load carrying capacity of existing girders, analysis of substructure components under current code to determine if they can be reused or have to be strengthened or replaced; field inspection and assessment of bridge components and their condition, scour analysis to determine if bridge is stable or if scour countermeasures will be needed, traffic capacity analysis. Illinois Dept. Read the entire page →
From page 273... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-78 35. In your opinion, has your agency collected sufficient element level data that would be useful in developing deterioration models? Read the entire page →
From page 274... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-79 36. Does your agency have any current or past research projects related to bridge durability and service life? Read the entire page →
From page 275... ... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-80 State/Agency Response Comments Connecticut No Utah Yes UT14.403 Development of a Concrete Bridge Deck Preservation Guide (in progress) Illinois No Indiana No Alaska No New Jersey No Michigan Yes Oregon No Read the entire page →

From page 196...

... NCHRP Web-Only Document 269: Guide Specification for Service Life Design of Highway Bridges B-1 A P P E N D I X B Survey Response Data 1. Considering the provided definitions, how does your agency define the end of service life for its bridges?