Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
State of Structures and Bridges_report-july-2011 - Virginia
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

State of Structures and Bridges_report-july-2011 - Virginia

  • 1,008 views
Published

Virginia V-DOT report on the state of structures and bridges throughout the state. July 2011. Brought to you by; Gloucester County, Virginia Links and News

Virginia V-DOT report on the state of structures and bridges throughout the state. July 2011. Brought to you by; Gloucester County, Virginia Links and News

Published in Education , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,008
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
130
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. STATE OF THE STRUCTURES AND BRIDGES REPORT July 2011Prepared by:Virginia Department of TransportationStructure & Bridge Division Comments and or questions may be directed to: Kendal R. Walus, P.E. State Structure and Bridge Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 786-4575 Email: Kendal.Walus@VDOT.Virginia.Gov
  • 2. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportExecutive Summary The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is responsible for the inventory andinspection of 20,908 structures (bridges and culverts) across all of the Commonwealth‟s roadwaysystems. Of these structures 13,244 are part of the National Bridge Inventory (NBI). VDOT maintains19,390 of these structures and 1,518 are maintained by localities and private owners. At the end of FiscalYear (FY) 2011 (VDOT‟s fiscal year runs from July 1 through June 30) an additional 33 structures wereadded to the inventory. VDOT inspects over 10,000 structures annually at an approximate cost of $18million. This report summarizes the condition of the states bridges and culverts. All of the tables andfigures in this report reflect the 2011 accomplishments and are based on the inventory and condition dataas of July 1, 2011. The majority of Virginia‟s bridges were designed with a design service life of 50 years, but withthe evolution of new design guidelines and construction materials the anticipated service life for newlyconstructed bridges is 75 years. Fifty-eight (58%) percent of the structure inventory is 40 years or older,meaning that this percentage of the Commonwealth‟s structures have either exceeded or are within 10years of the end of their anticipated service design life. VDOT‟s system global performance measure for structures is based on the percentage ofstructurally deficient (SD) structures in the Department‟s inventory. VDOT‟s current goal is to have nomore than eight (8%) percent of the structure inventory rated as SD by the end of FY 2012. The numberof SD structures in the VDOT inventory at the end of FY 2011 was 1,720 (8.2%). As of the end of FY2011 0.3% of the SD structures were removed from the inventory. The national average of structurallydeficient structures in the National Bridge Inventory is 11.5% (as of December, 2010). The NBIinventory only includes bridges and culverts with a length of 20 feet or greater. The percentage of NBIstructures within Virginia that are SD is 9.4%. A structure is defined as SD if it has deficient components (deck, superstructure, substructure)that require the structure to be monitored and/or repaired or if it lacks adequate strength or waterwayclearance. When one or more of a structure‟s major components have a General Condition Rating (GCR)of four (4) or less it becomes an SD structure. A “GCR” is a nationally established numerical gradingsystem with values that range from 0 (failed condition) to 9 (excellent condition). GCRs are assigned toeach major component of each structure during regular inspections and are reported in the inspectionreports. Functionally Obsolete (FO) bridges are those with deck geometry (e.g., lane width), load carryingcapacity, clearance, waterway adequacy or approach roadway alignment that no longer meet the currentcriteria for the roadway system of which the bridge is a part. The number of Functionally Obsolete (FO)structures in the VDOT inventory is 3,247 (15.5%). By the end of FY 2011 an additional 0.1% FOstructures were added to the inventory. This increase can primarily be attributed to a reclassification ofrehabilitated structures from SD to FO (many structures that were both SD and FO were rehabilitatedduring the year, and after the rehabilitation they were no longer SD but were still FO). Nationally, 12.8%of the structures in the National Bridge Inventory are FO (as of December, 2010). The proportion ofVirginia‟s NBI structures that are FO is 16.0%. A structure is deemed “deficient” if it is either (SD) or functionally obsolete (FO). The number ofdeficient structures in the VDOT‟s entire inventory is 4,967 (23.8%). As of the end of FY 2011, 0.2% ofthe deficient structures were removed from this inventory. Page 2 of 72
  • 3. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Of Virginia‟s NBI structures (those structures in the National Bridge Inventory), 25.4 % aredeficient (SD or FO). Nationwide, the percentage of deficient structures in the National Bridge Inventoryis 24.3% percent. VDOT uses several performance indicators in the overall management of the structural inventory.These include: functional obsolescence; deficient structures; the number of weight-posted structures;deficient deck area: and Health Index. These performance measures are discussed in greater detail later inthis report. The Commonwealth‟s inventory includes 4,611 structures (22.1%) that are at risk of becomingstructurally deficient. These structures have at least one major component (deck, superstructure,substructure or culvert) with a GCR of five (5). The number of weight-posted structures in the inventory is 1,403 (6.7%). As of the end of FY2011, 0.2% of the weight-posted structures were removed from the inventory. Another method to evaluate structures is the Health Index from the Pontis Bridge ManagementSystem. The Health Index of any particular structure is calculated by dividing the sum of the currentvalue of all the structure‟s elements by the sum of the failure value (replacement or repair) of allelements. A Health Index of 100% indicates that all of the condition units of the structure are in the bestpossible condition state. A Health Index of 0% indicates that all of the condition units are in the worstpossible condition state. Page 3 of 72
  • 4. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportBackground The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is responsible for the inventory andinspection of 20,908 structures (bridges and culverts) across all of the Commonwealth‟s roadwaysystems. Of this inventory 19,390 structures are maintained by VDOT and 1,518 are maintained bylocalities and private owners. As of the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 (VDOT‟s fiscal year runs from July1 through June 30) an additional 33 structures were added to the inventory. All of the tables and figuresin this report are based on the inventory and condition data as of July 1, 2011. The 2011 estimated value of Virginia‟s structure inventory is approximately $7.4 billion. Chart 1 - Distribution of Structures (Bridges and Culverts) by System 883 2,391 5,735 11,899 Interstate Primary Secondary UrbanDetermining the Conditions of the Structures VDOT uses its comprehensive inspection program to evaluate and monitor the condition of theCommonwealth‟s structures. The data collected during the inspections is used as the primary source ofinformation for determining maintenance, repair and replacement needs. In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, VDOT inspects bridges and culverts that arepart of the National Bridge Inventory (NBI), which includes structures on public roadways exceeding 20feet in length. NBI structures receive detailed inspections at regular intervals not exceeding 24 months. Inaddition to the federal inventory and inspection requirements, VDOT also inventories and inspectsbridges measuring 20 feet or less in length and large culverts having an opening of 36 square feet orgreater (these are the only structures not in the NBI). The non-NBI bridges are inspected at intervals not Page 4 of 72
  • 5. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Reportexceeding 24 months, and the non-NBI culverts are inspected at intervals not exceeding 48 months.Inspectors use condition ratings to describe each existing structure. These condition ratings are based onthe Federal Highway Administration‟s (FHWA) criteria. The condition assessments of the structures areperformed by qualified inspectors, and all assessments are performed in accordance with the NBIS as wellas VDOT‟s policies and procedures. VDOT‟s inspection procedures and requirements are detailed in VDOT‟s Current Instructionaland Informational Memorandum IIM-S&B-27 and the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) inthe Code of Federal Regulations. In addition to the specific data required by the NBIS, VDOT inspectors collect and recorddetailed structural element data, which is used in the operation of its Bridge Management System (BMS).The BMS information is used to determine current and future maintenance and preservation needs of thestructures.Structure Inventory VDOT uses the Pontis Bridge Management System inspection module to maintain data on all ofthe Commonwealth‟s structures. Tables 1 through 3 show the distribution of structures in each of theDistricts by system. Tables 1a to 1c show the total number of bridges and culverts in the Commonwealth.Tables 2a to 2c show the total number of NBI bridges and culverts in the Commonwealth. Tables 3a to3c show the total number of Non-NBI bridges and culverts in the Commonwealth. Unless otherwisestated the data and charts shown in this report include both NBI and Non-NBI bridges and culverts. Table 1a – Total Number of Structures (Bridges and Culverts) No. of Structures (Bridges and Culverts) DISTRICT Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Total Bristol 216 953 2,045 79 3,293 Salem 217 800 1,937 104 3,058 Lynchburg 0 664 1,393 58 2,115 Richmond 527 802 1,151 159 2,639 Hampton Roads 456 458 515 260 1,689 Fredericksburg 79 253 473 7 812 Culpeper 122 496 1,053 23 1,694 Staunton 430 828 2,142 102 3,502 NOVA 344 481 1,190 91 2,106 Total 2,391 5,735 11,899 883 20,908 Page 5 of 72
  • 6. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Table 1b – Total Number of Bridges by District Number of Bridges DISTRICT Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Total Bristol 136 548 1559 61 2,304 Salem 117 478 1358 75 2,028 Lynchburg 0 364 790 39 1,193 Richmond 268 506 671 99 1,544Hampton Roads 331 338 319 199 1,187Fredericksburg 21 141 215 6 383 Culpeper 71 252 668 11 1,002 Staunton 206 506 1426 62 2,200 NOVA 219 302 516 48 1,085 Total 1,369 3,435 7,522 600 12,926 Table 1c – Total Number of Culverts by District Number of Culverts DISTRICT Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Total Bristol 80 405 486 18 989 Salem 100 322 579 29 1,030 Lynchburg 0 300 603 19 922 Richmond 259 296 480 60 1,095Hampton Roads 125 120 196 61 502Fredericksburg 58 112 258 1 429 Culpeper 51 244 385 12 692 Staunton 224 322 716 40 1,302 NOVA 125 179 674 43 1,021 Total 1,022 2,300 4,377 283 7,982 Page 6 of 72
  • 7. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Table 2a- Total Number of NBI Structures (Bridges and Culverts) No. of Structures (Bridges and Culverts) DISTRICT Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Total Bristol 164 520 1110 76 1,870 Salem 140 441 1136 94 1,811 Lynchburg 0 417 910 58 1,385 Richmond 358 597 858 158 1,971Hampton Roads 374 371 393 257 1,395Fredericksburg 43 175 304 7 529 Culpeper 85 239 684 16 1,024 Staunton 255 456 1047 100 1,858 NOVA 247 338 747 69 1,401 Total 1,666 3,554 7,189 835 13,244 Table 2b - Number of NBI Bridges by District Number of Bridges DISTRICT Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Total Bristol 136 419 981 59 1,595 Salem 113 364 905 71 1,453 Lynchburg 0 330 668 39 1,037 Richmond 265 477 617 98 1,457Hampton Roads 331 332 298 199 1,160Fredericksburg 21 133 192 6 352 Culpeper 71 165 509 10 755 Staunton 206 373 810 62 1,451 NOVA 219 266 422 35 942 Total 1,362 2,859 5,402 579 10,202 Table 2c - Number of NBI Culverts by District Number of Culverts DISTRICT Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Total Bristol 28 101 129 17 275 Salem 27 77 231 23 358 Lynchburg 0 87 242 19 348 Richmond 93 120 241 60 514Hampton Roads 43 39 95 58 235Fredericksburg 22 42 112 1 177 Culpeper 14 74 175 6 269 Staunton 49 83 237 38 407 NOVA 28 72 325 34 459 Total 304 695 1,787 256 3,042 Page 7 of 72
  • 8. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Table 3a – Total Number of Non-NBI Structures (Bridges and Culverts) No. of Structures (Bridges and Culverts) DISTRICT Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Total Bristol 52 433 935 3 1,423 Salem 77 359 801 10 1,247 Lynchburg 0 247 483 0 730 Richmond 169 205 293 1 668Hampton Roads 82 87 122 3 294Fredericksburg 36 78 169 0 283 Culpeper 37 257 369 7 670 Staunton 175 372 1095 2 1,644 NOVA 97 143 443 22 705 Total 725 2,181 4,710 48 7,664 Table 3b - Number of Non-NBI Bridges by District Number of Bridges DISTRICT Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Total Bristol 0 129 578 2 709 Salem 4 114 453 4 575 Lynchburg 0 34 122 0 156 Richmond 3 29 54 1 87Hampton Roads 0 6 21 0 27Fredericksburg 0 8 23 0 31 Culpeper 0 87 159 1 247 Staunton 0 133 616 0 749 NOVA 0 36 94 13 143 Total 7 576 2,120 21 2,724 Table 3c - Number of Non-NBI Culverts by District Number of Culverts DISTRICT Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Total Bristol 52 304 357 1 714 Salem 73 245 348 6 672 Lynchburg 0 213 361 0 574 Richmond 166 176 239 0 581Hampton Roads 82 81 101 3 267Fredericksburg 36 70 146 0 252 Culpeper 37 170 210 6 423 Staunton 175 239 479 2 895 NOVA 97 107 349 9 562 Total 718 1,605 2,590 27 4,940 Page 8 of 72
  • 9. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report A large proportion (58.1%) of the statewide structure inventory is 40 years old or older. Thesestructures have either exceeded or will soon exceed their originally anticipated design service life of 50years. The number of structures equal to or greater than 40 years in age, by system, is as follows: 61.8%of the interstate, 63.0% of the primary, 56.5% of the secondary, and 37.9% of the urban system structures.The average age is 45 years. The age of Virginia‟s highway structures is depicted graphically in Charts 2– 4. In the past, the anticipated design service life of a bridge was 50 years, but with improvements indesign guidelines and construction materials the anticipated service life of bridges constructed since 2007is 75 years. Chart 2 - Cumulative Age Distribution of Structures 100.0% 99.5% 100.0% Percentage of Structures Built on or Before Year Indicated 92.0% 58.1% of inventory is 40 years or older 80.8% 80.0% 70.7% 60.0% 54.2% 40.0% 33.8% 25.6% 21.6% 20.0% 3.2% 0.7% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 2011 2009 1999 1989 1979 1969 1959 1949 1939 1929 1919 1909 Pre 1900 Page 9 of 72
  • 10. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Chart 3: Average Age of Structures by Highway System and District 60.0 55.0 50.0 45.0Average Age 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Total Bristol Salem Lynchburg Richmond Hampton Roads Fredericksburg Culpeper Staunton NOVA Statewide Page 10 of 72
  • 11. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Chart 4 –Number of Structures (Bridges & Culverts) Built per Decade 4,500 4,252 4,000 3,842 * 3,458 3,500 3,000 No. of Structures 2,500 2,332 2,115 2,000 1,715 1,562 1,500 1,000 853 513 500 114 100 31 21 0 2010s 2000s 1990s 1980s 1970s 1960s 1950s 1940s 1930s 1920s 1910s 1900s Decade* County Bridges added to the VDOT Inventory during this period with unknown construction dates (Assumed year built equaled year added to system)Measuring Performance VDOT‟s system performance measure for structures is based on the percentage of structurallydeficient structures in the Department‟s inventory. A Structurally Deficient (SD) structure has a generalcondition rating (GCR) of poor (GCR of 4) or worse for one or more of the following structuralcomponents: deck, superstructure, substructure or culvert, or has an appraisal rating of two (2) or less forthe structural condition or waterway adequacy. These deficient structural components require thestructure to be monitored and/or repaired. In some instances, these structures have been restricted to lightweight vehicles. Appendix A provides definitions of the general condition ratings. In addition, AppendixA (page number 27) also provides comparative data on the average condition rating by District. VDOT‟s current goal is to have no more than eight (8%) percent SD structures statewide by theend of FY 2012. The goals by system are to have no more than three (3 %) SD structures for Interstate,six (6 %) percent for Primary and eleven (11 %) percent for Secondary. Appendix B (page number 46)shows the location of the SD structures statewide and by District. On July 1, 2011 8.2% percent of the total inventory (1,720 structures) were rated as SD. Table 4shows the number of SD structures that were restored and those that fell into SD status during FY 2011.Chart 5 graphically displays this information by District. Charts 6 through 15 show the current percentageof SD structures by District (District percentages are based on the number of structures in that particularDistrict) for each roadway classification and a five year trend for each roadway system. These chartsaddress all of the Commonwealth‟s structures, including those that are not part of the NBI. Page 11 of 72
  • 12. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Appendix C (page number 58) shows the national trend of deficient structures from 2002 to 2010.The Virginia data shown in Appendix C is for only the NBI bridges and culverts and does not includebridges under 20 feet in length. Table 4 – Change in number of Structurally Deficient Structures between FY 2010 and FY 2011 Structurally Deficient During FY 2011 End of End of District FY 2010 FY 2011 Change Restored Deteriorated Change Bristol 357 341 -4.5% 42 26 -16 Salem 364 362 -0.5% 31 29 -2 Lynchburg 204 156 -23.5% 71 23 -48 Richmond 251 253 0.8% 20 22 2 Hampton Roads 81 92 13.6% 9 20 11 Fredericksburg 68 73 7.4% 6 11 5 Culpeper 112 118 5.4% 13 19 6 Staunton 278 256 -7.9% 39 17 -22 NOVA 70 69 -1.4% 10 9 -1 Statewide 1,785 1,720 -3.6% 241 176 -65 Note: Percentages are based on percentage of FY10 inventory. Chart 5 - Number of Structurally Deficient Structures Restored vs. Deteriorated During FY 2011 250 Number of Structurally Deficient 200 150 Structures 100 50 0 Lynch Richm Hampt Freder Culpe Staunt State Bristol Salem NOVA burg ond on icksbu per on wide Restored 42 31 71 20 9 6 13 39 10 241 Deteriorated 26 29 23 22 20 11 19 17 9 176 Page 12 of 72
  • 13. No. of SD No. of SD Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Chart 6 - Percentage of Structurally Deficient Structures Statewide End of FY 2011 14.0% 11.84% 12.0% 10.36% Performance Target = 8 % 10.0% 9.59% 8.99% % Structurally Deficient 8.23%% Structurally Deficient 8.0% 7.38% 7.31% 6.97% 6.0% 5.45% 4.0% 3.28% SD = 1,720 SD = 362 SD = 253 SD = 256 SD = 118 SD = 341 SD =156 SD = 69 SD = 73 2.0% SD = 92 0.0% Chart 7 - Percentage of SD Structures – Statewide Five Year Trend 8.80% 8.60% % Structurally Deficient 8.60% 8.53% 8.46% 8.40% 8.38% 8.23% SD = 1,746 SD = 1,762 SD = 1,785 SD = 1801 8.20% 1,720 SD = 8.00% FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Note: See Appendix G for changes in data from past reports. Page 13 of 72
  • 14. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Chart 8 - Percentage of Structurally Deficient Structures – Interstate End of FY 2011 8.0% 6.9% 7.0% 6.0% 6.1% 6.0%% Structurally Deficient 5.0% Performance Target = 3 % 4.0% 3.4% 3.0% 2.5% SD = 5 SD = 1 2.0% 1.6% 1.7% 1.1% SD = 13 SD = 15 SD = 81 SD = 32 SD = 6 0.8% SD = 2 SD = 7 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% Chart 9 – Percentage of SD Structures – Interstate Five Year Trend 4.20% 3.88% 3.80% % Structurally Deficient 3.39% 3.40% 2.99% 2.96% 2.97% 3.00% SD = 81 SD = 90 SD = 89 SD = 93 SD = 71 2.60% 2.20% FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Note: See Appendix G for changes in data from past reports. Page 14 of 72
  • 15. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportChart 10 - Percentage of Structurally Deficient Structures – Primary End of FY 2011 10.0% 9.1% 9.0% Performance Target = 6 % 8.0% 7.4% 7.0% 6.8% % Structurally Deficient 6.3% 6.1% 6.0% 5.7% 5.0% 4.8% 4.5% 4.0% 3.0% 3.1% 3.0% SD = 325 SD = 15 SD = 59 SD = 29 SD = 23 SD = 30 SD = 15 2.0% SD = 65 SD = 49 SD = 40 1.0% 0.0% Chart 11 – Percentage of SD Structures – Primary Five Year Trend 6.50% % Structurally Deficient 6.00% 5.82% 5.81% 5.83% 5.75% 5.67% 5.50% SD = 297 SD = 292 SD = 325 5.00% SD = 333 SD = 334 4.50% FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Note: See Appendix G for changes in data from past reports. Page 15 of 72
  • 16. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Chart 12 - Percentage of Structurally Deficient Structures – Secondary End of FY 2011 16.0% 15.1% 14.0% 12.8% Performance Target = 11 % 11.9% 12.0% 10.4%% Structurally Deficient 9.9% 10.0% 9.5% 9.6% 8.4% 8.2% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 4.0% SD = 1,242 SD = 244 SD = 147 SD = 205 SD = 117 SD = 100 SD= 292 SD = 47 SD = 42 SD = 48 2.0% 0.0% Chart 13 – Percentage of SD Structures – Secondary Five Year Trend 11.50% 11.17% % Structurally Deficient 10.98% 10.96% 11.00% 10.92% 10.50% 10.44% SD = 1,258 SD = 1,281 SD = 1,301 SD = 1,305 SD = 1,242 10.00% FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Note: See Appendix G for changes in data from past reports. Page 16 of 72
  • 17. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportChart 14 - Percentage of Structurally Deficient Structures – Urban End of FY 2011 30.0% 25.0% 24.1% 20.0% % Structurally Deficient 15.5% 15.0% 14.3% 10.0% 9.4% SD = 4 8.7% 8.2% 5.8% 6.2% SD = 19 SD = 16 SD = 72 SD = 15 5.0% 3.9% SD = 6 SD = 9 SD = 1 SD = 2 0.0% 0.0% Chart 15 – Percentage of SD Structures – Urban Five Year Trend 9.00% % Structurally Deficient 8.50% 8.41% 8.33% 8.15% 8.00% 7.95% 7.83% SD = 101 SD = 100 SD = 73 7.50% SD = 75 SD = 72 7.00% FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Note: See Appendix G for changes in data from past reports. Page 17 of 72
  • 18. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Statewide and District maps showing the location of each of the SD structures are located inAppendix B (page number 46). Other performance indicators that are used by VDOT in the overall management of the structuralinventory include:  Functionally Obsolete (FO) - An FO designation means that the structure was built to standards that are less conservative than those used today. Charts 16 - 20  Deficient Structures - A structure is deemed “deficient” if the structure is rated either SD or FO. FHWA uses the combined deficient designation in the allocation of bridge funding per State. Charts 21 - 25  Weight-Posted - A weight-posted structure is one that has a rated load carrying capacity less than the Virginia designated legal loads. Charts 26 – 30  Health Index – A 0 to 100 numerical method of measuring the overall health of a structure. Charts 31 and 32 Charts 16 through 32 show multi-year trends for each of these measures statewide and for eachsystem. These charts address all of the bridges and culverts that comprise the Commonwealth‟sinventory, including those that are not part of the NBI. Additionally, Appendix D (page number 58)shows the 2011 performance measures based on the square footage area of the structures. Appendix A(page number 27) compares general condition ratings by structure component and District, and AppendixE (page number 67) shows examples of items that can cause a structure to be Functionally Obsolete. VDOT is now tracking a performance measure called the Health Index, which is part of thePontis Bridge Management System. The Health Index of any particular structure is calculated by dividingthe sum of the current value of all structure‟s components by the sum of the failure value (replacement orrepair) of all components. A Health Index of 100% indicates that all of the components of the structureare in the best possible condition state. A Health Index of 0% indicates that all of the components are inthe worst possible condition state. Charts 31 and 32 show the average Health Index (HI) by highwaysystem and by District for FY 2010 and FY 2011. HI data for earlier years is not available. VDOT operates a Quality Assurance Program to help ensure that all of the inspections performedfollow the national and VDOT requirements for the inspection of structures in the Commonwealth.Appendix F (page number 69) gives an overview of the Quality Assurance Program followed in theCommonwealth. Page 18 of 72
  • 19. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Functionally Obsolete Measure (Charts 16 – 20) A Functionally Obsolete (FO) structure is one that has an appraisal rating of three (3) or less for the deck geometry, under clearance, approach roadway alignment, structural condition or waterway adequacy. An FO designation means that the structure was built to standards (deck geometry, load carrying capacity, clearances, or approach roadway alignment) that are less conservative than those used for new construction projects today. Chart 16 – Percentage of FO Structures – Statewide Five Year Trend 16.50% 16.00%% Functionally Obsolete 15.53% 15.50% 15.39% 15.38% 15.00% 14.83% 14.78% FO = 3,247 FO = 3,089 FO = 3,230 FO = 3,078 FO = 3,220 14.50% 14.00% FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Note: See Appendix G for changes in data from past reports. Page 19 of 72 3,094 3,247 3,230
  • 20. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Chart 17 – Percentage of FO Structures – Interstate Chart 18 – Percentage of FO Structures – Primary Five Year Trend Five Year Trend 13.00% 15.00% 12.11% 12.23% 14.72% 14.66% 12.00%% Functionally Obsolete 14.50% % Functionally Obsolete 14.50% 11.00% 14.00% 10.00% 831 840 844 10.00% 9.73% 679 682 9.66% 364 13.50% 13.43% 367 9.00% 13.31% 233 231 239 8.00% 13.00% FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Chart 19 – Percentage of FO Structures – Secondary Chart 20 – Percentage of FO Structures – Urban Five Year Trend Five Year Trend 18.00% 17.50% % Functionally Obsolete 17.00% 16.67% 16.62% 16.67% 16.50% 1,785 1,983 16.00% 1,986 1,980 15.74% 15.56% 170 179 181 1,803 15.50% 243 244 15.00% FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Note: See Appendix G for changes in data from past reports. FO = 1,785 Page 20 of 72
  • 21. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Deficient Structures (Charts 21 - 25) Combining Structurally Deficient (SD) and Functionally Obsolete (FO) - According to the Federal Highway Administration a structure is deemed “deficient” if the structure is rated either SD or FO. If a structure is both SD and FO it is designated simply as structurally deficient. FHWA uses the combined deficient designation in the allocation of bridge funding per State. All percentages are based on the number of bridges in the inventory during the fiscal year indicated, so it is possible for the number of SD or FO structures to increase from one year to the next while the percentage decreases. Chart 21 – Percentage of SD or FO Structures – Statewide Five Year Trend 25.00% 24.00% 23.91% 24.00% 23.76% 23.21% 23.19%% Deficient 23.00% SD or FO = 4,835 SD or FO = 4,830 SD or FO = 5,020 SD or FO = 5,003 SD or FO = 4,967 22.00% 21.00% 20.00% FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011Note: See Appendix G for changes in data from past reports. SD or FO = 4,841 SD or FO = 5,020 SD or FO = 4,959 Page 21 of 72
  • 22. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportChart 22 – Percentage of SD or FO Structures - Interstate Chart– 23 – Percentage of SD or FO Structures - Primary Five Year Trend Five Year Trend 16.00% 21.00% 15.10% 15.12% 20.50% 20.35% 20.38% 20.30% 15.00% 20.00% % Deficient % Deficient 14.00% 19.50% 13.62% 19.18% 19.13% 13.38% 302 19.00% 1,164 1,166 1,169 13.00% 12.63% 454 976 974 454 326 320 18.50% 12.00% 18.00% FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Chart 24 - Percentage of SD or FO Structures - Secondary Chart 25 - Percentage of SD or FO Structures – Urban Five Year Trend Five Year Trend 29.00% 30.00% 29.50% 28.50% 29.00% 28.00% 28.50% % Deficient % Deficient 27.58% 27.58% 28.03% 27.50% 28.00% 27.74% 27.75% 27.10% 27.50% 27.00% 27.07% 26.72% 26.67% 27.00% 26.78% 3,287 3,061 3,060 3,285 3,225 26.50% 253 342 243 344 250 26.50% 26.00% 26.00% FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Note: See Appendix G for changes in data from past reports. Page 22 of 72
  • 23. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Weight-Posted Structures Measure (Charts 26 – 30) Weight-Posted - A weight-posted structure is one that has a rated load carrying capacity less than the Virginia designated legal loads. Virginia legal loads are as follows: o 27 Tons for a single unit o 40 Tons for semi-trailers Chart 26 – Percentage of Weight-Posted Structures – Statewide Five Year Trend 8.00% 7.52% 7.30%% Weight-Posted 7.00% 6.85% 6.91% 6.70% Posted = 1,566 Posted = 1,520 Posted = 1,432 Posted = 1,446 Posted = 1,402 6.00% 5.00% FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Note: See Appendix G for changes in data from past reports. Page 23 of 72
  • 24. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportChart 27 – Percentage of Weight-Posted Structures - Interstate Chart 28 – Percentage of Weight-Posted Structures - Primary Five Year Trend Five Year Trend 0.20% 1.60% 0.17% 1.50% 1.47% 0.15% 1.43% 1.40% % Weight-Posted % Weight-Posted 1.40% 1.33% 0.10% 0.10% 1.30% 1.20% 73 71 61 84 76 0.05% 1.10% 1.06% 5 3 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.00% FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Note: In FY2007 and FY2008 overpasses over interstates were classified as interstate bridgesChart 29 – Percentage of Weight-Posted Structures – Secondary Chart 30 – Percentage of Weight-Posted Structures -Urban Five Year Trend Five Year Trend 12.50% 8.00% 12.28% 7.50% 7.42% 7.40% 12.00% 11.91% 7.13% % Weight-Posted % Weight-Posted 7.00% 11.50% 6.50% 6.37% 6.26% 11.00% 10.96% 10.88% 6.00% 10.60% 1,407 1,366 1,306 1,296 1,261 10.50% 5.50% 65 80 66 81 65 10.00% 5.00% FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Note: See Appendix G for changes in data from past reports. Page 24 of 72
  • 25. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportHealth Index Measure (Charts 31 – 32)Another way to evaluate the structures is with the Health Index from the Pontis Bridge ManagementSystem. The Health Index is calculated as the sum of the current value of all condition units divided bythe sum of total value of all condition units. A Health Index of 100% indicates that all of the conditionunits of the structure are in the best possible condition state. A Health Index of 0% indicates that all of thecondition units are in the worst possible condition state. Health index of an individual component iscalculated according to the formula following formula. where CEV e and TEV e are the current and total component values of each component.A component is a part of a bridge for which condition is assessed and work is recommended. Eachbridge component can have up to five condition states. Each condition state categorizes the nature andextent of damage or deterioration of a bridge component. Condition state one is always defined as nodamage. The higher the condition state, the more damage there is on the component. Condition states foreach component have been precisely defined in terms of the specific types of distresses that thecomponents can develop. Chart 31 - Average Health Index by Highway System 90.50 90.00 89.50 Health Index 89.00 88.50 88.00 87.50 Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Statewide 2010 89.98 89.88 88.33 89.79 88.95 2011 89.59 89.56 88.43 90.35 88.88 System Page 25 of 72
  • 26. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Chart 32 - Average Health Index by District 93.00 92.00 91.00 90.00Health Index 89.00 88.00 87.00 86.00 85.00 84.00 83.00 Hampton Frederick Northern Bristol Salem Lynchburg Richmond Culpeper Staunton Statewide Roads sburg Virginia 2010 87.97 89.21 89.02 84.33 91.78 88.09 87.67 90.69 92.64 88.95 2011 87.90 88.71 90.37 84.08 91.17 88.45 87.83 90.34 92.20 88.88 District Page 26 of 72
  • 27. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportAppendix A– General Condition RatingsGeneral Condition Ratings (GCRs): According to the National Bridge Inventory (NBI), GeneralCondition Ratings are assigned by the structure inspection team after each bridge inspection. Theseratings are included in each inspection report and are used to describe the current physical state of thebridge or culvert. Evaluation is based on the physical condition of the structure at the time of inspection.Separate GCR values are assigned to the deck, superstructure and substructure components of a bridge. Aculvert receives a single GCR. The GCRs are assigned based on a numerical grading system that rangesfrom 0 (failed condition) to 9 (excellent condition). The table below provides a description of the generalcondition ratings. The tables in the following pages provide illustrative examples of these ratings. Code Description N NOT APPLICABLE 9 EXCELLENT CONDITION 8 VERY GOOD CONDITION No problems noted. 7 GOOD CONDITION Some minor problems. 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION Structural components show some minor deterioration. 5 FAIR CONDITION All primary structural elements are sound but may have some minor section loss, cracking, spalling or scour 4 POOR CONDITION Advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour. 3 SERIOUS CONDITION Loss of section, deterioration, spalling or scour have seriously affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present. 2 CRITICAL CONDITION Advanced deterioration of primary structural elements. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present or scour may have removed substructure support. Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close the bridge until corrective action is taken. 1 "IMMINENT" FAILURE CONDITION Major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put back in light service. 0 FAILED CONDITION Out of service - beyond corrective action. Page 27 of 72
  • 28. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Typical Examples of General Condition Ratings for Decks GeneralCondition Example Rating 4 or less - (PoorCondition)Structurally Deficient Bridge Deck with advanced deterioration 5 – Fair Condition(At risk of becomingstructurally deficient) Bridge Deck with extensive cracking and patching 6–Satisfactory Condition Bridge Deck with minor to no deterioration Page 28 of 72
  • 29. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Typical Examples of General Condition Ratings for Superstructure GeneralCondition Example Rating Steel Concrete 4 or less - (PoorCondition)Structurally Deficient Bridge Superstructure with advanced section loss Concrete Beam with major spalling (bottom of beam viewed from below) 5 – Fair Condition(At risk of becomingstructurally deficient) Bridge Superstructure with minor to moderate section loss Spall on end of beam with exposed reinforcing with section loss 6–Satisfactory Condition Concrete Beam with minor localized surface Rust scale and minor section loss spalling Page 29 of 72
  • 30. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Typical Examples of General Condition Ratings for Substructure General ExampleCondition Rating 4 or less – (PoorCondition)Structurally Deficient Bridge Substructure with advanced deterioration 5 – Fair Condition(At risk of becomingstructurally deficient) Bridge Substructure with moderate cracks and deterioration 6–Satisfactory Condition Bridge Substructure with minor cracks Page 30 of 72
  • 31. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Typical Examples of General Condition Ratings for Culverts GeneralCondition Example Rating Steel Concrete 4 or less - (PoorCondition)Structurally Deficient Culvert with advanced section loss Portion of Center wall missing 5 – Fair Condition(At risk of becomingstructurally deficient) Culvert panels separated Culvert moderate deterioration 6–Satisfactory Condition Light rust along flowline Culvert with minor cracks Page 31 of 72
  • 32. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportThe general condition ratings of Virginia‟s highway structures vary by region, system and age ofstructure. General condition rating data are provided in Charts A.1 – A.11 below Chart A.1 - General Condition Ratings by Component - Statewide 7000 GCR≤4 1,607 Structures (7.7%) 6000 GCR=5 4,720 Structures (22.6%) GCR=6 6,920 Structures (33.1%) 5000 GCR≥7 7,661 Structures (36.6%) 4000Count 3000 2000 1000 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 GCR Deck Superstructure Substructure Culvert Min GCR The Min GCR represents the minimum or lowest General Condition Rating (GCR) for the structure (lowest of the 4 component ratings for a particular inspection report; deck, superstructure, substructure, or culvert) Page 32 of 72
  • 33. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Table A.1 - Number of Structures in Each General Condition Rating – by ComponentHighway Structure GCR Average System Component 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 GCRInterstate Deck 14 37 517 539 237 25 0 0 6.3 Superstructure 14 89 400 505 311 49 1 0 6.2 Substructure 13 34 296 607 400 19 0 0 6.0 Culvert 0 29 365 484 138 6 0 0 6.3 Min GCR 13 52 540 1,032 673 80 1 0 5.9 Primary Deck 38 246 1,295 1,090 616 130 9 0 6.3 Superstructure 41 463 1,037 1,008 686 189 11 0 6.3 Substructure 28 205 1,243 1,204 661 92 2 0 6.3 Culvert 8 138 814 985 318 36 1 0 6.3 Min GCR 34 246 1,686 2,165 1,293 293 18 0 6.1Secondary Deck 148 1,327 2,923 1,808 1,054 213 4 0 6.6 Superstructure 139 1,449 2,166 1,749 1,336 655 27 0 6.4 Substructure 38 760 2,682 2,425 1,325 280 11 0 6.3 Culvert 82 640 1,613 1,186 601 243 11 1 6.5 Min GCR 117 1,071 3,487 3,480 2,594 1,099 50 1 6.1 Urban Deck 4 51 277 161 75 26 1 0 6.4 Superstructure 6 86 237 126 104 38 3 0 6.4 Substructure 4 55 266 164 87 23 1 0 6.4 Culvert 1 46 122 77 33 4 0 0 6.6 Min GCR 2 75 338 243 160 62 3 0 6.2 All Deck 204 1,661 5,012 3,598 1,982 394 14 0 6.5 Superstructure 200 2,087 3,840 3,388 2,437 931 42 0 6.3 Substructure 83 1,054 4,487 4,400 2,473 414 14 0 6.3 Culvert 91 853 2,914 2,732 1,090 289 12 1 6.4 Min GCR 166 1,444 6,051 6,920 4,720 1,534 72 1 6.1 Page 33 of 72
  • 34. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Chart A.2 - Deck General Condition Rating By District and Highway SystemAverage General Condition Rating (GCR) 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 r g ds rg e d m VA on ol pe ur id on le ist bu oa nt pe ew hb NO Sa hm Br au ks R l nc at Cu ic c St on St Ly Ri er pt ed m Fr Ha Interstate Primary Secondary Urban All Chart A.3 - Deck General Condition Rating By Highway System and District Average General Condition Rating (GCR) 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 Interstate Primary Secondary Urban All Bristol Salem Lynchburg Richmond Hampton Roads Fredericksburg Culpeper Staunton NOVA Statewide Page 34 of 72
  • 35. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Chart A.4 - Superstructure General Condition Rating By District and Highway SystemAverage General Condition Rating (GCR) 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 Interstate Primary Secondary Urban All Chart A.5 - Superstructure General Condition Ratings By Highway System and District Average General Condition Rating (GCR) 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 Interstate Primary Secondary Urban All Bristol Salem Lynchburg Richmond Hampton Roads Fredericksburg Culpeper Staunton NOVA Statewide Page 35 of 72
  • 36. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Chart A.6 - Substructure General Condition Rating By District and Highway SystemAverage General Condition Rating (GCR) 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 Interstate Primary Secondary Urban All Chart A.7 - Substructure General Condition Rating By Highway System and DistrictAverage General Condition Rating (GCR) 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 Interstate Primary Secondary Urban All Bristol Salem Lynchburg Richmond Hampton Roads Fredericksburg Culpeper Staunton NOVA Statewide Page 36 of 72
  • 37. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Chart A.8 - Culvert General Condition Rating By District and Highway SystemAverage General Condition Rating (GCR) 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 Interstate Primary Secondary Urban All Page 37 of 72
  • 38. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Chart A.9 - Culvert General Condition Rating By Highway System and DistrictAverage General Condition Rating (GCR) 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 Interstate Primary Secondary Urban All Bristol Salem Lynchburg Richmond Hampton Roads Fredericksburg Culpeper Staunton NOVA Statewide Chart A.10 - Average Minimum General Condition Rating per Bridge By District and Highway SystemAverage Minimum General Condition Rating (GCR) 7.0 6.5 per Bridge 6.0 5.5 5.0 Interstate Primary Secondary Urban All Page 38 of 72
  • 39. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Chart A.11 - Average Minimum General Condition Rating per Bridge By Highway System and DistrictAverage Minimum General Condition Rating 8.0 7.5 7.0 (GCR) per Bridge 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 Interstate Primary Secondary Urban All Bristol Salem Lynchburg Richmond Hampton Roads Fredericksburg Culpeper Staunton NOVA Statewide Page 39 of 72
  • 40. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportTrend lines showing the average general condition ratings of rated components are provided in ChartsA.12 through A.24 below. Chart A.12 - Trends in Average General Condition Rating (GCR) By Component - Statewide 6.600 6.500 6.400 Average GCR 6.300 6.200 6.100 6.000 5.900 5.800 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Deck 6.516 6.504 6.496 6.482 6.480 6.476 Super 6.419 6.408 6.383 6.359 6.338 6.323 Sub 6.372 6.350 6.330 6.310 6.289 6.270 Br Min 5.923 5.912 5.892 5.882 5.904 5.863 Culvrt 6.486 6.461 6.437 6.402 6.399 6.399 Str Min 6.134 6.120 6.097 6.039 6.073 6.068 Fiscal Year Page 40 of 72
  • 41. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Chart A.13 - Bridge Decks: Trends in Average GCR By Highway System 6.700 Average GCR of Bridge Decks 6.600 6.500 6.400 6.300 6.200 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Interstate 6.387 6.361 6.338 6.310 6.285 6.253 Primary 6.339 6.342 6.340 6.307 6.286 6.291 Secondary 6.614 6.617 6.613 6.603 6.598 6.606 Average 6.516 6.504 6.497 6.481 6.474 6.477 Fiscal Year Chart A.14 - Superstructures: Trends in Average GCR By Highway System 6.500Average GCR by Superstructures 6.400 6.300 6.200 6.100 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Interstate 6.400 6.415 6.352 6.273 6.210 6.152 Primary 6.375 6.367 6.346 6.313 6.287 6.288 6.411 6.394 6.379 6.362 6.366 Secondary * Average 6.408 6.383 6.357 6.328 6.324 * * Data not available Fiscal Year Page 41 of 72
  • 42. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Chart A.15 - Substructures: Trends in Average GCR By Highway system 6.400 6.300 Average GCR of Substructures 6.200 6.100 6.000 5.900 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Interstate 6.147 6.162 6.132 6.091 6.008 5.974 Primary 6.349 6.338 6.317 6.296 6.268 6.258 Secondary 6.386 6.369 6.347 6.326 6.319 * 6.350 6.330 6.307 6.283 6.271 Average * * Data not available Fiscal Year Chart A.16 - Bridges: Trends in Min GCR (per Bridge) By Highway System 6.000Average Minimum GCR per Bridge 5.900 5.800 5.700 5.600 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Interstate 5.842 5.861 5.823 5.784 5.730 5.689 Primary 5.945 5.947 5.936 5.914 5.888 5.891 Secondary 5.908 5.888 5.875 5.863 5.860 5.870 Average 5.923 5.912 5.895 5.879 5.862 5.864 Fiscal Year Page 42 of 72
  • 43. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Chart A.17 - Culverts: Trends in Average GCR By Highway System 6.600 6.500Average Culvert GCR 6.400 6.300 6.200 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Interstate 6.343 6.340 6.313 6.296 6.279 6.267 Primary 6.460 6.412 6.380 6.328 6.338 6.313 Secondary 6.515 6.487 6.472 6.439 6.435 6.460 Average 6.486 6.461 6.437 6.400 6.394 6.399 Fiscal Year Chart A.18 - Bridges & Culverts: Trends in Minimum GCR By Highway System 6.200 Average Minimum GCR per Structure 6.100 6.000 5.900 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Interstate 6.053 6.033 5.998 5.966 5.965 5.936 Primary 6.150 6.145 6.124 6.090 6.068 6.061 Secondary 6.126 6.111 6.099 6.080 6.071 6.087 Average 6.134 6.120 6.101 6.077 6.064 6.068 Fiscal Year Page 43 of 72
  • 44. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Chart A.19 - Bridge Decks: Trends in Average GCR By Age 7.750 Group Average GCR of Bridge Decks 7.500 7.250 7.000 6.750 6.500 6.250 6.000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 >50 6.274 6.259 6.255 6.235 6.231 6.237 41-50 6.290 6.293 6.288 6.291 6.301 6.313 31-40 6.429 6.420 6.448 6.445 6.462 6.467 21-30 6.598 6.601 6.620 6.666 6.683 6.714 11-20 6.951 6.967 6.985 6.995 7.001 6.994 0-10 7.653 7.624 7.590 7.506 7.482 7.485 Average 6.516 6.504 6.496 6.482 6.475 6.476 Fiscal Year Chart A.20 - Bridge Superstructures: Trends in Average GCR By Age Group 8.000Average GCR of Bridge 7.500 Superstructures 7.000 6.500 6.000 5.500 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 >50 6.226 6.007 5.990 5.973 5.948 5.971 41-50 6.123 6.152 6.132 6.112 6.092 6.070 31-40 6.262 6.252 6.253 6.228 6.201 6.214 21-30 6.585 6.618 6.646 6.671 6.715 6.736 11-20 7.267 7.267 7.267 7.248 7.249 7.221 0-10 7.857 7.805 7.780 7.751 7.740 * Average 6.572 6.408 6.382 6.359 6.328 6.323 * Data not available Fiscal Year Page 44 of 72
  • 45. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Chart A.21 - Substructures: Trends in Average GCR By Age Group 8.000Average GCR of Bridge 7.500 Substructure 7.000 6.500 6.000 5.500 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 >50 * 6.032 6.020 6.001 5.978 5.976 41-50 6.052 6.031 6.014 5.988 5.970 5.979 31-40 6.219 6.224 6.234 6.232 6.232 6.214 21-30 6.562 6.566 6.602 6.630 6.641 * 11-20 7.018 7.010 7.044 7.055 7.064 7.056 0-10 7.704 7.651 7.591 7.557 7.525 * Average 6.349 6.329 6.310 6.284 6.270 * * Data not available Fiscal Year Chart A.22 - Bridges: Trends in Average Minimum GCR per Bridge By Age Group 7.750 Average Minimum GCR 7.250 6.750 6.250 5.750 5.250 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 >50 5.540 5.519 5.509 5.498 5.481 5.500 41-50 5.569 5.564 5.557 5.542 5.542 5.540 31-40 5.739 5.744 5.753 5.751 5.743 5.765 21-30 6.129 6.176 6.205 6.258 6.311 6.342 11-20 6.725 6.751 6.780 6.802 6.819 6.813 0-10 7.531 7.489 7.448 7.394 7.377 7.372 Average 5.923 5.911 5.895 5.882 5.862 5.863 Fiscal Year Page 45 of 72
  • 46. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Chart A.23 - Culverts: Trends in Average GCR By Age Group 8.000Average GCR of Culverts 7.500 7.000 6.500 6.000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 >50 6.285 6.183 6.166 6.126 6.133 6.111 41-50 6.268 6.247 6.212 6.165 6.161 6.166 31-40 6.176 6.138 6.123 6.122 6.102 6.172 21-30 6.335 6.347 6.320 6.326 6.335 6.397 11-20 6.814 6.804 6.827 6.814 6.878 6.941 0-10 7.724 7.686 7.711 7.655 7.646 7.644 Average 6.486 6.460 6.437 6.402 6.394 6.399 Fiscal Year Page 46 of 72
  • 47. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Chart A.24 - Bridges and Culverts: Trends in Minimum GCR by Age Group 7.750 7.250Average GCR 6.750 6.250 5.750 5.250 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 >50 5.722 5.678 5.671 5.656 5.648 5.661 41-50 5.852 5.843 5.833 5.807 5.804 5.808 31-40 5.938 5.922 5.919 5.916 5.907 5.953 21-30 6.217 6.251 6.254 6.287 6.321 6.366 11-20 6.768 6.777 6.803 6.808 6.848 6.876 0-10 7.613 7.580 7.567 7.510 7.493 7.484 Average 6.134 6.120 6.101 6.080 6.065 6.068 Fiscal Year Page 47 of 72
  • 48. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportAppendix B – Location of Structurally Deficient Structures Statewide – Current FY Structurally Deficient Structures Total Number of Structures = 20,908 Number of SD Structures = 1,720 (8.2 %) Total Square Foot area of structures = 115,337,078 Square foot area of SD Structures = 6,545,730 (5.7 %) - Denotes SD Structure Page 48 of 72
  • 49. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportBristol District – Current FY Structurally Deficient Structures Number of SD Structures = 341 Square foot area of SD Structures = 676,867 - Denotes SD Structure Page 49 of 72
  • 50. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportSalem District – Current FY Structurally Deficient Structures Number of SD Structures = 362 Square foot area of SD Structures = 843,060 - Denotes SD Structure Page 50 of 72
  • 51. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportLynchburg District – Current FY Structurally Deficient Structures Number of SD Structures = 156 Square foot area of SD Structures = 445,682 - Denotes SD Structure Page 51 of 72
  • 52. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportRichmond District – Current FY Structurally Deficient Structures Number of SD Structures = 253 Square foot area of SD Structures = 1,779,833 - Denotes SD Structure Page 52 of 72
  • 53. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportHampton Roads District – Current FY Structurally Deficient Structures Number of SD Structures = 92 Square foot area of SD Structures = 1,140,968 - Denotes SD Structure Page 53 of 72
  • 54. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportFredericksburg District – Current FY Structurally Deficient Structures Number of SD Structures = 73 Square foot area of SD Structures = 499,422 - Denotes SD Structure Page 54 of 72
  • 55. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportCulpeper District – Current FY Structurally Deficient Structures Number of SD Structures = 118 Square foot area of SD Structures = 205,608 - Denotes SD Structure Page 55 of 72
  • 56. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportStaunton District – Current FY Structurally Deficient Structures Number of SD Structures = 256 Square foot area of SD Structures = 575,291 - Denotes SD Structure Page 56 of 72
  • 57. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportNOVA District – Current FY Structurally Deficient Structures Number of SD Structures = 69 Square foot area of SD Structures = 378,999 - Denotes SD Structure Page 57 of 72
  • 58. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportAppendix C– National Performance Trends Chart C.1 - Comparing Virginias Structurally Deficient (SD) Structures to the National Average 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% % Structurally Deficient 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 National 13.8% 13.5% 13.1% 12.8% 12.4% 12.1% 11.9% 11.8% 11.5% Virginia 9.1% 8.9% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.2% 9.2% 9.4%Note: Percentages are based on National Bridge Inventory structures only. See previous charts for percentages of entire Virginia inventory. Chart C.2 - Comparing Virginias Functionally Obsolete (FO) Structures to the National Average 20.0% 18.0% 16.0% % Functionally Obsolete 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 National 13.8% 13.7% 13.6% 13.5% 13.4% 13.3% 13.3% 13.0% 12.8% Virginia 17.4% 17.2% 16.4% 16.6% 16.6% 16.7% 16.8% 16.6% 16.0%Note: Percentages are based on National Bridge Inventory structures only. See previous charts for percentages of entire Virginia inventory. The 2011 National Bridge Inventory data is not yet available. Page 58 of 72
  • 59. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Chart C.3 - Comparing Virginias Deficient (SD or FO) to the National Average 28.0% 27.0% 26.0% Deficient 25.0% 24.0% 23.0% 22.0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 National 27.6% 27.2% 26.7% 26.3% 25.8% 25.4% 25.2% 24.8% 24.3% Virginia 26.4% 26.1% 25.4% 25.6% 25.6% 25.7% 25.9% 25.7% 25.4%Note: Percentages are based on National Bridge Inventory structures only. See previous charts for percentages of entire Virginia inventory. Page 59 of 72
  • 60. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportAppendix D– Structures Data by Square Foot AreaTable D.1 – Total Square Foot Area of Structures by District Sq-Ft Area of Structures (Bridges and Culverts) DISTRICT Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Total Bristol 1,821,114 4,060,904 2,643,070 195,001 8,720,089 Salem 1,677,651 4,544,156 3,071,697 644,962 9,938,466 Lynchburg 0 4,499,760 2,578,748 331,624 7,410,132 Richmond 6,047,111 10,036,592 3,830,365 1,164,478 21,078,546 Hampton Roads 11,148,958 14,413,127 1,824,306 2,391,578 29,777,969 Fredericksburg 591,522 2,806,363 1,231,325 59,082 4,688,292 Culpeper 1,052,394 1,852,168 1,754,384 70,979 4,729,925 Staunton 3,222,236 3,565,641 3,297,128 430,897 10,515,902 NOVA 5,588,380 4,909,097 7,072,469 907,810 18,477,756 Statewide 31,149,366 50,687,808 27,303,492 6,196,411 115,337,077 Chart D.1 – Total Square Foot Area of Structures by District 35,000,000 29,777,969 30,000,000 25,000,000 Area in Square Feet 21,078,546 20,000,000 18,477,756 15,000,000 9,938,466 10,515,902 10,000,000 8,720,089 7,410,132 4,688,292 4,729,925 5,000,000 0 rg m ol d ds A r n rg pe on o V ist le bu oa u nt O pe hb Sa hm Br R au ks N ul nc n ic ic St C o Ly er R pt ed am Fr H Page 60 of 72
  • 61. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportTable D.2 – Square Foot Area of Structurally Deficient Structures Statewide Sq-Ft Area of Structurally Deficient Structures DISTRICT Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Total Bristol 105,379 284,029 241,276 46,183 676,867 Salem 229,233 259,970 334,624 19,233 843,060 Lynchburg 0 274,172 155,822 15,688 445,682 Richmond 592,967 828,308 263,882 94,676 1,779,833 Hampton Roads 357,161 643,571 93,484 46,752 1,140,968 Fredericksburg 26,447 406,142 65,364 1,469 499,422 Culpeper 20,182 82,294 97,833 5,299 205,608 Staunton 112,041 249,247 195,266 18,737 575,291 NOVA 92,132 185,044 101,823 0 378,999 Statewide 1,535,542 3,212,777 1,549,374 248,037 6,545,730 Chart D.2 – Square Foot Area of Structurally Deficient Structures by District 2,000,000 1,779,833 1,800,000 1,600,000 Sq-Ft Structurally Deficient 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,140,968 1,000,000 843,060 800,000 676,867 575,291 600,000 499,422 445,682 378,999 400,000 205,608 200,000 0 g m ol d ds A r n rg pe br on o V ist le oa u nt O pe ks hb Sa hm Br R au N ic ul nc on ic St er C Ly R pt ed am Fr H Page 61 of 72
  • 62. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportTable D.3 – Percentage of Square Foot Area of Structurally Deficient Structures Statewide Percent of Sq-Ft Area of Structurally Deficient Structures DISTRICT Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Total Bristol 5.8% 7.0% 9.1% 23.7% 7.8% Salem 13.7% 5.7% 10.9% 3.0% 8.5% Lynchburg 0.0% 6.1% 6.0% 4.7% 6.0% Richmond 9.8% 8.3% 6.9% 8.1% 8.4% Hampton Roads 3.2% 4.5% 5.1% 2.0% 3.8% Fredericksburg 4.5% 14.5% 5.3% 2.5% 10.7% Culpeper 1.9% 4.4% 5.6% 7.5% 4.3% Staunton 3.5% 7.0% 5.9% 4.3% 5.5% NOVA 1.6% 3.8% 1.4% 0.0% 2.1% Statewide 4.9% 6.3% 5.7% 4.0% 5.7%Percentages are calculated by dividing the SD area for the District by the total area for the District by highway system(example - SD Bristol Interstate area divided by all Bristol Interstate area 105,379 / 1,821,114 = 0. 0579 or 5.8%) Chart D.3 – Percentage of Structurally Deficient Structures by Square Foot Area by District 12.0% 10.7% 10.0% % Sq-Ft Structurally Deficient 8.5% 8.4% 7.8% 8.0% 6.0% 6.0% 5.5% 5.7% 4.3% 3.8% 4.0% 2.1% 2.0% 0.0% rg m ol d ds A r n e rg id pe on o V ist le bu oa u nt ew O pe hb Sa hm Br R au ks N ul at nc on ic ic St C St Ly er R pt ed am Fr H Page 62 of 72
  • 63. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportTable D.4 – Square Foot Area of Functionally Obsolete Structures Statewide Sq-Ft Area of Functionally Obsolete Structures DISTRICT Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Total Bristol 267,252 390,041 289,206 17,879 964,378 Salem 97,148 845,595 517,851 153,964 1,614,558 Lynchburg 0 448,495 188,435 71,663 708,593 Richmond 181,605 1,806,869 271,649 329,529 2,589,652 Hampton Roads 1,773,302 4,451,763 341,815 342,534 6,909,414 Fredericksburg 51,585 576,504 129,573 0 757,662 Culpeper 6,192 98,871 227,595 6,633 339,291 Staunton 147,534 648,338 374,339 118,241 1,288,452 NOVA 1,544,719 1,138,115 1,715,361 94,541 4,492,736 Statewide 4,069,337 10,404,591 4,055,824 1,134,984 19,664,736 Chart D.4 – Square Foot Area of Functionally Obsolete Structures by District 8,000,000 6,909,414 7,000,000 6,000,000 Sq-Ft Functionally Obsolete 5,000,000 4,492,736 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,589,652 2,000,000 1,614,558 1,288,452 964,378 1,000,000 708,593 757,662 339,291 0 rg m ol d ds A r n rg pe on o V ist le bu oa u nt O pe hb Sa hm Br R au ks N ul nc on ic ic St C Ly er R pt ed am Fr H Page 63 of 72
  • 64. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportTable D.5 – Percentage of Square Foot Area of Functionally Obsolete Structures Statewide Percent of Sq-Ft Area of Functionally Obsolete Structures DISTRICT Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Total Bristol 14.7% 9.6% 10.9% 9.2% 11.1% Salem 5.8% 18.6% 16.9% 23.9% 16.2% Lynchburg 0.0% 10.0% 7.3% 21.6% 9.6% Richmond 3.0% 18.0% 7.1% 28.3% 12.3% Hampton Roads 15.9% 30.9% 18.7% 14.3% 23.2% Fredericksburg 8.7% 20.5% 10.5% 0.0% 16.2% Culpeper 0.6% 5.3% 13.0% 9.3% 7.2% Staunton 4.6% 18.2% 11.4% 27.4% 12.3% NOVA 27.6% 23.2% 24.3% 10.4% 24.3% Statewide 13.1% 20.5% 14.9% 18.3% 17.0%Percentages are calculated by dividing the FO area for the District by the total area for the District by highway system(example - FO Bristol Interstate area divided by all Bristol Interstate area 267,252 / 1,821,114 = 0. 1468 or 14.7%) Chart D.5 – Percentage of Functionally Obsolete Structures by Square Foot Area - by District 30.0% 25.0% 24.3% 23.2% % Sq-Ft Functionally Obsolete 20.0% 17.0% 16.2% 16.2% 15.0% 12.3% 12.3% 11.1% 9.6% 10.0% 7.2% 5.0% 0.0% rg m ol d ds A r n e rg id pe on o V ist le bu oa u nt ew O pe hb Sa hm Br R au ks N ul at nc on ic ic St C St Ly er R pt ed am Fr H Page 64 of 72
  • 65. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportTable D.6 – Square Foot Area of Deficient (SD or FO) Structures Statewide Sq-Ft Area of Deficient (SD or FO) Structures DISTRICT Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Total Bristol 372,631 674,069 530,482 64,063 1,641,245 Salem 326,381 1,105,565 852,475 173,197 2,457,618 Lynchburg 0 722,667 344,257 87,351 1,154,275 Richmond 774,572 2,635,177 535,532 424,204 4,369,485 Hampton Roads 2,130,463 5,095,335 435,298 389,286 8,050,382 Fredericksburg 78,032 982,646 194,937 1,469 1,257,084 Culpeper 26,374 181,165 325,428 11,932 544,899 Staunton 259,575 897,585 569,606 136,978 1,863,744 NOVA 1,636,851 1,323,159 1,817,184 94,541 4,871,735 Statewide 5,604,879 13,617,368 5,605,199 1,383,021 26,210,467 Chart D.6 – Square Foot Area of Deficient (SD or FO) Structures by District 9,000,000 8,050,382 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 Sq-Ft Deficient 4,871,735 5,000,000 4,369,485 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,457,618 1,863,744 2,000,000 1,641,245 1,154,275 1,257,084 1,000,000 544,899 0 g m ol d ds A r on rg pe ur on V ist le oa u nt O pe b hb Sa hm Br R au ks N ul nc on ic ic St C Ly er R pt ed am Fr H Page 65 of 72
  • 66. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportTable D.7 – Percent of Square Foot Area of Deficient (SD or FO) Structures Statewide Percent of Sq-Ft Area of Deficient (SD & FO) Structures DISTRICT Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Total Bristol 20.5% 16.6% 20.1% 32.9% 18.8% Salem 19.5% 24.3% 27.8% 26.9% 24.7% Lynchburg 0.0% 16.1% 13.3% 26.3% 15.6% Richmond 12.8% 26.3% 14.0% 36.4% 20.7% Hampton Roads 19.1% 35.4% 23.9% 16.3% 27.0% Fredericksburg 13.2% 35.0% 15.8% 2.5% 26.8% Culpeper 2.5% 9.8% 18.5% 16.8% 11.5% Staunton 8.1% 25.2% 17.3% 31.8% 17.7% NOVA 29.3% 27.0% 25.7% 10.4% 26.4% Statewide 18.0% 26.9% 20.5% 22.3% 22.7%Percentages are calculated by dividing the SD or FO area for the District by the total area for the District by highway system(example - SD or FO Bristol Interstate area divided by all Bristol Interstate area 372,631 / 1,821,114 = 0. .2046 or 20.5%) Chart D.7 – Percentage of Deficient (SD or FO) Structures by Square Foot Area by District 30.0% 27.0% 26.8% 26.4% 24.7% 25.0% 22.7% 20.7% 20.0% 18.8% % Sq-Ft Deficient 17.7% 15.6% 15.0% 11.5% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% g m ol d ds A r n e rg id pe ur on o V ist le oa u nt ew O pe sb hb Sa hm Br R au N k ul at nc on ic ic St C St Ly er R pt ed am Fr H Page 66 of 72
  • 67. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportTable D.8 – Square Foot Area of Weight-Posted Structures Statewide Sq-Ft Area of Weight Posted Structures DISTRICT Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Total Bristol 0 66,591 193,250 28,425 288,265 Salem 0 45,189 283,307 19,684 348,180 Lynchburg 0 37,850 191,546 4,297 233,693 Richmond 0 189,474 164,176 11,858 365,508 Hampton Roads 0 207,589 75,927 35,582 319,098 Fredericksburg 0 6,568 29,693 1,470 37,731 Culpeper 0 25,801 99,256 5,917 130,974 Staunton 0 115,729 120,197 7,742 243,668 NOVA 0 6,412 33,547 0 39,959 Statewide 0 701,203 1,190,899 114,974 2,007,076 Chart D.8 – Square Foot Area of Weight-Posted Structures by District 400,000 365,508 348,180 350,000 319,098 300,000 288,265 243,668 250,000 233,693 Sq-Ft Posted 200,000 150,000 130,974 100,000 50,000 37,731 39,959 0 rg m ol d ds A r n rg pe on o V ist le bu oa u nt O pe hb Sa hm Br R au ks N ul nc on ic ic St C Ly er R pt ed am Fr H Page 67 of 72
  • 68. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportTable D.9 – Percentage of Weight-Posted Structures by Square Foot Area and District Percent of Sq-Ft Area of Weight Posted Structures DISTRICT Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Total Bristol 0.0% 1.6% 7.3% 14.6% 3.3% Salem 0.0% 1.0% 9.2% 3.1% 3.5% Lynchburg 0.0% 0.8% 7.4% 1.3% 3.2% Richmond 0.0% 1.9% 4.3% 1.0% 1.7% Hampton Roads 0.0% 1.4% 4.2% 1.5% 1.1% Fredericksburg 0.0% 0.2% 2.4% 2.5% 0.8% Culpeper 0.0% 1.4% 5.7% 8.3% 2.8% Staunton 0.0% 3.2% 3.6% 1.8% 2.3% NOVA 0.0% 0.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% Statewide 0.0% 1.4% 4.4% 1.9% 1.7%Percentages are calculated by dividing the Weight-Posted area for the District by the total area for the District by highwaysystem (example – Weight-Posted Bristol Primary area divided by all Bristol Primary area 66,591 / 4,060,904 = 0. 0164 or1.6%) Table D.9 – Percentage of Weight-Posted Structures by Square Foot Area and District 4.0% 3.5% 3.5% 3.3% 3.2% 3.0% 2.8% 2.5% 2.3% % Posted 2.0% 1.7% 1.7% 1.5% 1.1% 1.0% 0.8% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% rg m ol d ds A r n e rg id pe on o V ist le bu oa u nt ew O pe hb Sa hm Br R au ks N ul at nc n ic ic St C St o Ly er R pt ed am Fr H Page 68 of 72
  • 69. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportAppendix E– Functionally Obsolete CriteriaThe following table provides visual examples of some of the criteria that cause a structure to be classifiedas Functionally Obsolete. Typical Examples of Functionally Obsolete Structures Appraisal Rating Example Deck Geometry (No shoulder) Water Adequacy (Inadequate free board. Bridge is susceptible to overtopping and/or flooding) Roadway Approach Alignment (Sharp curve at the approach to the bridge requires substantial reduction in speed) Page 69 of 72
  • 70. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges Report Typical Examples of Functionally Obsolete Structures Appraisal Rating Example Under Clearance Vertical(Inadequate under bridge vertical clearance) Under Clearance(Inadequate under bridge horizontal clearance) Structural Adequacy (Low bridge weight carrying capacity) Page 70 of 72
  • 71. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportAppendix F– Quality Assurance Program The safety inspection program provides the basis for most of the Commonwealth‟s maintenanceand bridge management decisions. Accordingly, the accuracy, thoroughness and completeness of thebridge safety inspections are essential. The inspections are used to evaluate each structure‟s safety andare used for decisions on planning, budgeting, and performance of maintenance, repair, rehabilitation andreplacement of our structures. Since 1991, it has been the policy of the Structure and Bridge Division(S&B) to provide rigorous quality control and quality assurance (QC/QA) of the structure safetyinspection program. In January 2005, the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) portion of theCode of Federal Regulations was amended to require each state to “Assure systematic quality control andquality assurance procedures are used to maintain a high degree of accuracy and consistency in theinspection program. Include periodic field review of inspection teams, periodic bridge inspectionrefresher training for Program Managers and Team Leaders, and independent review of inspection reportsand computations.” The Structure and Bridge Division meets these NBIS requirements with its qualitycontrol and quality assurance programs. In 2008, VDOT S&B developed Information and Instruction Memorandum (IIM) IIM-S&B-78describing the bridge safety inspection QC/QA program which includes the following. In accordancewith the NBIS, Program Managers and Team Leaders must successfully complete a Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA) approved comprehensive bridge inspection training course. Within VDOT allbridge safety inspection personnel will successfully complete the National Highway Institute (NHI)course „Safety Inspection of In-Service Bridges‟ (FHWA-NHI-130055) within the first five years ofemployment in bridge inspection. In addition to this requirement, VDOT S&B requires inspectionpersonnel to successfully complete the NHI course „Bridge Inspection Refresher Training‟ every three (3)years. Underwater inspectors are required to fulfill the training requirements as set forth in the NBIS andthe VDOT „Dive Safety Manual‟. Both the Central Office and the Districts have a responsibility to review and validate inspectionreports and inventory data. Discrepancies found during field and office reviews performed by bothDistrict and Central Office personnel are documented in a written report and shared with all partiesinvolved. VDOT inspects over 10,000 structures annually at an approximate cost of $18 million. Page 71 of 72
  • 72. Virginia Department of Transportation State of the Structures and Bridges ReportAppendix G – Inventory Changes from Previous YearsNotes on Charts 7-30: Some of the charts in the report provide multi-year trends for various performancemeasures. Inventory numbers provided in this report for the years 2007-2010 may vary from numbersprovided in previous reports. This is due primarily to a change in the reporting period. Previous reportswere based on calendar year (January 1 through December 31) whereas this report is based on the fiscalyear (July 1 through June 30). This change was made to align the reporting period of the State of theStructures report with reports developed by other divisions.Other factors causing changes in inventory numbers for previous years between this report and previousreports include:  Definition of Interstate Highway Bridges. From 2007 to 2009 Interstate overpasses were categorized as Interstate structures, and reports from prior years reported the data accordingly. Values shown in this report for 2009 have been adjusted from those included in previous reports to reflect the removal of Interstate overpasses from the Interstate inventory. Values for 2007 and 2008 have not been adjusted due to a lack of sufficient data. Values for 2010 and 2011 are based on the new criteria.  Changes in bridge inventory. Until 2009 pedestrian and footbridge structures were included in the State of the Structures Report. They have not been included since 2010. Pedestrian structures, when included, tend to provide misleading data regarding the number of SD and FO structures. Page 72 of 72