3250 Executive Park Drive Springfield, Illinois 62703 Phone (217) 492-4600 Fax (217) 492-4621

Purpose of Review:

The purpose of this review was to determine the Illinois Department of Transportation's (IDOT) compliance with the requirements and procedures of 23 CFR 650, Subpart C - National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS).

Scope of Review:

This review consisted of an evaluation of IDOT's NBIS program and general bridge maintenance. The Districts included in the 2008 NBIS review included Districts 4, 6 and 9. The District Bridge Maintenance Engineers (Delegated Program Managers) and staff were interviewed to determine if the Districts' procedures, policies, inspector's qualifications, and documentation were adequate to satisfy the NBIS requirements. Specific items of discussion included staffing, available inspection equipment, inspection frequency, quality control/quality assurance, underwater inspection, fracture critical inspection, scour screening and evaluation, special features inspection, element level inspection, follow-up to critical and routine maintenance recommendations, and general bridge maintenance. Bridge inspection files were reviewed for consistency with the coding guide, adequacy of documentation, and to evaluate the inspector's recommendations for maintenance needs. Thirty-eight bridges maintained by IDOT were selected and reviewed in the field for accuracy of bridge condition and appraisal ratings, verification of inventory information, and adequacy of maintenance follow-up activities.

Similar reviews were performed in six counties and one municipality in Illinois. Counties reviewed included Franklin, Knox, Mercer, Montgomery, Schuyler, and White. The City of Peoria was included as a municipality. The scopes of these reviews were very similar and included interviews with County Engineers and/or staff responsible for bridge inspections. A total of 87 structures were reviewed in the field on the local system.

Individual district reports were prepared for each of the reviews. Local and minor issues were addressed in those individual reports. Individual county and/or municipal reports were also prepared for each of the local reviews. The following items are issues that were discussed in the field and are considered to be of statewide significance.

Observation Number 1: Scour Evaluation Incomplete (Item 113=6)

The scour evaluation program in Illinois is not complete.

Discussion Number 1:

A March 2009 query of Illinois' bridge inventory indicated there are 98 structures that still have Item 113 = "6", indicating they were not evaluated for scour. Of the 98 structures, the Centennial Bridge in IDOT District 2 is the only structure on the State system. The IDOT is currently looking into the scope of work for evaluation of this structure and then a decision will be made to perform the evaluation in-house or through a consultant. The other 97 structures are owned by various local agencies. Only 21 structures were constructed prior to 1995. Newer structures have most likely had scour incorporated into design, so evaluation of these structures should be very simple.

Completion of the scour evaluation program has been a nationwide goal and is now a major emphasis area by FHWA. The original target date for completion of all scour evaluations was January 1, 1997 so outstanding structures are overdue. Determination of NBIS compliance hinges on the satisfactory completion of the scour evaluation program. Many other States are being cited for non-compliance or conditional compliance because of the lack of completion of this program. Threat of withholding approval of further Federal-aid projects is a tool being used throughout the Nation in order to achieve program completion.

There were numerous attempts in Illinois to promote the importance and completion of this program with some success. However, there are still structures not being evaluated for various reasons. Additional aggressive action is needed in order to achieve compliance.

Recommendation Number 1:

The scour evaluation program in Illinois must be completed. The IDOT should communicate with the local agencies regarding any structures where Item 113 is coded as "6" and stress the importance of completing this program. The local agencies should be required to submit aggressive action plans for completion of their respective scour programs. The IDOT should submit these action plans to FHWA for approval. Once approved, monthly progress reports are necessary in order to track the progress of the action plans. A reasonable goal to complete all outstanding scour evaluations is June 30, 2009. The FHWA will seriously consider withholding approval of any Federal-aid projects within that jurisdiction (including State projects) until all scour evaluations are complete.

Resolution Number 1:

The IDOT issued Circular Letter 2009-07, Bridge Scour Supplement dated March 31, 2009, which provided a re-emphasis on completing the program. The Circular Letter provided a deadline of May 31, 2009, for the completion of the scour evaluation program. If a structure is not evaluated for scour by that date, Item 113 will be coded "3 – Scour Critical" and a Scour Plan of Action must be prepared by December 31, 2009.

A recent April 10, 2009 query shows that good progress continues in this program and IDOT is commended for that effort. Only 30 structures remain for evaluation. Two-thirds of those remaining are under the responsibility of various municipalities. Additionally, 20 of the 30 structures were built since 1991, so there is a high probability that those structures were adequately designed for scour.

It was agreed that IDOT will not require action plans to show completion of the scour evaluation program. The Bureau of Bridges and Structures will continue internal communication with the owners of the remaining structures in an effort to achieve program completion.

Observation Number 2: Scour POA Development

Although significant progress is being made, Scour Plans of Action (POAs) are not all developed and implemented.

Discussion Number 2:

The NBIS now requires the development and implementation of POAs for all scour critical structures. From a February 2009 query, 327 structures on the State system require a POA. This includes 141 structures that have Item 113 = "7". As of April 3, 2009, there are approximately 112 POAs developed with 215 additional POAs currently in progress. No POAs are formally implemented.

On the local system, 470 POAs are required. This includes 272 that have Item 113 = "7". It is very difficult to track the progress of development of POAs on the local system. It is believed a few are complete and some are in progress in several counties (or other local agencies), but in general, progress is very limited.

The NBIS regulation language states that a target date for implementation was January 13, 2006. That date was provided, not as a deadline to get all POAs completed, but rather as a deadline to develop a reasonable schedule to complete all of the required plans. The Bureau of Bridges and Structures issued a memorandum on August 28, 2006, and another on September 25, 2006, to all Deputy Directors of Highways providing guidance for developing POAs. In that correspondence, a target completion date of December 31, 2007, was established for State maintained structures.

After subsequent discussions with IDOT, it was determined that completion of all POAs could not be accomplished by the target deadline of December 31, 2007. Therefore, a compromise was reached to require 30 percent of the required POAs be done by December 31, 2007, and another 30 percent by December 21, 2008, and the remaining 40 percent be completed by December 31, 2009. These percentage goals were for each individual district rather than a statewide average.

To address POAs on the local system, IDOT issued Circular Letter 2007-05 on March 22, 2007. The letter established the end of calendar year 2009 as a target for completion of the activities. The letter also suggested that in order to demonstrate reasonable progress, a goal of 50 percent completion should be reached by the end of calendar year 2008.

Guidance from the FHWA Headquarter's Office of Bridge Technology established a recommended target of November 28, 2008, for bridges under State jurisdiction and

November 27, 2009, for bridges under local jurisdictions for completion of scour POA development. The guidance also recommended a target date of April 29, 2009, for bridges under State jurisdiction, and April 29, 2010, for bridges under local jurisdiction for full POA implementation. As discussed above, the agreement between IDOT and FHWA does not strictly conform to the target deadlines provided by the Office of Bridge Technology, but as long as significant efforts are being made, the deadlines previously agreed to between IDOT and FHWA may remain.

It is very important that the State remain on schedule with the scour POA program. Any additional extensions from the development and implementation schedule are strongly discouraged, but can be submitted with justification to FHWA for possible approval. This program area is a major factor in the overall assessment of the State's compliance with the NBIS. If the State is determined to be in non-compliance, FHWA may withhold future Federal-aid project authorizations until compliance is reached.

As previously mentioned, it is very difficult to track the progress of scour POA development and implementation. Without an inventory code, the only method to track progress is through written or verbal inquiries to the various Program Managers. Continual progress in this program area makes it extremely difficult to get an accurate assessment of the overall program status. Inventory codes indicating whether a scour POA is required, developed and implemented would make it much easier for the statewide Program Manager to assess the overall program, both on the State and local system.

A final issue is determining the definition of "developing vs. implementing" a scour POA. Using very general guidelines, the development of a POA means the bridge owners have held meetings involving the appropriate personnel from internal units within their corresponding agency (design, construction, inspection and maintenance, districts and others as applicable) and with external entities (local authorities such as a commissioner, police department, fire department and others as needed) to identify and document:

• General information about the bridge, responsibility for POA, scour vulnerability, recommended countermeasure(s) or alternatives, National Bridge Inventory (NBI) coding information, countermeasure selection(s) including priority ranking and cost, bridge closure plan, detour route and any other supportive information.

The implementation of a POA means the bridge owners have completed disseminating the POA to the appropriate personnel within their internal offices/units and external entities and have met with these offices/units and with external entities to communicate:

• General information and instructions contained in each POA (e.g., individuals responsible for the POA implementation, detour routes, when to close/open a bridge, countermeasure selection, and design and installation schedules. Bridge owners should make sure that responsible parties identified in the POA understand their roles and responsibilities and they are provided with periodic training on the implementation of selected components of a POA such as bridge closure/opening procedures.

• Frequency to conduct periodic reviews and updates of the information presented in a POA.

There are no clear definitions or distinctions between the development of the POA and the implementation of a POA in Illinois. In other words, there is no clear trigger that would lead a Program Manager to consider a POA to be formally implemented. It is important to note a scour POA is not strictly a paper exercise, simply resulting in the incorporation of the document into an individual bridge file, thus satisfying the intent of the NBIS. Rather, it must be considered a true action plan that is acted upon each time a threshold rainfall or flood event triggers the action.

Recommendation Number 2:

All required scour POAs should be developed and implemented as soon as possible. Additional aggressive measures should be taken, especially with local agencies, to ensure that all POAs are developed and implemented within timeframes previously established.

To aid in tracking progress in this program, an inventory item should be developed to track the status of scour plans required/developed/implemented. This should be a priority activity and Program Managers should be required to populate the data field immediately.

Within a period of two months, IDOT should provide an up-to-date status report on the development of scour POAs including IDOT Districts and all local agencies.

The IDOT should also develop a clear definition of development of a POA and implementation of a POA. Program Managers should properly track status and report those that are implemented through the new inventory item discussed above.

Resolution Number 2:

The IDOT issued Circular Letter 2009-07, Bridge Scour Supplement dated March 31, 2009, which provided a re-emphasis on completing Scour Plans of Action. This is a satisfactory effort for the local system.

The IDOT is continuing to pursue the implementation of Bridge Watch for scour critical structures. This is a very useful tool in the scour monitoring program as it allows for proper and timely call-out for bridge inspectors. Funding is in place, but there are currently problems with the proprietary nature of this system. The FHWA has provided other States' Requests for Proposal to the IDOT Bridge Office for use in soliciting a workable system.

The IDOT agreed that a new inventory item would be desirable to track status of scour plans of action. It was noted that adding a new inventory item into the mainframe computer system is very time consuming and only one person currently has the capability to implement the change. It could take up to one year to add the additional inventory item. The work activity will remain on an internal "To Do" list, with no set deadline for implementation.

The IDOT agreed to provide FHWA with a thorough scour program update within two months. This would include both State and local system structures. A reasonable due date for this update is June 30, 2009.

The IDOT acknowledges that scour countermeasures are preferred over plans of actions and continual "call-out" or field monitoring. There is a current funding effort to provide for scour countermeasure installation. For example, there is $3 million in funding available for this next year for scour mitigation on the State system. This is a commendable effort.

The IDOT's preference for distinguishing between development and implementation of scour POA is to consider them as one item. In other words, there is not a need to formally distinguish the two stages. The Illinois Division of FHWA concurs in this determination.

Scour POA will be a focus area for the 2009 State and Local agency NBIS reviews. A reassessment of the program progress will be made considering the agreed POA target completion date of December 31, 2009.

Observation Number 3: QC Program

The State's Quality Control (QC) program has not been completely implemented.

Discussion Number 3:

A Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC/QA) program is required by the NBIS. Section 3 of the IDOT Structural Services Manual documents the requirements of the QC/QA program for Illinois. The QA program has been initiated in Illinois by using a consultant, but the QC programs in the districts and local agencies have not been fully implemented. A part of the QC program requires a Program Manager to conduct in-depth reviews of the field procedures used by all Team Leaders functioning under their supervision. Additionally, the QC program requires the Program Manager to review all bridge inspection reports and physically sign those reports prior to the data being entered into the bridge inventory system.

In several districts, the Program Manager only reviews some of the inspection reports, but not all. On the local system, it is generally unknown whether the Program Managers for the various local agencies are reviewing and signing off on the bridge inspection reports as required.

District and local Program Managers occasionally serve as Team Leader for some or even all bridge inspections. There is a need to perform QC review on their inspections as well; however, there are no procedures in place for this to occur.

Recommendation Number 3:

District and local agency QC programs should be fully implemented at this time. Field reviews for spot checking each bridge inspection Team Leader's performance should now be completed or at least planned. The inspection report review process should now be implemented such that each Program Manager should review and approve (through signature) all inspection reports under their area of responsibility. In cases where the Program Manager also serves as the bridge inspection Team Leader, IDOT should establish procedures for performing QC field checks and inspection report reviews for those inspections conducted by Program Managers. The Statewide Program Manager should consider assigning Central Office personnel (or consultants) to perform QC reviews on Program Managers, such as the District Bridge Maintenance Engineers.

Resolution Number 3:

This issue was discussed in detail at the Bridge Maintenance Engineers' meeting in October 2008. There is a plan to revise the standard bridge inspection forms to include signature of the Program Manager, indicating their review and concurrence. This activity is currently on a "To Do" list and a consultant will be asked to make the revisions. Target date for completion is December 31, 2009. The current Fracture Critical Member inspection form already has a Program Manager Signature line to indicate review and concurrence. In the meantime, most District Program Managers continue to initial inspection reports indicating their review.

Local agencies will be notified of revisions to the standard inspection forms when they are issued and will be required to follow the same review procedures as for the State system.

It was noted that routine bridge inspections are rarely conducted by District Program Managers on the State system. Therefore, the need for quality control field reviews may be minimal. The FHWA will work with IDOT to identify the number of bridge inspections that have the District Program Managers listed as the bridge inspection Team Leader. Based on the evaluation, further action may be recommended.

On the local system, there have been a couple of instances where a neighboring County's Program Manager has performed the quality control review for a particular County (and vice-versa). This is acceptable, but is not encouraged as a statewide practice. The extent of the potential problem with local agency Program Managers acting as bridge inspection Team Leaders (and the need for QC field review) is unknown at this time. The 2009 NBIS review will focus much more on the issue to determine if there is a substantial problem.

Observation Number 4: Item 113 (Scour) Blank

The IDOT requirement for coding of Item 113, Scour Critical Evaluation for bridges not over waterways, may be a source of confusion and is different from the guidance provided in the Federal Coding Guide.

Discussion Number 4:

As discussed in the IDOT Structure Information and Procedure Manual, Item 113 requires a coding of "blank" for bridges not over waterways. The Federal Coding Guide requires a code of "N" for these situations. The IDOT has a conversion program to change "blank" to "N" when the data is submitted to the FHWA. This is acceptable; however, it is not possible to determine when Item 113 is intentionally coded "blank" and when Item 113 is unintentionally left blank by default (i.e. a new bridge record has all fields blank at the start and will remain blank until the data fields are consciously populated.) To assure that Program Managers have properly evaluated a structure for this item, it would be desirable to use a coding that could be differentiated from a "default blank". A Federal Coding Guide requirement of "N" for all structures not over waterways is recommended.

Recommendation Number 4:

Consideration should be given to modifying the coding of Item 113, Scour Critical Evaluation for all bridges not over waterways. The Structure Information and Procedure Manual should be revised to require a code of "N" rather than "blank" in these instances.

Resolution Number 4:

The IDOT agreed. On the local system, 119 structures with Item 113 coded "blank" are over waterways. Of the 119 structures, 103 were built since 1991, so it is probable that the structures were adequately designed for scour. On the State system, approximately 150 structures with Item 113 coded "blank" are over waterways.

The IDOT will change the coding of Item 113 for structures not over waterways to "N" to be in conformance with the Federal Coding Guide.

The Bridge Office will continue to pursue the proper coding of Item 113 for those structures coded "blank" that are over waterways. On September 1, 2009, all structures that still have Item 113 coded "blank" and are over waterways, will be changed to "3". Then, scour Plans of Action will be required to be developed by the targeted deadline of December 31, 2009.

Observation Number 5: Inspection Equipment - Ladders

All districts have ladders as inspection equipment, but it is not standard practice to use ladders on routine NBIS inspections.

Discussion Number 5:

In Illinois, there are many structures with tall substructure elements that cannot be completely accessed through standard ground inspection or climbing techniques. Inspection of the tops of pier caps and abutment caps is occasionally necessary to ensure no problems develop in the bearings, top of caps or beam ends. Inspection from the ground, with or without binoculars, is necessary and often adequate, but an occasional "close-up" inspection is desirable. It is suggested that alternating inspection cycles include ladder access to those areas that cannot be completely visually assessed from the ground. Notes in the inspection report should document when ladder access was included.

Recommendation Number 5:

Standard IDOT bridge inspection procedures should include periodic ladder (or equivalent) inspection for structures with relatively tall substructure elements.

Resolution Number 5:

The IDOT agreed. Procedural changes will be documented in the IDOT Structural Services Manual with proper notification to all Program Managers. The timing of the changes is uncertain at this time, but should occur relatively soon.

Observation Number 6: 48-Month Inspection Criteria Change – Item 113

There are many structures in Illinois with Item 113, Scour Critical Bridges, coded "7", indicating countermeasures have been installed to mitigate an existing problem with scour and to reduce the risk of bridge failure during a flood event. Several of these structures are on a 48-month inspection cycle, which may not be prudent.

Discussion Number 6:

One of the approved criteria for allowing 48-month inspections on a structure is as follows: "The rating for Scour Critical Evaluation (ISIS Item 113) must be "5 or greater"." This would allow any bridge with Item 113 coded "6" or "7" to be included in the 48-month inspection program if all the other criteria are satisfied. At this time, there are no structures in Illinois with Item 113 = "6" on a 48-month inspection cycle, so this is not an issue. However, there are currently 26 structures with Item 113 = "7" on the 48-month inspection cycle. A coding of "7" usually indicates there have been actual scour problems or potential scour problems on the structure and countermeasures have been installed to mitigate (not correct) the problem. A code of "7" indicates the Program Manager or scour evaluation team is not certain the countermeasures are stable and effective and there could be a possibility those countermeasures could fail. In these cases, it would be undesirable to allow an extended inspection frequency. More frequent inspection of those countermeasures should be performed until enough confidence has been generated to allow raising the scour rating to "8", stable for scour.

Recommendation Number 6:

The IDOT's approved 4-year inspection criteria should be modified to disallow structures with Item 113 coded "6" or "7" to be in the 48-month inspection program. This would require a slight modification to the computer logic used in producing master lists of 48-month inspection candidates. Since there are several structures with Item 113 ="7" currently on the 48-month inspection program, the owners of those structures should be contacted to alert them the inspection frequency will soon be dropped to 24 months and efforts should be made to inspect them soon (if applicable) to avoid delinquency.

Resolution Number 6:

The IDOT agreed. Program Managers have already been instructed to plan for inspection of those structures that have Item 113 = "7" that are currently under the 48-month inspection program and are going to be dropped into the 24-month inspection program. The IDOT will submit a letter to the Illinois Division of FHWA to formally request the change in the 4-year inspection policy. The letter will only contain information related to the scour criteria, rather than a resubmittal of all criteria of the 4-year inspection policy.

Observation Number 7: Arm's Length FC Inspections

There is confusion as to the proper fracture critical inspection requirements for arm's length inspection for dual steel box beam structures.

Discussion Number 7:

There are numerous bridges in Illinois that have a twin steel box beam superstructure. Most districts indicate they perform fracture critical "arm's length" inspections only from the inside of steel box girders. Inspection from the inside precludes the need for additional inspection equipment and traffic control that would be necessary for arm's length inspection on the outside of the girders. It is possible defects can be identified entirely from the inside of the box girders, but corrosion, cracking or other distress may initiate from the outside of the boxes which could not be readily detected from the inside. Through coordination with FHWA Headquarters, it was determined that fracture critical inspections for dual steel box girder structures must include arm's length inspection from both the inside and the outside of the girders.

Recommendation Number 7:

The IDOT should revise their statewide Fracture Critical Member inspection procedure to include arm's length inspection from both the inside and the outside of steel box girder structures.

Resolution Number 7:

The IDOT agreed. The Structural Services Manual language will be revised to include this requirement. The IDOT pointed out that the fracture critical elements of the dual steel box girder bridges are only the bottom flanges. There are four top flanges for redundancy and therefore do not meet the definition of "fracture critical".

Observation Number 8: Private Entrance Bridges on Public Right-of-Way

Several bridges are essentially driveways into private properties that are inspected, but not reported in the NBI. There is some confusion as to whether these types of bridges are subject to all of the NBIS requirements.

Discussion Number 8:

There are many structures greater than 20 feet in length that are located immediately off a State route that carry a private road past the bridge into private property. Many of these structures are physically located within the IDOT right-of-way over drainage ditches. The road past the bridge is certainly under private ownership, but there are some uncertainties regarding specific maintenance and ownership agreements of the structures. The photos below are examples of particular situations.

The IDOT's current practice is to code these types of structures "Z" for Item 41, Bridge Status. The "Z" indicates, "Structure records that cannot be cross-indexed to roadway file because they do not have an "open to public" key route on/under the structure. For example, structures in the database, which have been designated as historical, but no longer carry vehicular traffic. Also included are structures which IDOT has an agreement to maintain but carry only private traffic." Many of these structures are currently inspected per NBIS, but are not reported to FHWA as official NBI structures.

There are concerns the traveling public can and do use these bridges for purposes such as mail carrier or school bus turnarounds, so arguments can be made the structures are subject to the NBIS. The roads/driveways/field entrances classified as private should not be considered to begin immediately at the State route's edge, but should be considered to begin at the edge of the IDOT right-of-way. If the bridge is located wholly are partially within the IDOT right-of-way, then it should be subject to, and reported in, the NBI.

It is probable the same situation exists on the local system. Private roads/driveways/field entrances tied into county and township roads often have structures across ditches/creeks. Many are structures less than 20 feet in length, but some are over 20 feet in length. Depending on their location with respect to the local agency's right-of-way line, these also may be subject to the NBIS.

If a bridge is wholly are partially located within the right-of-way of the State or local agency, it is the bridge owner's responsibility to ensure safety of that bridge, even if the bridge is serving only one or two individuals. It is very unlikely that the bridge owner would be a private citizen when the bridge is physically located within public right-of-way.

If there is a problem with inspection of this type of structure, then consideration should be given to physically posting the private road as "Private Road" on the public side of the bridge in question.

On the State system, since these types of structures are inspected and inventoried, reporting to the NBI should be a very simple issue. On the local system, inspection of these types of structures is uncertain, so it may be a more complicated issue.

Recommendation Number 8:

The "Z" bridges that are essentially entrances onto private roadways or properties should be reported to the NBI and should be subject to all NBIS regulations.

Resolution Number 8:

The IDOT agreed that this type of "Z" structure should be reported to the NBI. This would require a coding change to group these structures separately from other structure records that cannot be cross-indexed to the roadway file (i.e. other "Z's"). The ISIS committee will address this issue in its next meeting. If it is determined that this issue also applies to local roads, the various local agencies will be informed of the new coding and the need to perform NBI inspections. The IDOT Office of Planning and Programming will need to have input to the ISIS committee on this issue.

Observation Number 9: Deck/Superstructure Condition Ratings

The deck condition rating and superstructure rating for many concrete slab structures and Precast, Prestressed Concrete (PPC) box beam structures are not identical, as they should be.

Discussion Number 9:

The IDOT Structure Information and Procedure Manual specifically and clearly states:

"General Note: For slab and precast prestressed concrete (PPC) deck beam bridges the deck condition rating (Item 58) shall be rated the same as the superstructure (Item 59) using the superstructure criteria, except for PPC deck beam bridges with 5 inches or more of reinforced concrete overlay, in which case, the overlay shall be rated as the deck".

The reason for this note is for these types of structures, the deck is an integral part of the entire superstructure. For a concrete slab bridge, the deck and the superstructure are one in the same and there is no way to differentiate between the two. For a PPC deck beam bridge, the top slab or "flange" of the deck beam is incorrectly considered by some inspectors to be the deck. The top slab cannot be differentiated or separated from the rest of the superstructure since it is structurally integral. (i.e. the superstructure will not stand by itself without the top slab (deck), as opposed to other types of structures).

Some inspectors tend to rate the bottom or soffit of these types of bridges as a "superstructure" and then rate the top surface as a "deck". Others tend to rate the wearing surface as the deck which is not correct, unless the wearing surface is a reinforced concrete overlay.

In a February query of the State's NBI data for slab and deck beam bridges, there were 29 State structures and 1,536 local structures that had Item 58, Deck Condition and Item 59, Superstructure Condition coded differently. Most of them should have the two items coded identically. The exception would be for those that have a reinforced concrete wearing surface, in which case, one coding could be different from the other. In this query, there was no attempt to exclude those that have a reinforced concrete wearing surface, so the actual count would be somewhat less than reported. However, even filtering out those relative few with concrete overlays, the number of structures with different condition ratings is still high, so some action should be taken.

Recommendation Number 9:

The IDOT should disseminate additional information to all bridge inspection Team Leaders to re-emphasize that deck condition and superstructure condition should be rated the same for concrete slab and PPC deck beam structures, except for those with reinforced concrete overlays. This topic should be included in any future bridge inspection refresher or calibration class agendas. The topic should be discussed at any upcoming meetings that may include bridge inspection Team Leaders or Program Managers, such as Bridge Maintenance Engineer's meetings, County Engineer's meetings, etc.

Resolution Number 9:

The IDOT agreed. It is possible that some of the large number of reported structures with different deck and superstructure ratings have not been inspected since the policy was implemented and the relatively new note was placed in the Structure Information & Procedure Manual. The IDOT will discuss this issue at any upcoming bridge inspector's meetings.

Observation Number 10: NBIS Inspections – Staged Construction

There is still confusion on the requirement to perform NBIS inspections on structures that are open to traffic and are under staged construction.

Discussion Number 10:

Staged construction is very typical for bridge improvement projects in Illinois. Many times, a bridge may become due for routine NBIS inspection during the construction project. There has been historic confusion on the necessity to perform NBIS inspections on bridges under construction. Some Program Managers believe the safety of a bridge during construction is the responsibility of the contractor and the project Resident Engineer. Their opinion is that the continual monitoring and daily presence at the bridge site by these individuals is adequate to ensure safety and therefore, formal NBIS inspections are not necessary.

Often, when delinquency reports are generated, the bridges that show up as delinquent are those that are under staged construction. This is due to the continued confusion that NBIS inspections are not necessary. In fact, NBIS inspections are necessary and required by qualified bridge inspection Team Leaders, even for those bridges either completely closed or open under staged construction. There is no assurance the construction staff has the proper training to identify bridge safety issues and concerns. Additionally, the construction staff is normally focused on contract administration, specification compliance, and work progress rather than the condition of the existing structure still carrying traffic.

Recommendation Number 10:

Structures under staged construction, which become due for NBIS bridge inspection should be inspected by qualified bridge inspection personnel and should not be postponed until completion of the construction project.

Resolution Number 10:

The IDOT agreed. This issue was discussed at the October 2008 Bridge Maintenance Engineers' Meeting. Discussion of this requirement will be included in the next revision to the IDOT Structural Services Manual. There was a previous internal IDOT memorandum from several years ago that discussed this issue and recommended the NBIS inspection be performed prior to the start of work for a bridge scheduled for construction. It is sometimes difficult to perform a thorough NBI inspection on a bridge that is under staged construction due to limitations of access equipment while construction operations are proceeding. In those cases, the bridge inspection Team Leader will perform the inspection "as good as they can" with proper documentation in the inspection report concerning access problems.

Observation Number 11: Condition Ratings – Bridge Closures

There are significant variations in the way Program Managers allow the coding of deck, superstructure, and substructure ratings for closed structures.

Discussion Number 11:

In a February query, 139 structures in the inventory are coded to indicate they are closed to traffic. The query included all those with Item 41, Bridge Status, coded "A", "B" or "C". It does not include those that are closed and deleted from the inventory or closed permanently with no plans of repair/replacement within the next five years (i.e. Item 41 = "D", "E"). Most of these structures are on the local system.

Depending on which structural element leads to the closure of a bridge, the Federal Coding Guide requires a condition rating of "1" or "0" for deck, superstructure, and/or substructure rating. For example, if a bridge is closed due to a failed substructure element, but the deck and superstructure remain in good condition, Item 58 should remain a "7", Item 59 should remain a "7" , but Item 60 should be dropped to a "1" or "0" depending on the effort needed to bring it back into service. A code of "1" indicates the bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put it back in light service. A code of "0" indicates the bridge is out-of-service – beyond corrective action. The Federal Coding Guide does not require all three primary condition ratings to be dropped to "1" or "0" because of bridge closure. Only the specific elements that caused the bridge to be closed should be dropped.

For many of the structures shown in the query, the ratings for all three primary condition ratings were dropped to "0". For other closed structures, none of the primary condition ratings were dropped to "1" or "0". For others, it appears there are correct ratings with only one or two of the primary condition ratings reported as "1" or "0". This overall inconsistency needs to be addressed.

Recommendation Number 11:

All bridge inspectors should be alerted that deck, superstructure and substructure conditions should not all be dropped to "0" or "1" just because the bridge is closed to traffic. Only the element(s) that caused the bridge to be closed should be coded "0" or "1".

Resolution Number 11:

The IDOT agreed. By means of an "Executive Summary" of this closeout report, this information will be distributed within IDOT and to local agencies. The FHWA Division Office will be responsible for creation of the "Executive Summary". In addition, discussion on appropriate condition ratings for closed bridges will be included in the calibration class that is currently under development.

Observation Number 12: 48-Month Inspection Interval Changes

There are issues with the timely inspection of bridges, which are currently on the 48-month inspection cycle and then drop to a 24-month inspection cycle when the bridge reaches an age greater than 50 years.

Discussion Number 12:

The IDOT's approved 48-month inspection frequency criterion includes the following condition:

• The age of the structure must not exceed 50 years (reference Original Construction Year Item 27A where item 27 = "O") unless the structure had been reconstructed within the past 30 years (reference Reconstruction Year Item 27A where Item 27 = "R").

There are occasions when a bridge is in the third or fourth year of a 4-year inspection cycle, and the reported "Year Built" is such that the bridge becomes 51 years old after January 1 of the current year. The computer automatically drops the inspection interval to 24 months as required. However, the computer logic that generates current and upcoming bridge delinquencies does not adequately consider this criteria and Program Managers occasionally find these bridges to be delinquent for inspection. This situation can be avoided. Program Managers should be able to easily track and anticipate when structures are expected to drop out of the 48-month inspection program due to age, so they can plan to properly inspect the bridge before it shows up on delinquency lists.

Recommendation Number 12:

The IDOT should revise the programming logic used to generate bridge delinquency lists. The programming logic should consider the 50-year age threshold on the eligibility for the 48-month inspection cycle. Inspection scheduling should include those structures currently on a 48-month inspection cycle, but which drop to a 24-month inspection cycle in year 3 or year 4 of that inspection cycle due to the age criteria.

Resolution Number 12:

The IDOT agreed. Currently, the Office of Planning and Programming performs manual checks on the data concerning this criterion. Programming logic revisions will be made and are on a "To Do" list for completion.

Observation Number 13: Closed Bridge Inspection Query Changes – State Bridges

Standard queries used by IDOT for determining bridge inspection delinquencies do not include structures closed to traffic. Therefore, bridges closed to traffic can become delinquent for inspection when these queries are used as a basis for planning inspection activities.

Discussion Number 13:

Typically, the district bridge inspectors or Program Managers run standard delinquency queries through the State's Bridge Inspection System (BIS). These queries generate lists of structures that will become delinquent in the near future. Inspectors use these queries to plan and schedule specific bridge inspections. It was learned that closed bridges do not show up on the standard delinquency queries. The reasoning is unknown, but often results in closed structures becoming delinquent for inspection. There is speculation that the query is related to Item 41, Bridge Status, and if a particular bridge is coded to indicate "closed" status, then it is excluded from the reports.

The BIS system is used only for State maintained structures. Local agencies use their own queries and other tracking mechanisms, so this observation only applies to State system bridges.

Recommendation Number 13:

Programming logic in the BIS should be modified to ensure that closed bridges are included in the standardized queries used by bridge inspectors to track current and upcoming inspections delinquencies.

Resolution Number 13:

The IDOT agreed. The Bridge Office will fix this in BIS.