PDF The Manual For Bridge Evaluation American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Aashto Ebook Full Chapter

The Manual for Bridge Evaluation
American Association Of State Highway

And Transportation Officials (Aashto)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-manual-for-bridge-evaluation-american-associatio
n-of-state-highway-and-transportation-officials-aashto/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Publication Manual of the American Psychological

Association 6th Edition American Psychological
Association
https://textbookfull.com/product/publication-manual-of-the-
american-psychological-association-6th-edition-american-
psychological-association/

Association - 7th Edition American Psychological
Association
psychological-association/

Association 7th Edition American Psychological
Association
psychological-association-2/

Association - 7th Edition Coll.
american-psychological-association-7th-edition-coll/
American Heart Association Healthy Slow Cooker Cookbook
American Heart Association
https://textbookfull.com/product/american-heart-association-
healthy-slow-cooker-cookbook-american-heart-association/
American Sociological Association Style Guide 7th

Edition American Sociological Association
https://textbookfull.com/product/american-sociological-
association-style-guide-7th-edition-american-sociological-
association/
The Memory Activity Book First American Edition

American Association Of Retired Persons.
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-memory-activity-book-first-
american-edition-american-association-of-retired-persons/
Trip Generation Manual 10 th Edition Institute Of

Transportation Engineers
https://textbookfull.com/product/trip-generation-manual-10-th-
edition-institute-of-transportation-engineers/
Social Security American Association Of Retired

Persons.
https://textbookfull.com/product/social-security-american-
association-of-retired-persons/
THE MANUAL FOR
BRIDGE EVALUATION
AMERICAN ASSCCIATIDN
OF STATE HIGHWA.V "NO
TRANSPDRTATION OFFICIALS
AASHlo
3rd Edition • 2018
© 2018 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249
Washington, DC 20001
202-624-5800 phone/202-624-5806 fax
www.transportation.org
Cover photos: Top Left: Photo of a demonstration of Olson Instruments Bridge Deck Scanner system
on a bridge taken by Larry Olson, Olson Engineering, Inc. Second Left: Photo of a through truss
bridge taken by Thomas Drda, FHWA. Third Left: Photo courtesy of Idaho Department of
Transportation. Bottom Left: Photo of an inspection of a deck truss bridge using an under bridge
inspection truck. Taken by John Thiel, FHWA. Right: Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge in
Boston, MA. Courtesy of Shay Burrows, FHWA.
© 2018 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights
reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
ISBN: 978-1-56051-683-5 Pub Code: MBE-3

PREFACE
The Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE) offers assistance to Bridge Owners at all phases of bridge inspection and
evaluation. An abbreviated table of contents follows this preface. Detailed tables of contents precede Sections 1 through 8.
Appendix A includes nine illustrative examples (A1 through A9), previously in the Guide Manual for Condition
Evaluation and Load and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR) of Highway Bridges, and two more (A10 and A11) that were
added in the Interim Revisions for the Second Edition of this title. All examples are rated using the LRFR method. In
addition, Examples A1 and A2 are also rated using the ASR and LFR methods, A4 is also rated using the ASR method,
and A11 is also rated using the LFR method. To clarify which rating method is being illustrated, examples using multiple
methods are generally divided into Parts A through C and their articles are numbered accordingly as follows:
 Part A, LRFR;
 Part B, ASR and LFR; and
 Part C, example summary.
For ease of reference, the table of contents for Appendix A includes a summary table of the bridge types, rated
members, rating live loads, limit states for evaluation, and rating methods, with the starting page number for each example
and, in the case of Examples A1, A2, A4, and A11, for each rating method. The typical detailed table of contents follows
this summary table.
Appendix A includes numerous citations of other AASHTO bridge publications. To save space, the following
shorthand has been adopted:
 “AASHTO Standard Specifications” refers to the current edition of the AASHTO Standard Specifications for
Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, HB-17,
 “LRFD Design” refers to the current edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Eighth Edition,
LRFD-8, and
 “MBE” refers to this publication, The Manual for Bridge Evaluation, Third Edition, MBE-3.
AASHTO Publications Staff
vi
ABBREVIATED TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................1-i
SECTION 2: BRIDGE FILES AND DOCUMENTATION ................................................................................................2-i
SECTION 3: BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................3-i
SECTION 4: INSPECTION ................................................................................................................................................4-i
SECTION 5: MATERIAL TESTING..................................................................................................................................5-i
SECTION 6: LOAD RATING.............................................................................................................................................6-i
SECTION 7: FATIGUE EVALUATION OF STEEL BRIDGES .......................................................................................7-i
SECTION 8: NONDESTRUCTIVE LOAD TESTING ......................................................................................................8-i
APPENDIX A: ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES ................................................................................................................. A-i
vii
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.1—PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................................ 1-2
1.2—SCOPE ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-2
1.3—APPLICABILITY ................................................................................................................................................ 1-2
1.4—QUALITY ............................................................................................................................................................ 1-2
1.4.1—Provisions to Support the NBIS Requirements .......................................................................................... 1-3
1.4.2—QC/QA Procedures .................................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.5—DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 1-4
1.6—REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 1-6
1-i
SECTION 1:
INTRODUCTION
1.1—PURPOSE
The purpose of The Manual for Bridge Evaluation

(MBE) is to serve as a resource for use in developing
specific policy and procedures for the inspection and
evaluation of existing in-service highway bridges. The
MBE also includes the nationally recognized guidance
for the load rating of highway bridges.
The National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS),
as found in the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR
650 Subpart C), define the regulations for the inspection
and evaluation of the nation’s bridges.
The MBE is incorporated by reference in the CFR
(23 CFR 650 Subpart C) to be used along with other
reference documents such as the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Manual for Bridge Element Inspection, the
Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Bridge
Inspector’s Reference Manual (BIRM), and the latest
National Bridge Inventory (NBI) coding guidance
document for the inspection and evaluation of the
nation’s bridges.
The NBIS have evolved and been improved over the
years since their creation in the early 1970s.
The MBE has also evolved and been revised and
improved to reflect best practices as determined by
research, state departments of transportation (DOTs),
and others. In the future as improved practices and
research are developed, the MBE will reflect those
improvements.
Throughout this Manual there are subsections titled
in part “Provisions to Support the NBIS Requirements.”
These subsections were developed to provide specific
guidance and best practices that are considered to be
required under the regulations.
1.2—SCOPE
The Manual has been divided into eight Sections,

with each Section representing a distinct phase of an
overall bridge inspection and evaluation program.
• Section 1—Purpose, scope, applicability, inspection

and evaluation quality measures, and definition of
general interest terms.
• Section 2—Provisions for proper documentation to
be included in a bridge file. The bridge file
associated with each bridge provides the foundation
against which changes in physical condition can be
compared.

1-2 THE MANUAL FOR BRIDGE EVALUATION, THIRD EDITION
• Section 3—Overview of bridge management

systems and their key elements.
• Section 4—Types and frequency of field
inspections, as well as specific inspection
techniques and procedures.
• Section 5—Various inspection and evaluation
testing methods. Conditions at a bridge site or the
absence of information from original construction
may warrant more elaborate material tests to
determine properties for evaluation.
• Section 6—Nationally recognized specification for
the load rating of bridges. Includes the Load and
Resistance Factor method, the Load Factor method,
and the Allowable Stress method.
• Section 7—Provisions for the evaluation of existing
bridges for fatigue.
• Section 8—Field-performed load test procedures.
Field load testing is a means of supplementing
analytical procedures in determining the live-load
capacity of a bridge and for improving the
confidence in the assumptions.
The successful application of this Manual is directly
related to the DOT organizational structure. Such a
structure should be both effective and responsive so that
the unique characteristics and special problems of
individual bridges are considered in developing an
appropriate inspection plan and load capacity
determination.
1.3—APPLICABILITY
The provisions of this Manual apply to all highway

structures that qualify as bridges in accordance with the
AASHTO definition of a bridge (see Article 1.5). These
provisions may be applied to smaller structures which do
not qualify as bridges at the discretion of the DOT.
The NBIS establish minimum requirements for
inspection programs and minimum qualifications for
bridge inspection personnel. The NBIS apply to all
highway bridges that are more than 20 ft in length and
located on public roads.
Where conflicts or inconsistencies exist between
this Manual and the federal requirements specified in the
NBIS, the FHWA coding guidance, or BIRM, the
federal requirements shall govern.
1.4—QUALITY
To maintain the accuracy and consistency of

inspections and load ratings, bridge inspection programs
need to have appropriate quality control (QC) and
quality assurance (QA) measures in place. QC
procedures are intended to maintain the quality of the
bridge inspections, bridge data, scour evaluations, and
load ratings, and are usually performed continuously

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1-3
within the bridge inspection teams or units performing

these functions. QC procedures can vary depending on
the structural and scour conditions of a bridge with
increased level of review commensurate with increased
deterioration of bridge conditions. QA procedures are
used to verify the adequacy of the quality control
procedures to meet or exceed the standards established
by the program manager. QA procedures are usually
performed independently of the bridge inspection and
load rating teams on a sample of their work.
1.4.1—Provisions to Support the NBIS Requirements
A quality control and quality assurance (QC/QA)

program is to include periodic field review of inspection
teams, periodic bridge inspection refresher training for
program managers and team leaders, QC/QA measures
for inventory data, and independent review of inspection
reports and computations. The program manager is
responsible for developing a QC/QA program that
generally conforms to the provisions of Article 1.4.
Specific details are to be determined by the program
manager.
1.4.2—QC/QA Procedures
Typical quality procedures may include the use of

checklists to ensure uniformity and completeness, the
review of reports and computations by a person other
than the originating individual, and the periodic field
review of inspection teams and their work. The
documented quality control plan may include:
• Defined QC roles and responsibilities;

• Qualifications for the program manager, bridge
inspection personnel, and load rating personnel,
including:
o Education,
o Certification or registration,
o Training, and
o Years and type of experience;
• Procedures for review and validation of inspection
reports and data;
• Procedures for documenting important bridge
inspection information;
• Procedures for review validation of load rating and
scour calculations and data; and
• Procedures for identification and resolution of data
issues including errors, omissions, compatibility
between items, changes, or any combination
thereof.
QA measures include the overall review of the
inspection and rating program to ascertain that the

results meet or exceed the standards established by the

program manager. The documented QA plan may
include:
• Defined quality assurance roles and responsibilities;

• Frequency parameters for review of districts or units
and bridges; and
• Procedures and sampling parameters for selecting
bridges to conduct independent review and check of
results, including:
o Condition rating of elements or change in
condition rating,
o Load rating and scour evaluations,
o Posting status,
o Deficiency status,
o Critical findings and the status of any follow-up
action, and
o Location of bridge.
QA measures provide a validation that QC practices are
resulting in accurate and thorough inspections, complete
bridge files, accurate and complete load ratings and
scour evaluations, and qualified inspectors and load
raters. Results from QA reviews are used by the program
manager to maintain the quality of the program and
make improvements where needed.
1.5—DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY
AASHTO—American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
As-Built Plans—Plans that show the state of the bridge at the end of construction; usually prepared by the Contractor
or the resident Engineer.
ASR—Allowable Stress Rating.
Bias—The ratio of mean to nominal value of a random variable.
Bridge—A structure including supports erected over a depression or an obstruction such as water, highway, or
railway; having a track or passageway for carrying traffic or other moving loads; and having an opening measured
along the center of the roadway of more than 20 ft between undercopings of abutments or spring lines of arches, or
extreme ends of openings for multiple boxes. It may also include multiple pipes, where the clear distance between
openings is less than half of the smaller contiguous opening.
Bridge Management System (BMS)—A system designed to optimize the use of available resources for the inspection,
maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of bridges.
Calibration—A process of adjusting the parameters in a new standard to achieve approximately the same reliability as
exists in a current standard or specification or to achieve a target reliability index.
Coefficient of Variation—The ratio of the standard deviation to the mean of a random variable.
Collapse—A major change in the geometry of the bridge rendering it unfit for use.
Complex Bridges—Movable, suspension, cable stayed, and other bridges with unusual characteristics.

Condition Rating—The result of the assessment of the functional capability and the physical condition of bridge
components by considering the extent of deterioration and other defects.
Evaluation—An assessment of the performance of an existing bridge.
Exclusion Vehicle—Grandfather provisions in the federal statutes which allow states to retain higher limits than the
federal weight limits if such limits were in effect when the applicable federal statutes were enacted. Exclusion
vehicles are vehicles routinely permitted on highways of various states under grandfather exclusions to weight laws.
Failure—A condition where a limit state is reached or exceeded. This may or may not involve collapse or other
catastrophic occurrences.
FHWA—Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Inventory Rating—Load ratings based on the inventory level allow comparisons with the capacity for new structures
and, therefore, results in a live load, which can safely utilize an existing structure for an indefinite period of time.
Inventory Level Rating (LRFR)—Generally corresponds to the rating at the design level of reliability for new bridges
in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, but reflects the existing bridge and material conditions with
regard to deterioration and loss of section.
LFR—Load Factor Rating.
Limit State—A condition beyond which the bridge or component ceases to satisfy the criteria for which it
was designed.
Load Effect—The response (axial force, shear force, bending moment, torque) in a member or an element due to
the loading.
Load Factor—A load multiplier accounting for the variability of loads, the lack of accuracy in analysis, and the
probability of simultaneous occurrence of different loads.
Load Rating—The determination of the live-load carrying capacity of an existing bridge.
LRFD—Load and Resistance Factor Design.
LRFD Exclusion Limits—Weight and length limits of trucks operating under grandfather exclusions to federal weight laws.
LRFR—Load and Resistance Factor Rating.
Margin of Safety—Defined as R-S, where S is the maximum loading and R is the corresponding resistance (R and S
are assumed to be independent random variables).
MUTCD—Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
National Bridge Inventory (NBI)—The aggregation of structure inventory and appraisal data collected to fulfill the
requirements of the National Bridge Inspection Standards.
National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS)—Federal regulations establishing requirements for inspection
procedures, frequency of inspections, a bridge inspection organization, qualifications of personnel, inspection reports,
and preparation and maintenance of bridge inventory records. The NBIS apply to all structures defined as highway
bridges located on or over all public roads.
NICET—National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies.
Nominal Resistance—Resistance of a component or connection to load effects, based on its geometry, permissible
stresses, or specified strength of materials.
Operating Rating (ASR, LFR)—Load ratings based on the operating rating level generally describe the maximum
permissible live load to which the structure may be subjected. Allowing unlimited numbers of vehicles to use the
bridge at operating level may shorten the life of the bridge.

Operating Level Rating (LRFR)—Maximum load level to which a structure may be subjected. Generally corresponds
to the rating at the operating level of reliability in past load rating practice.
Owner—Agency having jurisdiction over the bridge.
Posting—Signing a bridge for load restriction.
Quality Assurance—The use of sampling and other measures to assure the adequacy of quality control procedures in
order to verify or measure the quality level of the entire bridge inspection and load rating program.
Quality Control—Procedures that are intended to maintain the quality of a bridge inspection and load rating at or
above a specified level.
RF—Rating Factor.
Reliability Index—A computed quantity defining the relative safety of a structural element or structure expressed as
the number of standard deviations that the mean of the margin of safety falls on the safe side.
Resistance Factor—A resistance multiplier accounting for the variability of material properties, structural dimensions
and workmanship, and the uncertainty in the prediction of resistance.
Safe Load Capacity—A live load that can safely utilize a bridge repeatedly over the duration of a specified inspection cycle.
Scour Critical Bridge—A bridge whose foundation (or foundations) has been determined to be unstable for the
predicted scour conditions.
Service Limit State—Limit state relating to stress, deformation, and cracking.
Serviceability—A term that denotes restrictions on stress, deformation, and crack opening under regular service conditions.
Serviceability Limit States— Collective term for service and fatigue limit states.
Specialized Hauling Vehicle (SHV)—Short wheelbase multi-axle trucks used in the construction, waste management,
bulk cargo and commodities hauling industries.
Strength Limit State—Safety limit state relating to strength and stability.
Structure Inventory and Appraisal Sheet (SI&A)—A summary sheet of bridge data required by NBIS.
Target Reliability—A desired level of reliability (safety) in a proposed evaluation.
1.6—REFERENCES
AASHTO. Guide for Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Structural Elements, CORE-1. With 2002 and 2010 Interim
Revisions. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 1997.
AASHTO. Movable Bridge Inspection, Evaluation, and Maintenance Manual, Second Edition, MBI-2. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2017.
AASHTO. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, HB-17. American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2002.
AASHTO. Guide Specifications for Horizontally Curved Girder Highway Bridges, Fourth Edition, GHC-4,
Interim GHC-4-I1-OL available online. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, DC, 2003.
AASHTO. Guide for Maximum Dimensions and Weights of Motor Vehicles, Fifth Edition, GSW-5. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2016.
AASHTO. “PONTIS” Release 4.4, User’s Manual. American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, DC, 2006. Obsolete; superseded by AASHTOWare Bridge Management (BrM).

AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Eighth Edition, LRFD-8. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2017.
AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications, Second Edition, LRFDMOV-2-M. With
2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, and 2018 Interim Revisions. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2007.
ACI. Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures and Commentary, ACI 530-05. American
Concrete Institute, 2005.
AISC. Iron and Steel Beams 1873 to 1952. American Institute of Steel Construction, 1990.
AISC. Steel Construction Manual, 13th Edition. American Institute of Steel Construction, 2005.
Brown, J. D., D. J. Lubitz, Y. C. Cekov, and K. H. Frank. Evaluation of Influence of Hole Making Upon the
Performance of Structural Steel Plates and Connections, Report No. FHWA/TX-07/0-4624-1. University of Texas at
Austin, Austin, TX, 2007.
CSA. Existing Bridge Evaluation—Supplement to Design of Highway Bridges, CAN/CSA-S6-88—1990. Canadian
Standards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 1990.
Department of Transport, U.K. “The Assessment of Highway Bridges and Structures,” Design Manual for Roads and
Bridges. Department of Transport, London, England, Vol. 3, Sec. 4, Pt. 4, BA 16/93, January 1993.
FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices with Revisions No. 1 and No. 2. Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 2009.
FHWA. Technical Advisory—Revisions to the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS), T5140.21. Federal
Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 1988.
FHWA. Bridge Management Systems, Demonstration Project 71, FHWA-DP-71-01R. Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC, 1989.
FHWA. Underwater Inspection of Bridges, FHWA-DP-80-1. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC, 1989.
FHWA. Technical Advisory—Evaluating Scour at Bridges, T5140-23. Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 1991.
FHWA. Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges, FHWA-PD-
96-001. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 1995.
FHWA. Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Bridges, FHWA-RD-94-052. Federal Highway Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 1995.
FHWA. Bridge Inspector’s Reference Manual, FHWA-NHI-03-001. Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 2002.
FHWA. Revisions to Items 63-66 to Support Load Rating by Rating Factor, Policy Memorandum, March 22, 2004.
Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 2004.
FHWA. Load Rating Guidance and Examples For Bolted and Riveted Gusset Plates In Truss Bridges, FHWA-IF-09-
014, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 2009.
Galambos, T. V., ed. Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures, Fifth Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York, NY, 1998.
Higgins, C., A. Hafner, O. Turan, and T. Schumacher. “Experimental Tests of Truss Bridge Gusset Plate Connections
with Sway-Buckling Response,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 1, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, VA, 2013, pp. 980-991.

Kulak, G. L., J. W. Fisher, and J. H. A. Struik. Guide to Design Criteria for Bolted and Riveted Joints,
Second Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1987.
NCHRP. Manual for Condition Evaluation and Load Rating of Highway Bridges Using Load and Resistance Factor
Philosophy, NCHRP Web Document 28, NCHRP Project 12-46, Final Report. Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2000.
NCHRP. Distribution of Wheel Loads on Highway Bridges, NCHRP Project 12-26 (1) and (2), Final Report,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1993.
NCHRP. “BRIDGIT” Bridge Management System Users Manual and Technical Manual, NCHRP Project 12-28 (A
and B1), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1999.
NCHRP. Development of Site-Specific Load Models for Bridge Ratings, NCHRP Project 12-28 (11), Final Report,
NCHRP. Dynamic Impact Factors for Bridges, Synthesis Report 266, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, DC, 1998.
NCHRP. Guidelines for Evaluation and Repair of Damaged Steel Bridge Members, NCHRP Report 271,
NCHRP. Strength Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Bridges, NCHRP Report 292, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1987.
NCHRP. Fatigue Evaluation Procedures for Steel Bridges, NCHRP Report 299, Transportation Research Board,
NCHRP. Bridge Management Systems, NCHRP Report 300. Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, DC, 1987.
NCHRP. Load Capacity Evaluation of Existing Bridges, NCHRP Report 301, Transportation Research Board,
NCHRP. Guidelines for Evaluating Corrosion Effects in Existing Steel Bridges, NCHRP Report 333, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1990.
NCHRP. Distortion Induced Fatigue Cracking in Steel Bridges, NCHRP Report 336, Transportation Research Board,
NCHRP. Inelastic Rating Procedures for Steel Beam and Girder Bridges, NCHRP Report 352, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1993.
NCHRP. Redundancy in Highway Superstructures, NCHRP Report 406, Transportation Research Board, National
NCHRP. Calibration of LRFD Bridge Design Code, NCHRP Report 368, Transportation Research Board, National
NCHRP. Calibration of Load Factors for LRFR Bridge Evaluation, NCHRP Report 454, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2001.
NCHRP. “Manual for Bridge Rating through Load Testing,” NCHRP Research Results Digest, No. 234.
NFPA. National Design Specification for Wood Construction, National Forest Products Association, Washington, DC,
2005.
Ocel. Guidelines for the Load and Resistance Factor Design and Rating of Welded, Riveted and Bolted Gusset-Plate
Connections for Steel Bridges, NCHRP Web-Only Document 197. Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, DC, 2013.

Ritter, Michael A. Timber Bridges—Design Construction, Inspection, and Maintenance, EM 7700-8. Forest Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC., 1990.
Sheikh-Ibrahim, F. I. “Design Method for the Bolts in Bearing-Type Connections with Fillers,” AISC Engineering
Journal, Vol. 39, No. 4, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, 2002, pp. 189–195.
U.S. Government. National Bridge Inspection Standards, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Part 650. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, December 2004.
Yamamoto, et al. “Buckling Strengths of Gusseted Truss Joints,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 114.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 1998.
Yura, J. A., K. H. Frank, and D. Polyzois. High-Strength Bolts for Bridges, PMFSEL Report No. 87-3. University of
Texas, Austin, TX, May 1987.
Yura, J. A., M. A. Hansen, and K.H. Frank. “Bolted Splice Connections with Undeveloped Fillers,” Journal of the
Structural Division, Vol. 108, No. ST12. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, December 1982,
pp. 2837–2849.

SECTION 2: BRIDGE FILES AND DOCUMENTATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.1—INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2—PROVISIONS TO SUPPORT THE NBIS REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1—General File Information............................................................................................................................ 2-2
2.2.2—Field Inspection Information...................................................................................................................... 2-3
2.2.3—Critical Findings and Actions Taken ......................................................................................................... 2-3
2.2.4—Waterway Information ............................................................................................................................... 2-3
2.2.5—Significant Correspondence ....................................................................................................................... 2-4
2.2.6—Other Inspection Procedures or Requirements ........................................................................................... 2-4
2.2.7—Load Rating Documentation ...................................................................................................................... 2-4
2.2.8—Posting Documentation .............................................................................................................................. 2-5
2.2.9—Scour Assessment ...................................................................................................................................... 2-5
2.2.10—Scour Plan of Action ................................................................................................................................ 2-5
2.3—SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IN BRIDGE FILE ............................................................................ 2-5

2.3.1—General....................................................................................................................................................... 2-5
2.3.2—Plans and Drawings ................................................................................................................................... 2-5
2.3.3—Construction Documentation ..................................................................................................................... 2-6
2.3.4—Original Design Documentation ................................................................................................................ 2-6
2.3.5—Unique Considerations ............................................................................................................................... 2-6
2.3.6—Utilities and Ancillary Attachments ........................................................................................................... 2-7
2.3.7—Maintenance and Repair History ............................................................................................................... 2-7
2.3.8—Additional Waterway Documentation ....................................................................................................... 2-7
2.3.9—Traffic Data ................................................................................................................................................ 2-7
2-i
SECTION 2:
BRIDGE FILES AND DOCUMENTATION

2.1—INTRODUCTION
Maintaining bridges safe for public travel is of

utmost importance to transportation officials. In order to
ensure public safety, management of in-service highway
bridges requires the collection and maintenance of
accurate, up-to-date, and comprehensive information for
each bridge. The information includes 1) data that does
not typically change over the life of a bridge, 2) data that
is updated by field inspections, and 3) data that is derived
or calculated to assess specific attributes such as scour,
vulnerability to extreme events, and safe load-carrying
capacity.
Data that does not typically change includes
information such as the length and width of the structure
and the structure type. Data that is updated as a result of
field inspections includes condition information on the
structural components and elements, clearances and
changes to dead load, and the identification of conditions
that introduce a potential risk to the bridge, such as debris
accumulation around substructure units and scour or
erosion.
Information is organized in a file for each bridge.
The bridge file includes a description of the
characteristics and conditions of the structure;
calculations for determining scour vulnerability (if over
water); a determination of the load-carrying capacity,
including computations substantiating reduced load
limits; and details of any damage and alterations or
repairs to the structure.
The information in a bridge file provides a
cumulative history of the structure that is useful to review
prior to conducting a bridge inspection, rating, or
evaluation.
The information in a bridge file may exist
electronically, on paper, or in external documents that are
appropriately referenced within each bridge file or
manual. The external documents may apply to multiple
bridges and exist in various locations.
The bridge file provides information that directly
relates to requirements of the National Bridge Inspection
Standards (Article 2.2) and other supplemental
information that bridge owners may find useful in
managing bridges (Article 2.3).
2.2—PROVISIONS TO SUPPORT THE NBIS

REQUIREMENTS
An inventory of all bridges is to be maintained as

required by the National Bridge Inspection Standards
(NBIS), in accordance with coding guidance issued by
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Certain
data is defined by the FHWA that must be collected and
retained. This data is typically retained within a computer
database. Summaries of the inventory and evaluation data
2-1
may be included in bridge files. The data accurately

captures specific, key information including bridge
identification, location, structural attributes, dimensions,
clearances, condition, and load-carrying capacity.
A bridge file is to be prepared as required by the
NBIS and described in this Manual. Specifically:
• Maintain reports on the results of bridge inspections

and note any actions taken to address the findings of
the inspections,
• Maintain relevant maintenance and inspection data
and use it to assist with the assessment of current
bridge conditions,
• Document observations and measurements needed to
determine the physical and functional condition of
the bridge, and
• Identify any changes from initial or previously
recorded conditions and other actions needed to
ensure that the structure continues to satisfy present
structural service requirements.
The format used to document the information in
bridge files may vary significantly. If the information is
not available in a consolidated inspection report, look for
it elsewhere in the inspection file or as referenced to
another location. Bridge Owners may make generalized
reference to the location of the digital information within
their own manuals or other files rather than individually
in each bridge file.
Include the following specific bridge information.
The level of documentation will vary depending on the
complexity, condition, and situation of a structure;
however, always include the information that is common
to all bridges.
2.2.1—General File Information
Include the following general file information:
• General plan and elevation drawing or a sketch

depicting the layout of the bridge, if available;
• Clear and understandable approach to labeling
members and elements that enables an assessment of
the inspection process and its completeness;
• Inspection and inventory data as defined by the
FHWA for reporting to the National Bridge
Inventory. This data is often referred to as Structure
Inventory and Appraisal information (SI&A);
• Photographs showing a top view of the roadway
across the bridge, a side elevation view, and an
under view of the main or typical span superstructure
configuration. Photographs necessary to show major
defects, posting restrictions, and other important
features should be included; and
• History of any structural damage.

SECTION 2: BRIDGE FILES AND DOCUMENTATION 2-3
2.2.2—Field Inspection Information
Inspection reports provide a chronological record of

the date and type of all inspections performed on the
bridge. Document each inspection conducted for a bridge
and retain in the bridge file. Document the observations
and findings from each inspection. Identify the Team
Leader responsible for the inspection and report, and the
date the inspection was conducted. Observations include
a description of conditions of bridge members and the
identification of factors that require further review, close
monitoring, or additional attention during inspections:
• Brief narrative descriptions of general and

component/element conditions with detail to justify a
condition rating of 5 or less for NBI items and
Condition State 3 or more for elements.
• Sketches or photographs, as appropriate, of elements
or members showing typical and deteriorated
conditions.
• Sketches documenting remaining section of
components with sufficient detail to facilitate
determination of the load capacity. These sketches
may be part of the load rating documentation.
• Notations of actions taken to address previous
inspection findings.
2.2.3—Critical Findings and Actions Taken
Provide a detailed description and photographs of

the specific critical finding(s) sufficient to document
safety or structural concerns. Identify appropriate
immediate actions or follow-up inspections. Include a
record of the actions taken to resolve or monitor the
critical finding(s).
2.2.4—Waterway Information
Provide channel cross-sections or sketches,

soundings, and stream profiles as needed to provide
adequate information on the stability of the waterway
and allow for adequate assessment of the risk to the
structure. Update channel information periodically and
when otherwise necessary. Perform a historical
comparison to determine the extent of any scour, channel
shifting, degradation, or aggradation of the channel.
Determine and document a frequency for obtaining and
updating these measurements, depending on an
assessment of the bridge and stream characteristics.
Consider the potential for lateral migration of the stream
channel or head-cutting in determining the extent of
channel documentation. A single cross-section or sketch
at one face may be appropriate for historically stable
channels and embankments. Evaluate the need for
obtaining cross-sections for pipes and box culverts and
structures with small drainage areas on a case-by-case

basis. The Bridge Inspector’s Reference Manual (BIRM)

provides additional information on inspecting channels.
2.2.5—Significant Correspondence
Provide correspondence and agreements regarding

inspection responsibility, ownership, maintenance
responsibilities with other agencies, or other issues that
have an impact on the ability to ensure that thorough and
timely inspections are completed.
2.2.6—Other Inspection Procedures or Requirements
Provide procedures for specific types of inspections

(fracture-critical, underwater, and complex bridges).
Address those items that need to be communicated to an
inspection team leader to ensure a successful bridge
inspection.
Provide procedures to document special access
needs, inspection equipment, structural details,
inspection methods, and any special qualifications
required of inspecting personnel. Overall inspection
procedures may exist in a bridge inspection manual that
address common aspects of these more complex
inspections; however, if there are items unique to that
structure that are not covered in the overall inspection
procedures, provide written procedures specific to that
fracture critical, underwater, and complex bridge
inspection.
Document the following items, either in
bridge-specific inspection procedures or by referring to
general inspection procedures:
1. Identify each of the fracture-critical, complex

features, and underwater members, and any elements
that need special attention during those inspections,
preferably on plan sheets, drawings, or sketches.
2. Describe the inspection method(s), special access
needs (under bridge inspection truck, climbing, etc.),
special inspection equipment (non-destructive
evaluation, a.k.a. NDE), and frequency to be used
for the elements.
3. Provide information regarding proximity necessary
to details, such as “arm’s length” or “hands-on.”
4. Provide special qualifications required of inspection
personnel by the Program Manager, if any. Section 4
provides additional information on inspection plans
for bridges.
2.2.7—Load Rating Documentation
Provide dated load rating results along with the

identification of the analyst to determine the safe load-
carrying capacity of the bridge and, where necessary, the
load limits for posting. Include the load rating results
which clearly identify the loads and methodology used in
the analysis, a general statement of the results of the

analysis, identification of members that were found to

control the load rating, and any other modifying factors
that were assumed in the analysis. Include updates to the
calculations as needed to reflect changes in the condition
of structural members; changes to the structural
configuration, strength of members, or dead load; and
changes to the legal live load that may alter the load
rating result. If calculations cannot be provided due to a
lack of information (missing plans, unknown materials,
etc.), provide documentation for justification of
determined load rating. If a field load test is used to
establish the load-carrying capacity of the bridge,
provide reports that describe and document the testing
process and results.
2.2.8—Posting Documentation
Provide a summary of posting recommendations and

actions taken for the bridge and date of posting.
2.2.9—Scour Assessment
Document the assessment conducted to determine

the scour vulnerability of the bridge. Provide a clear
reference to an alternate location if documentation is
available outside of the inspection file.
2.2.10—Scour Plan of Action
For scour-critical bridges, provide a copy of a plan

of action, or a clear reference to the plan of action if the
documentation is available in a location other than the
inspection file. The plan of action is used to monitor
known and potential deficiencies and address or monitor
critical scour related findings.
2.3—SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IN
BRIDGE FILE
2.3.1—General
Retain the supplemental documentation described in

Articles 2.3.2 through 2.3.9 in the bridge file at the
discretion of the Program Manager and subject to
availability, especially for older bridges. Additional
information not listed in this section may be included in
the file and may contain information Bridge Owners
believe is necessary to operate their Bridge Management
Systems. Some of this information may be referenced in
the bridge file or references may be provided to outside
source locations.
2.3.2—Plans and Drawings
Include one set of final drawings showing the “as-

built” condition of the bridge. Construction shop
drawings may be included.

2.3.3—Construction Documentation
Include construction documentation of relevant as-

built information regarding the structure, including
reference to material certifications and tests performed
during construction activities such as pile driving,
concrete placement, and prestressing operations.
Retain all pertinent certificates for the type, grade,
and quality of materials incorporated in the construction
of the bridge, such as steel mill certificates, concrete
delivery slips, and other manufacturers’ certifications, in
accordance with applicable policies and the appropriate
statute of limitations.
Reference in the file any reports of nondestructive
and laboratory tests of materials incorporated in the
bridge during construction.
Retain one complete copy or reference to the special
technical specifications under which the bridge was built.
Reference the edition and date of the general technical
specification in the bridge file.
2.3.4—Original Design Documentation
Retain the original design calculations and

documentation for the bridge. Record the AASHTO
Bridge Design Specifications version and any project-
specific assumptions and criteria.
2.3.5—Unique Considerations
Provide information as necessary on other items that

may need to be addressed depending on each unique
situation. If appropriate, include special planning
considerations such as the following:
• Special Coordination Procedures—Coast Guard,

security, operations, or other agencies;
• Natural Safety Concerns—rattlesnakes, bats, or
other wildlife; and
• Optimum Inspection Periods of the Year—lake draw
down, canal dry time, snow, ice, bird nesting
seasons, or other considerations.
Identify special access issues or equipment required
to inspect the features (traveler system, climbing,
equipment for confined spaces, or remote access camera
technology).
Emphasize and highlight special structural details or
situations, such as fatigue-prone details, pins and hangers
in nonredundant systems, cathodic protection, and
weathering or brittle steels.
Document any unusual environmental conditions
that may have an effect on the structure, such as salt
spray and industrial gases.

2.3.6—Utilities and Ancillary Attachments
Include information on utilities or ancillary

attachments that either 1) are attached to the structure or
2) otherwise affect access to portions of the bridge. The
type of connection should be noted. Note a utility in the
immediate area, though not fastened to the bridge, e.g., a
sewer line crossing the right-of-way and buried in the
channel beneath the bridge.
2.3.7—Maintenance and Repair History
Include a chronological record documenting the

maintenance and repairs to the bridge since its initial
construction. Include details such as significant dates,
description of project, contractor, cost, and contract
number.
Document the surface protective coatings used,
including surface preparation, application methods, and
dry-film thickness as well as types of paint, concrete and
timber sealants, and other protective membranes. This
information may be in the referenced original design file.
2.3.8—Additional Waterway Documentation
For structures over waterways, when available,

include a chronological history of major hydraulic
events, high-water marks, and scour activity in the bridge
file. Channel profiles, mean high-water levels, debris
accumulation, and storm surge data are useful
information for effectively managing bridges over
waterways.
2.3.9—Traffic Data
When the information is available, include the

frequency and type of vehicles using the bridge and their
historical variations in the bridge file. Vehicle weight
data, such as weigh-in-motion (WIM) data, can aid in the
determination of bridge-specific load factors when
refining LRFR load capacity calculations.

SECTION 3: BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.1—INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2—OBJECTIVES OF BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 3-2
3.3—COMPONENTS OF A BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ................................................................... 3-2
3.3.1—Information Management ................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3.1.1—Bridge Inventory, General Condition Ratings, and Bridge Element Ratings ........................... 3-3
3.3.1.1.1—Bridge Inventory............................................................................................................. 3-3
3.3.1.1.2—General Condition Ratings ............................................................................................. 3-3
3.3.1.1.3—Bridge Element Ratings .................................................................................................. 3-3
3.3.1.2—Agency Performance Measures ................................................................................................ 3-4
3.3.1.3—Preservation and Improvement Action Data ............................................................................. 3-7
3.3.1.4—Cost Data and Financial Plans .................................................................................................. 3-7
3.3.2—Data Integration .................................................................................................................................. 3-8
3.3.2.1—Data Analysis............................................................................................................................ 3-8
3.3.2.2—Risk Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 3-9
3.3.2.3—Agency Rules.......................................................................................................................... 3-11
3.3.2.4—Cost/Benefit Analysis ............................................................................................................. 3-12
3.3.2.4.1—Condition Driven Cost/Benefit Analysis ...................................................................... 3-12
3.3.2.4.2—Improvement Cost/Benefit Analysis............................................................................. 3-12
3.3.2.4.3—Lifecycle Cost/Benefit Analysis ................................................................................... 3-13
3.3.2.5—Prioritization and Optimization .............................................................................................. 3-14
3.3.2.5.1—Multi-Objective Optimization ...................................................................................... 3-15
3.3.3—Decision Support .............................................................................................................................. 3-16
3.4—REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 3-16
3-i

SECTION 3:
BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
3.1—INTRODUCTION
As defined by the AASHTO Standing Committee

on Highways, Planning Subcommittee on Asset
Management, “Transportation asset management is a
strategic and systematic process of operating,
maintaining, upgrading, and expanding physical
assets effectively throughout their lifecycle. It focuses
on business and engineering practices for resource
allocation and utilization, with the objective of better
decision making based upon quality information and
well defined objectives.”
NCHRP Report 551, Performance Measures and
Targets for Transportation Asset Management,
provides a list of core principles of asset management
as follows:
• Policy-Driven—Resource allocation
decisions are based on a well-defined set of
policy goals and objectives. These objectives
reflect desired system condition, level of
service, and safety provided to customers and
are typically tied to economic, community,
and environmental goals.
• Performance-Based—Policy objectives are
translated into system performance measures
that are used for both day-to-day and strategic
management.
• Analysis of Options and Tradeoffs—
Decisions on how to allocate resources within
and across different assets, programs, and
types of investments are based on
understanding how different allocations will
affect the achievement of policy objectives
and what the best options to consider are. The
limitations posed by realistic funding
constraints also must be reflected in the range
of options and tradeoffs considered.
• Decisions Based on Quality Information—
The merits of different options with respect
to an agency's policy goals are evaluated
using credible and current data. Decision
support tools are applied to help in accessing,
analyzing, and tracking these data.
• Monitoring Provides Clear Accountability
and Feedback—Performance results are
monitored and reported for both impacts and
effectiveness. Feedback on actual
performance may influence agency goals and
objectives, as well as future resource
allocation and use decisions.
3-1

Transportation agencies must balance limited

resources when evaluating individual bridge needs
and considering the overall infrastructure needs of an
aging highway system. The best action for an
individual bridge may not be the best action for an
agency’s network of bridges when facing funding
constraints. Additionally, competing needs from other
transportation assets may require adjusting bridge
performance targets based on an overall transportation
management plan. The goal of asset management is to
determine and implement an infrastructure
preservation and improvement strategy that best
integrates capital and maintenance activities to
maximize the net benefit to society.
3.2—OBJECTIVES OF BRIDGE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
A bridge management system (BMS) is a tool or

collection of tools integrated through a process whose
goal is to assist an agency to meet strategic objectives
by connecting inventory management and project
selection to agency strategic goals through a data
driven process. A BMS should meet the needs of both
upper management, where it is a strategic planning
tool, and technical decision makers, where it is an
engineering tool. A BMS helps engineers and
decision-makers determine the best fiscally
constrained action to take on maintenance programs
and short-, medium-, and long-term capital
improvement programs. Its purpose is to determine the
optimum use of funding by enabling decision-makers
to understand the consequences of their actions and
strategies. A BMS assists the bridge owner in
expending the appropriate level of resources in order
to maintain the inventory in an acceptable state of
good repair. It also provides essential information to
help transportation agencies enhance safety, perform
risk assessments, extend the service life of bridges,
and serve commerce and the motoring public.
3.3—COMPONENTS OF A BRIDGE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
A BMS provides three components to support

bridge asset management:
• Information Management
• Data Analysis
Decision Support
3.3.1—Information Management
A BMS requires comprehensive, connected, and
well organized relational databases that are capable of

SECTION 3: BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 3-3
supporting the various analyses involved in bridge

management and reporting this information in a way
that can be readily understood by various
stakeholders. There are four major types of data
required by a BMS:
1. Bridge inventory, general condition

ratings, and bridge element ratings;
2. Agency performance measures;
3. Preservation and improvement activity
data;
4. Cost data and financial plans.
3.3.1.1—Bridge Inventory, General Condition

Ratings, and Bridge Element Ratings
3.3.1.1.1—Bridge Inventory
The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) is data

collected by each state Department of Transportation
(DOT) and reported to the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). The data includes inventory,
appraisal, and condition information for the nation’s
highway bridges. NBI data includes component and
element level condition data. Bridge owners may also
have agency specific bridge inventory data that they
use in their BMS.
3.3.1.1.2—General Condition Ratings
In a component level inspection, General

Condition Ratings (GCRs) are collected for the deck,
superstructure, and substructure for bridge type
structures, and a culvert rating for culvert type
structures. The GCRs are determined in accordance
with the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS)
using the 0 (failed condition) to 9 (excellent condition)
NBI rating scale to provide an overall assessment of
the structure’s major components and ensure
structural safety of the bridge. NBI appraisal items and
condition ratings are often used by state DOTs and the
FHWA as bridge performance measures. Bridge
owners may also have their own GCRs. For example
some state DOTs collect GCRs for each span of the
structure. GCRs can be used to categorize bridges into
major categories of condition and general need, such
as good, fair, and poor, which can be used to do
network level bridge management and report on
performance measures to stakeholders.
3.3.1.1.3—Bridge Element Ratings
GCRs provide a general assessment of the overall

condition of each major component of a bridge, but

provide limited detail on the type and quantity of

deficiencies that may be present. Advanced BMS
analyses requires a more detailed condition
assessment to predict and prioritize bridge repair,
preservation, or replacement actions. To meet the data
needs of a modern BMS, AASHTO developed an
element level condition assessment system. Bridge
elements comprised of National Bridge Elements
(NBEs), Bridge Management Elements (BMEs), and
Agency-Defined Elements (ADEs) are defined in the
AASHTO Manual for Bridge Element Inspection
(MBEI). The goal of bridge element data is to
completely capture the condition of bridges in a
simple and effective way that can be standardized
across the nation while providing the flexibility to be
adapted to both large and small agency settings.
Element descriptions consider material composition
and where applicable, the presence of protective
systems. The condition of each element is reported
according to the quantity or percentage of the element
rated in four Condition States (CS): CS 1—Good, CS
2—Fair, CS 3—Poor, and CS 4—Severe. The MBEI
defines the condition states in objective engineering
terms that are intended to provide consistent ratings
nationwide. All National Bridge Elements and a select
number of Bridge Management Elements on the
National Highway System (NHS) are reported to the
FHWA to develop bridge condition reports to the
United States Congress. Using element level data,
DOTs and local bridge owners can better evaluate
individual components of a structure, determine and
prioritize preservation needs, and estimate cost for
projects.
3.3.1.2—Agency Performance Measures
Performance measures are tools used to connect

asset management decisions to strategic goals set for
the transportation network as well as to communicate
the need for and value of investment in the asset.
Performance goals are the ideal targets that are set as
the high level goal tied directly to the strategic plan
and are often set at the executive or legislative level.
Performance goals are used to identify funding needs
to reach desired levels of service. Performance targets
are the predicted value of the measure at a given point
in time based upon funding constraints. By comparing
performance targets to performance goals, an agency
is able to identify performance gaps and can then
reevaluate resource allocation.
Performance measures are used by the FHWA to
monitor condition trends of the nation’s bridges, to
provide reports to Congress, and to administer the
Federal Aid to Highways Program. Various groups
and national publications use performance measures
to communicate bridge network conditions and need

SECTION 3: BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 3-5
on a uniform national basis. Most state DOTs have

their own performance measures that reflect the
specific conditions and needs of the state. These are
used to communicate program issues to upper
management, their state transportation commission,
and to their legislature. State specific performance
measures are of great importance to owner agencies
because they are tailored to the unique needs of that
state. Often bridge performance measures use GCRs
to categorize bridges as being in good, fair, or poor
condition. Bridge owners may use combinations of
GCRs and bridge inventory items to set performance
measures relevant to their state.
Performance measures using element condition
ratings are becoming more prevalent. Bridge elements
can be looked at individually, such as the quantity of
steel beams in good, fair, poor, or severe condition, or
they can be aggregated to provide an overall bridge
assessment, such as categorizing the bridges in terms
of need (cyclic maintenance, preventive maintenance,
rehabilitation, or replacement).
The AASHTOWare BrM software provides a
bridge “Health Index” which is a single-number
assessment (0–100 scale) of a bridge’s condition
based on an amalgamation of the individual element
health indexes.
The “Health Index” of an element is a single-
number assessment of an element’s condition based
on the weighted, fractional distribution of the
quantities across the range of condition states. Index
values range from 0 (the worst possible or a
completely failed condition) to 100 (the best possible
condition).
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑒𝑒 = 𝐶𝐶𝑒𝑒1 𝑦𝑦𝑒𝑒1 + 𝐶𝐶𝑒𝑒2 𝑦𝑦𝑒𝑒2 + 𝐶𝐶𝑒𝑒3 𝑦𝑦𝑒𝑒3 + 𝐶𝐶𝑒𝑒4 𝑦𝑦𝑒𝑒4

(Eq. 3.3.1.3-1)
where:
Cei is the health index coefficient, or weighted value

of Condition State i for element e.
yei is the percentage of element e in Condition
State i.
Quantities of an element in CS1 are in good condition

and are generally taken to contribute fully to the health
index (Ce1 = 1). Quantities of an element in CS4 are in
a severe or failed condition and are generally assumed
to contribute nothing to the index (Ce4 = 0). Allowing
for variable weights in the CS2 and CS3 categories
(Fair to Poor) allows the owner to customize the health
index into a useable value for that element. For
instance, the portions of a protective system in fair
condition (CS2) are “substantially effective” while the
quantities in poor condition (CS3) have “limited
effectiveness.” The fair condition (CS2) quantities may

be given an index value close to that of the “fully

effective” portions in good condition because the
underlying element is still protected. The quantity in
poor condition (CS3), however, may be given a much
lower index value to represent the risk of deterioration
of the underlying element. By allowing this flexibility,
the agency is able to create element level health indexes
that correspond to the practices within the agency, and
can then be used to develop meaningful performance
measures and trigger actions to correct deficiencies at
the appropriate times.
The impact of an element on the bridge health
index is related to its condition, total quantity, and the
weight or importance factor of that element.
∑𝒆𝒆 𝒒𝒒𝒆𝒆 𝒘𝒘𝒆𝒆 𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝒆𝒆

𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯 = ∑𝒆𝒆 𝒒𝒒𝒆𝒆 𝒘𝒘𝒆𝒆
(Eq. 3.3.1.3-2)
where:
HIe is the health index of the element e.

qe is total quantity of the element e.
we is the weight of element e.
Bridge performance measures can also include

measures of other variables such as seismic
vulnerability, potential scour, substandard load
capacity, and functional deficiencies such as low
vertical clearance and narrow deck width. Where
possible, it is desirable that national and state specific
performance measures be related, but there may be
good reasons for the measures to be different as long
as the differences and the purpose of the measures are
communicated clearly.
Best practices in performance measurement
include:
• if general condition rating data is used due to

limited element history, the measure should be
adaptable and meaningful when sufficient data is
available to transition to the National Bridge
Elements;
• communication should be considered in naming
the performance measure;
• the goals should follow the SMART
philosophy—Specific, Measurable, Attainable,
Realistic, and Timely;
• the measure should be short and simple;
• the measure should be reliable, transparent, and
understandable;
• a high priority should be set on preservation and
maintenance;

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
predecessors can have nothing to say to this question, however they
may have anticipated us on others; future ages, in all probability, will
not trouble their heads about it; we are the panel. How hard, then,
not to avail ourselves of our immediate privilege to give sentence of
life or death—to seem in ignorance of what every one else is full of—
to be behind-hand with the polite, the knowing, and fashionable part
of mankind—to be at a loss and dumb-founded, when all around us
are in their glory, and figuring away, on no other ground than that of
having read a work that we have not! Books that are to be written
hereafter cannot be criticised by us; those that were written formerly
have been criticised long ago: but a new book is the property, the
prey of ephemeral criticism, which it darts triumphantly upon; there
is a raw thin air of ignorance and uncertainty about it, not filled up
by any recorded opinion; and curiosity, impertinence, and vanity
rush eagerly into the vacuum. A new book is the fair field for
petulance and coxcombry to gather laurels in—the butt set up for
roving opinion to aim at. Can we wonder, then, that the circulating
libraries are besieged by literary dowagers and their granddaughters,
when a new novel is announced? That Mail-Coach copies of the
Edinburgh Review are or were coveted? That the Manuscript of the
Waverley romances is sent abroad in time for the French, German, or
even Italian translation to appear on the same day as the original
work, so that the longing Continental public may not be kept waiting
an instant longer than their fellow-readers in the English metropolis,
which would be as tantalising and insupportable as a little girl being
kept without her new frock, when her sister’s is just come home and
is the talk and admiration of every one in the house? To be sure,
there is something in the taste of the times; a modern work is
expressly adapted to modern readers. It appeals to our direct
experience, and to well-known subjects; it is part and parcel of the
world around us, and is drawn from the same sources as our daily
thoughts. There is, therefore, so far, a natural or habitual sympathy
between us and the literature of the day, though this is a different
consideration from the mere circumstance of novelty. An author now
alive has a right to calculate upon the living public: he cannot count
upon the dead, nor look forward with much confidence to those that
are unborn. Neither, however, is it true that we are eager to read all
new books alike: we turn from them with a certain feeling of distaste
and distrust, unless they are recommended to us by some peculiar
feature or obvious distinction. Only young ladies from the boarding-
school, or milliners’ girls, read all the new novels that come out. It
must be spoken of or against; the writer’s name must be well known
or a great secret; it must be a topic of discourse and a mark for
criticism—that is, it must be likely to bring us into notice in some
way—or we take no notice of it. There is a mutual and tacit
understanding on this head. We can no more read all the new books
that appear, than we can read all the old ones that have disappeared
from time to time. A question may be started here, and pursued as
far as needful, whether, if an old and worm-eaten Manuscript were
discovered at the present moment, it would be sought after with the
same avidity as a new and hot-pressed poem, or other popular work?
Not generally, certainly, though by a few with perhaps greater zeal.
For it would not affect present interests, or amuse present fancies, or
touch on present manners, or fall in with the public egotism in any
way: it would be the work either of some obscure author—in which
case it would want the principle of excitement; or of some illustrious
name, whose style and manner would be already familiar to those
most versed in the subject, and his fame established—so that, as a
matter of comment and controversy, it would only go to account on
the old score: there would be no room for learned feuds and heart-
burnings. Was there not a Manuscript of Cicero’s talked of as having
been discovered about a year ago? But we have heard no more of it.
There have been several other cases, more or less in point, in our
time or near it. A Noble Lord (which may serve to shew at least the
interest taken in books not for being new) some time ago gave
2000l. for a copy of the first edition of the Decameron: but did he
read it? It has been a fashion also of late for noble and wealthy
persons to go to a considerable expense in ordering reprints of the
old Chronicles and black-letter works. Does not this rather prove that
the books did not circulate very rapidly or extensively, or such
extraordinary patronage and liberality would not have been
necessary? Mr. Thomas Taylor, at the instance, I believe, of the old
Duke of Norfolk, printed fifty copies in quarto of a translation of the
works of Plato and Aristotle. He did not choose that a larger
impression should be struck off, lest these authors should get into
the hands of the vulgar. There was no danger of a run in that way. I
tried to read some of the Dialogues in the translation of Plato, but, I
confess, could make nothing of it: ‘the logic was so different from
ours!’[34] A startling experiment was made on this sort of
retrospective curiosity, in the case of Ireland’s celebrated Shakspeare
forgery. The public there certainly manifested no backwardness nor
lukewarmness: the enthusiasm was equal to the folly. But then the
spirit exhibited on this occasion was partly critical and polemical,
and it is a problem whether an actual and undoubted play of
Shakspeare’s would have excited the same ferment; and, on the other
hand, Shakspeare is an essential modern. People read and go to see
his real plays, as well as his pretended ones. The fuss made about
Ossian is another test to refer to. It was its being the supposed
revival of an old work (known only by scattered fragments or
lingering tradition) which gave it its chief interest, though there was
also a good deal of mystery and quackery concerned along with the
din and stir of national jealousy and pretension. Who reads Ossian
now? It is one of the reproaches brought against Buonaparte that he
was fond of it when young. I cannot for myself see the objection.
There is no doubt an antiquarian spirit always at work, and opposed
to the spirit of novelty-hunting; but, though opposed, it is scarcely a
match for it in a general and popular point of view. It is not long ago
that I happened to be suggesting a new translation of Don Quixote to
an enterprising bookseller; and his answer was,—‘We want new Don
Quixotes.’ I believe I deprived the same active-minded person of a
night’s rest, by telling him there was the beginning of another novel
by Goldsmith in existence. This, if it could be procured, would satisfy
both tastes for the new and the old at once. I fear it is but a fragment,
and that we must wait till a new Goldsmith appears. We may observe
of late a strong craving after Memoirs and Lives of the Dead. But
these, it may be remarked, savour so much of the real and familiar,
that the persons described differ from us only in being dead, which is
a reflection to our advantage: or, if remote and romantic in their
interest and adventures, they require to be bolstered up in some
measure by the embellishments of modern style and criticism. The
accounts of Petrarch and Laura, of Abelard and Eloise, have a
lusciousness and warmth in the subject which contrast quaintly and
pointedly with the coldness of the grave; and, after all, we prefer
Pope’s Eloise and Abelard with the modern dress and flourishes, to
the sublime and affecting simplicity of the original Letters.
In some very just and agreeable reflections on the story of Abelard
and Eloise, in a late number of a contemporary publication, there is a
quotation of some lines from Lucan, which Eloise is said to have
repeated in broken accents as she was advancing to the altar to
receive the veil:
‘O maxime conjux!
O thalamis indigne meis! Hoc juris habebat
In tantum fortuna caput? Cur impia nupsi,
Si miserum factura fui? Nunc accipe pœnas,
Sed quas sponte luam.’ Pharsalia, lib. 8.
This speech, quoted by another person, on such an occasion, might

seem cold and pedantic; but from the mouth of the passionate and
unaffected Eloise it cannot bear that interpretation. What sounding
lines! What a pomp, and yet what a familiar boldness in their
application—‘proud as when blue Iris bends!’ The reading this
account brought forcibly to mind what has struck me often before—
the unreasonableness of the complaint we constantly hear of the
ignorance and barbarism of former ages, and the folly of restricting
all refinement and literary elegance to our own. We are indeed,
indebted to the ages that have gone before us, and could not well do
without them. But in all ages there will be found still others that have
gone before with nearly equal lustre and advantage, though by
distance and the intervention of multiplied excellence, this lustre
may be dimmed or forgotten. Had it then no existence? We might,
with the same reason, suppose that the horizon is the last boundary
and verge of the round earth. Still, as we advance, it recedes from us;
and so time from its store-house pours out an endless succession of
the productions of art and genius; and the farther we explore the
obscurity, other trophies and other landmarks rise up. It is only our
ignorance that fixes a limit—as the mist gathered round the
mountain’s brow makes us fancy we are treading the edge of the
universe! Here was Heloise living at a period when monkish
indolence and superstition were at their height—in one of those that
are emphatically called the dark ages; and yet, as she is led to the
altar to make her last fatal vow, expressing her feelings in language
quite natural to her, but from which the most accomplished and
heroic of our modern females would shrink back with pretty and
affected wonder and affright. The glowing and impetuous lines which
she murmured, as she passed on, with spontaneous and rising
enthusiasm, were engraven on her heart, familiar to her as her daily
thoughts; her mind must have been full of them to overflowing, and
at the same time enriched with other stores and sources of
knowledge equally elegant and impressive; and we persist,
notwithstanding this and a thousand similar circumstances, in
indulging our surprise how people could exist, and see, and feel, in
those days, without having access to our opportunities and
acquirements, and how Shakspeare wrote long after, in a barbarous
age! The mystery in this case is of our own making. We are struck
with astonishment at finding a fine moral sentiment or a noble image
nervously expressed in an author of the age of Queen Elizabeth; not
considering that, independently of nature and feeling, which are the
same in all periods, the writers of that day, who were generally men
of education and learning, had such models before them as the one
that has been just referred to—were thoroughly acquainted with
those masters of classic thought and language, compared with whom,
in all that relates to the artificial graces of composition, the most
studied of the moderns are little better than Goths and Vandals. It is
true, we have lost sight of, and neglected the former, because the
latter have, in a great degree, superseded them, as the elevations
nearest to us intercept those farthest off; but our not availing
ourselves of this vantage-ground is no reason why our forefathers
should not (who had not our superfluity of choice), and most
assuredly they did study and cherish the precious fragments of
antiquity, collected together in their time, ‘like sunken wreck and
sumless treasuries;’ and while they did this, we need be at no loss to
account for any examples of grace, of force, or dignity in their
writings, if these must always be traced back to a previous source.
One age cannot understand how another could subsist without its
lights, as one country thinks every other must be poor for want of its
physical productions. This is a narrow and superficial view of the
subject: we should by all means rise above it. I am not for devoting
the whole of our time to the study of the classics, or of any other set
of writers, to the exclusion and neglect of nature; but I think we
should turn our thoughts enough that way to convince us of the
existence of genius and learning before our time, and to cure us of an
overweening conceit of ourselves, and of a contemptuous opinion of
the world at large. Every civilised age and country (and of these there
is not one, but a hundred) has its literature, its arts, its comforts,
large and ample, though we may know nothing of them; nor is it
(except for our own sakes) important that we should.
Books have been so multiplied in our days (like the Vanity Fair of
knowledge), and we have made such progress beyond ourselves in
some points, that it seems at first glance as if we had monopolised
every possible advantage, and the rest of the world must be left
destitute and in darkness. This is the cockneyism (with leave be it
spoken) of the nineteenth century. There is a tone of smartness and
piquancy in modern writing, to which former examples may, in one
sense, appear flat and pedantic. Our allusions are more pointed and
personal: the ancients are, in this respect, formal and prosaic
personages. Some one, not long ago, in this vulgar, shallow spirit of
criticism (which sees every thing from its own point of view), said
that the tragedies of Sophocles and Æschylus were about as good as
the pieces brought out at Sadler’s Wells or the Adelphi Theatre. An
oration of Demosthenes is thought dry and meagre, because it is not
‘full of wise saws and modern instances:’ one of Cicero’s is objected
to as flimsy and extravagant, for the same reason. There is a style in
one age which does not fall in with the taste of the public in another,
as it requires greater effeminacy and softness, greater severity or
simplicity, greater force or refinement. Guido was more admired
than Raphael in his day, because the manners were grown softer
without the strength: Sir Peter Lely was thought in his to have
eclipsed Vandyke—an opinion that no one holds at present:
Holbein’s faces must be allowed to be very different from Sir Thomas
Lawrence’s—yet the one was the favourite painter of Henry VIII., as
the other is of George IV. What should we say in our time to the
euphuism of the age of Elizabeth, when style was made a riddle, and
the court talked in conundrums? This, as a novelty and a trial of the
wits, might take for a while: afterwards, it could only seem absurd.
We must always make some allowance for a change of style, which
those who are accustomed to read none but works written within the
last twenty years neither can nor will make. When a whole
generation read, they will read none but contemporary productions.
The taste for literature becomes superficial, as it becomes universal
and is spread over a larger space. When ten thousand boarding-
school girls, who have learnt to play on the harpsichord, are brought
out in the same season, Rossini will be preferred to Mozart, as the
last new composer. I remember a very genteel young couple in the
boxes at Drury Lane being very much scandalised some years ago at
the phrase in A New Way to Pay Old Debts—‘an insolent piece of
paper’—applied to the contents of a letter—it wanted the modern
lightness and indifference. Let an old book be ever so good, it treats
(generally speaking) of topics that are stale in a style that has grown
‘somewhat musty;’ of manners that are exploded, probably by the
very ridicule thus cast upon them; of persons that no longer figure on
the stage; and of interests that have long since given place to others
in the infinite fluctuations of human affairs. Longinus complains of
the want of interest in the Odyssey, because it does not, like the Iliad,
treat of war. The very complaint we make against the latter is that it
treats of nothing else; or that, as Fuseli expresses it, every thing is
seen ‘through the blaze of war.’ Books of devotion are no longer read
(if we read Irving’s Orations, it is merely that we may go as a lounge
to see the man): even attacks on religion are out of date and insipid.
Voltaire’s jests, and the Jew’s Letters in answer (equal in wit, and
more than equal in learning), repose quietly on the shelf together.
We want something in England about Rent and the Poor Laws, and
something in France about the Charter—or Lord Byron. With the
attempts, however, to revive superstition and intolerance, a spirit of
opposition has been excited, and Pascall’s Provincial Letters have
been once more enlisted into the service. In France you meet with no
one who has read the New Heloise: the Princess of Cleves is not even
mentioned in these degenerate days. Is it not provoking with us to
see the Beggar’s Opera cut down to two acts, because some of the
allusions are too broad, and others not understood? And in America
—that Van Diemen’s Land of letters—this sterling satire is hooted off
the stage, because fortunately they have no such state of manners as
it describes before their eyes; and because, unfortunately, they have
no conception of any thing but what they see. America is singularly
and awkwardly situated in this respect. It is a new country with an
old language; and while every thing about them is of a day’s growth,
they are constantly applying to us to know what to think of it, and
taking their opinions from our books and newspapers with a strange
mixture of servility and of the spirit of contradiction. They are an
independent state in politics: in literature they are still a colony from
us—not out of their leading strings, and strangely puzzled how to
determine between the Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews. We have
naturalised some of their writers, who had formed themselves upon
us. This is at once a compliment to them and to ourselves. Amidst
the scramble and lottery for fame in the present day, besides puffing,
which may be regarded as the hotbed of reputation, another mode
has been attempted by transplanting it; and writers who are set
down as drivellers at home, shoot up great authors on the other side
of the water; pack up their all—a title-page and sufficient impudence;
and a work, of which the flocci-nauci-nihili-pili-fication, in
Shenstone’s phrase, is well known to every competent judge, is
placarded into eminence, and ‘flames in the forehead of the morning
sky’ on the walls of Paris or St. Petersburgh. I dare not mention the
instances, but so it is. Some reputations last only while the
possessors live, from which one might suppose that they gave
themselves a character for genius: others are cried up by their
gossiping acquaintances, as long as they give dinners, and make their
houses places of polite resort; and, in general, in our time, a book
may be considered to have passed the ordeal that is mentioned at all
three months after it is printed. Immortality is not even a dream—a
boy’s conceit; and posthumous fame is no more regarded by the
author than by his bookseller.[35]
This idle, dissipated turn seems to be a set-off to, or the obvious
reaction of, the exclusive admiration of the ancients, which was
formerly the fashion: as if the sun of human intellect rose and set at
Rome and Athens, and the mind of man had never exerted itself to
any purpose since. The ignorant, as well as the adept, were charmed
only with what was obsolete and far-fetched, wrapped up in technical
terms and in a learned tongue. Those who spoke and wrote a
language which hardly any one at present even understood, must of
course be wiser than we. Time, that brings so many reputations to
decay, had embalmed others and rendered them sacred. From an
implicit faith and overstrained homage paid to antiquity, we of the
modern school have taken too strong a bias to what is new; and
divide all wisdom and worth between ourselves and posterity,—not a
very formidable rival to our self-love, as we attribute all its
advantages to ourselves, though we pretend to owe little or nothing
to our predecessors. About the time of the French Revolution, it was
agreed that the world had hitherto been in its dotage or its infancy;
and that Mr. Godwin, Condorcet, and others were to begin a new
race of men—a new epoch in society. Every thing up to that period
was to be set aside as puerile or barbarous; or, if there were any
traces of thought and manliness now and then discoverable, they
were to be regarded with wonder as prodigies—as irregular and fitful
starts in that long sleep of reason and night of philosophy. In this
liberal spirit Mr. Godwin composed an Essay, to prove that, till the
publication of The Enquiry concerning Political Justice, no one
knew how to write a word of common grammar, or a style that was
not utterly uncouth, incongruous, and feeble. Addison, Swift, and
Junius were included in this censure. The English language itself
might be supposed to owe its stability and consistency, its roundness
and polish, to the whirling motion of the French Revolution. Those
who had gone before us were, like our grandfathers and
grandmothers, decrepit, superannuated people, blind and dull; poor
creatures, like flies in winter, without pith or marrow in them. The
past was barren of interest—had neither thought nor object worthy to
arrest our attention; and the future would be equally a senseless
void, except as we projected ourselves and our theories into it. There
is nothing I hate more than I do this exclusive, upstart spirit.
‘By Heavens, I’d rather be
A pagan suckled in a creed outworn,
So might I, standing on some pleasant lea,
Catch glimpses that might make me less forlorn,
Have sight of Proteus coming from the sea,
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn.’
Wordsworth’s Sonnets.
Neither do I see the good of it even in a personal and interested point

of view. By despising all that has preceded us, we teach others to
despise ourselves. Where there is no established scale nor rooted
faith in excellence, all superiority—our own as well as that of others—
soon comes to the ground. By applying the wrong end of the
magnifying glass to all objects indiscriminately, the most respectable
dwindle into insignificance, and the best are confounded with the
worst. Learning, no longer supported by opinion, or genius by fame,
is cast into the mire, and ‘trampled under the hoofs of a swinish
multitude.’ I would rather endure the most blind and bigotted
respect for great and illustrious names, than that pitiful, grovelling
humour which has no pride in intellectual excellence, and no
pleasure but in decrying those who have given proofs of it, and
reducing them to its own level. If, with the diffusion of knowledge,
we do not gain an enlargement and elevation of views, where is the
benefit? If, by tearing asunder names from things, we do not leave
even the name or shadow of excellence, it is better to let them remain
as they were; for it is better to have something to admire than
nothing—names, if not things—the shadow, if not the substance—the
tinsel, if not the gold. All can now read and write equally; and, it is
therefore presumed, equally well. Any thing short of this sweeping
conclusion is an invidious distinction; and those who claim it for
themselves or others are exclusionists in letters. Every one at least
can call names—can invent a falsehood, or repeat a story against
those who have galled their pragmatical pretensions by really adding
to the stock of general amusement or instruction. Every one in a
crowd has the power to throw dirt: nine out of ten have the
inclination. It is curious that, in an age when the most universally-
admitted claim to public distinction is literary merit, the attaining of
this distinction is almost a sure title to public contempt and obloquy.
[36]
They cry you up, because you are unknown, and do not excite
their jealousy; and run you down, when they have thus distinguished
you, out of envy and spleen at the very idol they have set up. A public
favourite is ‘kept like an apple in the jaw of an ape—first mouthed, to
be afterwards swallowed. When they need what you have gleaned, it
is but squeezing you, and spunge, you shall be dry again.’ At first they
think only of the pleasure or advantage they receive; but, on
reflection, they are mortified at the superiority implied in this
involuntary concession, and are determined to be even with you the
very first opportunity. What is the prevailing spirit of modern
literature? To defame men of letters. What are the publications that
succeed? Those that pretend to teach the public that the persons they
have been accustomed unwittingly to look up to as the lights of the
earth are no better than themselves, or a set of vagabonds or
miscreants that should be hunted out of society.[37] Hence men of
letters, losing their self-respect, become government-tools, and
prostitute their talents to the most infamous purposes, or turn dandy
scribblers, and set up for gentlemen authors in their own defence. I
like the Order of the Jesuits better than this: they made themselves
respected by the laity, kept their own secret, and did not prey on one
another. Resume then, oh! Learning, thy robe pontifical; clothe
thyself in pride and purple; join the sacred to the profane; wield both
worlds; instead of twopenny trash and mechanics’ magazines, issue
bulls and decretals; say not, let there be light, but darkness visible;
draw a bandage over the eyes of the ignorant and unlettered; hang
the terrors of superstition and despotism over them;—and for thy
pains they will bless thee: children will pull off their caps as thou
dost pass; women will courtesy; the old will wipe their beards; and
thou wilt rule once more over the base serving people, clowns, and
nobles, with a rod of iron!
ON DISAGREEABLE PEOPLE
The Monthly Magazine.]

[August, 1827.
Those people who are uncomfortable in themselves are

disagreeable to others. I do not here mean to speak of persons who
offend intentionally, or are obnoxious to dislike from some palpable
defect of mind or body, ugliness, pride, ill-humour, &c.,—but of those
who are disagreeable in spite of themselves, and, as it might appear,
with almost every qualification to recommend them to others. This
want of success is owing chiefly to something in what is called their
manner; and this again has its foundation in a certain cross-grained
and unsociable state of feeling on their part, which influences us,
perhaps, without our distinctly adverting to it. The mind is a finer
instrument than we sometimes suppose it, and is not only swayed by
overt acts and tangible proofs, but has an instinctive feeling of the air
of truth. We find many individuals in whose company we pass our
time, and have no particular fault to find with their understandings
or character, and yet we are never thoroughly satisfied with them:
the reason will turn out to be, upon examination, that they are never
thoroughly satisfied with themselves, but uneasy and out of sorts all
the time; and this makes us uneasy with them, without our reflecting
on, or being able to discover the cause.
Thus, for instance, we meet with persons who do us a number of
kindnesses, who shew us every mark of respect and good-will, who
are friendly and serviceable,—and yet we do not feel grateful to them,
after all. We reproach ourselves with this as caprice or insensibility,
and try to get the better of it; but there is something in their way of
doing things that prevents us from feeling cordial or sincerely
obliged to them. We think them very worthy people, and would be
glad of an opportunity to do them a good turn if it were in our power;
but we cannot get beyond this: the utmost we can do is to save
appearances, and not come to an open rupture with them. The truth
is, in all such cases, we do not sympathise (as we ought) with them,
because they do not sympathise (as they ought) with us. They have
done what they did from a sense of duty in a cold dry manner, or
from a meddlesome busybody humour; or to shew their superiority
over us, or to patronise our infirmity; or they have dropped some
hint by the way, or blundered upon some topic they should not, and
have shewn, by one means or other, that they were occupied with any
thing but the pleasure they were affording us, or a delicate attention
to our feelings. Such persons may be styled friendly grievances. They
are commonly people of low spirits and disappointed views, who see
the discouraging side of human life, and, with the best intentions in
the world, contrive to make every thing they have to do with
uncomfortable. They are alive to your distress, and take pains to
remove it; but they have no satisfaction in the gaiety and ease they
have communicated, and are on the look-out for some new occasion
of signalizing their zeal; nor are they backward to insinuate that you
will soon have need of their assistance, to guard you against running
into fresh difficulties, or to extricate you from them. From large
benevolence of soul and ‘discourse of reason, looking before and
after,’ they are continually reminding you of something that has gone
wrong in time past, or that may do so in that which is to come, and
are surprised that their awkward hints, sly inuendos, blunt
questions, and solemn features do not excite all the complacency and
mutual good understanding in you which it is intended that they
should. When they make themselves miserable on your account, it is
hard that you will not lend them your countenance and support. This
deplorable humour of theirs does not hit any one else. They are
useful, but not agreeable people; they may assist you in your affairs,
but they depress and tyrannise over your feelings. When they have
made you happy, they will not let you be so—have no enjoyment of
the good they have done—will on no account part with their
melancholy and desponding tone—and, by their mawkish
insensibility and doleful grimaces, throw a damp over the triumph
they are called upon to celebrate. They would keep you in hot water,
that they may help you out of it. They will nurse you in a fit of
sickness (congenial sufferers!)—arbitrate a law-suit for you, and
embroil you deeper—procure you a loan of money;—but all the while
they are only delighted with rubbing the sore place, and casting the
colour of your mental or other disorders. ‘The whole need not a
physician;’ and, being once placed at ease and comfort, they have no
farther use for you as subjects for their singular beneficence, and you
are not sorry to be quit of their tiresome interference. The old
proverb, A friend in need is a friend indeed, is not verified in them.
The class of persons here spoken of are the very reverse of summer-
friends, who court you in prosperity, flatter your vanity, are the
humble servants of your follies, never see or allude to any thing
wrong, minister to your gaiety, smooth over every difficulty, and,
with the slightest approach of misfortune or of any thing unpleasant,
take French leave:—
‘As when, in prime of June, a burnished fly,
Sprung from the meads, o’er which he sweeps along,
Cheered by the breathing bloom and vital sky,
Tunes up amid these airy halls his song,
Soothing at first the gay reposing throng;
And oft he sips their bowl, or nearly drowned,
He thence recovering drives their beds among,
And scares their tender sleep with trump profound;
Then out again he flies to wing his mazy round.’
Thomson’s Castle of Indolence.
However we may despise such triflers, yet we regret them more than
those well-meaning friends on whom a dull melancholy vapour
hangs, that drags them and every one about them to the ground.
Again, there are those who might be very agreeable people, if they
had but spirit to be so; but there is a narrow, unaspiring, under-bred
tone in all they say or do. They have great sense and information—
abound in a knowledge of character—have a fund of anecdote—are
unexceptionable in manners and appearance—and yet we cannot
make up our minds to like them: we are not glad to see them, nor
sorry when they go away. Our familiarity with them, however great,
wants the principle of cement, which is a certain appearance of frank
cordiality and social enjoyment. They have no pleasure in the
subjects of their own thoughts, and therefore can communicate none
to others. There is a dry, husky, grating manner—a pettiness of detail
—a tenaciousness of particulars, however trifling or unpleasant—a
disposition to cavil—an aversion to enlarged and liberal views of
things—in short, a hard, painful, unbending matter-of-factness, from
which the spirit and effect are banished, and the letter only is
attended to, which makes it impossible to sympathise with their
discourse. To make conversation interesting or agreeable, there is
required either the habitual tone of good company, which gives a
favourable colouring to every thing—or the warmth and enthusiasm
of genius, which, though it may occasionally offend or be thrown off
its guard, makes amends by its rapturous flights, and flings a
glancing light upon all things. The literal and dogged style of
conversation resembles that of a French picture, or its mechanical
fidelity is like evidence given in a court of justice, or a police report.
From the literal to the plain-spoken, the transition is easy. The
most efficient weapon of offence is truth. Those who deal in dry and
repulsive matters-of-fact, tire out their friends; those who blurt out
hard and home truths, make themselves mortal enemies wherever
they come. There are your blunt, honest creatures, who omit no
opportunity of letting you know their minds, and are sure to tell you
all the ill, and conceal all the good they hear of you. They would not
flatter you for the world, and to caution you against the malice of
others, they think the province of a friend. This is not candour, but
impudence; and yet they think it odd you are not charmed with their
unreserved communicativeness of disposition. Gossips and tale-
bearers, on the contrary, who supply the tittle-tattle of the
neighbourhood, flatter you to your face, and laugh at you behind
your back, are welcome and agreeable guests in all companies.
Though you know it will be your turn next, yet for the sake of the
immediate gratification, you are contented to pay your share of the
public tax upon character, and are better pleased with the falsehoods
that never reach your ears, than with the truths that others (less
complaisant and more sincere) utter to your face—so short-sighted
and willing to be imposed upon is our self-love! There is a man, who
has the air of not being convinced without an argument: you avoid
him as if he were a lion in your path. There is another, who asks you
fifty questions as to the commonest things you advance: you would
sooner pardon a fellow who held a pistol to your breast and
demanded your money. No one regards a turnpike-keeper, or a
custom-house officer, with a friendly eye: he who stops you in an
excursion of fancy, or ransacks the articles of your belief obstinately
and churlishly, to distinguish the spurious from the genuine, is still
more your foe. These inquisitors and cross-examiners upon system
make ten enemies for every controversy in which they engage. The
world dread nothing so much as being convinced of their errors. In
doing them this piece of service, you make war equally on their
prejudices, their interests, their pride, and indolence. You not only
set up for a superiority of understanding over them, which they hate,
but you deprive them of their ordinary grounds of action, their topics
of discourse, of their confidence in themselves, and those to whom
they have been accustomed to look up for instruction and advice. It is
making children of them. You unhinge all their established opinions
and trains of thought; and after leaving them in this listless, vacant,
unsettled state—dissatisfied with their own notions and shocked at
yours—you expect them to court and be delighted with your
company, because, forsooth, you have only expressed your sincere
and conscientious convictions. Mankind are not deceived by
professions, unless they choose. They think that this pill of true
doctrine, however it may be gilded over, is full of gall and bitterness
to them; and, again, it is a maxim of which the vulgar are firmly
persuaded, that plain-speaking (as it is called) is, nine parts in ten,
spleen and self-opinion; and the other part, perhaps, honesty. Those
who will not abate an inch in argument, and are always seeking to
recover the wind of you, are, in the eye of the world, disagreeable,
unconscionable people, who ought to be sent to Coventry, or left to
wrangle by themselves. No persons, however, are more averse to
contradiction than these same dogmatists. What shews our
susceptibility on this point is, there is no flattery so adroit or
effectual as that of implicit assent. Any one, however mean his
capacity or ill-qualified to judge, who gives way to all our sentiments,
and never seems to think but as we do, is indeed an alter idem—
another self; and we admit him without scruple into our entire
confidence, ‘yea, into our heart of hearts.’
It is the same in books. Those which, under the disguise of plain-
speaking, vent paradoxes, and set their faces against the common
sense of mankind, are neither ‘the volumes
——‘That enrich the shops,
That pass with approbation through the land;’
nor, I fear, can it be added—
‘That bring their authors an immortal fame.’
They excite a clamour and opposition at first, and are in general soon
consigned to oblivion. Even if the opinions are in the end adopted,
the authors gain little by it, and their names remain in their original
obloquy; for the public will own no obligations to such ungracious
benefactors. In like manner, there are many books written in a very
delightful vein, though with little in them, and that are accordingly
popular. Their principle is to please, and not to offend; and they
succeed in both objects. We are contented with the deference shown
to our feelings for the time, and grant a truce both to wit and
wisdom. The ‘courteous reader’ and the good-natured author are well
matched in this instance, and find their account in mutual
tenderness and forbearance to each other’s infirmities. I am not sure
that Walton’s Angler is not a book of this last description—
‘That dallies with the innocence of thought,
Like the old age.’
Hobbes and Mandeville are in the opposite extreme, and have met
with a correspondent fate. The Tatler and the Spectator are in the
golden mean, carry instruction as far as it can go without shocking,
and give the most exquisite pleasure without one particle of pain.
‘Desire to please, and you will infallibly please,’ is a maxim equally
applicable to the study or the drawing-room. Thus also we see actors
of very small pretensions, and who have scarce any other merit than
that of being on good terms with themselves, and in high good
humour with their parts (though they hardly understand a word of
them), who are universal favourites with the audience. Others, who
are masters of their art, and in whom no slip or flaw can be detected,
you have no pleasure in seeing, from something dry, repulsive, and
unconciliating in their manner; and you almost hate the very
mention of their names, as an unavailing appeal to your candid
decision in their favour, and as taxing you with injustice for refusing
it.
We may observe persons who seem to take a peculiar delight in the
disagreeable. They catch all sorts of uncouth tones and gestures, the
manners and dialect of clowns and hoydens, and aim at vulgarity as
desperately as others ape gentility. [This is what is often understood
by a love of low life.] They say the most unwarrantable things,
without meaning or feeling what they say. What startles or shocks
other people, is to them a sport—an amusing excitement—a fillip to
their constitutions; and from the bluntness of their perceptions, and
a certain wilfulness of spirit, not being able to enter into the refined
and agreeable, they make a merit of despising every thing of the
kind. Masculine women, for example, are those who, not being
distinguished by the charms and delicacy of the sex, affect a
superiority over it by throwing aside all decorum. We also find
another class, who continually do and say what they ought not, and
what they do not intend, and who are governed almost entirely by an
instinct of absurdity. Owing to a perversity of imagination or
irritability of nerve, the idea that a thing is improper acts as a
provocation to it: the fear of committing a blunder is so strong, that
in their agitation they bolt out whatever is uppermost in their minds,
before they are aware of the consequence. The dread of something
wrong haunts and rivets their attention to it; and an uneasy, morbid
apprehensiveness of temper takes away their self-possession, and
hurries them into the very mistakes they are most anxious to avoid.
If we look about us, and ask who are the agreeable and
disagreeable people in the world, we shall see that it does not depend
on their virtues or vices—their understanding or stupidity—but as
much on the degree of pleasure or pain they seem to feel in ordinary
social intercourse. What signify all the good qualities any one
possesses, if he is none the better for them himself? If the cause is so
delightful, the effect ought to be so too. We enjoy a friend’s society
only in proportion as he is satisfied with ours. Even wit, however it
may startle, is only agreeable as it is sheathed in good-humour.
There are a kind of intellectual stammerers, who are delivered of
their good things with pain and effort; and consequently what costs
them such evident uneasiness does not impart unmixed delight to
the bystanders. There are those, on the contrary, whose sallies cost
them nothing—who abound in a flow of pleasantry and good-
humour; and who float down the stream with them carelessly and
triumphantly,—
‘Wit at the helm, and Pleasure at the prow.’
Perhaps it may be said of English wit in general, that it too much
resembles pointed lead: after all, there is something heavy and dull
in it! The race of small wits are not the least agreeable people in the
world. They have their little joke to themselves, enjoy it, and do not
set up any preposterous pretensions to thwart the current of our self-
love. Toad-eating is accounted a thriving profession; and a butt,
according to the Spectator, is a highly useful member of society—as
one who takes whatever is said of him in good part, and as necessary
to conduct off the spleen and superfluous petulance of the company.
Opposed to these are the swaggering bullies—the licensed wits—the
free-thinkers—the loud talkers, who, in the jockey phrase, have lost
their mouths, and cannot be reined in by any regard to decency or
common sense. The more obnoxious the subject, the more are they
charmed with it, converting their want of feeling into a proof of
superiority to vulgar prejudice and squeamish affectation. But there
is an unseemly exposure of the mind, as well as of the body. There
are some objects that shock the sense, and cannot with propriety be
mentioned: there are naked truths that offend the mind, and ought
to be kept out of sight as much as possible. For human nature cannot
bear to be too hardly pressed upon. One of these cynical truisms,
when brought forward to the world, may be forgiven as a slip of the
pen: a succession of them, denoting a deliberate purpose and malice
prepense, must ruin any writer. Lord Byron had got into an irregular
course of these a little before his death—seemed desirous, in
imitation of Mr. Shelley, to run the gauntlet of public obloquy—and,
at the same time, wishing to screen himself from the censure he
defied, dedicated his Cain to Sir Walter Scott—a pretty godfather to
such a bantling!
Some persons are of so teazing and fidgetty a turn of mind, that
they do not give you a moment’s rest. Every thing goes wrong with
them. They complain of a headache or the weather. They take up a
book, and lay it down again—venture an opinion, and retract it
before they have half done—offer to serve you, and prevent some one
else from doing it. If you dine with them at a tavern, in order to be
more at your ease, the fish is too little done—the sauce is not the
right one; they ask for a sort of wine which they think is not to be
had, or if it is, after some trouble, procured, do not touch it; they give
the waiter fifty contradictory orders, and are restless and sit on
thorns the whole of dinner-time. All this is owing to a want of robust
health, and of a strong spirit of enjoyment; it is a fastidious habit of
mind, produced by a valetudinary habit of body: they are out of sorts
with every thing, and of course their ill-humour and captiousness
communicates itself to you, who are as little delighted with them as
they are with other things. Another sort of people, equally
objectionable with this helpless class, who are disconcerted by a
shower of rain or stopped by an insect’s wing, are those who, in the
opposite spirit, will have every thing their own way, and carry all
before them—who cannot brook the slightest shadow of opposition—
who are always in the heat of an argument—who knit their brows and
clench their teeth in some speculative discussion, as if they were
engaged in a personal quarrel—and who, though successful over
almost every competitor, seem still to resent the very offer of
resistance to their supposed authority, and are as angry as if they had
sustained some premeditated injury. There is an impatience of
temper and an intolerance of opinion in this that conciliates neither
our affection nor esteem. To such persons nothing appears of any
moment but the indulgence of a domineering intellectual superiority
to the disregard and discomfiture of their own and every body else’s
comfort. Mounted on an abstract proposition, they trample on every
courtesy and decency of behaviour; and though, perhaps, they do not
intend the gross personalities they are guilty of, yet they cannot be
acquitted of a want of due consideration for others, and of an
intolerable egotism in the support of truth and justice. You may hear
one of these Quixotic declaimers pleading the cause of humanity in a
voice of thunder, or expatiating on the beauty of a Guido with
features distorted with rage and scorn. This is not a very amiable or
edifying spectacle.
There are persons who cannot make friends. Who are they? Those
who cannot be friends. It is not the want of understanding or good-
nature, of entertaining or useful qualities, that you complain of: on
the contrary, they have probably many points of attraction; but they
have one that neutralises all these—they care nothing about you, and
are neither the better nor worse for what you think of them. They
manifest no joy at your approach; and when you leave them, it is
with a feeling that they can do just as well without you. This is not
sullenness, nor indifference, nor absence of mind; but they are intent
solely on their own thoughts, and you are merely one of the subjects
they exercise them upon. They live in society as in a solitude; and,

PDF The Manual For Bridge Evaluation American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Aashto Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF The Manual For Bridge Evaluation American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Aashto Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Manual for Bridge Evaluation

American Association Of State Highway

Publication Manual of the American Psychological

Publication Manual of the American Psychological

Publication Manual of the American Psychological

Publication Manual of the American Psychological

American Sociological Association Style Guide 7th

The Memory Activity Book First American Edition

Trip Generation Manual 10 th Edition Institute Of

Social Security American Association Of Retired

© 2018 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

ISBN: 978-1-56051-683-5 Pub Code: MBE-3

AASHTO Publications Staff

SECTION 2: BRIDGE FILES AND DOCUMENTATION ................................................................................................2-i

SECTION 3: BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................3-i

SECTION 4: INSPECTION ................................................................................................................................................4-i

SECTION 5: MATERIAL TESTING..................................................................................................................................5-i

SECTION 6: LOAD RATING.............................................................................................................................................6-i

SECTION 7: FATIGUE EVALUATION OF STEEL BRIDGES .......................................................................................7-i

SECTION 8: NONDESTRUCTIVE LOAD TESTING ......................................................................................................8-i

APPENDIX A: ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES ................................................................................................................. A-i

1.2—SCOPE ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-2

1.3—APPLICABILITY ................................................................................................................................................ 1-2

1.4—QUALITY ............................................................................................................................................................ 1-2

1.4.1—Provisions to Support the NBIS Requirements .......................................................................................... 1-3

1.4.2—QC/QA Procedures .................................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.5—DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 1-4

1.6—REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 1-6

The purpose of The Manual for Bridge Evaluation

The Manual has been divided into eight Sections,

• Section 1—Purpose, scope, applicability, inspection

© 2018 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

• Section 3—Overview of bridge management

The provisions of this Manual apply to all highway

To maintain the accuracy and consistency of

© 2018 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

within the bridge inspection teams or units performing

1.4.1—Provisions to Support the NBIS Requirements

A quality control and quality assurance (QC/QA)

Typical quality procedures may include the use of

• Defined QC roles and responsibilities;

© 2018 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

results meet or exceed the standards established by the

• Defined quality assurance roles and responsibilities;

1.5—DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY

AASHTO—American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

ASR—Allowable Stress Rating.

Bias—The ratio of mean to nominal value of a random variable.

© 2018 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Evaluation—An assessment of the performance of an existing bridge.

FHWA—Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

LFR—Load Factor Rating.

Load Rating—The determination of the live-load carrying capacity of an existing bridge.

LRFD—Load and Resistance Factor Design.

LRFR—Load and Resistance Factor Rating.

MUTCD—Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

NICET—National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies.

© 2018 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Owner—Agency having jurisdiction over the bridge.

Posting—Signing a bridge for load restriction.

Service Limit State—Limit state relating to stress, deformation, and cracking.

Strength Limit State—Safety limit state relating to strength and stability.

Target Reliability—A desired level of reliability (safety) in a proposed evaluation.