pennsylvania - penndot home · the distinction between quality control and quality assurance is ......

05-299 (7-08)

~ pennsylvania

DEPARTMENT OF TRANS PORTATI ON

SUBJECT:

TRANSMIDAL LEDER PUBLICATION:

Publication 240 December 2010

DATE:

January 6, 2011

Bridge Safety Inspection Quality Assurance Manual, Publication 240, December 2010

INFORMATION AND SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:

Effective immediately, this manual shall be used by Department personnel and bridge inspection quality assurance consultants to conduct the state-wide quality assurance evaluations of bridge inspections.

This publication is available on the Department's internet Web page, www.dot.state.pa.us.

Comments or questions concerning this manual are to be directed to the Bureau of Project Delivery's Bridge Quality Assurance Division and may be submitted electronically using the Bridge Standards Problem Report Form available on the Departments internet page.

CANCEL AND DESTROY THE FOLLOWING:

BRIDGE SAFETY INSPECTION QUALITY ASSURANCE MANUAL, 1989 EDITION

List of Strike-Off Letters: None.

ADDITIONAL COPIES ARE AVAILABLE FROM:

~ PennDOT SALES STORE (717) 787-6746 phone (717) 787-8779 fax ra-pen ndotsalesstore .state. pa. us

~ PennDOT website - www.dot.state.pa.us Click on Forms, Publications & Maps'

o DGS warehouse (PennDOT employees ONLY)

APPROVED FOR ISSUANCE BY:

Allen D. Biehler, P.E. Secretary of Transportation

By: ~u;z/~

Brian G. Thompson, P.E. Director Bureau of Project Delivery

Bridge Safety

Inspection

Quality Assurance Manual

December 2010

Pub 240 (12-10)

www.dot.state.pa.us

Preface

This edition of the Bridge Safety Inspection Quality Assurance manual provides the policy and procedures governing the conduct of the Statewide QA program. It represents and is heavily influenced by the current manner in which QA evaluations are being currently conducted. It should be noted that the QA procedures and standards currently in effect have evolved over a number of years since the program’s inception and are considered the foundation of the QA program for the foreseeable future.

List of Major Changes included in Publication 240, December 2010 General:

Restructured all chapters to conventional numbering system.

Revised content of all chapters to align activities with current practice.

Update data fields for BMS2 coding.

Chapters 1-9 :

Added new sections in chapters to provide additional information on how the evaluations are

conducted.

Added new chapter 5 based upon availability of data tracking improvements with BMS2 and

chapter 9 to describe the general corrective action process and identify several specific measures

of effectiveness.

Appendices:

Updated all appendices to reflect current evaluation reporting requirements.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 1.0 Introduction 1.1 General 1 1.2 Definitions of QC and QA 2 1.3 Objectives 2 1.4 QA Flexibility 2 1.5 Levels of QA 3 1.6 Bridge Safety Inspection Specifications 3 1.7 QA Team Member Qualifications 3 1.8 Resources 3 1.9 Bridges to Receive QA 4 1.10 QA Expansion 4 1.11 QA Tolerance Levels 4 2.0 Planning the Evaluation 5 2.1 Objective 5 2.2 Sequence of Activities 5 2.3 QA Evaluation Level per Cycle 5 2.4 Selecting the Bridges 5 2.5 Timing the Evaluation 6 3.0 QA at the Bridge Site 7 3.1 Objective 7 3.2 Scheduling 7 3.3 District Bridge Unit Contact 7 3.4 Sequence of Activities 7 3.5 Identify Bridge 7 3.6 Inventory Data 8 3.7 Condition/Appraisal Evaluation 8 3.8 Load Rating Data Collection 9 3.9 Signing Verification 9 3.10 Bridge Maintenance 10 4.0 QA at the District Office 11 4.1 Objective 11 4.2 Preparation 11 4.3 Focus 11 4.4 File Contents 11 4.5 Inventory 12 4.6 Condition/Appraisal 12 4.7 Load Rating Analysis Verification 12 4.8 Load Posting Verification 13 4.9 Scour Assessment Documentation 13 4.10 Construction Plans/Shop Drawings/ FCM Plan 13 4.11 Inspection Support and Control 14 5.0 Computer Edit of BMS2 Data 15 5.1 Objective 15 5.2 Items Evaluated 15

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 6.0 Bridge Maintenance Evaluation 17 6.1 Objective 17 6.2 Maintenance/Repair Needs 17 6.3 Verify Implementation 17 7.0 District Findings 19 7.1 Objective 19 7.2 Report Format 19 7.3 Summary 19 7.4 Narrative 19 7.5 District Bridge Inspection Unit Organization 19 7.6 Findings at the Bridge 19 7.7 Findings at the District Office 20 7.8 Exhibits and Appendices 20 7.9 Report Review Process 20 7.10 Preliminary Report Distribution 20 7.11 Close-Out Meeting 20 7.12 Final Report 21 8.0 Annual QA Report 23 8.1 Objective 23 8.2 Report Preparation 23 8.3 Narrative Description 23 8.4 Special Emphasis Items 23 8.5 Statistical Comparison 24 8.6 Recommendations to Districts 24 8.7 Conclusions/Recommendations 24 9.0 Corrective Actions 25 9.1 Task List and Schedule 25 9.2 Measures of Effectiveness 25 9.3 Reporting 25 Appendices Appendix A Bridge Inspection Quality Assurance Evaluation Appendix B PennDOT Bridge Safety Inspection QA Program Condition and Appraisal Evaluation Appendix C PennDOT Bridge Safety Inspection QA Program Bridge File Evaluation Appendix D Bridge Inspection Quality Assurance Evaluation Operational Procedures QA Form Appendix E NBIS QA Comparison Appendix F Rating Variation Frequency BAR Chart Example

Appendix G Instructions for Preparing Adobe Acrobat PDF Files for Document Submissions

PennDOT Publication 240 December 2010

1

1.0 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 - General

The National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) require that all structures defined as bridges and located on a public highway system be inspected at intervals not to exceed two years. PennDOT has a decentralized Bridge Safety Inspection Program which meets these NBIS requirements. The PennDOT Bridge Safety Inspection Manual Publication 238 contains a compilation of inspection guidelines.

The bridge safety inspection program provides information on each bridge that is used to complete and update the data base for the Bridge Management System (BMS). The original Bridge Management Systems was implemented December, 1986. The follow-on version of BMS2 was implemented in November 2006. As with its predecessor, this system accepts, stores, updates, and reports physical and operating characteristics for all public bridges in Pennsylvania. It also contains bridge inventory data, which is an expansion of the Federal Structure Inventory and Appraisal (SI&A) format. BMS2 is the resource for District and statewide management decisions such as prioritization and budgeting for current and future needs. It provides management reports based on scenarios developed from existing conditions.

Much of the BMS2 information related to geometry and physical condition is provided by inspectors assigned to District bridge safety inspection units. From field observations, damage or deterioration is reported according to the guidelines provided in Publication 238 and the requirements given in Publication 100A (Coding Guide) and stored in the BMS2 database. The Districts program timely remedial actions, and, if necessary, restrict traffic until appropriate repair or replacement is affected.

The accuracy and consistency of the inspection and documentation is vital not only because it impacts programming and funding appropriations, but also because of public safety concerns. Therefore, the Department addresses this need with quality control and quality assurance procedures. Quality control is the responsibility of each District. The District develops and enforces Bridge Inspection Quality Control (QC) Procedures, which they update regularly. They also submit an outline of these procedures to the Bridge Quality Assurance Division (BQAD). BQAD functions as a technical resource to coordinate and standardize the bridge inspection program and disperse appropriate information. The Bridge Inspection Quality Assurance (QA) is an independent, Central Office bridge inspection evaluation function performed by the BQAD-designated QA evaluation team to ensure that the Districts are operating in accordance with approved QC plans and hence, the NBIS.

The flow of QA evaluation information follows a well-defined path. The QA evaluation team provides the Bridge Safety Inspection QA Project Manager in BQAD with a report after the field and office evaluations are complete in each District. Following review by the Project Manager, the pertinent findings in the report will be discussed with the Section and Division Chief, and sent to the District for review and resolution at a close-out meeting. Major findings and unresolved problems will be brought to the attention of the Bureau Director for appropriate follow-up action. At the completion of the review process in all Districts, a Statewide Summary Report will be issued that summarizes the statewide results on approximately an annual basis.

Quality cannot be taken for granted. QC/QA procedures must be properly conceived and clearly defined. This manual provides guidelines so that the quality assurance activities may be measured quantitatively and interpreted uniformly, and recommended improvements assessed and implemented.

December 2010 PennDOT Publication 240

2

1.2 - Definitions of QC and QA

The distinction between quality control and quality assurance is important since each function has a specific purpose and a different organization level responsible for its administration.

Quality control is the enforcement, by a supervisor, of procedures that are intended to maintain the quality of a product or service at or above a specified level. Quality control of the inspection of state bridges is a daily operational function performed within each District under the supervision of the District Executive (DE), the Assistant DE for Design, District Bridge Engineer (DBE), and the Assistant District Bridge Engineer- Inspection.

Quality assurance is the verification or measurement of the level of quality of a sample product or service. First, the sampling must be sufficiently representative to permit a statistical correlation with the whole group. The sample findings must be compared against established standards to determine if the specified procedures, on which those standards are based, have been followed. QA evaluations must also be performed by an organization external to the operational QC function in order to maintain an objective and unbiased viewpoint. As such, the State-wide bridge inspection QA evaluation activities will be performed by BQAD, or its agents (Consultants).

The purpose of bridge inspection QA evaluations is to measure the performance of the District in the execution of the Bridge Safety Inspection Program and report the findings in accordance with uniform guidelines provided in this manual. QA evaluations will also be used to identify areas of non-uniformity in the inspection results throughout the state. The objective is to measure the statewide bridge inspection quality and uniformity through statistical analysis of the combined quantitative QA results within and between the Districts. Qualitative or subjective information can not accomplish this. The requirement is to monitor specific areas of the inspection program and report findings as accurately as possible, not to provide opinions. The challenge, then, is to provide objective QA findings in a quantitative format.

1.3 - Objectives

The structure and procedures of the Quality Assurance program have been developed to accomplish the following objectives.

Assess and improve the quality of the data contained in the Bridge Management System, starting with the inventory and continuing with the field information recorded from inspections.

Assess and improve the accuracy of the condition ratings

Assess and improve the accuracy of maintenance item identification and priority level

Assess and improve the accuracy of load ratings and inspection reporting in support of load rating

Assess and identify training needs

Assess and identify gaps in quality and provide recommendations to close them

1.4 - QA Flexibility

This manual provides for implementation of the Bridge Safety Inspection QA program. The process by which it is implemented each new cycle will be evaluated based on the results of previous cycles. Certain activities will be modified or substituted for, if it can be determined that the QA process is not providing the best information. The Department anticipates the QA evaluation process will undergo continuous assessment and refinement to provide the most accurate and useful information possible.


3

Commonly Recognized (CoRe) element level inspection and documentation are not covered under the QA program at this time. They will be addressed as CoRe element level inspections increase in frequency.

1.5 - Levels of QA

Four levels of QA procedures have been established for the QA evaluation process so that the activities may be adjusted and planned to match the need and resources. The definitions of the four levels of procedures used in this manual depend on both the location (bridge site or office) of the QA evaluation and the type of the data (inventory, condition rating, load rating, etc.) that is under review. These definitions consisting of a set of data points or descriptive information associated with each level are provided in Section 3.0, QA at the Bridge Site, and Section 4.0, QA at the District Office, for the various types of data.

The QA evaluation process has been typically performed at the highest level (Level IV) for all activities. Lower levels may be used in the future, but, only after careful evaluation indicates that this action is appropriate.

This manual contains a random selection process based on statistical distribution of bridge features. A five (5) percent sample size (to a maximum of 15 state-owned and 15 locally-owned bridges for PennDOT Districts) is currently considered appropriate.

1.6 - Bridge Safety Inspection Specifications

The following specifications, unless otherwise modified in this Manual, govern the conduct of the safety inspection of bridges for quality assurance purposes in the order of precedence as follows:

PennDOT Policy Strike-Off Letters (SOL)

AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation, Current Edition

Bridge Safety Inspection Manual, PennDOT Publication 238, Current Edition.

Bridge Management System (BMS2) Coding Manual – PennDOT Publication 100A, Current

Edition.

PENNDOT CoRe Element Coding Guide, Publication 590, Current Edition.

FHWA Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)

PENNDOT Official Traffic Control Devices, Publication 212, Current Edition.

PENNDOT Temporary Traffic Control Guidelines, Publication 213, Current Edition.

1.7 - QA Team Member Qualifications

The Inspection Team Leader of the QA evaluation at the bridge must meet or exceed the requirements specified in the Bridge Safety Inspection Manual (PUB 238) and NBIS. The QA Team qualifications are established by BQAD using the NBIS criteria as the minimum requirements.

The QA evaluation provides a base for statistically measuring and comparing the judgment of the District and consultant inspectors and must be consistent to be effective and credible. The Consultant performing the evaluation will minimize switching QA team members in order to accomplish uniformity.

1.8 - Resources

The QA Team will have the same standard equipment as each District inspection team, and also have access to special equipment as necessary to provide a “hands-on” inspection of the sample bridges. While working in the Districts, the QA team will minimize interference with other District activities such as construction or maintenance projects that are in progress.


4

1.9 - Bridges to Receive QA

The QA procedures described herein apply to state and local bridge safety inspections performed by the Districts or by consultants under District oversight, on bridges with greater than 20-feet opening and coded ″yes″ for NBIS length. They may be expanded to include the following types of inspection:

Railroads,

Fracture critical members and details,

Underwater structure components

1.10 - QA Expansion

Two (2) sections are provided herein to cover QA requirements added in 2007:

Section 5.0 – BMS2 Central Office Data Edit.

Section 6.0 – Bridge Maintenance Evaluation.

1.11 – QA Tolerance Levels

1.11.1 Condition/Appraisal: The original inspection item ratings are considered to be out-of-tolerance if they vary more than 1 ± from the ratings compiled by the QA team. For Traffic Safety Features coding, when two or more out of the four sub-codes are out-of-tolerance, then the entire four-part code shall be considered to be out-of-tolerance.

1.11.2 Observed Scour: The original inspection item ratings are considered to be out-of-tolerance if they vary more than 1± from the ratings compiled by the QA team.

1.11.3 Load Rating: Bridge capacity ratings (Operating Rating level) are considered to be out-of-tolerance if they vary by more than 15% from the capacity ratings done by the QA team. For posted bridges, the bridge data is out-of-tolerance if the posting evaluation varies by more than 2 tons from the QA team’s posting evaluation

1.11.4 Inventory Items: Most items have an exact coding tolerance, i.e., ± 0 in the coded value. However, there are items such as Bridge Roadway Width for which tolerances are set on a case-by-case basis.

1.11.5 Maintenance Item and Priority Code: Both of these items are an exact coding tolerance, i.e., ± 0 in the priority coding and the maintenance items must match.


5

2.0 – PLANNING THE EVALUATION

2.1 – Objective

Planning the QA evaluation involves selecting the Districts’ state and local sample bridges. BQAD selects the State-owned bridges for each cycle. At the same time, BQAD issues a Strike-Off Letter (SOL) requesting that each District select and forward a list of Locally-owned bridges for evaluation during the cycle. After selections have been made by BQAD, the District shall prepare a schedule with provisions for equipment and support manpower, where necessary, in order to provide the specified QA level. This chapter provides the important considerations in this planning.

2.2 – Sequence of Activities

2.2.1 Each cycle’s activities begin with the designation by BQAD of the required level of QA (See Section 2.3). BQAD will announce the evaluations that will be performed after the sample bridges have been selected. The sequence of District QA visits changes every year.

2.2.2 Based on the activities included in the selected level, the QA evaluation per District involves the following activities. All of those activities except for the bridge selection are performed or generated by the QA Team:

Selecting the sample bridges

An office visit including a file evaluation of each bridge

A field site evaluation of each selected bridge

An evaluation of the accuracy of selected BMS2 data items in the system

An evaluation of the accuracy of specific condition and appraisal ratings, and maintenance recommendations

An independent load rating evaluation

A draft report of the findings

A close-out meeting held at the District to discuss findings

A final report of the QA evaluation including resolution of conflicts, and final results of the evaluations with findings, and recommendations for program improvement.

.

2.3 – QA Evaluation Level Per Cycle

BQAD determines the QA evaluation level each cycle based on an assessment of needs, prior results and/or availability of funds. The Chief Bridge Engineer issues final approval of the QA level based upon the Division staff recommendations and after the required resources are budgeted and approved.

2.4 – Selecting the Bridges

2.4.1 The selection process provides a sampling that represents an appropriate spectrum of inspections for all the District bridges with greater than 20-feet opening and coded ″yes″ for NBIS length with an emphasis on bridges classified as structurally deficient plus bridges with a minimum condition rating of ″5″. It is basically the same for all QA evaluation levels.

2.4.2 BQAD establishes a profile of the bridges in each District as follows:

a. The BMS2 profile data consisting of:

Items No. 5A01, 6A01-6A03; Identifying the structure

Items No. 5A09, 5C01, 5C03, and 5C06; Location description-features/intersected


6

Item No. 6A26-6A29; Structure type

Item No. 6A08; Total length (3 groups: 8’-20’(no QA evaluation), 20’-499’, ≥ 500’)

Item No. 5A15; Year built

Item No. 5C04, 5C05 and 5A17-5A18; Type highway/service

Item No. VM02; Maintenance responsibility

Item No. 7A03; Type of inspection

Item No. 7A05; Inspected by

Item No. 7A01; Date of inspection

Additional data as necessary to satisfy current year’s emphasis items identified by BQAD

b. The bridges shall be grouped based on profile features that potentially influence the quality of inspection. The groups are: type of superstructure; total length; overall condition; and sufficiency rating. Additional grouping(s) may be required due to emphasis items.

2.4.3 The size of the sample group may be varied based on the QA results of the previous years. The QA evaluation candidates include those contained in group representing five (5) percent of the total inspections (up to a maximum of 15 state-owned and 15 locally-owned bridges for PennDOT Districts). In selecting the sample bridges, BQAD will match the District profile, selecting only from the group that qualify due to date of inspection, as discussed in the following topic. Beyond that, the selection is random. Difficulty of access or inspection will not necessarily disqualify a bridge from selection.

2.4.4 Obtain BMS2 data appropriate for level of inspection as follows:

a. Levels I, II, III, and IV – BQAD will supply the QA Team with the BMS2 printouts containing the appropriate items listed in Topics 3.6 and 3.7 after selection of the District structures. The printouts will be used the QA team in planning and conducting the field evaluation.

b. Levels I, II, III, and IV – The QA team will collect other pertinent information including location maps, copies of inspection reports, and bridge plans during the office file evaluation at the District office.

2.5 – Timing the Evaluation

The QA Team should perform QA evaluation at the bridge (field evaluation) within six months after the date of the previous bridge safety inspection. Some flexibility may be necessary in the scheduling if special access equipment is required.


7

3.0 – QA AT THE BRIDGE SITE

3.1 – Objective

The QA evaluation at the bridge consists of an independent bridge safety inspection and subsequent verification of BMS2 condition/appraisal rating Items No. 6B36, 6B38-6B40, 1A01-1A06, 4A02, 4A08-4A11, IN03, and certain inventory data prescribed based on the level of evaluation. The procedures are the same for all the sample bridges. All sample bridges receive an independent NBIS Regular inspection by the QA team. The inspection data collected shall be documented using the Department’s iForms bridge inspection software.

3.2 – Scheduling

The QA team will normally group daily bridge inspections to minimize driving time based on locations of the structures. The District office will resolve any location questions. Bridge inspection scheduling also includes provisions for special equipment and manpower. Whenever possible, the QA teams will use District crane resources.

3.3 – District Bridge Unit Contact

The District Bridge Engineer (DBE) or his designated representative will coordinate the scheduling and execution of the QA evaluation inspections requiring District crane resources to ensure resource requirements can be met.

3.4 – Sequence of Activities

The QA evaluation is a systematic sequence of activities depending on the level of inspection required. The following is a typical sequence of activities performed by the QA Team:

verify and identify the structure X X X X

verify inventory data based on QA level X X X X

verify inspection method and access equipment need X X X X

verify safety features and posting signs X X X X

perform independent condition/appraisal X X X X

compare with District rating and reconcile, if possible X X X X

document findings based upon QA level X X X X

photograph the structure X X X

prepare field sketches to locate scour and other details as req’d X X X

list/prioritize maintenance/repair needs X X X

take measurements for load rating check X X

verify inspection interval X

Many of the activities vary considerably based on the QA level which is described later in this section.

3.5 – Identify Bridge

The QA team can normally locate the bridge using information contained in the BMS ID number consisting of the state or local route, segment and offset, and descriptive information contained in the inspection report. For Levels II, III and IV, the team shall photograph an overall view of the bridge and place the photograph on the report cover sheet (Appendix A), along with the date of inspection, BMS ID number, and list of team members.

QA Level

I II III IV


8

3.6 – Inventory Data

As part of a QA evaluation at the bridge, the team shall measure and describe certain elements of the bridge or verify the BMS2 data. The number of items checked is based on the QA evaluation level prescribed. The specific items checked at each level are identified in this Section and Section 3.7. These items may be varied by direction from BQAD Division. Normally, the variance applies for a single QA cycle.

a. Level I – Inventory item verification performed by the QA team includes the following:

(1) Verification of BMS2 Item Nos. 5C27, 6A26-6A29, 6A08, and VP02.

(2) Using the BMS2 printout provided, the QA team shall verify the BMS2 data by placing a check mark () above the correct data, or if there is a discrepancy, entering the correct information on printout. If data cannot be verified either at the bridge, from the plans, or from the load rating analysis, an “N” shall be entered in place of the check mark. Section 3.8 describes the verification process for the inventory and operating load ratings (Items IR10 and IR11) for each QA level.

b. Level II – Same as Level I; plus verification of BMS2 Items No. 5A17-5A18, 5C26, 5C15, 5A19, 5C08, FR07, 6C20-6C21/FR10-FR11, IR04, AND IR10-IR11 (done as part of analysis work).

c. Level III – Same as Level II; plus verification of BMS2 Items No. 5A15, 5C01, 5C03, 5C06, 5C04, 4A19-4A20, 6C18-6C19, 5C24, 6C22-6C23, FR14-FR15, 5B17, 5B02-5B04, 6A30-6A31, 7A01, 4B03, 3B07, and, 3B01-3B02.

d. Level IV – Unlike in Level I-III using BMS2 printout data for verification, the Federal Highway Administration Structure Inventory and Appraisal Items shall be entered on a blank BMS2 form. To preserve the independence of the evaluation, the BMS2 printout will not be made available to the team before they inspect the bridge.

3.7 – Condition/Appraisal Evaluation

BMS2 Items No. 6B36, 6B38-6B40, 1A01-1A06, 4A02, IA02, 4A09-4A11, 4A08, and IN03 shall be checked by the QA team as part of the Condition/Appraisal Evaluation.

a. Level I – the QA team shall employ the following evaluation sequence and procedures:

(1) Perform the QA inspection prior to looking at the previous condition/appraisal ratings. Appendix B shall be used to record the QA Evaluation Ratings. The inspection is “hands-on” using appropriate access equipment.

(2) After the inspection, compare the previous rating shown on the BMS2 printout with the ratings entered.

(3) If tolerance ± 1 is exceeded on a rating, re-evaluate the element to ensure nothing was overlooked and the QA rating is correct.

(4) Additional documentation is unnecessary if the difference between the QA and the previous District rating is within the tolerance as indicated on Appendix B. If not within the tolerance, provide a brief description to justify the rating.

b. Level II – Same as Level I except, when tolerance is exceeded, add photographs and/or sketches to ensure the documentation is thorough.


9

c. Level III – Same as Level II plus include photographs/sketch documentation if the condition ratings are “4” or below.

d. Level IV – Unlike Levels I-III, perform a “hands-on” inspection with complete documentation as if there was no previous inspection. Complete a blank D-491 Form with appropriate sketches and photographs. The previous inspection documentation is will not be available to the QA team at the bridge.

3.8 – Load Rating Data Collection

During the field evaluation, the QA team must gather sufficient data to perform the specified level of load rating verification with confidence. Since the accuracy of the load capacity rating is controlled by the accuracy in sizing members, the QA evaluation at the bridge includes precise measurements to provide the required data for the prescribed level of evaluation. The QA team will neatly document the measurements using sketches as necessary and include them in the QA records for each sample bridge. Data collection by the QA team shall also include documenting and compiling the following information:

a. Level I – Significant deficiencies such as section loss or reduction in strength due to damage or deterioration.

b. Level II – Same as Level I except:

(1) One primary member identified on the longest span and sized to include C-C bearing length.

c. Level III – Same as Level II except:

(1) All deficiencies that potentially decrease capacity.

(2) The significant dimensions required to load rate the longest span.

d. Level IV – Same as Level III except:

(1) The significant dimensions required to load rate the entire superstructure of the bridge.

The preceding requirements for obtaining dimensions apply to superstructures that are not complex. On more complicated structures, such as trusses, the QA team will verify only selected member dimensions (i.e., top and bottom chord), and only when detailed plans or sketches are available from the District.

3.9 – Signing Verification

The QA team evaluation includes the verification of signing as follows:

a. Level I – Identify all signs that restrict the use of the bridge and compare them with BMS2 Item Nos. VP01-VP05.

b. Level II - The same as Level I plus the addition of a description of the sign legibility, visibility, and condition.

c. Level III - The same as Level II, plus the addition of a description of the location of all signs.

d. Level IV - The same as Level III, plus the addition of an evaluation of the adequacy of the signing.


10

3.10 – Bridge Maintenance

For Levels I through IV, the QA team will perform an evaluation of the maintenance items and assigned priority coding in accordance with Section 6.0 of this Publication. This assessment shall be based on the completeness and correctness of the maintenance items identified and the appropriate priority coding. The results of the evaluation shall be recorded under Appendix C, Item No. 6.


11

4.0 – QA AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE

4.1 - Objective

QA evaluation at the District office consists of verifying the availability and accuracy of required documentation. This section provides procedures developed to accomplish this. The evaluation will include a comparison of the data obtained by the QA team at the sample bridges that with that reported by the District bridge safety inspection team.

4.2 – Preparation

The District office QA evaluation will commence within two weeks of the beginning of the QA evaluation at the bridge site. The QA team will perform the evaluation at the location where the active District bridge safety inspection records are stored. DBE or a designated representative will provide work space for the QA team during the time required for the office QA evaluation. The Bridge Safety Inspection Supervisor or his designated representative qualified to answer questions related to the inspection activities must be available to the QA team on a periodic basis during the office QA evaluation.

The office evaluation will be conducted with an emphasis on minimizing the disruption caused to the District routine while the QA evaluation at the District office is in progress.

4.3 – Focus

The files studied during the office QA evaluation are for the sample bridges evaluated in the field. Depending on the QA level, the file evaluation may be cursory (C), selected items (S), or in-depth (I). The topics covered are as follows:

QA Level Topic I II III IV

General file contents C S S I

Inventory items documentation C S S I

Inspection documentation C S S I

Load rating analysis C S I

Compliance with posting policy C S I

Proposed maintenance C S I

Fracture critical member and fatigue prone detail plan C S I

The Bridge Final Evaluation Form (Appendix C) shall be used to record the results of each file evaluation.

4.4 – File Contents

The QA team shall verify the general bridge file contents in BMS2 for both the Pontis and applet fields for completeness and record the results in Appendix C, Item No. 1. The contents inventoried will vary depending on the level of inspection and verified by the QA team as follows:

a. Level I – The BMS2 system has been updated with the most recent inspection data. b. Level II - The same as Level I, plus whether the file contains D-491 Inspection Reports, load

rating, posting recommendations and proposed improvements, if applicable. c. Level III – The same as Level II, plus the presence of either sketches or “as-built” plans. d. Level IV – The same as Level III, plus the presence of historical documentation, such as re-

occurring problems, repairs, or rehabilitation.


12

4.5 – Inventory

Section 3.6 lists the inventory items evaluated by the QA team on each sample bridge. The evaluation for Levels I through IV consists of verifying the specified items through comparison with of file information with data obtained at the bridge site. The results shall be recorded under Appendix C, Item No. 2.

4.6 – Condition/Appraisal

This part of the QA evaluation involves reviewing the condition/appraisal ratings and documentation from BMS2 Item Nos. 6B36, 6B38-6B40, 1A01-1A06, 4A02, IA02, 4A08-4A11. The QA team will compare the evaluation results with the BMS item documentation from the latest District bridge safety inspection iForms. The following process shall be used in the assessment:

a. Level I – Identify and document out-of-tolerance ratings at each bridge. Correlate and evaluate the findings for the group of items.

b. Level II – Same as Level I, plus compare the documentation for out-of-tolerance ratings with the inspector’s documentation in the file. Using that data, determine if the difference is due to the inspector’s understanding of the rating scale guidelines or from overlooking a defect. For documentation purposes, it must be determined whether the difference is due to interpretation of instructions or thoroughness of inspection. Record the results in Appendix C, Item No. 3.

c. Level III – Same as Level II, plus:

(1) Evaluate documentation for condition ratings of “4” or less for accuracy and completeness.

(2) Perform a general evaluation of the inspection documentation, photographs and sketches to verify that sufficient details are available for an engineer to determine the extent and severity of problems and to determine changes that may affect the load rating. Verify that section measurements were reported at locations with section loss to primary members.

d. Level IV – Same as Levels I-III, except:

(1) If the reason for out-of-tolerance ratings cannot be determined by comparing the reports, an additional trip to the bridge may be required.

(2) Verify the inspection interval as prescribed in PUB 238 Table IP 2.3.2.4-1 Maximum Interval of Routine Inspections. A normal cycle is biennial, however, more frequent cycles are occasionally established due to condition or capacity limitations.

4.7 – Load Rating Analysis Verification

Each inspection file should contain the capacity of the bridge and sufficient documentation (general plan & elevation drawings, typical section drawings, section property data, material strength references, sufficient description or sketches of section remaining, calculations for analysis program input, analysis program input and output file, etc) to determine how it was derived. During the office QA evaluation the team shall verify that the load rating documentation is consistent with the specified QA level and record the findings on Appendix C, Item No. 4. The QA team will perform the rating analysis verification as follows:

a. Level I – Verify that BMS2 Items No. 4B03, VP01, VP02, VP04, VP05, IR04, IR10, and IR11 are consistent.

b. Level II – Same as Level I plus:


13

(1) Spot check the method used to determine the load rating; and if calculations exist, verify the member sized in the field (see Section 3.8.b (1)).

(2) Verify that deficiencies were considered in the calculations (see Section 3.8.a).

(3) Verify that analysis calculations have been checked and initialed.

(4) Verify that analyses performed after July 2010 are sealed by a P.E. and include a load rating summary form.

(5) Verify that the controlling member and span are clearly identified for each vehicle rated.

c. Level III – Same as Level II plus check the calculations for the longest span.

d. Level IV – Same as Level II, plus perform an independent load rating analysis and verify the Operating Rating level load rating calculations.

Note: In Level IV, for posted bridges or bridges which indicate posting is required per the QA analysis, the QA team will make adjustments in the analysis to emulate actual field conditions and other considerations made within the file analysis.

4.8 – Load Posting Verification

PennDOT posting requirements are contained in PUB 238 Chapter IP04 sections 4.4 and 4.5 including coverage of restrictions based on weight, one truck at a time, other components, and highway conditions. Records of load posting analysis, decisions and documentation forms are required be kept in the bridge inspection file. The QA team will perform the office QA evaluation to verify that the appropriate load rating documentation is present as called for by the specified QA level, and record the findings on Appendix C, Item No. 5. QA team posting verification is preformed as follows:

a. Level I – Compare the signing at the bridge with the data in BMS2 Items No. VP02, IR04, and IR11.

b. Level II – Same as Level I plus verify the existence of file documentation.

c. Level III – Same as Level II plus verify the completeness of file documentation.

d. Level IV – Same as Level III plus verify the accuracy of file documentation.

4.9 – Scour Assessment Documentation

For Levels I through IV the QA team will evaluate the completeness of the scour documentation, including the availability of the Hydrology and Hydraulics (H&H) Report, and the availability and completeness of required scour sketches. The results of the evaluation shall be recorded under Appendix C, Item No.7.

4.10 – Construction Plans/Shop Drawings/FCM Plan

For Levels II through IV, the QA team shall note the availability of design plans and shop drawings. For Levels III and IV, the team shall conduct an in depth evaluation of the Fracture Critical Member and Detail plan to ensure the requirements of PUB 238 have been satisfied. The results shall be recorded under Appendix C, Item No. 8.


14

4.11 - Inspection Support and Control

Inspection and documentation procedures vary between District inspection units. Procedural differences are not important if they produce accurate results, can be interpreted the same statewide, and conform to inspection standards. Certain Districts may have developed inspection procedures that provide unique results either above or below the norm. If the previous QA findings indicate unique results it may be helpful to study the operational procedure that produced the unique results. During each evaluation the QA team is asked to complete or update all or part of Appendix D.

The District procedure information shall be obtained from interview(s) with the bridge safety inspection supervisor or a designated representative during the office evaluation. The written responses in the QA evaluation may be expanded to as many sheets as are necessary. Other unique details related to the District inspection operational procedures that are volunteered during the interview may be documented at the end of the questionnaire. QA team responses to the Appendix D queries are required as follows:

a. Level I – Answer to question No. 1, Appendix D is the minimum required.

b. Level II – Same as Level I plus answers to questions No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

c. Level III – Same as Level II plus answers to questions No. 7, 8 and 9.

d. Level IV – Same as Level III plus answers to questions No. 10, 11, 12, and 13.


15

5.0 – COMPUTER EDIT OF BMS2 DATA

5.1 – Objective

The BMS2 system cross checks and flags certain data items if thresholds are exceeded for consistency and conformance with guidelines. This is the same for all QA levels.

5.2 – Items Evaluated

Items No. 7A09, 6B01, 7A10: BMS2 Cross checks to verify conformity with designated inspection cycle.

Items No. 6B36, 6B38-6B40, 1A01-1A06, 4A02, 4A09-4A11; BMS2 Cross checks to verify completeness of rating data.

Item No. 4B03: BMS2 Cross checks to verify SLC rating ≤ 4 if bridge is posted.

BMS2 Cross checks within the system identify irrational data.

Verify approximately 20 additional items identified by BQAD and/or FHWA.


16

[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]


17

6.0 – BRIDGE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION

6.1 - Objective

An important purpose of the Bridge Safety Inspection is to identify maintenance/repair needs and priorities. With the 2009 enhancement of the BMS2 Coding Manual, the process was expanded to better define priorities and responsibilities, and has become well standardized. The QA program includes the evaluation of the accuracy of the maintenance/repair needs identified by the District and the paper trail for implementing work.

6.2 – Maintenance/Repair Needs

As part of the evaluation at the bridge the QA team shall recommend maintenance/repair solutions to the problems identified on the structure during the inspection. The purpose of collecting this information is verification of the inspectors’ input to the Maintenance and Major Improvement Needs, Form D-491M. The QA team shall use the following procedures:

a. Level I – Based on items listed on the Maintenance and Major Improvement form, identify structural elements requiring repair within the next six months.

b. Level II – Same as Level I, except include the recommended repair for the elements identified.

c. Level III – Same as Level II, except list all maintenance and repairs needed. This list includes repairs necessary to return or preserve the bridge to an original condition.

d. Level IV – Same as Level III, except include the priority for the maintenance/repair need. The five (5) priorities provided for BMS2 Item No. IM05 shall be used.

6.3 – Verify Implementation

Ideally, the inspection documentation lists immediate problems, potential problems and maintenance necessary to avoid future problems. The QA team shall verify the bridge file includes a Maintenance and Major Improvement Needs Form that indicates the recommended improvements and a priority for each. Also, the team shall verify the dates that the required work was scheduled and completed are included in the file documentation. The QA findings shall be recorded on Appendix C, Item No. 6. The verification sequence used by the QA team shall be as follows:

a. Level I – Compare inspection documentation to verify that problems requiring immediate repair are identified. (Priority 0 and 1)

b. Level II – Same as Level I, plus check to verify that reasonable repairs are recommended for the immediate problems.

c. Level III – Same as Level II, plus verify the documentation of all maintenance and repair needs.

d. Level IV – Same as Level III, plus evaluate the priority for each repair.


18



19

7.0 – DISTRICT FINDINGS

7.1 - Objective

The previous sections provide guidelines and requirements for recording the QA evaluation findings for each District. The individual District preliminary reports prepared by the QA team shall include correlation of the data collected during the evaluation and a concise statement of the findings. After review by BQAD and the DBE, the QA team shall discuss the findings with the District in a close-out meeting. This section addresses the District report preparation by the QA Team and close-out meeting.

7.2 – Report Format

A statistical correlation and presentation of the data is an important consideration in preparing the QA Preliminary Report. To that end, the same information shall be requested in the same order for each District evaluation to provide the basis for a comparison. The QA team will correlate and summarize the findings by each District and eventually provide a statewide comparison of all the Districts. Additional comparisons may be required to examine variances in quality by groupings such as bridge type or sufficiency rating if there is sufficient need to determine reasons for those variances. The evaluation report will be organized to provide different levels of detail. The basic sections of the report consist of a summary, narrative, exhibits and the appendices.

7.3 – Summary

The purpose of the QA evaluation is to both highlight strengths and document problems that must be addressed by the District. The QA team shall make every effort to provide an accurate description of the magnitude of discrepancies versus concurrent findings. The summary contains general statements about the quality of the District inspection, documentation and follow-up procedures with emphasis on strong and weak areas. It also contains the highlights of the significant findings and differences between the District of interest and other Districts.

7.4 – Narrative

The narrative portion of the report offers a concise description of the findings of the QA evaluation. It includes a description of the level(s) of QA used, including exceptions, and a description of emphasis items. The topic should also be sub-divided in a manner that ensures the significant findings from both the field and office evaluations are covered in separate sections. Only those findings that are significantly above or below average must be included.

7.5 - District Bridge Inspection Unit Organization

A brief description of unique organizational procedures of the District bridge inspection unit shall be provided by the QA team to assist in evaluating the QA findings. The description should contain only useful information in accordance with the topic format contained from Appendix D. Typically, the District inspection organization and procedures are standardized throughout the state. However, there may also be unique situations that influence the quality such as a District’s QC program. This information can be particularly useful in developing best practices that can be shared among the Districts.

7.6 - Findings at the Bridge

The handwritten field reports prepared by the QA team will be included in the report to provide and compare the findings at the bridge, some of which may also be included in the Appendix to illustrate findings. It is also necessary to obtain the condition ratings for all the sample QA evaluations which are sorted to provide statistical comparison and analysis. Lists and graphs, such as examples in Appendix E


20

and Appendix F shall be prepared to show any differences between the QA and District ratings. The narrative of the report should also included sufficient backup detail to describe the above and below average aspects of the District inspection unit.

7.7 - Findings at the District Office

The QA team will assess the thoroughness and adequacy of the “paper trail” contained in the inspection file held at the District Office. The findings shall be documented in the format shown in Appendix C. Instances of similar findings on several bridges shall be identified and quantified where possible. Unique findings related to the District’s bridge inspection office tasks, including planning and follow-up, shall also be documented. The numerical ratings from Appendix D will be used by the QA team for a statistical comparison with statewide norms.

7.8 – Exhibits and Appendices

Lists, graphs, questionnaires and other documents prepared to support the findings shall be referenced in the narrative and grouped together as exhibits. Backup data for each sample bridge shall be bound separately. Some of the backup documents may also be included in the Appendices if they provide useful information.

7.9 – Report Review Process

Two (2) draft hard copies plus an electronic version of the bridge inspection QA preliminary report for each District shall be submitted to the QA Project Manager, BQAD, Bureau of Project Delivery, for review no later than four (4) weeks after the field inspections have been completed.

7.10 – Preliminary Report Distribution

Two (2) hard copies plus an electronic version of the approved preliminary report shall be submitted to BQAD after the review process is completed and all corrections have been made. The schedule for this submission is one (1) week after the review comments were received, and shall include the original reports with photographs for each sample QA bridge together in a separate binder. Copies and electronic versions of the reports will be forwarded to the District by BQAD.

7.11 – Close-Out Meeting

7.11.1 A close-out meeting shall be scheduled with the District within one (1) month of the final submission of the approved preliminary report. The meeting will be scheduled and attended by the BQAD QA program manager. Any consultants involved in the QA evaluation shall be represented.

7.11.2 The meeting sequence shall include the following two (2) forums:

a. The DBE, District Safety Inspection Supervisor, QA Program Manager, QA Consultant Project Manager, District Inspectors, and Consultant Representatives will meet initially to discuss the findings and problem areas.

b. The District Executive (DE) or designated staff will be briefed on the QA findings followed by a discussion of unresolved issues.

7.11.3 A close-out letter (minutes of the meeting) will be prepared by the QA team to document the conclusions or any follow-up activities agreed on during the meeting.

7.11.4 The DBE will be responsible for documenting that follow-up activities have been implemented.


21

7.12 - Final Report

The discussion results that occurred during the closeout meeting for the preliminary report shall be incorporated in the final report. Two (2) hard copies plus an electronic version of the report shall be submitted to BQAD within three (3) weeks of the meeting for distribution. BQAD will forward copies and electronic versions of the reports to the District.


22



23

8.0 – ANNUAL QA REPORT

8.1 – Objective

The statewide QA report prepared by the QA team shall contain a summary of the District bridge inspection QA evaluations and a comparison of the findings statewide. A description of the procedures used during the evaluation shall be included.

The contents of the report are as follows:

A narrative of QA objectives for that year

A list and description of special emphasis items

A list of bridges for which the evaluation was performed, including the date of inspection by the District/Consultant and the date of inspection by QA for each bridge.

A quantitative comparison of Districts in tabulation form

Recommendations given to Districts

Conclusions and recommendations for the next cycle’s QA levels, for bridge inspection training, and for procedure, process or program improvement.

8.2 – Report Preparation

The QA team(s) that performed the District(s) evaluations will prepare the QA cycle report as soon as possible after the all close-out meetings have been completed. The submission and review sequence of the report shall be as follows:

a. A draft of the report shall be submitted to the Chief of the Bridge Quality Assurance Division, Bureau of Project Delivery for review and comment.

b. Within two (2) weeks of receipt of comments from BQAD, the QA team shall update the report and submit 20 hard copies plus an electronic version to BQAD for distribution.

c. An electronic version of the report for each bridge prepared in PDF format as described in Appendix G shall be uploaded to the EDMS by the QA team for permanent retention and to ensure a copy is available for review by follow-on inspection teams.

8.3 – Narrative Description

The purpose of the narrative is to provide important details of the QA program for the year. The introduction shall include a brief discussion of the purpose of the program and the methodology. The narrative shall also provide sufficient detail to support the conclusions drawn from the statistical data described in Section 8.5. A discussion of statewide findings shall be provided and organized by item with emphasis on the significant issues that were common to more than one District. Unique findings shall be summarized separately for each District. Problems identified in collection or interpreting the QA data may be included.

8.4 – Special Emphasis Items

At the beginning of each QA cycle, the Bridge Quality Assurance Division may identify special emphasis items that shall either be added to or emphasized during the statewide bridge safety inspection QA program activity. The items may be added as a result of deficiencies identified during previous year’s findings. They may also be added due to a change in NBIS, FHWA emphasis, or emphasis in the state program. The QA cycle report shall include special findings resulting from these emphasis items. Since it is considered important to compare findings from year-to-year and District-to-District, the special


24

emphasis items shall be shown separately unless they have been identified as a permanent part of future QA evaluations.

8.5 – Statistical Comparison

Each District report shall contain graphs showing variances between the District and QA team condition/appraisal ratings for the group of sample inspections. Each page must contain a separate graph for BMS2 Items 6B36, 6B38-6B40, 1A01-1A06, 4A02, IA02, 4A09-4A11, 4A08, and IN03 (Appendix F). The QA cycle report shall present the graphs grouped by BMS2 Item Number, rather than by District.

The condition/appraisal graphs for all of the Districts shall be displayed side by side. This permits a direct comparison of all of the District bridge safety inspection units’ performance for each item related to the condition/appraisal ratings. An average variance statewide shall also be shown.

Additional QA emphasis items shall be treated similarly. Aspects of each District inspection program that are providing above or below average results shall be reported in a narrative format, only if statistical/tabulation comparisons are not self-explanatory.

8.6 – Recommendations to Districts

The report shall contain a brief statement summarizing the recommendations provided to each of the Districts. The District reports and close-out meetings will provide the major source of this information.

8.7 – Conclusions/Recommendations

8.7.1 The QA team assessment of Statewide Quality Assurance shall be based upon various quality sub-elements generated during the evaluation:

a. The report shall include the evaluation of District findings and conclusions developed regarding the quality of the statewide bridge inspection program.

b. Problems which occur in three or more Districts shall be listed with the magnitude of occurrence. Problems which could have a significant impact on achieving the primary objectives of the inspection program shall also be reported, even occurring only once.

c. The QA team shall present any information considered relevant to above and below average levels of quality in the statewide bridge inspection program.

d. In order to identify trends, correlation shall be made whenever possible of the levels of quality with factors such as District operational procedures, District QC program, resources (both quality and quantity), training, etc.

8.7.2 Implementation and refinement of best practices of the Bridge Inspection QA Program can be expected to result in the determination that certain procedures provide more useful information than others. Recommended modifications to the program to improve procedures may be determined upon completion of each cycle’s evaluation and will be documented in the Cycle Summary Report.


25

9.0 – CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

9.1- Task List and Schedule

At the completion of each QA cycle, the BQAD QA program manager will prepare a list of tasks aimed at remedies to issues adversely affecting the inspection program quality for the state. The issues may be confined within a specific District or may be evaluated to be systemic. It is also crucial to the value and success of the QA program that any appropriate remedial action identified is within the realm of the capabilities and resources available for its implementation. The task list is a compilation of the activities identified by the individual Districts during the closeout meetings.

A schedule of milestones and completion dates for remedial actions is essential for planning and resource allocation and as a measure of progress towards QA improvement. Districts must put forth the appropriate level of effort to perform QC improvements that will ultimately result in improved QA measures. To that end, the development of milestones and completion dates for the remedial action tasks generated by the BQAD QA program manager must be coordinated with the District and accepted by the Chief Bridge Engineer before being added as an attachment to the Cycle Summary Report.

9.2- Measures of Effectiveness

BQAD will monitor the following measures, and depending on the circumstances, may require action and follow-up at the District level:

a. Condition and Appraisal ratings - 2 levels of action: 1. Rating accuracy < 90% - Notification letter sent to DE 2. Rating Accuracy <85% - Formal corrective action plan must be developed and

submitted to BQAD b. Load Rating – Corrective action plan shall be submitted to BQAD for the following

circumstances: 1. Load rating results in a weight restriction for a bridge that was not previously weight

restricted. 2. Load rating results in reduction of the bridge weight restriction by 10 or more tons.

c. Maintenance Priority – Corrective action plan may be required in the event a priority “0” maintenance item noted during the QA inspection is not identified as such during the original inspection. At the very least, the District shall investigate the root cause of the discrepancy and report the results to BQAD.

9.3 - Reporting

The BQAD QA program manager will present the results of the QA improvement effort during the District Bridge Engineers annual meeting.


26


PennDOT Bridge Safety Inspection-QA Manual Publication 240

APPENDICES

Appendix A Bridge Inspection Quality Assurance Evaluation

Appendix B PennDOT Bridge Safety Inspection QA Program Condition and Appraisal Evaluation

Appendix C PennDOT Bridge Safety Inspection QA Program Bridge File Evaluation

Appendix D Bridge Inspection Quality Assurance Evaluation Operational Procedures QA Form

Appendix E NBIS QA Comparison

Appendix F Rating Variation Frequency BAR Chart Example

Appendix G Instructions for Preparing Adobe Acrobat PDF Files for Document Submissions


[This page intentionally left blank]


APPENDIX A BRIDGE INSPECTION

QUALITY ASSURANCE EVALUATION

DATE: DISTRICT: STRUCTURE BMS NUMBER: QA TEAM MEMBERS: OTHERS:

[QA Reviewer--Insert Photo of Elevation View for the Subject Bridge]

SUMMARY OF QA FINDINGS

[PE Seal]

[Signature]


APPENDIX B

PENNDOT BRIDGE SAFETY INSPECTION QA PROGRAM

CONDITION AND APPRAISAL EVALUATION

Structure ID QA TEAM DATE

BMS NO. ITEM

Q A

REVIEW

RATING

PREVIOUS

BMS

RATING

TOLER-

ANCE

6B38

APPR SLAB

6B39

APPR RDWY

6B40

DECK W.S.

1A01

DECK

1A04

SUP STR

1A05

CHANNEL

1A03

CULVERT

4A08

SCBI

IN03

OBS. SCOUR

4A09

STR COND

4A10

DK GEO

4A11

UND CLR

1A06

WATERWAY

4A02

APPR ALIGN

6B36

PAINT

1A02

SUB STR

± 1

± 1

± 1

± 1

DETAILS REGARDING VARIANCE FROM TOLERANCE

Additional details , sketches, or photographs may be

included on attached sheets

± 1

4A03-4A06

SAFETY FEAT. ± 1

± 1

± 1

± 1

± 1

± 1

± 1

± 1

± 1

± 1

± 1

± 1

[Note: Reviewer rate each feature separately]

[Note: Reviewer rate each substructure unit]


APPENDIX C

PENNDOT BRIDGE SAFETY INSPECTION QA PROGRAM

BRIDGE FILE EVALUATION

BMS ID No: INSPECTION DATE:

FILE REVIEW TEAM: INSPECTION TEAM:

SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS

FILE REVIEW TOPICRATING FOR

ACCURACY

RATING FOR

COMPLETENESSCOMMENTS

1. GENERAL FILE CONTENTS

2.INVENTORY ITEMS

DOCUMENTATION

3.CONDITION /APPRAISAL

ITEMS

4.LOAD RATING ANALYSIS

DOCUMENTATION

5.POSTING

DOCUMENTATION

6. BRIDGE MAINTENANCE

7.SCOUR ASSESSMENT

DOCUMENTATION

8.

CONSTRUCTION

PLANS/SHOP DRAWINGS/

FCM PLAN

The rating scale provides an index relative to standards for the bridge file set forth in the Manual for Bridge Evalution

and PUB 238. Application of the ratings will be according to the following:

1- Exceeds Standards -- the majority of the data collected and presented is considered to be greater than required.

2- A portion of the data collected and presented is considered to be greater than required

3- Meets Standards - - The data collected and presented satisfies the requirements.

4- Less than the required data is collected and presented (missing few items). Files are incomplete.

5- Below Standards -- Substantially less than the required data is collected and presented. Files are incomplete and

unacceptable.

Exceeds Standards

MeetsStandards

BelowStandards

1 2 3 4 5

Rating Scale


[This page intentionally left blank]


APPENDIX D BRIDGE INSPECTION

QUALITY ASSURANCE EVALUATION OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES QA FORM

DISTRICT: INSPECTION SUPERVISOR: DATE: QA REVIEWER: The QA Reviewer must comment on the following topics. After this information is documented, only changes are indicated during subsequent inspections. 1. Bridge Safety Inspection organizational structure. Include status of certification.

2. Content of typical bridge file and location/documentation of other pertinent documents

such as plans, design computations, etc. (See Pub 238 Chapter 8)

3. Verification and scheduling of maintenance/repair recommendations.

4. Procedure for updating load capacity ratings.

5. Load posting documentation and implementation.

6. Scheduling use of access equipment where necessary.

7. Scheduling routine inspection and review of report.

8. District QC activities – Method of documentation – consistency with QC plan.

9. Fatigue and fracture critical inspection plans.

10. Monitoring channel scour.

11. Involvement in overload permit requests.

12. Procedure for QC of BMS2 data during report acceptance.

13. Involvement in monitoring local bridge inspection activities.


APPENDIX E

Example

Table 1: NBIS QA COMPARISON OF INSPECTION AND APPRAISAL RATINGS

Cycle 1 20XX-20XXDistrict XX-0

QA

BR

IDG

E #

STR

UC

TUR

E B

MS

FIEL

D V

IEW

CA

TEG

OR

Y

AP

PR

OA

CH

SLA

B

AP

PR

OA

CH

RO

AD

WA

Y

DEC

K W

EAR

ING

SUR

FAC

E

DEC

K

CO

ND

ITIO

N

SUP

ER

STR

UC

TUR

E

PA

INT

CO

ND

ITIO

N

SUB

STR

UC

TUR

E

CH

AN

NEL

CO

ND

ITIO

N

CU

LVER

T

CO

ND

ITIO

N

STR

UC

TUR

AL

CO

ND

ITIO

N

DEC

K

GEO

MET

RY

UN

DER

CLE

AR

AN

CE

AP

PR

AIS

AL

WA

TER

WA

Y

AD

EQU

AC

Y

AP

PR

OA

CH

ALI

GN

MEN

T

TRA

FFIC

SA

FETY

FEA

TUR

ES

SCO

UR

CR

ITIC

AL

RA

TIN

G

OB

SER

VED

SCO

UR

RA

TIN

G

FRO

M T

AB

LE 2

5A01 6A26-29

Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D 03 04 05 06 03 04 05 06 Q D

S T A T E S T R U C T U R E S

1 XX-XXXX-0430-1899 A2 1 9 3 09 7 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 * 6 6 8 7 N N 6 6 8 8 N N 9 9 8 8 4 4 8 8 4 4 6 8 8 8

2 XX-XXXX-0020-0000 A1 4 2 1 04 N N 6 5 5 5 6 5 6 5 N * 5 5 N N N N 5 5 7 7 6 6 N N 8 8 6 4 6 8 6 3 3 8 N N

3 XX-XXXX-0342-1462 A2 4 2 2 04 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 N * 6 7 N N N N 6 7 6 7 5 5 N N 8 8 4 6 6 8 6 6 6 8 N N

4 XX-XXXX-0041-1320 A1 6 9 9 20 N N N N N N N N 5 5 N N 5 4 4 4 N N 5 4 5 4 N N 9 9 8 8 4 8 8 8 4 8 8 8 7 7

5 XX-XXXX-0020-1288 A1 1 6 1 04 N N 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 4 3 * 6 5 5 5 N N 5 4 6 6 N N 9 9 8 8 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 8 8

6 XX-XXXX-0070-1702 A2 1 7 1 04 N N 6 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 3 * 5 5 5 4 N N 4 4 4 4 N N 6 6 6 6 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 8 8 8

7 XX-XXXX-0080-2620 A3 1 6 1 04 N N 6 5 6 N 6 5 5 5 3 * 6 6 6 7 N N 5 5 4 4 N N 7 6 8 8 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 8 8

8 XX-XXXX-0240-0670 A1 2 1 1 03 N N 6 5 6 5 6 6 4 4 N * 5 5 5 4 N N 4 4 3 3 N N 5 3 6 7 4 5 2 3 4 3 2 3 8 8

9 XX-XXXX-0500-1063 B1 2 1 1 03 N N 8 5 8 5 5 4 4 5 N * 5 5 5 5 N N 4 5 3 4 N N 5 3 8 8 3 4 2 3 4 3 2 3 8 8

10 XX-XXXX-0010-0403 A1 2 1 1 01 N N 7 6 7 6 7 5 7 5 N * 7 6 6 6 N N 7 5 6 6 N N 9 9 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 8

11 XX-XXXX-0070-1362 A1 2 1 9 20 N N N N N N N N 5 5 N * 5 5 6 5 N N 5 5 7 7 N N 8 9 8 8 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 6 6

12 XX-XXXX-0040-1098 A1 2 1 9 32 N N N N N N N N N N N * N N 6 5 4 4 4 4 N N N N 9 9 N N 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

13 XX-XXXX-0070-1840 A1 2 1 9 20 N N N N N N N N 4 4 N * 4 4 4 4 N N 4 4 2 2 N N 8 8 4 5 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 8 8

14 XX-XXXX-0020-2072 A1 4 2 2 06 N N 7 7 6 6 6 6 7 7 N * 7 6 5 5 N N 5 5 4 4 N N 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

15 XX-XXXX-0020-0000 A1 1 6 1 04 N N 5 5 N N 6 5 4 4 3 * 5 5 5 5 N N 4 4 2 2 N N 9 9 8 6 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 8 8

OUT OF TOLERANCE (> + / - 1)

STATE BRIDGES FIELD VIEWED WITH BQAD = 0

L O C A L S T R U C T U R E S

16 XX-XXXX-0581-2077 A1 1 6 1 04 N N 6 5 6 4 5 5 5 5 5 * 6 6 6 5 N N 5 5 3 3 N N 6 6 8 8 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 6 6

17 XX-XXXX-0346-2078 A2 1 9 1 18 N N 4 5 N N 5 6 4 4 3 * 6 6 5 5 N N 3 3 5 5 N N 7 7 8 6 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 6 6

18 XX-XXXX-0641-2084 A1 8 6 1 04 N N 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 N * 4 5 4 4 N N 4 5 4 4 N N 7 7 8 8 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2

19 XX-XXXX-0400-2105 A1 1 6 1 04 N N 7 4 5 4 5 6 5 5 6 * 5 5 5 5 N N 5 5 3 3 N N 7 7 6 6 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 6

20 XX-XXXX-0XX4-2108 A2 1 6 1 04 N N 5 5 5 4 2 3 5 5 4 * 3 3 3 4 N N 3 3 5 5 N N 6 4 6 6 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 6

21 XX-XXXX-0880-0005 A1 1 6 1 04 N N 6 7 7 7 7 8 7 8 6 8 5 5 5 5 N N 5 5 4 4 N N 4 4 8 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 6

22 XX-XXXX-0413-0002 A1 2 1 2 03 N N 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 4 N N 5 5 5 5 N N 5 4 7 2 N N 6 5 8 4 4 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 3 5





27 XX-XXXX-0439-1068 A1 1 9 1 18 N N 5 5 N N 6 5 5 4 4 5 5 6 7 7 N N 3 3 3 3 N N 7 7 8 8 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 6 6

28 XX-XXXX-XXXX-1055 A1 4 2 1 07 N N 5 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 N N 5 4 5 5 N N 4 4 4 5 N N 7 7 6 6 4 8 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 6


30 XX-XXXX-0351-1175 A2 1 6 1 04 N N 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 6 6 8 8 N N 6 6 6 6 N N 7 7 8 6 6 8 4 3 6 6 4 3 6 6


LOCAL BRIDGES FIELD VIEWED WITH BQAD = 0

D I S T R I C T T O T A L S

TOTAL OUT OF TOLERANCE (> + / - 1)

RATING </=4 & L OUT OF TOLERANCE

TOTAL BRIDGES FIELD VIEWED WITH BQAD = 0

Quality Assurance Consultant's Rating

District's Rating

Indicates Bridge was Field Viewed by QA and BQAD

Indicates an Item Which should Have Been Coded was Left Blank

Indicates Item is out of Tolerance

Not Applicable

TOTAL % IN-TOLERANCE

85%19

< 62 >

1 0 4 2 N 2

859 130

% IN - TOLERANCE

87%

0 1 1 0 1 6 382 6 0 9 3 < 32 >0 0 0 1 1 0

% IN - TOLERANCE

84%

TOTA

L %

IN T

OLE

RA

NC

E &

REM

AR

KS

NO

SUB-

UNITSPER QA TO

TAL

OU

T O

F TO

LER

AN

CE

ITEM

S

(PER

BR

IDG

E)

< 0 >

< 0 >

< 4 >

< 2 >

< 2 > 2

2

2

4

2

0 1 2 1 1 14 0

5

4

2

4

2

3

1 0020 0 1 0 0

0

1

< 3 >

< 2 >

1

< 2 >

< 2 >

< 2 >

< 2 >

2

4

1

4

1

< 2 >

< 2 >

4

5

4

3

3

2

3

3

7

2

Q D

4

0

0

0

0

< 2 >

2

0

0

0

UNITS

3

< 2 >

< 2 >

< 30 >

< 2 >

< 2 >

< 2 >

< 2 >

< 4 >

< 2 >

< 2 >

< 2 >

< 2 >

< 2 >

< 2 >

47

< 2 >

< 2 >

< 2 >

0

0

0

2

10

0

2

0

2

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6B36 1A02 1A05 NO.OUT

OF TOL.

SUB-

1A03 4A10 4A11 1A06 4A02 IA02 4A084A09

STR

UC

TUR

E TY

PE

6B38 6B39 6B40 1A01 1A04

2 1 0 4 7

0 1 1 0

0 2 3 1 2 20 0 0 0

"D"

"X"

" * "

"N"

1 2 0 0 0 1

LEGEND

"Q"


APPENDIX E

Example

[Th

is pag

e inten

tion

ally left b

lank

]


APPENDIX E

Example

Table 2: NBIS QA COMPARISON OF OBSERVED SCOUR RATINGS (ITEM IN03)


QA

BR

IDG

E #

STU

CTU

RE

BM

S

ON

/OFF

SYS

TEM

FIEL

D V

IEW

CA

TEG

OR

Y

5A01 6A26-29

Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D


1 XX-XXXX-0430-1899 ON A2 1 9 3 09 8 8 8 8 2 2

2 XX-XXXX-0020-0000 ON A1 4 2 1 04 0 0

3 XX-XXXX-0342-1462 ON C2 4 2 2 04 0 0

4 XX-XXXX-0041-1320 ON A1 6 9 9 20 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 4

5 XX-XXXX-0020-1288 ON A1 1 6 1 04 7 7 7 7 2 2

6 XX-XXXX-0070-1702 ON A2 1 7 1 04 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 4 4

7 XX-XXXX-0080-2620 ON A3 1 6 1 04 7 7 7 7 2 2

8 XX-XXXX-0240-0670 ON A1 2 1 1 03 7 7 7 7 2 2

9 XX-XXXX-0500-1063 ON B1 2 1 1 03 4 6 4 6 2 2

10 XX-XXXX-0010-0403 OFF A1 2 1 1 01 7 7 7 7 2 2

11 XX-XXXX-0070-1362 OFF A1 2 1 9 20 8 6 8 6 2 2

12 XX-XXXX-0040-1098 ON A3 2 1 9 32 7 7 7 7 2 2

13 XX-XXXX-0070-1840 OFF A1 2 1 9 20 4 7 4 7 2 2

14 XX-XXXX-0020-2072 ON A1 4 2 2 06 7 7 7 7 2 2

15 XX-XXXX-0020-0000 OFF A1 1 6 1 04 7 7 8 7 2 2

30 30



16 XX-XXXX-0581-2077 OFF A1 1 6 1 04 8 8 8 8 2 2

17 XX-XXXX-0346-2078 OFF A2 1 9 1 18 8 8 7 7 2 2

18 XX-XXXX-0641-2084 OFF A1 8 6 1 04 4 4 4 4 2 2

19 XX-XXXX-0400-2105 OFF A1 1 6 1 04 4 4 4 4 2 2

20 XX-XXXX-0XX4-2108 OFF A2 1 6 1 04 4 4 2 4 2 2

21 XX-XXXX-0880-0005 OFF C1 1 6 1 04 4 4 4 4 2 2

22 XX-XXXX-0413-0002 OFF A1 2 1 2 03 4 4 4 4 2 2

23 XX-XXXX-0830-0013 OFF A1 4 2 1 07 4 4 4 4 2 2

24 XX-XXXX-0770-0006 OFF A1 8 6 2 04 6 6 6 6 2 2

25 XX-XXXX-0812-0001 OFF A1 2 1 2 03 7 6 7 6 2 2

26 XX-XXXX-0906-1072 OFF A1 2 1 1 03 7 4 7 4 5 4 3 3

27 XX-XXXX-0439-1068 OFF A1 1 9 1 18 8 8 8 8 2 2

28 XX-XXXX-XXXX-1055 OFF A1 4 2 1 07 4 4 4 4 2 2

29 XX-XXXX-0808-0002 OFF D1 2 1 1 03 8 8 8 7 7 7 3 3

30 XX-XXXX-0351-1175 OFF A2 1 6 1 04 8 8 8 8 2 2

32 32


TOTAL BRIDGES FIELD VIEWED WITH BQAD = 0 T0TAL % IN TOLERANCE =

Quality Assurance Consultant's Rating

District's Rating

Indicates Bridge was Field Viewed by QA and BQAD

Indicates Item is out of Tolerance

"X"

0 0

LEGEND

"Q"

"D"

% IN TOLERANCE

91%

79%

3

% IN TOLERANCE

67%

Bridge is not over waterway

Bridge is not over waterway

REMARKS

0 10

0

CULVERTS

0

0

0

4

0

COU FLOW DIR

"L" OR "R"

TOTAL NO.

OF SUB

UNITS

TOTAL NO.

OF SUB

UNITS

OUT OF

TOL.

TOTAL

0

0

0

0

4 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

1

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

2



CIN

1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

STR

UC

TUR

E TY

PE

ABUTMENT PIERS WINGWALLS

P01 P01 P01 P01 P01 WNL WNR WFL WFRNAB FAB


APPENDIX E

Example

[Th

is pag

e inten

tion

ally left b

lank

]


APPENDIX E

Example

TABLE 3: NBIS QA COMPARISON OF LOAD RATINGS

Cycle 1 20XX-20XX

District XX-0

QA

BR

IDG

E #

STR

UC

TUR

E B

MS

ON

/OFF

SYS

TEM

FIEL

D V

IEW

CA

TEG

OR

Y

POST EVAL

RECMDPOSTED

5A01

Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D


1 XX-XXXX-0430-1899 ON A2 1 9 3 09 S-7924 Bar7 22.3 22.4 36.6 36.7 31.9 31.9 35.4 35.4 37.2 37.3 61.1 61.1 53.2 53.2 58.9 59 N N

2 XX-XXXX-0020-0000 ON A1 4 2 1 04 PS3 19 37.2 27.6 53.7 24.9 48.4 26.9 52.4 60.2 73.1 93.2 112.6 87.6 105.8 91.2 110.2 N N

3 XX-XXXX-0342-1462 ON C2 4 2 2 04 PS3 32.9 30.7 42.8 39.3 35.1 35.2 40.7 38.8 58.5 51.2 74.9 65.5 67.7 59.2 74.1 64.8 N N

4 XX-XXXX-0041-1320 ON A1 6 9 9 20 - - -

5 XX-XXXX-0020-1288 ON A1 1 6 1 04 Bar7 20.9 21.9 37.7 39.4 26.5 27.7 33 34.5 34.9 36.5 62.8 65.7 44.2 46.2 54.9 57.5 N N

6 XX-XXXX-0070-1702 ON A2 1 7 1 04 Bar7 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 Y Y

7 XX-XXXX-0080-2620 ON A3 1 6 1 04 Bar7 14.9 19.9 19.2 25.7 15.8 21.1 18.3 24.5 24.8 33.1 32 42.8 26.3 35.2 30.5 40.9 Y N

8 XX-XXXX-0240-0670 ON A1 2 1 1 03 Bar7 3.2 21.8 4.1 30.9 3.6 24 4.1 28.3 5.4 36.4 6.8 51.5 6 40 6.8 47.2 Y N

9 XX-XXXX-0500-1063 ON B1 2 1 1 03 Bar7 17.5 18.3 29.2 32.3 21 21.9 25.5 26.6 29.2 30.4 48.6 53.9 35.1 36.5 42.6 44.3 Y N

10 XX-XXXX-0010-0403 OFF A1 2 1 1 01 Bar7 29.1 29.8 40.6 41.7 34.3 36.2 39.6 - 48.6 49.7 67.7 69.7 57.1 60.3 66.1 - N N

11 XX-XXXX-0070-1362 OFF A1 2 1 9 20 - - -

12 XX-XXXX-0040-1098 ON A3 2 1 9 32 - - -

13 XX-XXXX-0070-1840 OFF A1 2 1 9 20 - - -

14 XX-XXXX-0020-2072 ON A1 4 2 2 06 PS3 21.1 17.5 26.9 22.3 22.4 18.5 25.9 21.4 60.9 60.7 77 77 64.5 64.2 74.6 74.3 N N

15 XX-XXXX-0020-0000 OFF A1 1 6 1 04 Bar7 16.8 20.2 28.1 34.2 20 24.6 24 29.6 28.1 33.7 46.9 57 33.3 41.1 40.1 49.4 Y N


16 XX-XXXX-0581-2077 OFF A1 1 6 1 04 Bar7 19.1 16.5 28.9 24.9 21.7 18.7 25.8 22.2 31.8 27.4 48.2 41.6 36.2 31.2 43 37.1 N N

17 XX-XXXX-0346-2078 OFF A2 1 9 1 18 - - -

18 XX-XXXX-0641-2084 OFF A1 8 6 1 04 Bar7 8.9 20.8 15.2 34.9 10.5 24.5 12.5 29.3 14.9 34.7 25.4 58.1 17.5 40.8 20.9 48.8 Y N

19 XX-XXXX-0400-2105 OFF A1 1 6 1 04 Bar7 28.2 26.9 43.9 40.8 32.2 31.8 38.8 38 47 44.8 73.2 68 54 53 64.6 63.4 N N

20 XX-XXXX-0XX4-2108 OFF A2 1 6 1 04 Bar7 4.9 13.9 8.8 24.9 6.2 17.9 7.6 22.2 8.2 23.1 14.7 41.6 10.3 29.8 12.7 37 Y Y

21 XX-XXXX-0880-0005 OFF C1 1 6 1 04 Bar7 6.2 20.8 11.2 37.4 7.7 26 9.5 32.2 10.3 34.6 18.6 62.3 12.8 43.3 15.8 53.7 Y N

22 XX-XXXX-0413-0002 OFF A1 2 1 2 03 Bar7 6.2 6.9 8.7 9.7 7.3 8.2 8.5 9.5 10.3 11.6 14.4 16.2 12.1 13.6 14.1 15.8 Y Y

23 XX-XXXX-0830-0013 OFF A1 4 2 1 07 PS3 13.58 34.31 17.01 43.18 14.3 30.44 16.49 34.25 38.77 57.28 48.56 72.07 37.52 50.81 41.89 57.18 N N

24 XX-XXXX-0770-0006 OFF A1 8 6 2 04 Bar7 37 33 53.7 49 40.8 36.6 48.2 43.4 61.6 55 89.6 81.7 68 61.1 80.3 72.4 N N

25 XX-XXXX-0812-0001 OFF A1 2 1 2 03 Bar7 21 20.3 33.7 32.5 24.3 23.4 29 28 35 33.8 56.2 54.2 40.5 39 48.3 46.6 N N

26 XX-XXXX-0906-1072 OFF A1 2 1 1 03 Bar7 8.5 42 12.8 67.6 10.6 53 12.5 65.8 14.1 70 21.3 112.6 17.7 88.3 20.9 109.7 Y N

27 XX-XXXX-0439-1068 OFF A1 1 9 1 18 - - -

28 XX-XXXX-XXXX-1055 OFF A1 4 2 1 07 PS3 17.81 29.42 22.25 37.38 15.99 33.35 17.88 38.12 31.32 49.1 38.56 62.39 26.69 57.67 29.84 63.63 Y N

29 XX-XXXX-0808-0002 OFF D1 2 1 1 03 Bar7 25.9 25.9 40.3 39.6 30.5 30.5 36.4 36.5 43.1 43.1 67.1 66 50.8 50.8 60.6 60.8 N N

30 XX-XXXX-0351-1175 OFF A2 1 6 1 04 Bar7 31.7 31.7 49.3 49.4 36.4 36.4 43.6 43.6 52.9 52.9 82.2 82.3 60.7 60.7 72.6 72.7 N N

Quality Assurance Consultant's RatingDistrict's RatingIndicates Bridge was Field Viewed by QA and BQAD

Indicates Item is out of Tolerance (difference between bridge file and QA computed capacities of (a) more than 15% or (b) 2 Tons if bridge is posted--See PUB 240 11.1)

"D""X"

REMARKS

No Analysis Evaluation Perfomed

LEGEND"Q"






STR

UC

TUR

E TY

PE

6A26-29INVENTORY OPERATING

DISTRICT FILE CONTENTS

DESIGNS,

PLANS, OR

SKETCHES

PROGRAMS

RATINGS (TONS)

ML-80 TK527H HS ML-80 TK527 H HS


APPENDIX E

Example

[Th

is pag

e inten

tion

ally left b

lank

]

PennDOT Bridge Safety Inspection-QA Manual Publication 240APPENDIX E

Example

TABLE 4: NBIS QA COMAPRISON OF INVENTORY DATA

Cycle 1 20XX-20XX

District XX-0

QA

BR

IDG

E #

STR

UC

TUR

E B

MS

ON

/OFF

SYS

TEM

FIEL

D V

IEW

CA

TEG

OR

Y

Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D 26 27 28 29 26 27 28 29 Q D Q D 45 46 47 48 45 46 47 48 Q D Q D

1 XX-XXXX-0430-1899 ON A2 1 5 1 5 42 42 42.0 42.0 1 1 99.90 99.90 -1.00 -1.00 1 9 3 09 1 6 3 04 250 250 2 2 2 4 3 3 2 4 3 3 05; 03 05;'03 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 14

2 XX-XXXX-0020-0000 ON A1 1 1 1 1 44 44 44.0 44.0 1 1 99.90 99.90 14.67 14.67 4 2 1 04 4 2 1 04 201 201 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 3 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14

3 XX-XXXX-0342-1462 ON C2 P-8798 1 1 1 1 39 39 39.3 39.2 1 1 99.90 99.90 16.83 16.83 4 2 2 04 4 2 2 04 217 217 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 3 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14

4 XX-XXXX-0041-1320 ON A1 S-14008; S-14008; 5 5 5 5 30 30 30.0 30.5 1 1 99.99 -1.00 6 9 9 20 6 9 9 20 45 45 9 9 9 1 9 9 9 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 14

S-18794; S-18794;

5 XX-XXXX-0020-1288 ON A1 S-712; S-712;

S1047; S1047; 1 5 1 5 27 27 38.0 38.0 4 4 99.90 99.90 1 6 1 04 1 6 1 04 23 23 1 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 14

R-90; R-90;

6 XX-XXXX-0070-1702 ON A2 S-1045; S-1045; 1 5 1 5 20 22 24.0 24.0 2 2 99.90 99.90 1 7 1 04 1 7 1 04 129 129 1 2 1 3 3 2 1 3 3 03; 01 03;01 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 14

S-1045A; S-1045A;

S-1045B; S-1045B;

7 XX-XXXX-0080-2620 ON A3 S-1048; S-1048; 1 5 1 5 19 19 22.2 22.2 12 12 99.90 99.90 1 6 1 04 1 6 1 04 52 52 1 2 1 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 14

L-672; L-672;

8 XX-XXXX-0240-0670 ON A1 1 5 1 5 22 22 23.2 23.2 20 20 99.90 99.90 2 1 1 03 2 1 1 03 40 40 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 3 01; 02 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 14

9 XX-XXXX-0500-1063 ON B1 1 5 1 5 23 23 24.2 24.2 6 6 99.90 99.90 2 1 1 03 2 1 1 03 27 27 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 14

10 XX-XXXX-0010-0403 OFF A1 1 5 1 5 26 30 30.0 30.0 7 7 99.90 99.90 2 1 1 01 2 1 1 01 29 29 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 14

11 XX-XXXX-0070-1362 OFF A1 1 5 1 5 13 15 15.6 15.5 10 10 99.99 99.90 2 1 9 20 2 1 9 20 45 45 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 14

12 XX-XXXX-0040-1098 ON A3 1 5 1 5 27 27 0.0 0.0 10 10 99.99 99.90 2 1 9 32 2 1 9 32 24 31 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 14

13 XX-XXXX-0070-1840 OFF A1 1 5 1 5 14 18 15.0 14.8 3 3 99.99 99.90 2 1 9 20 2 1 9 20 54 54 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 14

14 XX-XXXX-0020-2072 ON A1 P-9632 5 5 5 5 28 28 28.0 28.0 1 1 99.99 99.90 4 2 2 06 4 2 2 06 53 53 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 3 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14

15 XX-XXXX-0020-0000 OFF A1 1 5 1 5 15 15 12.5 12.6 19 19 99.99 99.90 1 6 1 04 1 6 1 04 30 28 1 1 2 4 1 3 2 4 1 3 3 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 14

17 210


16 XX-XXXX-0581-2077 OFF A1 1 5 1 5 12 14 16.0 16.0 5 5 99.90 99.90 1 6 1 04 1 6 1 04 33 33 2 2 3 6 3 3 3 6 3 3 99 99 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 14

17 XX-XXXX-0346-2078 OFF A2 1 5 1 5 11 11 13.7 14.0 4 4 99.99 99.90 1 9 1 18 1 9 1 18 57 57 1 1 3 6 3 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 14

18 XX-XXXX-0641-2084 OFF A1 1 5 1 5 11 10 12.9 13.0 3 4 99.99 99.90 8 6 1 04 8 6 1 04 28 29 1 1 4 8 8 3 3 6 3 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 14

19 XX-XXXX-0400-2105 OFF A1 1 5 1 5 11 10 11.9 12.0 4 4 99.99 99.90 1 6 1 04 1 6 1 04 32 32 2 2 3 6 3 3 3 6 3 3 3 15 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 14

20 XX-XXXX-0XX4-2108 OFF A2 1 5 1 5 12 12 13.0 13.0 4 5 99.99 99.90 1 6 1 04 1 6 1 04 24 23 2 2 4 8 8 3 4 8 8 3 3 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 14

21 XX-XXXX-0880-0005 OFF C1 1 5 1 5 17 17 20.0 20.0 6 7 99.99 99.90 1 6 1 04 1 6 1 04 24 24 1 4 8 8 3 4 6 3 3 99 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 14

22 XX-XXXX-0413-0002 OFF A1 1 5 1 5 12 16 16.0 16.0 4 4 99.90 99.90 2 1 2 03 2 1 2 03 28 28 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 3 99 99 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 14

23 XX-XXXX-0830-0013 OFF A1 1 5 1 5 19 28 24.0 24.0 2 2 99.90 99.90 4 2 1 07 4 2 1 07 55 55 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 3 01; 10 01; 10 0 _ 0 0 0 _ _ _ 2 14

24 XX-XXXX-0770-0006 OFF A1 1 5 1 5 10 16 12.0 12.0 3 3 99.99 99.90 8 6 2 04 8 6 2 04 40 40 1 1 4 8 8 3 4 8 8 3 99 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 14

25 XX-XXXX-0812-0001 OFF A1 1 5 1 5 17 17 23.0 23.0 4 4 99.99 99.90 2 1 2 03 2 1 2 03 30 30 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 14

26 XX-XXXX-0906-1072 OFF A1 1 5 1 5 22 22 23.0 23.0 1 2 99.99 99.90 2 1 1 03 2 1 1 03 46 46 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 3 01; 02 01; 02 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 14

27 XX-XXXX-0439-1068 OFF A1 1 5 1 5 12 12 10.3 10.3 1 1 99.99 99.90 1 9 1 18 1 9 1 18 46 46 1 1 4 8 8 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 14

28 XX-XXXX-XXXX-1055 OFF A1 1 5 1 5 17 19 22.9 22.8 1 1 99.90 99.90 4 2 1 07 4 2 1 07 60 60 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 3 10 10 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 14

29 XX-XXXX-0808-0002 OFF D1 S-900 1 5 1 5 22 26 24.0 24.0 5 5 99.99 99.90 2 1 1 03 2 1 1 03 59 58 9 9 9 3 3 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 14

30 XX-XXXX-0351-1175 OFF A2 1 5 1 5 13 13 15.0 15.0 5 5 99.90 99.90 1 6 1 04 1 6 1 04 34 34 1 1 4 6 2 3 4 6 2 3 3 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 14

17 210


34 420


Quality Assurance Consultant's RatingDistrict's RatingIndicates Bridge was Field Viewed by QA and BQADIndicates Item is out of ToleranceIndicates Tolerance Level for that Item; [E] = Exact Coding Required

"D""X"

[ ]

4

LEGEND"Q"

4 % IN TOLERANCE

91%

0 1 0 2 4 01TOTAL OUT OF TOLERANCE 3 0 10 4

4 3

0 0

0 10 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 1

OUT OF TOLERANCE (Varies, see [])

1

% IN TOLERANCE

90%

1

2OUT OF TOLERANCE (Varies, see []) 1 0

92%

1 2 30 4 3 0 % IN TOLERANCE

TOTA

L %

IN

TOLE

RA

NC

E A

ND

REM

AR

KS

[E] [E] [E]

VD10

[E][E]

VD05 6A45-48

TYP

E O

F B

EAR

ING

S

BEA

MS

DES

IGN

ED

FOR

LL

CO

NTI

NU

ITY

TYP

E O

F S

PLI

CE

PS

GIR

DER

S

NO.

ITMES

PER Q/A

D

[E] [+/- 1 FT] [+/- 0.1 FT] [+/- 1 MI] [+/- 0.2 FT] [+/- 0.2 FT] [+/- 1 FT]

TYP

E O

F S

TEEL

CR

ITIC

AL

RA

TIN

G

FAC

TOR

5C26 5C27 5C15 4A15 4A17

MIN

IMU

M V

ERTI

CA

L

CLE

AR

AN

CE

UN

DE

R

STR

UC

TUR

E T

YPE

STR

UC

TUR

E L

ENG

TH

[E]

6A26-29




DES

IGN

OR

SH

OP

DR

AW

ING

NU

MB

ERS

TYP

E O

F SE

RV

ICE

ON

/UN

DE

R

AP

PR

OA

CH

RO

AD

WA

Y

WID

TH

BR

IDG

E R

OA

DW

AY

WID

TH

BYP

ASS

DET

OU

R

LEN

GTH

MIN

IMU

M V

ERTI

CA

L

CLE

AR

AN

CE

OV

ER

Q D

NO. OUT

OF TOL.

VN06

[E]

5B18 VD30 VD025A17/5A18

Q D

Q D Q

PennDOT Bridge Safety Inspection-QA Manual Publication 240APPENDIX E

Example

[Th

is pag

e inten

tion

ally left b

lank

]


APPENDIX E

Example

Table 5: NBIS QA COMPARISON OF MAINTENANCE ITEMS Table 5: NBIS QA COMPARISON OF MAINTENANCE ITEMS (continued)

Cycle 1 20XX-20XX Cycle 1 20XX-20XXDistrict XX-0 District XX-0

QA

BR

IDG

E #

STR

UC

TUR

E B

MS

ON

/OFF

SYS

TEM

FIEL

D V

IEW

CA

TEG

OR

Y

5A01

Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D

S T A T E S T R U C T U R E S S T A T E S T R U C T U R E S

1 XX-XXXX-0430-1899 ON A2 1 9 3 09 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 XX-XXXX-0020-0000 ON A1 4 2 1 04 3 5 4 5 3 4 4 4 4

3 XX-XXXX-0342-1462 ON C2 4 2 2 04 3 4 5 5 4

4 XX-XXXX-0041-1320 ON A1 6 9 9 20 3 3 3

5 XX-XXXX-0020-1288 ON A1 1 6 1 04 4 2 2 2 3 3

6 XX-XXXX-0070-1702 ON A2 1 7 1 04 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

7 XX-XXXX-0080-2620 ON A3 1 6 1 04 3 3 2 3

8 XX-XXXX-0240-0670 ON A1 2 1 1 03 3 3 1 1 5 3

9 XX-XXXX-0500-1063 ON B1 2 1 1 03 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3

10 XX-XXXX-0010-0403 OFF A1 2 1 1 01 2 3 3

11 XX-XXXX-0070-1362 OFF A1 2 1 9 20 3 1

12 XX-XXXX-0040-1098 ON A3 2 1 9 32

13 XX-XXXX-0070-1840 OFF A1 2 1 9 20 3 3 1 1

14 XX-XXXX-0020-2072 ON A1 4 2 2 06 2 4 4 4 4 3 4

15 XX-XXXX-0020-0000 OFF A1 1 6 1 04 3 2 1 1 3 3 3


L O C A L S T R U C T U R E S L O C A L S T R U C T U R E S

16 XX-XXXX-0581-2077 OFF A1 1 6 1 04 3 4 1 1 0 1 0 1 5 4 3 3

17 XX-XXXX-0346-2078 OFF A2 1 9 1 18 2 3 1 1 1 5 5 4 4 4 4 3

18 XX-XXXX-0641-2084 OFF A1 8 6 1 04 3 3 2 1 1 1 5 5

19 XX-XXXX-0400-2105 OFF A1 1 6 1 04 4 1 1 0 0 5 3 3

20 XX-XXXX-0XX4-2108 OFF A2 1 6 1 04 3 3 1 1 0 1 1 1 5 5 2 2 0

21 XX-XXXX-0880-0005 OFF C1 1 6 1 04 2 5

22 XX-XXXX-0413-0002 OFF A1 2 1 2 03 2 5 0 1 2 4 4

23 XX-XXXX-0830-0013 OFF A1 4 2 1 07 3 3 5 4 3

24 XX-XXXX-0770-0006 OFF A1 8 6 2 04 3 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 5

25 XX-XXXX-0812-0001 OFF A1 2 1 2 03 1 2

26 XX-XXXX-0906-1072 OFF A1 2 1 1 03 1 2 2 4

27 XX-XXXX-0439-1068 OFF A1 1 9 1 18 3 3 1 1 0 0 5

28 XX-XXXX-XXXX-1055 OFF A1 4 2 1 07 3 3 2 2 5 3 3

29 XX-XXXX-0808-0002 OFF D1 2 1 1 03 1 1 4

30 XX-XXXX-0351-1175 OFF A2 1 6 1 04 3 3 1 5


D I S T R I C T T O T A L S D I S T R I C T T O T A L S

PC= 0 0R 1 & OUT OF TOLERANCE

LEGEND

"Q" Quality Assurance Consultant's Rating

"D" District's Rating

"X" Indicates Bridge was Field Viewed by QA and BQAD

Idicates that Coding of Item Differs Between QA and District * **

* Maintenance Items are considered Out of Tolerance only when QA assigned a Maintenance Item that the District did not

** Priority Codes are considered Out of Tolerance only when both the QA and District assigned a Mantenance Item, but their Coding of that Item differed.


0 0 0

0 00

0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0

0 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 00 0 0 0 4 5 1 0 0

0 0

0

0

Rep

air/

Res

eal

Dec

k Jo

ints

B7

44

10

2

Co

mp

ress

ion

Sea

l (re

p/R

ehab

)

C7

44

10

2

Oth

er D

k Jt

Typ

es (

Re

p/R

ehab

)

Mo

du

lar

Dam

(R

ep

/Reh

ab)

RD

PA

VM

T

Pav

emen

t (P

atch

an

d R

epai

r)

Dra

inag

e O

ff-B

rid

ge (

Imp

rove

)

RD

GD

ERL

GR

/Tra

ns/

End

(R

ep

/Rep

l/Im

p)

RD

CLS

GN

F74

43

03

Co

ncr

ete

Cu

rb/P

arap

et (

Re

p)

A7

44

10

1

C7

44

30

2

Op

en S

tee

l Gri

d (

Re

p/R

epl)

D7

44

30

3

Co

ncr

ete

Dec

k (R

ep

air)

E74

43

03

Co

ncr

ete

Sid

ewal

k (R

ep

air)

D7

44

10

2

Stee

l Dam

s (R

ep

/Reh

ab)

E74

41

02

A7

43

30

1

Res

eal

Dec

k Jo

ints

0 0 0 0 0

00 0 1 0 0 0

0 0

0 1 0

0

OUT OF TOLERANCE - PRIORITY CODES**

RD

RLF

JT

1 0 0 0 0 0

Cle

an/F

lush

Scu

pp

er D

wn

spo

ut

C7

43

10

2

Cle

an/F

lush

Brn

g/B

rng

Seat

D7

43

10

2

Cle

an/F

lush

Ste

el H

ori

z. S

urf

BIT

WR

GS

00 0 0 0 0 0

RD

LDSG

N

Load

Lim

it S

ign

s (R

ep

lace

)

1

00 1 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 00 0 0 0

1 0 0 3 0 0

0 12 00

TOTAL OUT OF TOLERANCE - PRIORITY CODES

01 1 1 0 4 1

0

1 0 0 0 4 4

1 0 0

0 1 1 0

0 1TOTAL OUT OF TOLERANCE - MAINT. ITEMS 2 1 1 1 5

1 0 01 1 1 0 4 0OUT OF TOLERANCE - MAINTENANCE ITEMS* 2 0 1 1 2

OUT OF TOLERANCE - PRIORITY CODES** 0 0

0 0OUT OF TOLERANCE - MAINTENANCE ITEMS* 0 0 0 0 0

Bit

um

Dec

k W

Su

rf (

Re

p/R

epl)

B7

44

30

1

Tim

ber

Dec

k (R

ep

/Rep

l)

Cle

aran

ce S

ign

s (R

ep

lace

)

RD

BR

USH

Cu

t B

rush

to

Cle

ar S

ign

s

A7

44

20

1

Pav

emen

t R

elie

f Jt

(R

ep

/Rep

l)

RD

SHLD

R

Sho

uld

ers

(Re

pai

r/R

eco

nst

ruct

)

RD

DR

AIN

Ap

pro

ach

Sla

b (

Re

pla

ce)

A7

43

10

1

Cle

an/F

lush

Dec

k

B7

43

10

1

STR

UC

TUR

E TY

PE


APPENDIX E

Example

Table 5: NBIS QA COMPARISON OF MAINTENANCE ITEMS (continued)

Cycle 1 20XX-20XX

District XX-0

QA

BR

IDG

E #

STR

UC

TUR

E B

MS

ON

/OFF

SYS

TEM

FIEL

D V

IEW

CA

TEG

OR

Y

5A01 6A26-29

Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D


1 XX-XXXX-0430-1899 ON A2 1 9 3 09 3 5

2 XX-XXXX-0020-0000 ON A1 4 2 1 04 4 4

3 XX-XXXX-0342-1462 ON C2 4 2 2 04 4 4

4 XX-XXXX-0041-1320 ON A1 6 9 9 20

5 XX-XXXX-0020-1288 ON A1 1 6 1 04 3 3

6 XX-XXXX-0070-1702 ON A2 1 7 1 04 1 2

7 XX-XXXX-0080-2620 ON A3 1 6 1 04 3 3 3

8 XX-XXXX-0240-0670 ON A1 2 1 1 03 2 3

9 XX-XXXX-0500-1063 ON B1 2 1 1 03 2

10 XX-XXXX-0010-0403 OFF A1 2 1 1 01

11 XX-XXXX-0070-1362 OFF A1 2 1 9 20 2 3 4

12 XX-XXXX-0040-1098 ON A3 2 1 9 32

13 XX-XXXX-0070-1840 OFF A1 2 1 9 20 2 3

14 XX-XXXX-0020-2072 ON A1 4 2 2 06

15 XX-XXXX-0020-0000 OFF A1 1 6 1 04 1 2 4



16 XX-XXXX-0581-2077 OFF A1 1 6 1 04 1 3

17 XX-XXXX-0346-2078 OFF A2 1 9 1 18 1 2 3 2

18 XX-XXXX-0641-2084 OFF A1 8 6 1 04 1 1 3 3

19 XX-XXXX-0400-2105 OFF A1 1 6 1 04 1

20 XX-XXXX-0XX4-2108 OFF A2 1 6 1 04 1 3

21 XX-XXXX-0880-0005 OFF C1 1 6 1 04 2 4 3

22 XX-XXXX-0413-0002 OFF A1 2 1 2 03 3 4

23 XX-XXXX-0830-0013 OFF A1 4 2 1 07 2 4

24 XX-XXXX-0770-0006 OFF A1 8 6 2 04 3 3 2

25 XX-XXXX-0812-0001 OFF A1 2 1 2 03 1 2 2 3

26 XX-XXXX-0906-1072 OFF A1 2 1 1 03

27 XX-XXXX-0439-1068 OFF A1 1 9 1 18 1 1 3 2 3

28 XX-XXXX-XXXX-1055 OFF A1 4 2 1 07 3 4

29 XX-XXXX-0808-0002 OFF D1 2 1 1 03

30 XX-XXXX-0351-1175 OFF A2 1 6 1 04




LEGEND








0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

00 0 0 0

0 0 2 0 0

1 0 0 0

C7

44

70

2

Tru

ss M

emb

ers

(Tig

hte

n/F

lam

e Sh

ort

.)

0

0

A7

44

70

1

Tru

ss M

emb

ers

(Str

engt

h/R

ep/R

epl)

C7

44

60

3

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

RLG

MED

B

Med

ian

Bar

rier

(R

ep

/Rep

l)

0 0 0 0 0 1 0

1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

2 1 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 2 0 0 0

RLG

BR

PR

Bri

dge

Par

apet

(R

ep

/Rep

l)

RLG

STR

M

STR

UC

TUR

E TY

PE

0 0 0 1 0 8 00 0

Do

wn

spo

uti

ng

(Re

p/R

epl)

A7

43

50

1

0

TOTAL OUT OF TOLERANCE - PRIORITY CODES 1 3 0 0 0

Stru

ct M

ou

nt

GR

(R

ep

/Rep

l)

RLG

PED

N

Ped

estr

ian

Rai

ling

(Re

p/R

epl)

Lub

rica

te B

eari

ngs

A7

44

50

1

TOTAL OUT OF TOLERANCE - MAINT. ITEMS 2 3 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0OUT OF TOLERANCE - MAINTENANCE ITEMS* 1 2 0

OUT OF TOLERANCE - PRIORITY CODES** 0

0

7 0 001 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DR

NG

RA

T

C7

44

60

2

Stee

l Gir

der

(R

ep

air)

D7

44

60

2

0

Stee

l Bea

rin

gs (

Re

p/R

ehab

)

B7

44

50

1

Stee

l Bea

rin

gs (

Re

pla

ce)

C7

44

50

2

Scu

pp

er G

rate

(R

ep

lace

)

B7

44

40

1

Dra

in/S

cup

per

(In

stal

l)

C7

44

40

2

0 0 0

A7

44

60

3

RC

or

P/S

Str

inge

r (R

ep

/Rep

l)

B7

44

60

3

RC

or

P/S

Dia

ph

ragm

(R

ep

/Rep

l)

OUT OF TOLERANCE - MAINTENANCE ITEMS* 1 1 0

0 0

1 0 10 0

1 0 00 0

0 0 0 0 0 0


00 0 10 0 0 0

A7

44

60

1

Tim

ber

Str

inge

r (R

ep

/Rep

l)

B7

44

60

1

Oth

er T

imb

er M

emb

ers

(Re

p/R

epl)

Exp

ansi

on

Bea

rin

gs (

Re

set)

D7

44

50

3

Bea

rin

g P

edes

tal/

Seat

(R

eco

nst

r)

A7

44

60

2

Stee

l Str

inge

r (R

ep

/Rep

l)

B7

44

60

2

Stee

l Flo

orb

eam

(R

ep

/Rep

l)

B7

44

70

1

Tru

ss P

ort

al (

Mo

dif

y)

Oth

er R

C o

r P

/S M

emb

ers

(Rep

/Rep

l)

0

Stel

Dia

ph

/Lat

Bra

cin

g (R

ep

/Rep

l)


APPENDIX E

Example

Table 5: NBIS QA COMPARISON OF MAINTENANCE ITEMS (continued)


QA

BR

IDG

E #

STR

UC

TUR

E B

MS

ON

/OFF

SYS

TEM

FIEL

D V

IEW

CA

TEG

OR

Y

5A01 6A26-29

Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D Q D


1 XX-XXXX-0430-1899 ON A2 1 9 3 09 4 5 4 4 3

2 XX-XXXX-0020-0000 ON A1 4 2 1 04 4 4 3 3

3 XX-XXXX-0342-1462 ON C2 4 2 2 04 4 4 3

4 XX-XXXX-0041-1320 ON A1 6 9 9 20 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

5 XX-XXXX-0020-1288 ON A1 1 6 1 04 2 3 3 3 5 5

6 XX-XXXX-0070-1702 ON A2 1 7 1 04 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 5 5 3 3 5 5

7 XX-XXXX-0080-2620 ON A3 1 6 1 04 3 3 4 4 4

8 XX-XXXX-0240-0670 ON A1 2 1 1 03 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

9 XX-XXXX-0500-1063 ON B1 2 1 1 03 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 1

10 XX-XXXX-0010-0403 OFF A1 2 1 1 01 4 4 5 5 5 5

11 XX-XXXX-0070-1362 OFF A1 2 1 9 20 3 3 3 5 4 5

12 XX-XXXX-0040-1098 ON A3 2 1 9 32 3 3 3 2 3 2 3

13 XX-XXXX-0070-1840 OFF A1 2 1 9 20 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3

14 XX-XXXX-0020-2072 ON A1 4 2 2 06 4 3 5 5 5

15 XX-XXXX-0020-0000 OFF A1 1 6 1 04 1 3 3 3 5 3



16 XX-XXXX-0581-2077 OFF A1 1 6 1 04 3 4 4 3 5 5

17 XX-XXXX-0346-2078 OFF A2 1 9 1 18 2 4 4 3 3 3 3 3

18 XX-XXXX-0641-2084 OFF A1 8 6 1 04 2 3 3 4 2 2 2 2 5 5

19 XX-XXXX-0400-2105 OFF A1 1 6 1 04 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3

20 XX-XXXX-0XX4-2108 OFF A2 1 6 1 04 3 2 0 1 2 1 2 4 4 4

21 XX-XXXX-0880-0005 OFF C1 1 6 1 04 3 4

22 XX-XXXX-0413-0002 OFF A1 2 1 2 03 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5

23 XX-XXXX-0830-0013 OFF A1 4 2 1 07 5 5 5

24 XX-XXXX-0770-0006 OFF A1 8 6 2 04 3 2

25 XX-XXXX-0812-0001 OFF A1 2 1 2 03 3 3

26 XX-XXXX-0906-1072 OFF A1 2 1 1 03 3 3 2 2 2 2

27 XX-XXXX-0439-1068 OFF A1 1 9 1 18 4 3 5 5

28 XX-XXXX-XXXX-1055 OFF A1 4 2 1 07 3 2 5 5 5 5

29 XX-XXXX-0808-0002 OFF D1 2 1 1 03 4 3 3 4

30 XX-XXXX-0351-1175 OFF A2 1 6 1 04




LEGEND








32

217

0 0 0 0

0 0 25

0

0 0 54

1 0 1

0

0

0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

62%

71%

TOTAL % IN-TOLERANCE

84 0

215

2 % IN - TOLERANCE

115 732%

7

0 8

9

0 0

0

0 2

0 0 0 31

0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

4 5

1 4

2

0 12

4 12

2 12

2 8

4 11

10

0 9

5 8

0

0

0 0 1 2 0 0 10 0 0

1

2 3 0 0

9

1 2 0 0

1 7

7

5

6

10

11

6

2

7

0 6

5

E74

48

03

Foo

tin

g (U

nd

erp

in)

0 0

(PER

QA

)

C7

45

20

3

Cu

lver

t B

arre

l (R

epai

r)

1

0

1

2

3

2

0

4

2

2

2

0

2

C7

45

30

1

Sco

ur

Ho

le (

Bac

kfil)

Win

g (R

ep/R

epl)

A7

43

20

1

B7

43

20

1

C7

43

20

1

D7

43

20

1

A7

44

80

1

B7

44

80

2

C7

44

80

2


A7

45

10

1

Ab

ut

Slo

pew

all (

Rep

/Rep

l)

B7

45

10

2

Ab

ut

Slo

pew

all (

Co

nst

r. N

ew)

Pai

nti

ng

Sup

erst

ruct

ure

- S

po

t

Pai

nti

ng

Sub

stru

ctu

re -

Sp

ot

0

A7

45

30

1

Stre

amb

ed P

avin

g (R

ep/C

on

str)

B7

45

30

1

Ro

ck P

rote

ctio

n

A7

45

90

1

Pile

Rep

iar

Bac

kwal

l (R

ep/R

epl)

0 1 0 0

Ab

utm

ents

(re

pai

r)

Pai

nti

ng

Sub

stru

ctu

re -

Fu

ll

0 1 0 1 0D

74

48

02

Pai

nti

ng

Sup

erst

ruct

ure

- F

ull

STR

UC

TUR

E TY

PE

0


0

0

OUT OF TOLERANCE - MAINTENANCE ITEMS* 0

0

2 2 0

3 54 161 66%TOTAL OUT OF TOLERANCE - PRIORITY CODES 2 0 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0

TOTAL OUT OF TOLERANCE - MAINT. ITEMS 0 3 0 1 2

2 0

0 1 0 03 3 2 0 3 0

0 2 0 0

10 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0

114

22 773 1 0 11 0 0 0

2

0 4

77%

0 0 1 0 0

6

3

3 5

3 6

1 7

3 3

1 2

103

1 8

3 4

2 3

3 7

1 0 0 02 1 1 0 1 1 1002 1

1

0 0 0 0 23

2 10

1 3

1 10

11

6

ECR

EMD

P

Dep

osi

tio

n (

Rem

ove

)

B7

45

20

2

Cu

lver

t A

pro

n/C

uto

ff W

all (

Rep

/Rep

l)

Pie

rs (

Rep

iar)

F74

48

04

Mas

on

ry (

Rep

oin

t)

7

8

2 8

4

A7

45

20

1

Cu

lver

t H

ead

wal

l/W

ings

TOTA

L M

AIN

TEN

AN

CE

ITEM

S

(PER

DIS

TRIC

T)

TOTA

L O

UT

OF

TOLE

RA

NC

E

MA

INT.

ITEM

S (P

ER B

RID

GE)

TOTA

L O

UT

OF

TOLE

RA

NC

E

PR

IOR

ITY

CO

DES

(P

ER B

RID

GE)

TOTA

L M

AIN

TEN

AN

CE

ITEM

S

TOTA

L %

IN T

OLE

RA

NC

E &

REM

AR

KS

75%

1 6

2 8

2 4

3 9

3 3

4 14

3 12

1

D7

45

30

2

Srea

m D

efle

cto

r (R

ep/C

on

str.

)

ECR

EMV

G

Veg

etat

ion

/Deb

ris

(Rem

ove

)

% IN - TOLERANCE

1 4

2 5

2 8

6

4

8

8

1 15

0

0

1 4

OUT OF TOLERANCE - MAINTENANCE ITEMS*


APPENDIX E

Example

[Th

is pa

ge in

tentio

na

lly left b

lank

]


APPENDIX F

RATING VARIATION FREQUENCY BAR CHART EXAMPLE

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

STR COND DECK GEO UND CLR WATERWAY APP ALGN

FREQ

UEN

CY

APPRAISAL ITEMS

PENNDOT BRIDGE SAFETY INSPECTION QA PROGRAMDIFFERENCE BETWEEN QA REVIEW AND DISTRICT RATINGS

-3

-2

-1

0

+1

+2

+3

DELTA

Note: "+" delta indicates District Rating is Greater than Review


APPENDIX G

Instructions for Preparing Adobe Acrobat PDF Files for Document Submissions

The intent of these instructions is to produce electronic document files for eventual archiving in a consistent, user-friendly format, that are of the highest quality and the smallest file size.

• Use Adobe Acrobat Professional Version 8.0 or higher.

• For electronically-developed pages – for example pages developed using computer software packages such as Microsoft Word and Excel, Autocad, Microstation, etc. – produce PDF files directly using PDF Writer or Distiller printers available via Adobe Acrobat Professional. Documents created electronically via a software package are not to be printed out and then subsequently scanned. The scanning of hardcopies is permitted only for pages developed by manual methods (such as handwritten design computations) or with necessary manual annotations. Use of annotations made with tools available in Adobe Acrobat is encouraged in lieu of manual annotations.

• Provide electronic bookmarks to coincide with the Table of Contents to facilitate navigation. Do NOT set bookmarks to section dividers pages. Instead, set bookmarks to first page of actual information in the package. In fact, the use of section divider pages is discouraged when producing PDF submissions.

• It is not necessary to continuously number pages via manual annotations on printed pages. The page numbering system generated within Adobe Acrobat is sufficient.

• Rotate pages to facilitate viewing on a computer monitor. For example, pages that are intended to be viewed in landscape mode should be rotated clockwise 90 degrees so that the page can be viewed normally on a computer screen.

• For all output generated from a PennDOT computer program regardless of the number of pages, do not re-format the output to have multiple pages on a single page in the PDF file oriented in landscape mode. Instead have only 1 sheet of program output per page of the PDF file oriented in portrait mode.

• For pages that must be scanned, scan color pages separately from black & white pages. Scan black & white pages at 300 dpi resolution. Scan color pages at 150 dpi resolution.

• For pages consisting of scanned engineering drawings, use the largest original sheet size available. Do not scan reduced sheet sizes.

• For pages consisting of engineering drawings generated directly into PDF format, set the plot size to the dimensions of a full-size sheet (typically 22" x 34".)

• Set the following document properties for the initial view: − Show = 'Bookmarks panel and page'

− Page layout = 'single page'

− Magnification = 'Fit page'

− Open to Page = '1'

• Complete document description properties such as 'title', 'description', 'author' and 'keywords'

• Do NOT save the document as "certified" or apply any security settings.