Quality Processes For Bridge Analysis Models (2024) : This PDF Is Available at

This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.
org/27747
Quality Processes for Bridge Analysis

Models (2024)
DETAILS
114 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK
ISBN 978-0-309-70958-3 | DOI 10.17226/27747
CONTRIBUTORS
Serhan Guner; National Cooperative Highway Research Program; Transportation
Research Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
BUY THIS BOOK
FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Quality
Processes for Bridge Analysis Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27747.
Visit the National Academies Press at nap.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of publications
– 10% off the price of print publications
– Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts
All downloadable National Academies titles are free to be used for personal and/or non-commercial
academic use. Users may also freely post links to our titles on this website; non-commercial academic
users are encouraged to link to the version on this website rather than distribute a downloaded PDF
to ensure that all users are accessing the latest authoritative version of the work. All other uses require
written permission. (Request Permission)
This PDF is protected by copyright and owned by the National Academy of Sciences; unless otherwise
indicated, the National Academy of Sciences retains copyright to all materials in this PDF with all rights
reserved.
Quality Processes for Bridge Analysis Models
N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I V E H I G H W AY R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M
NCHRP SYNTHESIS 620

Quality Processes for Bridge
Analysis Models
A Synthesis of Highway Practice
Serhan Guner
The University of Toledo
Toledo, OH
Subscriber Categories
Bridges and Other Structures • Data and Information Technology • Highways
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
2024
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP SYNTHESIS 620

RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most Project 20-05, Topic 54-11
effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of ISSN 0547-5570
transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway ISBN 978-0-309-70958-3
problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by Library of Congress Control Number 2024933606
state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities
© 2024 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of
and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transporta-
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trade-
tion results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to high-
marks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
way authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated
program of cooperative research.
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
tiated an objective national highway research program using modern Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by published or copyrighted material used herein.
funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
(FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agree- understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, APTA, FAA,
FHWA, FTA, GHSA, or NHTSA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice.
ment No. 693JJ31950003.
It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity
and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited Cover photo caption: Finite element model and construction photo of Interstate 35, NE
54th Street Bridge, north of Des Moines, Iowa. The bridge was designed in house by Iowa
for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com- DOT. The 300-ft main span required lateral bracing and was outside the applicability limits
mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation of the conventional AASHTO LRFD live load distribution factors. As part of the quality
subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and processes, an external consultant was hired to perform an independent check of the design.
cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer- The bridge was opened to traffic in 2017.
Cover photo credit: Images used with permission. © Iowa Department of Transportation.
sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an
insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special-
ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research
directly to those in a position to use them. NOTICE
The program is developed on the basis of research needs iden- The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to
tified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved
transportation departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
the FHWA. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
R&I’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Direc- Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the
tors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these FHWA; or the program sponsors.
topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or spec-
selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of ifications. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which
provide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board
research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies
sponsors, industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices,
and TRB. procedures, or specifications.
The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make
The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not
of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names or logos appear herein
is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate, solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
other highway research programs.
Published reports of the
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from
Transportation Research Board

Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

https://www.mytrb.org/MyTRB/Store/default.aspx
Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major program divisions of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to mobilize expertise, experience, and knowledge to anticipate and solve
complex transportation-related challenges. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,500 engineers, scientists, and other
transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the
public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations
of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP SYNTHESIS 620

Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs, and Manager, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program
Jo Allen Gause, Senior Program Officer
Emi Carbray, Program Coordinator
Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications
Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications
NCHRP PROJECT 20-05 PANEL

Joyce N. Taylor, Maine Department of Transportation, Augusta, ME (Chair)
Anita K. Bush, Nevada Department of Transportation, Carson City, NV
Joseph D. Crabtree, Kentucky Transportation Center (retired), Lexington, KY
Mostafa Jamshidi, Nebraska Department of Transportation, Lincoln, NE
Jessie X. Jones, Arkansas Department of Transportation, Little Rock, AR
Raymond J. Khoury, Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, VA
Brenda Moore, North Carolina Department of Transportation (retired), Cary, NC
Jesus Alberto Sandoval-Gil, Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, AZ
Cynthia J. Smith, Mississippi Department of Transportation, Jackson, MS
Jack D. Jernigan, FHWA Liaison
Jim T. McDonnell, AASHTO Liaison
Stephen F. Maher, TRB Liaison
Brian Roberts, TRB Liaison
TOPIC 54-11 PANEL

Domenic A. Coletti, HDR, Raleigh, NC
Jamie Farris, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX
Zhengzheng (Jenny) Fu, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, LA
Sofia Puerto, Michael Baker International, Inc., Minneapolis, MN
Katherine Schopman, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg, PA
Kevin Western, Michael Baker International, Inc., Osceola, WI
Reggie H. Holt, FHWA Liaison
Nelson H. Gibson, TRB Liaison

ABOUT THE NCHRP SYNTHESIS PROGRAM

Highway administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which information
already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and practice. This infor-
mation may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has
been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings
may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to
recommended practices for solving or alleviating the problem.
There is information on nearly every subject of concern to highway administrators and engineers.
Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-
to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information
and to make it available to the entire highway community, the American Association of State High-
way and Transportation Officials—through the mechanism of the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program—authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study.
This study, NCHRP Project 20-05, “Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Practices,” searches
out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented
reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an NCHRP report series, Synthesis
of Highway Practice.
This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the
detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides
a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful
in resolving specific problems.
FOREWORD
By Jo Allen Gause
Staff Officer
The objective of this synthesis is to document state department of transportation (DOT) practices
related to the quality processes for bridge structural models. The design of bridges often involves the use
of structural analysis models of varying degrees of complexity. A variety of analysis methods and soft-
ware can be used to create and analyze these models. This process can be quite complex, with significant
amounts of input and output data. Quality assurance and quality control are two essential processes for
the quality management of bridge analysis models.
Information for this study was gathered through a literature review, a survey of state DOTs, and
follow-up interviews with selected DOTs. Case examples of five state DOTs provide additional infor-
mation on quality processes for bridge analysis models.
Serhan Guner, The University of Toledo, Ohio, collected and synthesized the information and
wrote the report. The members of the topic panel are acknowledged on page iv. This synthesis is an
immediately useful document that records practices that were acceptable within the limitations of
the knowledge available at the time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues,
new knowledge will be added to that now at hand.


CONTENTS
1 Summary
5 Chapter 1 Introduction
5 Background
5 Objective and Scope
5 Methodology
6 Key Definitions
7 Report Organization
8 Chapter 2 Literature Review

8 Quality Assurance and Quality Control
10 Verification and Validation
17 Bridge Analysis Methods
21 Chapter 3 State of the Practice

21 Quantity of Bridge Design and Evaluation Projects Undertaken
24 Quality Processes for Bridge Design Projects Undertaken by Consultants
30 Quality Processes for Bridge Design Projects Performed In House by Agencies
36 Quality Processes for High-Seismicity State DOTs
42 Chapter 4 Case Examples

42 Selection Criteria for Case Examples
42 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
48 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
51 Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT)
56 Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOTD)
61 New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)
68 Chapter 5 Summary of Findings

68 Major Findings
69 Opportunities for Future Research
71 References
75 Appendix A Survey Questionnaire
84 Appendix B Aggregate Survey Results
104 Appendix C Study Interview Questions
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at nap.nationalacademies.org) retains the color versions.


SUMMARY
Quality Processes for Bridge

Analysis Models
The design of bridges often involves the use of structural analysis models of varying
degrees of complexity. A variety of analysis methods and software can be used to create and
analyze these models. This process can be quite complex, as it uses significant amounts of
input and output data. Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) are two essential
processes for the quality management of bridge analysis models. As indicated in the pub-
lished literature, a good QA/QC program is a deliberate and systematic approach to reduce
the risk of introducing errors and omissions into an analysis. The likelihood of errors is
increased if office policies and standardized procedures are not established and followed.
While documented quality processes are important, it is also essential to have experienced,
competent staff and good relationships across disciplines. Quality processes are often
affected when the staff is less experienced and when schedules fail to include enough time
for in-depth quality checks.
The literature demonstrates the importance of verification and validation as indis-
pensable components of QA/QC processes in computational modeling. While these
terms are often used interchangeably in bridge engineering practice, they have differ-
ent meanings. Stated succinctly, “verification” concerns mathematics, while “validation”
concerns physics. Verification assesses the numerical accuracy of a computational model
regardless of the physics being modeled, while validation assesses the degree to which the
computational model is an accurate representation of the physics being modeled. Veri-
fication compares computational solutions with highly accurate (analytical or numerical)
benchmark solutions, whereas validation compares the numerical solution with the experi-
mental results.
The objective of this synthesis is to identify and document state departments of transporta-
tion (DOT) practices related to the quality processes for bridge structural analysis models. The
synthesis documents the written and informal processes for (1) identifying appropriately
qualified staff including in-house personnel and consultants, (2) choosing an appropriate
analysis method and software, (3) validating the analysis software, (4) modeling a bridge
structure with proper approaches and assumptions, (5) verifying the analysis results, and
(6) reconciling discrepancies between independent models. Information was gathered
through a literature review, a survey of all DOTs, and follow-up interviews with five selected
agencies as case examples.
To collect information about current DOT practices, an online survey consisting of
25 questions was distributed to each DOT’s voting member in the AASHTO Committee on
Bridges and Structures. The survey was completed by 51 DOTs, including 50 states and the
District of Columbia, yielding an overall response rate of 100%. The respondents answered
all of the questions, yielding a response rate of 100%.

2 Quality Processes for Bridge Analysis Models
The major findings from the survey include the following:

• Total numbers: The number of in-house bridge engineers employed by each agency varies
widely from less than 10 to more than 80. The number of new bridge and bridge replace-
ment designs completed by DOTs and their consultants also varies widely from less than
10 to more than 80 per year. The majority of DOTs and their consultants conduct at least
125 existing bridge analyses, including load ratings, per year.
• The percentage of bridge analysis and design work assigned to consultants: The average
percentage of new bridge and bridge replacement designs assigned to consultants is 59%,
while the average percentage of existing bridge analyses, including load ratings, assigned
to consultants is 47%.
• Written processes for consultant projects: The survey asked three questions about the
presence of consultant processes for (1) identification of appropriately qualified consul-
tants, (2) bridge analysis models developed by consultants, and (3) verification of the
analysis results obtained from consultants. Thirty-three percent (33%) of DOTs have “no
written process” for any of these three activities, while only 16% have “written processes”
for all three activities.
• Written processes for in-house projects: The survey asked six questions about the pres-
ence of in-house processes for (1) identifying appropriately qualified in-house engineers,
(2) choosing a suitable analysis method or software, (3) modeling a bridge, (4) validating
the analysis software, (5) verifying in-house analysis results, and (6) reconciling discrep-
ancies between independent models. The number of DOTs with written in-house pro-
cesses are significantly lower than those with written consultant processes. Almost half the
DOTs (45%) have “no written process” for any of these six activities, and no DOT reported
having written processes for all six activities.
• Use frequency of bridge structural analysis methods: The most frequently used analysis
method is the one-dimensional (1D) line girder analysis, while the least frequently used
method is the nonlinear finite element method.
• Approved software list for bridge modeling and analysis: Thirty-nine percent (39%) of
DOTs have an approved software list.
• Verification of analysis results: Thirteen (13) DOTs that have written processes for verify-
ing their in-house analysis results were asked how their agencies verify in-house analysis
results. The most common response for the “often” frequency, as selected by eight DOTs,
was “checking of input variables.” The use of NCHRP Process 12-50 (45) was the least
employed method, with eight DOTs indicating they have never used it.
• Validation of analysis software: Seven (7) DOTs that have written processes for validat-
ing the analysis software were asked how their agencies validate the analysis software. The
most common response for the “often” frequency, as selected by five DOTs, was “analysis
engineer decides how to validate,” while the least commonly used validation method was
“use of data from field tests and sensor deployment.”
• Reconciling discrepancies between independent models: Eight (8) DOTs that have writ-
ten processes for reconciling discrepancies between independent models were asked how
their agencies accomplish this task. The most common response for the “often” frequency
was “the same team of engineers works to resolve the discrepancies,” selected by five
DOTs, followed by “analysis engineers decide how to reconcile,” selected by four DOTs.
• Influence of seismicity: To document the changes that seismicity makes to DOT practices,
the survey data were re-analyzed for 19 high-seismicity state DOTs and compared with the
data collected from the remaining 32 DOTs. The comparison indicates that high-seismicity
state DOTs assign a smaller percentage of their new bridge designs to consultants and use
more refined in-house analysis methods. In contrast, the percentage of high-seismicity
state DOTs with written processes (for both consultant and in-house projects) are lower
than that of the remaining DOTs.

Summary 3
Specific information was collected from five selected state DOTs—California, Colorado,
Iowa, Louisiana, and New York—to expand on their quality processes related to bridge
structural analysis models.
The major findings from the case examples include the following:
• Identifying appropriately qualified consultants: Surveyed agencies use two types of consul-
tant selection processes: project-specific and statewide on-call.
• Verifying the analysis results obtained from consultants: Surveyed agencies require con-
sultants to either submit their QA/QC plans or follow the agency’s specific QA/QC plans.
Not all agencies requiring consultants to submit their QA/QC plans evaluate and score
QA/QC plans—the presence of such plans and assurance that they will be followed is
considered adequate.
• Assigning bridge design work to appropriately qualified in-house engineers: All
five surveyed agencies have informal processes that rely on a manager, supervisor, or
unit leader to select appropriately qualified engineers based on their experience and
availability.
• Selecting the analysis method or software for a specific project: All five surveyed agencies
most frequently use 1D line girder analysis and rely on the analysis (or design) team to
select the most appropriate method(s). New York State DOT (NYSDOT) provides written
guidelines for when to use refined analysis methods.
• Guidelines and documents used by in-house engineers when modeling a bridge: All five
surveyed agencies have in-house bridge design manuals to provide state-specific analysis
and design guidelines. Additional agency-developed documents include seismic design
guidelines, bridge rating manuals, user guides for in-house computer programs, structure
technical policies, bridge design memos, and design practice manuals for staff training.
The distribution of these documents is inconsistent across agencies.
• Verifying in-house analysis models and results: All five surveyed agencies require a
checker to independently verify the accuracy of the design engineer’s models, calculations,
and results. Both California DOT (Caltrans) and NYSDOT require the use of different
software in an independent check.
• Challenges and effective practices: All five surveyed agencies have undergone retirements
of senior staff and challenges recruiting and retaining structural engineering staff. NYSDOT
established the Satellite Squad concept to recruit talent from a broader geographic region.
To overcome the challenges of finding appropriately qualified engineers in district offices,
Caltrans established the Seismic and Special Analysis branch, which is focused only on
structural modeling and analysis, while NYSDOT established the Main Office Structures
group with 65 design staff who execute only structural analysis and final design.
This synthesis identifies some knowledge gaps and suggests future research to address
those gaps:
• Guidelines to assess effectiveness of QA/QC processes: Guidelines are lacking regard-
ing the constitution of effective QA/QC processes for bridge structural analysis models.
Future research could develop guidelines to help DOTs assess the effectiveness and quality
of their QA/QC processes.
• Guidelines for finite element and strut-and-tie (STM) models: Bridge-specific guidelines
for the development and verification of finite element and STM models are scarce. Future
research could develop guidelines and bridge-specific modeling examples.
• Repository for DOTs to share analysis models: Future research is suggested to develop a
nationwide repository for sharing analysis models among DOTs, which may help collec-
tively develop and iteratively improve finite element and STM models and reduce dupli-
cate efforts.

• Standardized training of engineers in analysis of finite element and STM methods:

The skills acquired in an undergraduate university education may not be sufficient for a
competent application of finite element and STM methods and interpretation of analy-
sis results obtained from these methods. A qualified training system with standardized
requirements could be developed for bridge engineers conducting these types of analyses.
• Training on misunderstood concepts and their applications: New training courses and
seminars could be developed to cast light on commonly misunderstood concepts, such
as verification, validation, uncertainty, error, and calibration, as well as to train bridge
engineers how to perform these activities effectively.

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Background
The design of bridges often involves the use of structural analysis models of varying degrees of
complexity. Superstructure design models vary from approximate one-dimensional (1D) line girder
analysis models to sophisticated two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) finite
element analysis models. Substructure and foundation models often consider soil-structure
interaction, second-order effects, dynamic response for seismic analysis, and interaction with
the superstructure. A variety of analysis methods and software can be used to create and analyze
these models. This process can be quite complex, as it uses a large number of input parameters
and significant amounts of output data.
The engineer must understand the limitations of the analysis method and software, possess
experience in developing analysis models with proper approaches and assumptions, and correctly
interpret the results. An appropriate understanding of the expected behavior of the structure is
also required to assess whether the predicted behavior represents the actual performance of the
structure. A simple check of the program input values is not an adequate method of ensuring
the accuracy and validity of these models. Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) are
two essential processes for the quality management of analysis models. Verification and validation
(V&V) play a critical role in the QA/QC process.
Objective and Scope

The objective of this synthesis is to identify and document state departments of transportation
(DOTs) practices related to quality processes for bridge structural analysis models. The synthesis
documents the written and informal processes for the following:
• Identifying appropriately qualified staff, including in-house personnel and consultants
• Choosing an appropriate analysis method and software
• Validating the analysis software
• Modeling a bridge structure with proper approaches and assumptions
• Verifying the analysis results
• Reconciling discrepancies between independent models
In addition, the synthesis aims to identify gaps that could be addressed in future studies so that
state DOTs may more effectively benefit from the quality processes for bridge analysis models.
Methodology
Information was gathered using a literature review, an online survey of all state DOT agencies
and the District of Columbia DOT (DDOT), and follow-up interviews with selected agencies

for developing case examples. A web-based questionnaire was prepared to survey DOTs regard-
ing their quality processes for bridge structural analysis models. The questionnaire was sent to
voting DOT members in the AASHTO Committee on Bridges and Structures (50 state DOTs
and DDOT); 51 survey responses were received, thereby yielding a 100% response rate. The
survey results are processed and summarized in graphs and tables for use in developing this
synthesis report.
In addition, five DOT agencies were selected, based on certain criteria, for follow-up inter-
views. The responses and documentation collected from these interviews were used to derive
case examples to expand on their quality processes for bridge structural analysis models.
Key Definitions
The definitions of common terms used throughout this report are provided as follows in the
context of structural analysis models.
• Accuracy: The closeness of a measured or calculated value to the referent or true value (1)
• Calibration: The process of adjusting code input parameters so that the resulting agreement
of the code calculations with a chosen and fixed set of experimental data is maximized (2)
• Checker: An individual responsible for conducting a full technical review of the structural
design calculations, drawings, specifications, and contract documents (3)
• Code: A computer program designed (in the present context) to implement a computational
model (4)
• Computational model: The discretized version of a mathematical model that has been designed
to be implemented on (or to be processed by) a computer or computational device (4)
• Designer: An individual directly responsible for the development of design calculations,
drawings, specifications, contract documents, and review of shop drawings related to a spe-
cific bridge design with a level of technical skills and experience commensurate with the com-
plexity of the subject structure or structures being designed (3)
• Discretize: To transform a mathematical model into a finite number of discrete components
that can be processed by a digital computer (4)
• Error: The quantitative difference between a measured or calculated value and the referent or
true value (1)
• Prediction: A calculation that predicts a number or quantity or a collection of these quantities
prior to or in lieu of their physical measurement (5)
• Quality assurance: Part of quality management focused on providing confidence that quality
requirements will be fulfilled (6)
• Quality control: Part of quality management focused on fulfilling quality requirements (6)
• Quality management: Management with regard to quality that can include establishing quality
policies and quality objectives and processes to achieve quality objectives through quality
planning, QA, QC, and quality improvement (6)
• Reviewer: An individual responsible for executing QA procedures for assuring that QA proce-
dures have been executed (3)
• Simulation: The computer calculations executed with the computational model—that is,
“running the model” (1)
• Validation: The process of determining the degree to which the model is an accurate repre-
sentation of corresponding physical experiments from the perspective of the intended uses
of the model (1)
• Verification: The process of determining that a computational model accurately represents the
underlying mathematical model and its solution (1)

Introduction 7
Report Organization
This synthesis report consists of five chapters, a reference list, and three appendices. Chapter 1
presents the background information, synthesis objectives, scope, methodology, and terminology.
Chapter 2 provides a review of the published literature on QA and QC processes in the context of
bridge analysis models, the V&V processes, and bridge analysis methods. Chapter 3 presents the
current state of the practice based on the results of a survey distributed to DOTs regarding their
quality processes for bridge analysis models. Chapter 4 presents case examples of five state DOTs.
Chapter 5 presents the key findings of this synthesis and discusses identified gaps that could be
addressed in future studies to enable DOTs to effectively develop quality processes for bridge analy-
sis models. Following the chapters are a reference list, along with Appendix A providing the survey
questionnaire, Appendix B providing aggregate survey results, and Appendix C providing study
interview questions.

CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
This chapter presents concepts, processes, and methods from the published literature about
quality processes for bridge analysis models. The topics covered include QA and QC, V&V,
uncertainty and error, sensitivity analysis, calibration and tuning of computational models, and
common types of analysis methods for bridge elements and substructures.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control

QA and QC are two essential aspects of quality management. While some QA and QC activi-
Quality system
ties are interrelated, they are defined differently. QA activities and responsibilities cover virtually
all of the quality system in one fashion or another, while QC is a subset of QA activities (7) (see
Figure 1). Elements in the quality system might not be specifically covered by QA and QC activi-
Quality assurance
(QA) ties and responsibilities but may involve QA and QC (6).
Quality In the context of bridge engineering, FHWA (3) provides the following definitions.
control
(QC)
Quality assurance: Procedures for reviewing work to confirm that QC is in place and effec-
tively preventing mistakes and to ensure consistency when developing bridge design plans and
Figure 1. Quality specifications.
system, quality Quality control: Procedures for checking the accuracy of calculations and consistency of
assurance, and quality
drawings, detecting and correcting design omissions and errors before design plans are final-
control relationships.
ized, and verifying that specifications for load-carrying members are adequate for service and
operation loads.
A QA/QC program provides checks and balances within an organization to assure the quality
of final contract plans and specifications. In the design phase, bridge designers are responsible
for ensuring their calculations and drawings are accurate and meet requirements of the design.
Bridge designers conduct QC of their own work by establishing procedures for self-checking
their work for accuracy. Subsequently, reviewers practicing QA are responsible for indepen-
dently checking work of the bridge designer to assure accuracy in meeting design requirements
and expectations of the bridge owner (see Figure 2) (3).
A good QA/QC program is a deliberate and systematic approach to reduce the risk of intro-
ducing errors and omissions into an analysis. The likelihood of errors in any analysis process is
increased if office policies and standardized procedures are not established and followed. In rare
cases, the root cause of a bridge failure can be traced back to a failure to create or follow a good
QA/QC program. The rigor and level of resource allocation invested in QA/QC application to
a given bridge should be tempered by the size, complexity, and degree of redundancy in the
structural system involved (3).

Literature Review 9
For major projects involving unusual, complex, and innovative features, a peer review may be
desirable to raise the level of confidence in the quality of design and construction. A peer review
is a high-level QA review by a special panel of professionals specifically appointed by the bridge
owner to meet demands for quality and accuracy, while recognizing complexity of the design.
Peer review is an effective way to improve quality and to reduce the risk of errors and omissions.
The need for such peer reviews is at the discretion of the bridge owner (3).
NCHRP Project 20-68A (8) conducted a scanning study of 10 state DOTs with the objec-
tive of documenting QA/QC programs in bridge design, plan review, overall project delivery,
and special contract projects such as design-build. The visited states believed that, although
documented quality processes are important, also important is having experienced, competent
staff and good relationships across disciplines. Plan quality is often affected when staff is less
experienced and schedules leave less time for in-depth quality checks. The scanning study
emphasizes the importance of support from upper management during the development,
documentation, and use of a QA/QC program, while also indicating a successful method of
ensuring quality by incorporating training rotations for new staff. Regularly scheduled meet-
ings with all disciplines involved in the projects are noted as a successful QA strategy. Good
communication between consultants and department staff is also indicated as a key compo-
nent of successful QA/QC programs.
FHWA sponsored a scanning study of Europe (9) to identify the best practices and processes
to assure bridge safety and serviceability in the United States. The team recommended (1) devel-
oping a national strategy to increase use of refined analysis for bridge design and evaluation,
(2) encouraging states to use refined analysis combined with reliability analysis to avoid unnec-
essary rehabilitation or replacement of bridges, and (3) encouraging adoption of the concept of
annual probability of failure to quantify safety in probability-based design and rating specifica-
tions. The study indicated that the situations impeding the use of advanced analysis in design
and evaluation were cost of software, lack of training, lack of guidelines, modeling complexities,
and perceived high cost-to-benefit ratio.
von Wolffersdorff and Meier (10) consider the challenges of the traditional designer-reviewer
model (see Figure 2) for complex 3D finite element analyses. The authors indicate that such
analyses are not easily checkable unless the reviewer conducts comparative numerical calcula-
tions, a practice often unfeasible due to time and financial constraints. The authors propose an
improved QA/QC process in which the reviewer is involved in the modeling process from the
beginning to make essential modeling decisions and assumptions.
von Wolffersdorff and Meier (10) indicate that the skills acquired in undergraduate university
education are often insufficient for a competent application of complex finite element (FE) pro-
grams and competent interpretation of the analysis results. The authors recommend developing
Internal QC Designer Internal QA

Reviewer
• Understanding the project • Reviewing documented results
• Modeling and assumptions • Checking calculations or results
• Specifications
• Performing analysis External QA
External Checker
• Checking results
• Documenting results • Reviewing documented results
• Re-analyzing the structure
(completely or partially) to check
the results
Figure 2. Conventional QA/QC processes for finite element

analysis models.

and introducing a qualified advanced training system with standardized requirements. Knowl-
edge in the following fields is noted as essential:
• Continuum mechanics
• Theory of finite elements
• Numerical mathematics
• Constitutive modeling of the material (e.g., reinforced concrete, steel, timber, soil, and rock)
• Modern theoretical soil mechanics for geotechnical modeling
Amati et al. (11) define the goal of QA in finite element modeling as reducing the errors in evalu-
ating a prescribed quantity (i.e., displacements or stresses below a pre-specified value to ensure
a sufficient margin of safety). The QA process is also essential to make the FE analyst aware of
the approximations contained in a numerical method. The authors emphasize the importance of
benchmark testing, not only for validation of the analysis software globally, but also for educating
the analyst on the software’s operations and limitations.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NUREG) published a document (12) for software
QA programs and guidelines for National Research Council (NRC) organizations and NRC
contractors. “Software QA” is defined as the planned and systematic pattern of all actions neces-
sary to provide adequate confidence that a software product conforms to established technical
requirements. The scope of software QA includes both managerial and technical aspects of
software development and maintenance. This document provides guidelines for software life
cycle, V&V activities, documentation and deliverables, project management, configuration
management, nonconformance reporting and corrective action, and quality assessment and
improvement.
The term “check” or “checking,” as used in the previous section, refers to V&V and uncertainty
quantification processes. The next section presents information on these processes from the
published literature.
Verification and Validation

Verification and validation (V&V) are indispensable components of QA/QC processes in
computational modeling. V&V are the processes by which evidence is gathered to determine
the accuracy of a computer model for specified conditions. These accuracy results, along with
uncertainty quantification, contribute to the determination of the credibility of the model for the
conditions of its intended use (1).
Among noteworthy works on the subject are NUREG guidelines (12, 13), American National
Standards Institute/American National Standard guidelines (14), book of Roache (15), survey
articles of Oberkampf and collaborators (16), American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
standards (17), U.S. Department of Defense instructions (18), NASA handbook (19), and ASME
Standards (1). Many other relevant references are cited in these works. This synthesis aims to
combine V&V and uncertainty quantification (UQ) as applied to computer simulations in bridge
engineering. The goal is to provide the definitions, concepts, and principles that facilitate QA/QC
processes for bridge analysis models.
While the terms “verification” and “validation” are often used interchangeably in casual con-
versations in bridge engineering practice, they have different meanings. Stated succinctly, veri-
fication concerns mathematics, while validation concerns physics (15). Verification assesses the
numerical accuracy of a computational model regardless of the physics being modeled, while
validation assesses the degree to which the computational model is an accurate representation
of the physics being modeled (1). Verification compares computational solutions with highly

Literature Review 11
accurate (analytical or numerical) benchmark solutions, whereas validation compares the

numerical solution with the experimental results. In verification, the relationship of the simula-
tion to the real world is not an issue. In validation, the relationship between computation and the
real world is an issue (5). The relationships between V&V activities involved are schematically
presented in Figure 3 (20).
Verification
“Verification” is defined as “the process of determining that a computational model accu-
rately represents the underlying mathematical model and its solution” (1). Verification has
also been described as “solving the equations right” (21). The fundamental strategy of verifi-
cation is to identify, quantify, and reduce errors in the computational model and its numerical
solution (5).
Verification is composed of two fundamental activities: code verification and solution veri-
fication. Code verification involves exercising the code (i.e., computer program) to determine
and correct coding errors (bugs) or other deficiencies that affect the efficiency and quality of the
output. Code verification is usually conducted by using the code to solve benchmark problems—
specific, simplified model problems for which accurate solutions or analytical solutions are
known. Normally, the developers perform this exercise before the release of the code. However,
computer codes tend to have programming errors, especially in their less frequently traversed
branches. The user (i.e., analyst) shares the responsibility of verifying that the code is functioning
properly (22). Solution verification includes error estimation, which involves determining the
accuracy of a single calculation and putting an error band on the final value (21). Analysts must
compare the estimated numerical error in specific quantities of interest to preset tolerances in
order to determine whether the computational model is verified to their satisfaction. Solution
verification, to a large measure, is a mathematical process that can be executed, in theory, to a
high degree of precision (4).
Source: Kwasniewski (20), used with permission.
Figure 3. Relationships between modeling, verification,

and validation.

Verification can be conducted through tests of agreement between a computational solution

and four types of benchmark solutions: analytical, highly accurate numerical solutions of either
an ordinary differential equation or a partial differential equation problem, and manufactured
solutions [see Figure 4 (17)]. As a part of verification, alternative numerical models can be used,
such as different codes or different element types (e.g., solid vs. shell elements in the context of
finite element modeling).
Additional terms describe verification activities in casual conversations in bridge engineering

practice. They include the following:
• Sanity checks: a basic test to evaluate whether the result of a calculation is rational and can
possibly be true, usually conducted by hand calculations, spreadsheets, or other tools
• Independent calculations: re-analysis of the same structure by an independent analyst using
a method selected by the independent analyst
• Line-by-line checking of the input parameters
• Refined analysis: re-analysis of the same structure using a more advanced or refined analysis
method
Uncertainty and Error

It is useful to define “uncertainty” and “error.” Uncertainty is a potential deficiency in any
phase or activity of the modeling process caused by a lack of knowledge, while error is a recogniz-
able deficiency in any phase or activity of modeling and simulation that is not caused by a lack of
knowledge (17). The key phrase differentiating the definitions of uncertainty and error is “lack
of knowledge.” The key word in the definition of uncertainty is “potential,” which indicates that
deficiencies may or may not exist. The definition of error implies that the deficiency is identifi-
able upon examination (21).
“Irreducible uncertainty” refers to inherent variations in the physical system being modeled.
This type of uncertainty always exists and is an intrinsic property of the system. “Reducible
uncertainty” refers to deficiencies that result from a lack of complete information or knowledge.
Two important sources of reducible uncertainty are “statistical uncertainty” and “model form
Source: AIAA G-077-1998 (17), reprinted with permission of the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
Figure 4. Verification process.

uncertainty.” Statistical uncertainty arises from the use of limited samples. Model form uncer-
tainty refers to the uncertainty associated with modeling assumptions and approximations (1).
The modeler quantifies uncertainties in simulation results due to inherent variability in model
parameters or lack of knowledge of the parameters or model form. The results of parameter and
model-form uncertainty quantification are combined with those of calculation verification to
yield an overall uncertainty estimate associated with simulation results (1).
Errors can be classified as “acknowledged” and “unacknowledged” errors (see Figure 5). Acknowl-
edged errors have procedures for identifying and possibly removing them. Unacknowledged errors
have no set procedures for finding them and may continue to remain in the code or simulation.
Usage errors are controllable through proper training and analysis (21).
Physical approximation errors are also referred to as “errors of idealization” (or “modeling
errors”) (22). Physical modeling errors may include incorrect definition of the material (e.g.,
modulus of elasticity, limit of Poisson’s ratio in isotropic materials), load, and boundary condi-
tions. Geometry modeling errors may include incorrect geometric description (e.g., the use of
symmetry when the loads are antisymmetric). Defining the analysis type incorrectly (e.g., linear
versus nonlinear analysis) is also a physical approximation error.
Discretization errors may include the use of a wrong type of finite element (e.g., plane stress
versus plane strain elements in a 2D analysis, plate versus shell elements in a 3D analysis), unsuit-
able order of elements (e.g., linear-strain quadrilateral versus quadratic-strain quadrilateral), and
unsuitable mesh density (e.g., a coarse mesh at locations with high stress gradients). Input errors
(e.g., mixed units and errors in data entry) are also considered discretization errors.
Both physical approximation errors and discretization errors are controllable through proper
training of the analyst and proper QA/QC practices (23). Methods for assessing (and improving)
the quality of the mesh is to apply mesh refinement methods, including the h-method (reducing
the mesh size and assessing its effect on the analysis results), the p-method (increasing the poly-
nomial order in the element), the r-method (relocating the position of a node), or a combination
of these methods.
Sensitivity Analysis
One approach for determining the level of uncertainty and its effect on an analysis is to con-
duct a sensitivity analysis (17). Sensitivity analysis is the general process of discovering the effects
of model input parameters on the response quantities of interest using techniques such as analy-
sis of variance (24). When conducted after the computational model is verified but before it is
validated, a sensitivity analysis can provide important insight into the characteristics of that
computational model (1). Local sensitivity analysis is used to determine the character of the
response quantities with respect to the input parameters in a local region, while global sensitivity
Acknowledged Errors Unacknowledged Errors

• Physical approximation errors • Computer programming error
Physical modeling error • Usage error
Geometry modeling error
• Discretization errors
Spatial discretization error
Temporal discretization error
• Computer round-off error
• Iterative convergence error
Figure 5. Classification of errors.

analysis is concerned with some type of average behavior of the response quantities over a large
domain of parameters (1). The role of sensitivity analysis in the processes of V&V/UQ has been
the subject of many previous studies [e.g., (1), (25–31)].
Validation
“Validation” is defined as “the process of determining the degree to which the model is an accu-
rate representation of corresponding physical experiments from the perspective of the intended
uses of the model” (1). Validation has also been described as “solving the right equations” (21).
The fundamental strategy of validation involves identifying and quantifying errors and uncer-
tainty by comparing simulation results with experimental data. The experimental data sets them-
selves contain uncertainties and errors that must be properly quantified and documented as part
of the data set. The validation strategy does not assume that experimental measurements are
more accurate than computational results. The strategy asserts only that experimental measure-
ments are the most faithful reflections of reality for the purposes of validation (21).
Although the immediate goal of validation is to compare simulation results with experimental
measurements, the strategic goal is to increase confidence in the predictive capability of a com-
putational model for its intended use (1), which is accomplished by comparing computational
predictions to experimental outputs (1). Figure 6 depicts the validation process of comparing
the computational results of the modeling and simulation process with experimental data from
various sources (17).
Validation is essential to assessing the predictive capability of the model in the physical realm of
interest; furthermore, it must address uncertainties that arise from both experimental and compu
tational procedures (1). When a complex system is modeled, many validation experiments captur-
ing different physical aspects of the system are needed (e.g., different loading scenarios, boundary,
and initial conditions) on different levels of complexity of the model (32). Figure 7 (33) presents
the difference that can be measured between a single experiment and a single simulation and the
actual means of a given measure. The sensitivity of this measure to a given parameter is represented
Source: AIAA G-077-1998 (17), reprinted with permission of the

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
Figure 6. Validation process.

Source: Mullerschon (33), used with permission.
Figure 7. Difference between simulated and experimental values for a single item
and a population of results.
by the shape (i.e., standard deviation) of the distribution function. When comparing simulated
results to only one experimental result, the analyst has no confidence about representativeness of
the experiment result. In the process of calibrating the computational model to only one experi-
ment, more errors can be introduced into the model; moreover, its predictive capability can be
negatively affected for a different set of initial parameters.
Because of the infeasibility and impracticality of conducting true validation experiments on
most complex or large-scale systems, the suggested method is to use a building-block approach
(17, 34, 35). This approach divides the complex engineering system of interest into at least three
progressively simpler tiers: subsystem cases, benchmark cases, and unit problems. The strategy
in the tiered approach is to assess how accurately computational results compare with experi-
mental data (with quantified uncertainty estimates) at multiple degrees of physics coupling and
geometric complexity. The approach is constructive in that it recognizes a hierarchy of complex-
ity in systems and simulations and that the quantity and accuracy of information obtained from
experiments vary radically over the range of tiers. Furthermore, this approach demonstrates that
validation experiments can be conducted at many different levels of physics and system com-
plexity. Each comparison of computational results with experimental data allows an inference
of validation concerning tiers both above and below the tier where the comparison is made (5).
In bridge engineering practice, field experiments are occasionally conducted on existing
bridges to obtain test data for the component-level validation of finite element models. Exam-
ples include laser-based remote sensing on a skewed two-span bridge (36), strain measure-
ments on the cross-frame members of straight and skewed bridges (37), strain measurements
on skewed deck girder bridges (38), dynamic deflection monitoring of a light-rail bridge (39),
strong ground motion measurements to validate the modeling approaches of ordinary bridges
recommended by Caltrans (40), pressure and displacement measurements on a precast-concrete
buried arch bridge (41), and static and dynamic load testing to validate a fiber-reinforced-polymer
deck bridge model (42).
Caution is advised when using statements such as, “This model has been validated” or “This is
a validated model.” These statements raise questions: To what experimental measurements was
the model compared? Over what set of conditions? With what model and data uncertainties?

To what level of accuracy? In fact, there is much more value in that set of questions than in the
original statements (1).
Calibration
One simple definition of “calibration” is the employment of explicit tuning or updating of model
boundaries, limits, or guidelines associated with an engineering code to achieve improved agree-
ment with existing validation experiments (2,16). In another definition, calibration is a procedure
in which, through repeated calculations with modified input parameters, the engineer tries to find
an “optimal” set of input data that can provide the model’s response closest to the actual experimental
data (32). The process allows the most common sources of modeling (and experimental) difficul-
ties to be represented as simple mechanical models and calibrated so that the global response of
the computational model agrees with the experimental results (1). Calibration of the model is
conducted only after both code verification and calculation verification have been conducted (1).
Parametric model calibration determines only the model’s fitting ability, not its predictive
capability. A model calibrated to experimental results may not yield accurate predictions over the
range of its intended use. It is possible that, due to superimposition of errors, the engineer may
find a strong correlation between the experimental and numerical results for a wrong model,
defined by incorrect input parameters. Such a situation is often detected when the model is used
for a different case with changed input conditions. Furthermore, a complex model with only
some of the input parameters “correctly” calibrated should give a response different from the
experimental data due to the indeterminacy of other parameters (16).
Given cost and schedule constraints, model calibration is often conducted after an initial vali-
dation assessment has been made and requirements have not been satisfied. That is, the modeler
finds a set of parameter values that provides acceptable agreement with the validation test data,
but only after failing to achieve that agreement with a prediction. Unfortunately, to assess pre-
dictive capability, subsequent validation against other independent experiments may still be
necessary. Any revisions to the parameter values after V&V are applied signifies new model-
development activity, thereby triggering a repetition of some model V&V (1).
Benchmark
A benchmark is a choice of information that is believed to be accurate or true for use in V&V
or calibration. The fundamental purpose of benchmarks is to draw specific conclusions from
their comparison with calculations. In the case of verification, the purpose is to assess the math-
ematical accuracy of the numerical solutions. For validation, the purpose is to assess the physical
fidelity for a stated application of the mathematical equations solved in the code. For calibration,
the purpose is to choose parameter values that improve the agreement of the code calculations
with the chosen benchmarks, in the belief that such tuned accuracy improvement will increase
the credibility of the code—a goal commonly considered to be incorrect. The choice of bench-
marks must vary depending on the purpose of the comparisons (2).
Applications in Bridge Engineering Practice

NCHRP Process 12-50 is a bridge analysis and design software verification process (43, 44).
It involves the automated generation of a series of test suites, each of which contains input files
for several software packages (i.e., codes) and the results of the analyses and designs executed by
these software packages. The automatic generation of input files for a particular software package
enables thousands of different cases to be created in a matter of minutes. Similarly, the output from
the software can be compared automatically using database or spreadsheet software. Using Process

12-50, two or more software analysis packages or hand calculations with the same data set may be
compared in tabular or graphical format (a verification activity). The results from the processes can
be imported into a common viewer for comparison so that the differences will be apparent.
Choe et al. (45) used NCHRP Process 12-50 to evaluate and verify prestressed concrete bridge
design software commonly used in Indiana. A test bed of 40 bridge structures was developed with
input from practicing engineers and Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) specialists. The
test bed included 20 simple-span and 20 multi-span bridges. The primary parameters were bridge
span, girder spacing, section type, strand pattern (straight or draped), and concrete strength. An
indigenous computer program was developed to verify the results generated by their in-house soft-
ware package. The output from both computer programs was compared to identify assumptions and
discrepancies between their in-house software and the AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD) specifications (46). These comparisons verified INDOT’s in-house software for (1) con-
crete stresses and deflections at service-level loads, (2) nominal flexural strength, (3) nominal shear
strength, and (4) initial camber and deflections. No validation process was presented in this study.
Varma and Seo (47) used NCHRP Process 12-50 to evaluate and verify composite steel I-girder
design software commonly used in Indiana. They used a test bed of 21 bridges, including five simple-
span and 16 multi-span bridge superstructures. More than 80 parameters were used to define a
bridge. An indigenous computer program was developed to verify the results generated by their
in-house software package. The output from both computer programs was compared to identify
assumptions and discrepancies between their in-house software and the AASHTO LRFD specifi-
cations (46). These comparisons verified INDOT’s in-house software for (1) moments, (2) shears,
(3) stresses, (4) deflections, (5) flexural strength and all relevant parameters, (6) shear strength and
all relevant parameters, and (7) parameters related to shear connectors. No validation process was
presented in this study.
Gergely et al. (48) evaluated the bridge analysis and rating procedures of North Carolina DOT
(NCDOT). They first verified NCDOT’s simple and continuous span bridge analysis software
packages with several examples using different methods, including the governing AASHTO
bridge rating procedures, AASHTOWare bridge rating software (49), and a spreadsheet pro-
gram developed by the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Additionally, four bridges were
experimentally tested during the first phase of the project to validate analytical predictions. The
variables used in bridge rating procedures include, among other factors, girder end conditions,
impact and distribution factors, and deck-to-girder composite action. As a result of the valida-
tion process, they concluded that “it is unrealistic to expect that analytical procedures alone
(including detailed finite element methods) will capture the true performance of individual
bridges” (48). Therefore, the second phase of this work focused on a broader approach, which
included the development of a simple spreadsheet program to provide a lower and upper bound
solution (an uncertainty quantification activity), the use of non-destructive tests for materials
and construction details (an uncertainty reduction activity), and the development of a simplified
bridge test protocol to evaluate the true response of individual bridges (a validation activity).
Bridge Analysis Methods

It is worthwhile to review the commonly used analysis and modeling methods in bridge engineer-
ing practice. The methods are the objects of the quality processes described previously.
One-Dimensional (1D) Analysis Methods

1D analysis methods model structures with a single series of line elements and assume linear-
elastic material behavior and small displacements. For example, line girder analysis using

approximate distribution factors according to the AASHTO LRFD specifications (50) employs
1D analysis. One-dimensional analyses can be an efficient choice when designing essentially
straight, right, regular multi-girder bridges, or torsionally stiff box girder spine beam bridges,
for which lateral and torsional responses are not critical (51).
The standard method of analysis for typical multi-girder bridges in the United States has
for years been a line girder analysis with the use of distribution factors (51). In this type of
approximate analysis, each girder is analyzed as a stand-alone component. Assumptions are
made regarding the distribution of dead loads among the girders, while distribution factors
account for the transverse distribution of live loads. If the bridge is continuous or otherwise
indeterminate, an analysis program is usually used to determine the shears and moments in the
girders based on the distributed loads applied.
Two-Dimensional (2D) Analysis Methods

2D analysis methods, often referred to as “grid methods,” consist of an interconnected series of
beam elements that represent the major flexural members of a bridge superstructure and some-
times include the substructure. The deck slab can be either distributed and included with beam
properties or explicitly modeled with shell elements (see Figure 8) (51). Two-dimensional analyses
can be used simply to determine the girder distribution factors—with 1D methods used to com-
plete the design—or used to determine both dead-load and live-load envelopes for subsequent
factoring and limit states checks. Because 2D models explicitly account for live-load distribu-
tion based on geometry and element stiffnesses, loads are more accurately distributed, and result-
ing designs are potentially less conservative than those based on the approximate distribution
factors in a 1D design. Skew factors also do not need to be applied, as skew effects are explicitly
modeled (51).
Three-Dimensional (3D) Analysis Methods

3D analysis methods permit more explicit modeling of the members of multi-girder bridge
structures, including concrete deck, web and flanges of a girder, cross frames, thin-walled open
(a) Deck included with line element properties (b) Deck modelled with shell element deck
Source: A. Adams, et al. Report FHWA-HIF-18-046 (51).
Figure 8. 2D grid models of a three-span continuous steel girder bridge.

sections, and so on. While linear-elastic material behavior and small displacements are enforced,
geometrical nonlinearities and second-order effects may be accounted for by the software through
iterative calculations. While 3D analysis can provide a more accurate solution for a larger variety
and complexity of systems, proper V&V efforts are best undertaken to ensure the validity and
accuracy of the results (51).
Finite Element Method

The finite element method (FEM) discretizes a continuum of bridge elements into simple
geometric shapes referred to as “finite elements.” Mathematical properties and governing rela-
tionships are considered among these elements and expressed in terms of unknown values at
element corners. An assembly process, duly considering the loading and constraints, results in
a set of equations. Solution of these equations gives the approximate behavior of the continuum
(52). Finite element analysis (FEA) software ranges from simple programs that can model the
linear-elastic behavior of frame structures composed of beam and columns to more sophisticated
programs that can model the nonlinear behavior of complex systems. A distinction can be made
between FEMs and direct stiffness methods (DSMs). FEM requires discretization of elements
(i.e., meshing) and provides approximate and mesh-dependent solutions. Examples of FEM
include bridge models with 2D or 3D continuum elements. DSM does not require discretization
of elements (e.g., one element per beam or column) and provides exact theoretical solutions (53).
Examples of DSM include bridge models consisting of 1D beam and column elements.
The bridge design industry in the United States generally uses midlevel FEA software for typi-
cal bridge design tasks. These programs have point, line, surface, and volume elements. Although
primarily used for linear elastic analyses, the programs usually have some material and geomet-
ric nonlinear capabilities (51).
Finite element modeling is partly an art guided by visualizing physical interactions taking
place within the body. Good modeling techniques are acquired through experience and by work-
ing with experienced people. In modeling, the user is first confronted with the challenging task
of understanding the physical behavior of the actual structure and various finite elements avail-
able for use. Choosing a proper type of element or elements to match as closely as possible the
physical behavior of the actual structure is one of the numerous decisions the user must make.
Understanding the boundary conditions and determining the types, magnitudes, and locations
of the loads present additional challenges. Working with more experienced users and searching
the literature can help overcome these difficulties (53).
The discretized finite element model is checked carefully before results are computed. Ideally,
a model is checked by an analyst not involved in the preparation of the model and is therefore
more likely to be objective (53).
An approximate solution for a stress analysis problem using the finite element method based
on assumed displacement fields does not generally satisfy all the requirements for equilibrium
and compatibility that an exact theory-of-elasticity solution satisfies. However, few exact solu-
tions exist. Hence, the finite element method is a practical one for obtaining reasonable but
approximate numerical solutions (53). More details on types and applications of finite elements
are provided in Manual for Refined Analysis in Bridge Design and Evaluation (51).
Strut-and-Tie Method
The strut-and-tie (STM) method is a rational hand-calculation method that idealizes a rein-
forced concrete bridge member by a truss mechanism (54–56) composed of struts, ties, and
nodal zones (see Figure 9). STM is commonly used for analysis of deep members and disturbed
regions where the plane-sections-remain-plane hypothesis (57–59) is not valid.

Pier Cap Top Node Node

nodes Face 1 Face 2
Bottom nodes Tie
Node Node
Face 3 Face 4
Pier 1 Pier 2
R1 R2 R3
w1 w2 w3
(a) Idealized flow of stresses (b) Components of a strut-and-tie model
Source: Baniya and Guner (63), used with permission.
Figure 9. Conceptualization of a strut-and-tie model.
STM uses a plasticity-based lower-bound theorem and thus calculates a safe, low-bound load
capacity for the concrete member provided that the member is sufficiently ductile (60–62). The
ductility is typically provided by sufficient amounts of grid reinforcement referred to as “crack
control reinforcement.”
While STM is a conceptually simple method, its application in the bridge industry presents
several challenges, such as developing a valid truss model (several models could be developed for
a given problem), performing an iterative model improvement process, and checking stress limits
in nodal regions. STM requires fundamental understanding, experience, and a labor-intensive
geometric solution process. The number of computer programs available for this method is also
limited. As an example, the program STM-CAP (63, 64) is recommended in Ohio DOT’s Bridge
Design Manual (65) for STM analysis of multi-column reinforced concrete pier caps.

CHAPTER 3
State of the Practice
This chapter presents the current state of the DOT practices related to the quality processes for
bridge structural analysis models. To collect the most current information, an online survey was
created in Qualtrics (66) and distributed by email to each DOT’s voting member in the AASHTO
Committee on Bridges and Structures. Several follow-up emails were sent, and phone calls were
made to encourage participation.
The survey included 25 questions grouped in three sections: (1) quantities of bridge design
and evaluation projects undertaken, (2) bridge designs completed by consultants, and (3) bridge
designs completed in house by agencies. Eighteen (18) questions were directed to all partici-
pants, while seven additional follow-up questions were directed to participants who selected cer-
tain options in their responses. All questions were multiple choice. Five questions used a matrix
table that listed several line items (e.g., methods, processes) and asked respondents to quantify
how frequently each line item is used. The frequency scale included four options: “often,” “some-
times,” “rarely,” and “never.” Five questions provided the respondents with the option of upload-
ing or sharing a web link for the related documents of their agencies. These documents were used
to review the current written processes and identify suitable DOT agencies for case examples
presented in Chapter 4. The complete survey questionnaire is provided in Appendix A.
The survey was completed by 51 DOTs, including 50 states and the District of Columbia, yielding
an overall response rate of 100%. The participants responded to all questions, yielding a response
rate of 100%. The population size was 51, which is represented in figures as N = 51.The seven follow-
up questions were also answered by all participants who qualified for those questions based on their
answers. For these questions, the sample size is represented as N in the charts. The complete agency
responses to the survey questions are provided in Appendix B.
The following section presents the collected responses in three categories: (1) quantity of
bridge design and evaluation projects undertaken, (2) quality processes for bridge design projects
undertaken by consultants (managed by DOTs), and (3) quality processes for bridge design
projects implemented in house by agencies. In addition, the survey responses to a few selected
questions are presented for high-seismicity state DOTs in comparison to the remaining DOTs.
Quantity of Bridge Design and Evaluation

Projects Undertaken
This section examines the quantities of bridge projects and engineers associated with each
agency. Five questions were asked. The responses obtained are presented as follows.
The survey asked respondents for the number of bridge engineers employed by their agencies.
As shown in Figure 10, there is a large variation across the nation. The most represented range is
21

80+
60-80
Total number of in-
40-60
house bridge
engineers in each 20-40
DOT 10-20
<10
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Percentage of DOTs (N=51)
Figure 10. Bridge engineers currently working in each DOT (direct employees
only, not including consultants).
20–40 engineers, selected by 17 DOTs (33%), while the least represented range is less than 10 engi-
neers, selected by five DOTs (10%).
The survey asked respondents for the number of new bridges and bridge replacement designs
completed by their agencies and their consultants. As shown in Figure 11, the most represented
range is 20–40 designs per year, selected by 16 DOTs (31%), while the least represented range is
60–80 designs, selected by 3 DOTs (6%).
The survey asked for the percentage of new bridge and bridge replacement designs completed
by external consultants. As shown in Figure 12, the majority of agencies, 40 DOTs (78%), use con-
sultants for half (40%–60%) or more than half (60%–80% and 80%–100%) of their new designs. In
the less represented ranges, five DOTs use consultants for 20% to 40% of their new designs, four
DOTs use consultants for 10% to 20% of their new designs, and two DOTs use consultants for
less than 10% of their new designs.
The survey asked respondents for the total number of existing bridge analyses, including load
ratings rehabilitation, retrofit, and any analysis conducted on an existing bridge completed by
their agencies and their consultants. As shown in Figure 13, most agencies, 30 DOTs (58%), and
their consultants complete more than 125 analyses per year. The actual number could be much
higher than 125. Three DOTs complete 100–125 analyses, five DOTs complete 75–100 analyses,
six DOTs complete 50–75 analyses, three DOTs complete 25–50 analyses, and four DOTs com-
plete less than 25 analyses.
The survey asked for the percentage of existing bridge analyses completed by external consul-
tants. As shown in Figure 14, each range is well represented except the 10% to 20% range. The
most represented range is 60% to 80%, selected by 13 DOTs (25%), while the least represented
range is 10% to 20%, selected by one agency.
80+
Total number of 60-80
new bridge
designs 40-60
completed by 20-40
DOTs and their
consultants 10-20
<10
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Figure 11. Total approximate number of new bridge and bridge

replacement designs completed in a typical year by DOTs (in house) and
external consultants.

State of the Practice 23
80-100%
60-80%
Percentage of
new bridge designs 40-60%
completed by 20-40%
consultants
10-20%
<10%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Figure 12. Percentage of new bridge and bridge replacement designs

completed in a typical year by external consultants only.
125+
Total number of 100-125

existing bridge 75-100
analyses
completed by DOT
50-75
and its consultants 25-50
<25
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Figure 13. Total approximate number of existing bridge analyses completed

in a typical year by DOTs (in house) and external consultants. NOTE: Existing
bridge projects include load ratings, rehabilitation, retrofit, and any analysis
conducted on an existing bridge.
80-100%
Percentage of 60-80%
existing bridge 40-60%
analyses
completed by 20-40%
consultants 10-20%
<10%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Figure 14. Percentage of existing bridge analyses completed in a typical

year by external consultants only. NOTE: Existing bridge projects include
load ratings, rehabilitation, retrofit, and any analysis conducted on an
existing bridge.

New bridge and bridge replacement designs

Existing bridge analyses
30%
25%
20%
Percentage of
DOTs (N=51) 15%
10%
5%
0%
<10% 10-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100%
Percentage of analysis/design work assigned to consultants
Figure 15. Comparative DOT responses for new bridge design

and existing bridge analysis work assigned to consultants.
Figure 15 compares the responses from two questions related to the percentage of new bridge
design and existing bridge analysis work assigned to consultants (as presented in Figure 12 and
Figure 14). The analysis of responses indicates that the average percentage of new bridge and
bridge replacement designs assigned to consultants is 59%, while the existing bridge analyses,
including load ratings, assigned to consultants is 47%.
Quality Processes for Bridge Design Projects

Undertaken by Consultants
This section examines the quality processes for the bridge design projects undertaken by con-
sultants managed by the DOTs. Six questions were asked to all respondents, while four follow-up
questions were asked to the respondents who selected certain response options.
Presence of Processes for Consultant-Related

Bridge Design Activities
Three questions asked respondents about processes for certain consultant-related bridge
design activities. Three response options were “written,” “informal,” and “no process.” An addi-
tional option, “as defined in the proposal of the consultant,” was included in one of the questions.
As shown in Figure 16, the most common written process, selected by 31 DOTs (61%), was “iden-
tifying appropriately qualified consultants.” This process also had the least amount of “no process”
responses, selected by only four DOTs (8%). The least common written process, selected by only
eight DOTs (16%), was for “verifying the analysis results obtained from consultants.” Six DOTs
(12%) indicated that this process may be undertaken as defined in the proposal of the consultant.
Written Informal No As defined in the proposal of the consultant
Processes for identifying appropriately qualified

consultants for the structural design of bridges (Q6)
Processes for bridge analysis models developed by
consultants (Q9)
Processes for verifying the analysis results obtained from
consultants (Q13)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Figure 16. Comparative DOT responses to three questions on consultant processes.

Total 3
number of
consultant
2
process 1
questions
responded 0
'written'
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Figure 17. Prevalence of written consultant processes when all

three process questions are considered.
Even if all proposals are assumed to include written processes for analysis result verification, this
process would still be the least common written process. The most common no process response,
selected by 19 DOTs (37%), was “bridge analysis models developed by consultants.”
To examine the prevalence of written processes for the same three questions, individual DOT
responses were analyzed based on how many consultant process questions were answered as written.
As shown in Figure 17, 17 DOTs (33%) have no written process for any of these three activities, while
only eight DOTs (16%) have written processes for all three consultant-related bridge design activities.
Processes for Selecting Appropriately Qualified Consultants

The respondents were asked how they select appropriately qualified consultants for bridge
design projects. Three response options were given, as shown in Figure 18. The most common
process, selected by 46 DOTs (90%), was “proposal evaluation,” while the least common process
was “interview,” selected by 18 DOTs (35%).
Figure 19–21 show the geographical distribution of the processes for selecting appropriately
qualified consultants for bridge design projects.
The survey asked a follow-up question to 36 respondents whose agencies have pre-qualification
requirements. Four response options were given, as shown in Figure 22. The most common
requirement, selected by 30 DOTs (83%), was “minimum number of similar project experience,”
while the least common requirement, selected by only five DOTs (14%), was “structural engineer
credentials.” All states and the District of Columbia require professional engineer (P.E.) creden-
tials for any bridge design work; therefore, this option is not included in the survey.
Approved Software List

When asked whether their agency has an approved software list for bridge modeling and
analysis, the majority of respondents, 31 DOTs (61%), responded “no” (see Figure 23).
Pre-qualification
requirements
Proposal evaluation
Interview
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Figure 18. DOT processes for selecting appropriately qualified

consultants for bridge design projects. NOTE: Check-all-that-
apply type of question.

Figure 19. DOTs with pre-qualification requirements for selecting appropriately

qualified consultants.
Figure 20. DOTs with a proposal evaluation process for selecting appropriately
qualified consultants.

Interview (35%)
Figure 21. DOTs with an interview process for selecting appropriately qualified
consultants.
Minimum years of design experience
Minimum number of similar project experience
Minimum number of design engineers for the project

Structural Engineer (S.E.) credentials based on project
complexity
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Percentage of Responses from DOTs with Pre-qualification Requirements (N=36)
Figure 22. DOT requirements for the pre-qualification process. NOTE: Check-all-that-
apply type of question.
Approved Yes
software list for
bridge modeling No
and analysis
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Figure 23. DOTs with an approved software list for bridge

modeling and analysis (bar chart).

Figure 24. DOTs with approved software list for bridge modeling and
analysis.
Figure 24 shows a map of the 20 DOTs with an approved software list for bridge modeling
and analysis.
Methods of Analysis Used for Bridges Analyzed by DOT Consultants

When asked whether their agency tracks the methods of analysis used for bridges analyzed
by their consultants, the majority of respondents, 36 DOTs (71%), responded “no,” as shown in
Figure 25.
The 15 DOTs (29%) that track the methods of analysis used by their consultants were asked
what methods of analysis are used for bridges analyzed by their consultants. They were given six
response options, including a write-in textbox, and four frequencies to choose from. As shown
in Figure 26, the most frequently used analysis method is “one-dimensional line girder analysis,”
while the least frequently used method is “nonlinear finite element method.”
Processes for Verifying Analysis Results Obtained from Consultants

The respondents were asked whether their agency has any written or informal process for
verifying analysis results obtained from their consultants. Four response options were “written,”
“informal,” “as defined in the proposal of the consultant,” and “no process.”
Tracking what Yes

methods of
analysis are
used for bridges No
analyzed by the
consultants
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Figure 25. DOTs that track methods of analysis used by

consultants.

One-dimensional line girder analysis using distribution

factors Often
Two-dimensional analysis using line elements with or Sometimes
without plate/shell elements
Rarely
Linear-elastic finite element analysis Never
Strut-and-tie analysis (STM)
Nonlinear finite element analysis
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Percentage of Responses from DOTs which track what methods of analysis are used for
bridges analyzed by consultants (N=15)
Figure 26. Methods of analysis used for bridges analyzed by consultants.
The responses, shown in Figure 27, indicate that only eight DOTs (16%) have written pro-
cesses, while 14 DOTs (27%) do not have any process for verifying the analysis results obtained
from their consultants. The most common response was “informal,” selected by 23 DOTs (45%).
As a follow-up question, the 31 DOTs (61%) that have written or informal processes for verify-
ing analysis results obtained from consultants were asked whether they require an independent
consultant as a “checker” to verify the accuracy of calculations conducted by the project consul-
tant. They were given six response options, as shown in Figure 28. The most common response
for agencies with written processes was, “yes, only for complex bridges,” while the most common
answer for agencies with informal processes was “not required.”
Another follow-up question asked the same 31 DOTs whether they conduct an in-house
check of analysis results obtained from consultants to verify accuracy. They were given five
Written
Processes for
verifying the Informal
analysis results
obtained from As per proposal
consultants No
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Figure 27. DOT processes for verifying analysis results obtained

from consultants.
Yes, for every bridge Written

Informal
Yes, for most bridges
Yes, only for complex bridges
Yes, based on a case-by-case decision
Only if specified in the selected proposal
Not required
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Percentage of Responses from DOTs with written or informal processes for
verifying the analysis results obtained from consultants (N=31)
Figure 28. Requirements for independent consultant (as “checker”)

to verify accuracy of calculations conducted by project consultant.

Yes, for every bridge Written

Informal
Not required
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Percentage of Responses from DOTs with written or informal processes
for verifying the analysis results obtained from consultants (N=31)
Figure 29. Requirements for conducting in-house check of analysis

results obtained from consultants to verify accuracy.
response options, as shown in Figure 29. The two common responses for the agencies with a
written process were “yes, for every bridge” and “yes, based on a case-by-case decision.” The
most common response for the agencies with informal processes was “yes, based on a case-
by-case decision.”

Performed In House by Agencies
This section examines the quality processes for bridge design projects undertaken in house
by state DOT agencies. Seven questions were asked to all respondents, while three follow-up
questions were asked to respondents who selected “written” or “informal” process options in
certain questions.
Presence of Processes for In-House Bridge Design Activities

The respondents were asked six questions about the presence of processes for certain in-house
bridge design activities. Three response options were “written,” “informal,” and “no process.” The
responses, shown in Figure 30, indicate that the number of DOTs with written in-house pro-
cesses are significantly lower than those with written consultant processes—compare Figure 30
with Figure 16. The largest number of DOTs with a written in-house process (for modeling a
bridge) is 16 (31%), while the largest number of DOTs with a written consultant process (for
identifying appropriately qualified consultants) is 31 (61%).
Processes for identifying appropriately qualified in-house

engineers for bridge analyses (Q16)
Processes for choosing a suitable analysis method and/or Written
software (Q17) Informal
No process
Processes for modeling a bridge (Q19)
Processes for validating the analysis software (Q20)
Processes for verifying in-house analysis results (Q22)

Processes for reconciling discrepancies between
independent models (Q24)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Figure 30. Comparative DOT responses to six questions regarding in-house processes.

Written Written
Informal Informal
No No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percentage of DOTs (N=51) Percentage of DOTs (N=51)
(a) Consultants (b) In-house engineers
Figure 31. Comparative DOT responses for identifying appropriately qualified

consultants and in-house engineers.
The two frequently selected informal processes were “identifying appropriately qualified
in-house engineers,” selected by 31 DOTs (61%), and “verifying in-house analysis results,”
selected by 30 DOTs (59%). The two frequently selected no-process responses were “validating
the analysis software,” selected by 21 DOTs (41%), and “reconciling discrepancies between inde-
pendent models,” selected by 18 DOTs (35%).
The most common written in-house process, selected by 16 DOTs (31%), was “modeling a
bridge”; this process, however, also had a significant amount of “informal” (37%) and “no pro-
cess” (31%) responses. The least common written process, selected by only six DOTs (12%), was
“identifying appropriately qualified in-house engineers.” This activity had the largest percentage
of informal process responses, selected by 31 DOTs (61%). This result contrasts with the pro-
cesses for identifying appropriately qualified consultants, as shown in Figure 31.
To examine the prevalence of written processes for the same six questions, individual DOT
responses were analyzed based on how many in-house process questions were answered as
“written.” As shown in Figure 32, 23 DOTs (45%) have “no written process” for any of these
six activities, while no DOT has written processes for all six activities surveyed.
Methods of In-House Analysis for Bridges

The respondents were asked about the methods of analysis used for bridges analyzed in house
by their agencies. They were given six response options, including a write-in textbox, and four
frequencies to choose from. As shown in Figure 33, the most frequently used in-house analysis
method is “one-dimensional line girder analysis,” while the least frequently used method is “non-
linear finite element method.” These two methods are also the most and least commonly used
methods for consultant-conducted analyses (see Figure 26).
6
5
Total
number of 4
in-house 3
process 2
questions
responded 1
'written' 0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Figure 32. Prevalence of written in-house processes when all six

process questions are considered.


factors Often
Sometimes
Two-dimensional analysis using line elements with or Rarely
without plate/shell elements Never
Linear-elastic finite element analysis
Strut-and-tie Analysis (STM)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Percentage of Responses from DOTs (N=51)
Figure 33. Methods of analysis used for bridges analyzed in house by DOTs.
Figure 34 compares the percentage of responses from DOTs for the analysis methods used by
consultants and DOTs for the “often” frequency. This comparison indicates that consultants use
more refined analysis methods than DOTs. It is important to note that the frequencies of analysis
methods used by consultants were reported by 15 DOTs that track the methods used by their
consultants, while the frequencies of methods used in house were reported by 51 DOTs.
Processes for Validating the Analysis Software

The respondents were asked whether their agencies have any written or informal processes for
validating analysis software. Three response options were “written,” “informal,” and “no process.”
The question defined “validation” as “the process of confirming that structural analysis software
provides results that adequately represent the real physical behavior of the structure being modeled.
Methods for validating structural analysis software include comparing predictions of the software
to experimental results or benchmarks available in the literature.”
The responses, shown in Figure 35, indicate that seven DOTs (14%) have written processes,
while 21 DOTs (41%) have no processes for validating the analysis software.
As a follow-up question, 30 DOTs (59%) that have either written or informal processes were asked
how their agencies validate the analysis software for medium- to high-complexity bridges. They
were given six response options, including a write-in textbox, and four frequencies to choose from.
Figure 36 shows the responses obtained from seven DOTs that have written processes for vali-
dating the analysis software. The most common response for the “often” frequency, selected by five
DOTs (71%), was “analysis engineer decides how to validate.” The most common response option

factors
Two-dimensional analysis using line elements with or
Strut-and-tie analysis (STM)

Consultants (N=15)
In-house by DOTs (N=51)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Percentage of Responses from DOTs for the use of bridge analysis methods
(often frequency)
Figure 34. Comparative DOT responses for methods of analysis used by consultants
and DOTs (“often” frequency).

Processes for Written

validating Informal
analysis No
software
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Figure 35. DOT processes for validating analysis software.
Analysis engineers decide how to validate

Often
Sometimes
Hiring of external consultants for software validation Rarely
Never
Use of data from field tests and sensor deployment
Use of data from bridge inspection records for existing
bridges
Modeling of benchmark structures/specimens (tested
experimentally) and compare our results
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Percentage of Responses from DOTs with written processes for validating the analysis
software (N=7)
Figure 36. Methods of validation of analysis software for medium- to high-complexity

bridges and substructures that require 2D or 3D analysis models (DOTs with written
processes).
for the “sometimes” frequency, selected by four DOTs (57%), was “hiring external consultants.” The
least commonly used validation method was “use of data from field tests and sensor deployment.”
Figure 37 shows the responses obtained from 23 DOTs that have informal processes for vali-
dating analysis software. Two respondents wrote in their own validation methods in the textbox
provided without selecting any of the pre-set response options, which is considered “not appli-
cable” or “n/a” for the pre-set response options.
Processes for Verifying In-House Analysis Results

The respondents were asked whether their agencies have any written or informal processes for
verifying in-house analysis results. The question defined “verification” as “the process of confirm-
ing that the analysis is conducted correctly and with the correct input. Methods for validating
Often
Analysis engineers decide how to validate
Sometimes
Rarely
Hiring of external consultants for software validation Never
n/a
Use of data from field tests and sensor deployment
Use of data from bridge inspection records for existing
bridges
Modeling of benchmark structures/specimens (tested
experimentally) and compare our results
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Percentage of Responses from DOTs with informal processes for validating the analysis
software (N=23)
Figure 37. Methods of validation of analysis software for medium- to high-complexity

bridges and substructures that require 2D or 3D analysis models (DOTs with informal
processes).

Written
Processes for
verifying in- Informal
house analysis No
results
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Figure 38. DOT processes for verifying in-house analysis results.
structural analysis results might include comparing the results with the results obtained from
another software, tool, spreadsheet, or hand calculations.”
The responses, shown in Figure 38, indicate that 13 DOTs (25%) have written processes, while
eight DOTs (16%) have no processes for verifying in-house analysis results. These results dem-
onstrate that analysis result verification processes are more prevalent than software validation
processes, for which 21 DOTs (41%) have no processes.
The 43 DOTs (84%) that have either written or informal processes were asked how their agen-
cies verify in-house analysis results for medium- to high-complexity bridges. They were given
seven response options, including a write-in textbox, and four frequencies to choose from.
Figure 39 shows the responses obtained from 13 DOTs that have written processes for verify-
ing in-house analysis results. If an option was not selected by a respondent, it was considered “not
applicable” (n/a). The most common response for the “often” frequency, selected by eight DOTs
(62%), was “checking of input variables.” “Another team of engineers uses a different method or
software” and “analysis engineer decides how to verify” were the other common responses for
the “often” frequency. In contrast, the use of NCHRP Process 12-50 is by far the least employed
method, with eight DOTs (62%) indicating they have never used it.
Figure 40 shows the responses obtained from 30 DOTs that have informal processes for verify-
ing in house the analysis results. If an option was not selected by a respondent, it was considered
“not applicable” (n/a). As compared to the DOTs with written processes, DOTs with informal
processes more frequently selected the option, “checking of input boundaries/limits/guidelines,”
and much less frequently selected the option, “another team of engineers uses a different method
or software.” Similar to the DOTs with written processes, the use of NCHRP Process 12-50 is the
least employed method, with 16 DOTs (53%) indicating they have never used it.
Checking of input parameters

Often
Analysis engineers decide how to verify Sometimes
Rarely
Another team of engineers uses a different method or Never
software to analyze the same bridge n/a
Same team of engineers uses a different method or
software to analyze the same bridge
Comparison of the results with similar bridges analyzed
previously
Use of NCHRP Process 12-50
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Percentage of Responses from DOTs with written processes for verifying the in-house
analysis results (N=13)
Figure 39. Methods of verification of in-house analysis results for medium- to high-
complexity bridges and substructures that require 2D or 3D analysis models (DOTs with
written processes).

Checking of input parameters Often

Sometimes
Analysis engineers decide how to verify Rarely
Another team of engineers uses a different method or Never
software to analyze the same bridge n/a
software to analyze the same bridge
Comparison of the results with similar bridges analyzed
previously
Use of NCHRP Process 12-50
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Percentage of Responses from DOTs with informal processes for verifying the in-house
analysis results (N=30)
Figure 40. Methods of verification of in-house analysis results for medium- to high-
complexity bridges and substructures that require 2D or 3D analysis models (DOTs with
informal processes).
Processes for Reconciling the Discrepancies

Between Independent Models
The respondents were asked whether their agencies have any written or informal processes
for reconciling discrepancies between independent models. The responses, shown in Figure 41,
indicate that only eight DOTs (16%) have written processes, while 18 DOTs (35%) have no pro-
cesses for reconciling the discrepancies between independent models.
The 33 DOTs (65%) that have either written or informal processes were asked how their agen-
cies reconcile the discrepancies between independent models. They were given seven response
options, including a write-in textbox, and four frequencies to choose from.
Figure 42 shows the responses obtained from eight DOTs that have written processes. If an
option was not selected by a respondent, it was considered “not applicable” (n/a). The most
common response for the “often” frequency was “the same team of engineers works to resolve
the discrepancies,” selected by five DOTs (63%), followed by “analysis engineers decide how to
reconcile,” selected by four DOTs (50%). The least common response was “data from field tests
and sensor deployment are used,” followed by “an external consultant is involved to perform
independent checks.”
Figure 43 shows the responses obtained from 25 DOTs (49%) that have informal processes. The
results are similar to those obtained from DOTs with written processes. Two minor differences occur
with the options “the more conservative set of results are used,” which was selected 6% more often
by informal-process respondents both in the “often” and “sometimes” frequencies, and “the same
team of engineers works to resolve the discrepancies,” which was selected by 6% and 2%, respectively,
more often by informal-process respondents in the “often” and “sometimes” frequencies.
Processes for Written

reconciling
discrepancies Informal
between No
independent
models 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Figure 41. DOT processes for reconciling discrepancies between

independent models.

The same team of engineers works to resolve the

discrepancies. Often
Analysis engineers decide how to reconcile. Sometimes
Rarely
The more conservative set of results are used. Never
n/a
Another team of in-house engineers performs
independent checks.
An external consultant is involved to perform
independent checks.
Data from field tests and sensor deployment are used.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Percentage of Responses from DOTs with written processes for reconciling discrepancies
between independent models (N=8)
Figure 42. Methods for reconciling discrepancies between independent models (DOTs
with written processes).

discrepancies Often
Sometimes
Analysis engineers decide how to reconcile
Rarely
Never
The more conservative set of results are used
independent checks
independent checks
Data from field tests and sensor deployment are used
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Percentage of Responses from DOTs with informal processes for reconciling discrepancies
(N=25)
Figure 43. Methods for reconciling discrepancies between independent models (DOTs
with informal processes).
Quality Processes for High-Seismicity State DOTs

Bridge analysis and design requirements change significantly depending on the seismicity of
the region. To identify and document the changes that seismicity makes to DOT practices related
to the quality processes for bridge structural analysis models, the survey data were re-analyzed for
two groups of states. The first group includes 19 states that incorporate regions of high seismicity,
while the second group includes the remaining 32 states. The regions that fall into the Seismic
Design Categories of C and D (68) for Site Class E (50) are defined in this synthesis as the regions
of high seismicity, as shown in Figure 44. The following section presents a selection from the survey
responses for the high-seismicity state DOTs in comparison with the remaining DOTs in three
categories.
Quantity of Bridge Design and Evaluation Projects Undertaken

The survey asked respondents two questions about the percentage of bridge projects assigned
to external consultants for (1) new bridge and bridge replacement designs and (2) existing
bridge analyses, including load ratings, rehabilitation, retrofit, and any analysis conducted on
an existing bridge. The responses, shown in Figure 45, indicate that high-seismicity state DOTs
assign a smaller percentage of their new bridge and bridge replacement designs to consultants

WA
MT
OR
ID
WY
NV IL IN
UT
CA KY
MO
TN
SC
AZ AR
MS
17 contiguous states are labelled in the map. In addition, AK and HI fall into this category.
Figure 44. States that include regions of Seismic Design Category C

and D for Site Class E (68).
80-100%
60-80%
Percentage of new
bridge designs 40-60%
assigned to 20-40%
consultants
10-20% High-seismicity state DOTs (N=19)
<10% Other DOTs (N=32)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Percentage of DOTs
(a) New bridge designs
80-100%
60-80%
Percentage of
existing bridge 40-60%
analyses assigned 20-40%
to consultants
10-20%
<10%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Percentage of DOTs
(b) Existing bridge analyses
Figure 45. Comparative DOT responses for assigning work to consultants.

(55% on average) than do the other DOTs (62% on average). For existing bridge analyses, the
average percentages assigned to consultants are similar for the high-seismicity and other DOTs
(47% and 48%, respectively).

Undertaken by Consultants
Three questions asked respondents about the presence of processes for certain consultant-
related bridge design activities. Three response options were “written,” “informal,” and “no pro-
cess.” An additional option, “as defined in the proposal of the consultant,” was included in one of
the questions. As shown in Figure 46, a smaller percentage of high-seismicity DOTs have written
consultant processes than do the other DOTs. The largest discrepancy is for the “processes for
bridge analysis models developed by consultants,” for which 32% of the high-seismicity state
DOTs have written processes as compared to 47% of the other DOTs.
To examine the prevalence of written processes for the same three questions, individual DOT
responses were analyzed based on how many consultant process questions were answered as “written.”
As shown in Figure 47, 37% of the high-seismicity state DOTs have “no written process” for any of
these three activities compared to 31% of the other DOTs, while only 11% have “written processes”
for all three consultant-related bridge design activities compared to 19% of the other DOTs.
When asked whether their agency has an approved software list for bridge modeling and analysis,
26% of high-seismicity state DOTs responded “yes” compared to 47% of the other DOTs, as
shown in Figure 48.
When asked whether their agency tracks the methods of analysis used for bridges analyzed by
their consultants, 21% of high-seismicity state DOTs responded “yes” compared to 34% of the
other DOTs, as shown in Figure 49.

consultants (Q9)
consultants (Q13)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Percentage of high-seismicity state DOTs (N=19)
(a) High-seismicity state DOTs

consultants (Q9)
consultants (Q13)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Percentage of other DOTs (N=32)
(b) Other DOTs
Figure 46. Comparative DOT responses to three questions regarding consultant

processes.

High-seismicity state DOTs (N=19)

Other DOTs (N=32)
3
Total
number of 2
consultant
process 1
questions
responded 0
'written'
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Percentage of DOTs
Figure 47. Prevalence of written consultant processes when all

three process questions are considered.

Other DOTs (N=32)
Approved Yes
software list for
bridge modeling
and analysis No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Percentage of DOTs
Figure 48. DOTs with an approved software list for bridge

modeling and analysis.

Other DOTs (N=32)
Tracking what Yes
methods of
analysis are
used for bridges No
analyzed by the
consultants
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Percentage of DOTs
Figure 49. DOTs that track methods of analysis used by

consultants.
Quality Processes for Bridge Design Projects Executed

In House by Agencies
The respondents were asked six questions about the presence of processes for certain in-house
bridge design activities. Three response options were “written,” “informal,” and “no process.” As
shown in Figure 50, a smaller percentage of high-seismicity state DOTs have written in-house
processes than do the other DOTs for five of the six questions. The only exception was for “pro-
cesses for modeling a bridge,” for which 41% of the high-seismicity state DOTs have written
processes compared to 28% of the other DOTs.
To examine the prevalence of written processes for the same six questions, individual DOT
responses were analyzed based on how many in-house process questions were answered as “written.”
As shown in Figure 51, 53% of high-seismicity state DOTs have “no written process” for any
of these six in-house activities compared to 41% of the other DOTs. The high-seismicity state
DOTs less frequently selected the answer “written” except for the total number of five and three
in-house process questions for which the discrepancy was statically insignificant (5% versus 3%).
No DOTs reported having written processes for all six activities surveyed.


Processes for choosing a suitable analysis method and/or Written
No

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Percentage of high-seismicity state DOTs (N=19)
(a) High-seismicity state DOTs

Written
Processes for choosing a suitable analysis method and/or
No

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Percentage of other DOTs (N=32)
(b) Other DOTs
Figure 50. Comparative DOT responses to six questions regarding in-house processes.
6 High-seismicity state DOTs (N=19)

5 Other DOTs (N=32)
Total
number of 4
in-house
process 3
questions 2
responded
'written' 1
0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%
Percentage of DOTs
Figure 51. Prevalence of written in-house processes when all

six process questions are considered.


factors
Nonlinear finite element analysis High-seismicity state DOTs (N=19)

Other DOTs (N=32)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
(a) Often frequency

factors
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

(b) Never frequency
Figure 52. Methods of analysis used for bridges analyzed in house.
Figure 52 compares the percentage of responses for the analysis methods used in house for
the “often” and “never” frequencies. This comparison indicates that high-seismicity state DOTs use
more refined analysis methods—namely, linear-elastic and nonlinear finite element analysis—
than do the other DOTs. STM analysis is used with similar frequency by the high-seismicity state
and other DOTs.

CHAPTER 4
Case Examples
This chapter presents a review of selected state DOT practices for quality processes for bridge
analysis models. The objective is to expand on their processes related to quality processes for
bridge structural analysis models.
Five state DOTs were selected as case examples based on a set of criteria discussed in the
next section. The respondents, who completed the survey presented in Chapter 3, were con-
tacted by email and invited to web-based online interviews. All five agencies accepted the
interview requests. Case example interviewees were provided the interview questions (see
Appendix C) and encouraged to invite other individuals with relevant experience to these
interviews. Two respondents from each agency typically attended the interviews. The web-
based format allowed for reviewing agency documents during the interviews. In addition, the
agencies provided a few additional documents and written clarifications after the interviews
by email.
The following sections present the selection criteria, agency responses to the interview
questions, and related written process documents as indicated by the agencies during the
interviews.
Selection Criteria for Case Examples

The data from the national survey (Chapter 3) and literature review (Chapter 2) were used to
select state DOTs for case examples. The following selection criteria were used:
• Number of “written process” responses to the survey conducted in Chapter 3
• Documents uploaded for “written processes” while completing the survey in Chapter 3
• Geographical location meeting the objective of selecting one DOT from each region
• Willingness to participate in a follow-up interview (asked as the last question of the survey
conducted in Chapter 3)
As a result, five state DOTs were selected as follows: California and Colorado from the West
(Pacific and Mountain regions), Louisiana from the South, Iowa from the Midwest, and New York
from the Northeast. The geographic distribution of these agencies is shown in Figure 53.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

Caltrans employs 80–90 bridge engineers, completes approximately 50 new bridge and bridge
replacement projects in a typical year (half of which are designed by external consultants), and
completes approximately 1,500 existing bridge analyses in a typical year (15% of which are conducted
by external consultants).
42

Case Examples 43
Figure 53. Geographic distribution of agencies reviewed as case examples.

Caltrans uses a qualification-based state-wide on-call contracting process. For this process,
a request for qualifications (RFQ) is advertised. The RFQ requests a statement of qualifications
(SOQ), which may involve previous project highlights, company background and history, and key
personnel’s qualifications and availability. A four- or five-person panel reviews the SOQs, docu-
ments strengths and weaknesses, and renders a score for each SOQ. Based on the SOQ scores,
three or four firms are short-listed and allowed to advance to the interview process. The panel
asks technical questions during the interview. For on-call bridge design contracts, interviews are
general in nature and not project-specific. Interview questions may involve a hypothetical bridge
site that crosses, for example, a highway or river. Consultants may be asked to identify an appro-
priate bridge type, design criteria, and any requirements specific to California, including policies
on complex bridges. They may be asked to indicate specific requirements from the bridge design
specifications and standards and describe a specific analysis method suitable for that bridge. The
contract durations are generally three to five years, after which the contract procurement process
is repeated and new contracts are issued. As projects emerge, Caltrans managers write task orders,
which are specific projects or responsibilities for qualified consultants under contract. These task
orders may range from a complete bridge design to a check for a bridge component. For complex
bridge design projects, Caltrans’ in-house units are more involved, at least when verifying the
design. In recent years, Caltrans contracts have shifted toward widening, repair, retrofit, and reha-
bilitation of existing bridges, which require more complex analysis and design work.

Caltrans’ Project Development Procedures Manual (69) requires consultants to have a QC plan,
which also defines the consultant’s processes for verifying analysis results. Accordingly, the
consultant’s QC plan must establish a process whereby the following criteria are met:
• All deliverables are reviewed for accuracy, completeness, and readability before submittal to
Caltrans.
• Calculations and plans are independently checked, corrected, and re-checked.

• All job-related correspondence and memoranda are routed and received by affected persons
and then filed in the appropriate Task Order file.
• Field activities are routinely verified for accuracy and completeness, such that any discovered
deficiencies do not become systemic or affect the result of a deliverable Task Order.
For complex bridges, Caltrans’ Structure Technical Policy (STP) 1.3 (70) requires that project-
specific design criteria, a peer review panel, and an independent check free of conflict of interest
be established to ensure an enhanced QC for the accuracy of analysis results. The independent
check must be conducted by another company not associated with the group who has completed
the original analysis. The use of different software is required. The differences in analysis results
are resolved through the negotiated tolerance specified in the project-specific design criteria.
Depending on the project-specific task order, if a consultant is assigned the complete design and
check, Caltrans conducts the QA on the presence of a structural analysis model and an independent
analysis model created by another company not associated with the consultant who has completed
the original analysis. For some complex projects, based on the project-specific task order, the con-
sultant may execute the modeling and design aspects while Caltrans conducts independent mod-
eling and code compliance checks, or vice versa. This process involves independently modeling the
bridge and comparing the results. This decision is made based on staff availability and the complexity
of the project. In general, Caltrans is more involved if a project involves a complex bridge.
Processes for Assigning Bridge Design Work

to Appropriately Qualified In-House Engineers
Caltrans has approximately 18 bridge design branches. Five of the design branches are special-
ized in five bridge types: (1) accelerated-construction bridges, (2) steel bridges, (3) precast bridges,
(4) complex bridges and retrofit projects, and (5) earth retaining systems. These branches are overseen
by regional bridge design managers. The regional managers work together to identify the most
appropriate branches and qualified personnel to deliver the projects and to assign certain projects
to one of the five specialized branches. A suitable project engineer is selected from the chosen
design branch based on experience level, reputation, and availability. For small projects, other staff
assigned to the project may include an independent check engineer and a detailer. Larger or more
complex projects may have teams of 15 members or more.
Caltrans also has two special analysis groups: the Seismic and Special Analysis (SASA) branch
and the Office of Earthquake Engineering, Analysis and Research. Both groups are composed
primarily of analysts who can undertake any analysis work for any of the design branches. These
special analysis groups support project delivery as well as the development of bridge design
policies and guidelines. They also work toward developing approximate analysis guidelines for
consultants and in-house engineers.
Processes for Selecting Analysis Method or Software

for a Specific Project
For ordinary bridges, the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (50) and associated
California Amendments (71) are used along with the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC)
manual (72), which describes the seismic analysis methods appropriate for bridge type and
geometry. Caltrans uses approximate dead- and live-load analysis methods for the vast majority
of their bridges. Refined analysis methods are used infrequently for dead-and live-load analysis.
As another refined analysis method, STM is more frequently adopted by consultants than in-house
engineers. Efforts are underway to provide training to in-house engineers for STM.
For complex bridges, the project engineer and analyst determine the appropriate analysis method
and software. Caltrans’ STP 1.3 (70) defines a “complex bridge” as a bridge having any of the follow-
ing features:

Case Examples 45
• Neither a box girder, nor a slab, nor slab-on-girder structure types

• Any span length longer than 500 feet (152 m)
• Multi-level superstructure
• Constructed using non-conventional methods, including segmental construction
• Movable
For complex bridges, Caltrans’ STP 1.3 (70) establishes policies for the design of new, complex
bridges as well as the rehabilitation, widening, strengthening, and seismic retrofit of existing complex
bridges. Caltrans’ STP 1.3 also requires that project-specific design criteria be used. Bridge Design
Memo 1.5 (73) addresses the technical requirements for project-specific design criteria. This memo
requires that, at a minimum and as applicable, the following topics are important to consider in the
development of project-specific design criteria:
• Analysis requirements such as nonlinearities; soil-foundation-structure interaction; staged con-
struction; and 3D, dynamic, seismic time history, fault rupture, stability, and time-dependent effects;
• Design methodologies such as performance-based, displacement-based, and probabilistic
approaches; and
• Redundancy.
Guidelines and Documents Used by In-House Engineers

and Consultants When Modeling a Bridge
The hierarchy of Caltrans’ bridge analysis and design documents is as follows:
1. Structure Technical Policies (STP)
2. CA Amendments to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
3. Seismic Design Criteria (SDC)
4. Caltrans Guide Specifications for Seismic Design of Steel Bridges
5. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
6. Bridge Design Memos (BDM)
7. Bridge Design Practice (BDP) Manual
8. Bridge Design Details Manual
Caltrans’ STPs (70) include authoritative requirements to ensure the structures designed or
modified meet the expectations of safety, economy, maintainability, and functional life. STPs are
organized to be closely aligned with the AASHTO LRFD standard (50). Examples of STPs include
the following:
• 1.4: Structure Type Selection
• 4.1: Live Load Distribution by Refined Methods of Analysis
• 4.2: Concrete Girder Bridges with Skewed Supports
• 16.1: Bridge Widenings and Modifications
• 16.2: Change in Dead Load of Existing Structures
• 16.6: Design Criteria for Strengthening Steel Girders for Live Loads.
While STPs mandate the use of a certain bridge or earth retaining system components or features,
they were developed to be mindful not to stifle innovation. Currently 30 STPs are posted on Caltrans’
website (70).
Caltrans’ Seismic Design Criteria (SDC) (72) is a technical manual focusing on seismic analysis
and design. The use of this manual is required for all bridges designed in the State of California.
The current version of the SDC has 263 pages and covers the following topics:
1. Definitions, notations, acronyms, and initialisms
2. General requirements
3. Seismic deformation demands and analysis methods

4. Seismic deformation capacities

5. Foundations, abutments, and soil-foundation-structure interaction
6. Bridge components
7. Seismic detailing
8. Slab bridges
Caltrans also has a library of BDMs (73), which provide guidelines and recommended prac-
tices to designers to efficiently and consistently implement Caltrans’ STPs and design specifications.
Examples of BDMs include the following:
• 1.5: Project-Specific Design Criteria
• 16.4: Material Properties for Existing Bridges
• 16.6: Stresses in Post-Tensioned Existing Steel Girders–Stress Calculations
Currently 17 BDMs are posted on Caltrans’ website (73). Regarding quality processes for bridge
analysis models, these documents may help reduce errors with input parameters and modeling
assumptions while also providing guidelines on additional calculation methods for analysis result
verification.
Caltrans’ BDP Manual (74) provides bridge design engineers with basic design concepts,
assumptions, and step-by-step design examples. It also introduces Caltrans’ innovative design
practices. Regarding bridge analysis models, Chapter 4 includes guidelines on structural and
material modeling and structural analysis methods and provides solved bridge examples. This
document is more frequently used by newly hired engineers.
The current version of the BDP covers the following topics:
• Chapter 1: Bridge Design Specifications
• Chapter 3: Loads and Load Combinations
• Chapter 4: Structural Modeling and Analysis
• Chapter 5.1: Concrete Design Theory
• Chapter 5.2: Post-Tensioned Concrete Girders
• Chapter 5.3: Precast Pretensioned Concrete I-Girders
• Chapter 5.4: Precast Pretensioned Concrete Box Girders
• Chapter 5.5: Precast Pretensioned Concrete Voided Slabs
• Chapter 5.6: Concrete Bent Caps
• Chapter 5.7: Concrete Columns
• Chapter 6.1: Steel Design Theory
• Chapter 6.2: Steel Plate Girders
• Chapter 11.1: Abutments
• Chapter 11.2: Earth Retaining Systems
• Chapter 16.1: Strengthening Steel Girders for Live Loads
• Chapter 20.1: Seismic Design of Concrete Bridges
• Chapter 20.2: Seismic Design of Steel Bridges
All documents cited in this section have a publication date of 2019 or later. As new versions
of national design codes and standards are released, Caltrans updates its documents at certain
intervals. These updates are an example of continuous improvement in the context of QA/QC
processes. In addition, Caltrans shares these documents freely on its website for use by their in-
house engineers and consultants, among others.
Processes for Verifying In-House Analysis Models and Results

For complex bridges, Caltrans’ STP 1.3 (70) requires that project-specific design criteria, a peer
review panel, and an independent check free of conflict of interest be established to ensure an
enhanced QC for the accuracy of analysis results. As defined in the Project Delivery Processes

Case Examples 47
and Procedures (PDPP) (70), the review panel may be composed of consultants, academics,
and in-house engineers. The independent check must be conducted by engineer(s) not under
the direction of the project development team or its immediate supervision. The use of
different software is required. Differences in analysis results are resolved through the tol-
erance specified in the project-specific design criteria. The PDPP also discusses the
roles of the “complex bridge design branch” and SASA. It states that, for complex bridges,
these branches may undertake the “designer” or “checker” functions but not both func-
tions for any given project. The table included in this document, shown as Table 1, indicates the
Table 1. Complex and non-standard bridge chart (70).
Type Selection Project-Specific Design/Independent

Non-Standard Bridge Elements and Features
Involvement Design Criteria Check Requirements
Complex Bridge • Cable-stayed Complex Bridge Required Complex Bridge
Type • Suspension Branch shall be Branch shall perform
• Arch included in all the design or
• Truss Type Selection independent design
• Segmental decisions. check of the
• Moveable structure.
Unusual Framing/ • Outrigger and C bent Complex Bridge Required Complex Bridge
Foundation supports Branch shall be Branch shall perform
Components • Significantly offset included in all the design or
columns Type Selection independent design
• Unbalanced mass decisions. check of the
and/or stiffness structure. SASA
distribution should perform
• Multiple superstructure analysis.
types
• Pier walls
• Isolation bearings and
dampers
• Single column bents
supported on spread
footings
• Hollow concrete piles
• Micropiles
• Other non-standard
deep foundations
• Timber, tapered,
composite piles
Irregular Geometry • Multiple superstructure Complex Bridge Required Complex Bridge
levels Branch shall be Branch should
• Bifurcating included in perform the design
superstructures applicable Type or independent
• Skew angles (>20°) Selection design check of the
that vary from support to decisions. structure. SASA
support, excluding should assist with
curved bridges with performing analysis.
circular or square columns
• Hollow columns
• Span lengths >300 ft
Unusual Soil/Hazard • Class S2 soil that has Complex Bridge Required SASA may assist with
been modified (See SDC Branch may be performing analysis.
Section 6.1.3 for included in Type
definition of class S2 soil) Selection
• Tsunami decisions.
• Lateral spreading
induced by liquefaction
• Fault proximity
• Fundamental period
<0.7 seconds in
transverse and
longitudinal directions

roles and responsibilities based on bridge elements and features. The PDPP contains a Quality
Control Plan Checklist, which must be completed and submitted by Caltrans staff.
For standard bridge projects, Caltrans management encourages, but does not require, the use
of different software for result verification. Caltrans has secured licenses for various software
packages that allow modeling the same types of bridge. Acceptable differences in analysis results
often are resolved by using the more conservative values. One challenge is to require engineers
to learn new software when they have grown accustomed to a particular commercial or software
developed in house.
Challenges and Effective Practices

A major initiative undertaken by Caltrans was to create the SASA unit to address challenges
of finding sufficiently experienced in-house engineers for bridge modeling and analysis. Many
in-house engineers are typically heavily involved in the complete project delivery process; thus,
their modeling skills are practiced only periodically. Caltrans created the SASA unit to focus
only on modeling and analysis. They are not involved in any other aspects. They are capable of
conducting load rating analysis, seismic analysis, time-history analysis, refined analysis, and any
other type of analysis as required. They work closely with the bridge design branches, which are
more focused on detailing and research.
Caltrans has established a six-week “bridge design academy.” All newly hired engineers are
required to complete this training, which focuses on the fundamentals of bridge-type selection,
analysis, and design. The proper implementation of and compliance to the Seismic Design Criteria
(72) is discussed. For both training and QA, the newly hired engineers work under the super
vision of an experienced bridge design engineer or branch supervisor (a senior bridge engineer),
who are given progressively more advanced tasks, starting with simple bridge component designs.
The new hires with strong analytical skills (e.g., acquired through past consulting or graduate
degrees) may be given complex bridge analysis and modeling assignments. As engineering staff
retirements gain momentum, Caltrans works to overcome challenges filling open positions and
training newly hired engineers.
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)

Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) employs 24 bridge engineers and completes
approximately 15 new bridge and bridge replacement projects in a typical year, half of which
are designed by external consultants. CDOT also completes approximately 80 existing bridge
analyses, including load ratings, in a typical year, 60% to 80% of which are conducted by external
consultants.

CDOT has two types of contracting mechanisms, both of which use the same qualifications-
based consultant selection processes: a project-specific contract and a statewide non-project-specific
contract. The project-specific contract is used for most bridge design projects, while the statewide
non-project-specific contract is used for broader and more general engineering services.
For consultant selection, CDOT issues a request for proposal (RFP). The RFP includes basic
project information, proposal submission deadline, schedule of key events, pre-qualification
requirements, list of general software packages (not for structural analysis) that the consultant
may use, minimum proposal requirements, selection process and evaluation criteria, proposal
instructions, and consultant selection protest rules. The selection process and evaluation criteria

Case Examples 49
in the RFP reviewed for this synthesis include the project team, firm capability, past performance
on similar projects or similar teams, approach, and small business participation. A detailed scope
of work is issued separately. Both documents are advertised on CDOT’s website (75) and BidNet
(76), which is CDOT’s intake platform.
CDOT forms a consultant selection panel for each RFP, and the panel members score each
proposal independently based on the evaluation criteria stated in the RFP. In addition to the
evaluation of the selection panel, the Civil Rights and Business Resource Center evaluates and
scores the affidavit of small business participation in the proposals.
A selection panel meeting is held to compile the scores and discuss panel members’ evaluations
of the proposals. At the end of this meeting, the highest-ranked firm is selected if an optional pre-
sentation and interview phase is not undertaken. Otherwise, a shortlist of the top three qualified
firms at minimum are selected for the presentation and interview phase. The shortlisted firms
are given approximately two weeks to prepare their presentations for their interviews with the
selection panel. The purpose of this interview is to allow the shortlisted consultants to present
their analysis of the project and the panel to clarify the consultants’ qualifications in a question-
and-answer session. Additional details related to the interview are provided to the shortlisted
consultants by email in advance of the interview. In selections including an interview phase, the
interview scores are added to the overall score of the proposal.
For FHWA-assisted contracts, the proposal with the highest final proposal score is evaluated
to determine whether it demonstrates good faith efforts to meet the contract goal in accordance
with the disadvantaged business enterprise and emerging small business requirements defined
in the RFP. The proposal with the highest final proposal score is not selected if it is determined
that the proposer did not demonstrate good faith efforts to meet the contract goal.
In making the final selection recommendation to the Chief Engineer, the panel reaches con-
sensus on the ranking of the firms and provides its recommendation to the Contracting Officer,
who provides selection documentation, including the panel’s ranking, to the Chief Engineer
for approval. The Chief Engineer’s approval is necessary before proceeding with the selection
notification.
Only firms that are pre-qualified at least seven calendar days before the proposal submittal
date can submit a proposal. The pre-qualification must be renewed annually. The pre-qualified
consultants must have an office in the State of Colorado. An online pre-qualification application
and list of pre-qualified consultants are provided on CDOT’s website (77).
The non-project-specific statewide solicitations are similar to the project-specific RFPs, with
a few differences. More than one firm may be selected for statewide contracts. The number of
firms selected is stated in each solicitation. A detailed scope of work is issued separately, similar
to the project-specific RFPs. The evaluation criteria for the solicitation reviewed for this synthesis
includes the project team, firm capability, approach, and small business participation.
CDOT considers the complexity of the project, regional office preferences, and availability of
qualified in-house staff when making decisions about assigning consultants to bridge projects.
CDOT also makes strategic decisions to select projects for in-house design to maintain and grow
staff expertise and capabilities.

CDOT has a written QA/QC process that sets the minimum requirements for both in-house
and consultant-executed bridge design projects. As defined in Section 37 of the CDOT Bridge
Design Manual (78), the QA/QC process requires that an independent design check be conducted

by a design engineer who is a P.E. in the State of Colorado. This engineer may be employed by
the same firm. This check verifies all design work by producing a second set of complete design
and quantity calculations, which are submitted to CDOT. In addition, CDOT assigns a structural
reviewer to each consultant project, who reviews the project deliverables from an oversight per-
spective regarding conformance to CDOT bridge design practices.
Each consultant is required to have a rigorous QA/QC program that meets or exceeds CDOT’s
QA/QC requirements. When defining the processes for verifying in-house analysis models and
results, CDOT’s QA/QC process involves the following details.

CDOT has an informal process for assigning bridge work to appropriately qualified in-house
engineers. CDOT has five geographical regions, each with a bridge design unit consisting of a unit
leader and 2–3 engineers. The design work is discussed with the unit leader for staff availability and
expertise. If both exist, the unit leader assigns the work to a suitable design engineer, who may be an
engineering intern or a more experienced designer depending on the availability and staff training
needs. A checker is also assigned as the second engineer. The detailing is conducted by the design
engineer in most projects.

CDOT commonly conducts 1D line girder analysis using the distribution factors included in the
AASHTO LRFD specifications (42). CDOT has access to a number of commercial software pack-
ages for common types of bridges. The design team selects a suitable software package for the bridge
type. In some cases, two different software packages are used for the designer and checker to verify
the analysis results. Refined analysis methods, including the finite element and STM methods, are
sometimes used. CDOT has access to two software packages for conducting linear-elastic finite
element analysis. Hand calculations are used for STM analysis of deep members. Unlike other
methods of analysis, models of STM analysis are reviewed and agreed upon by the designer and
design checker before the analysis process is undertaken. CDOT’s only software requirement is for
load rating analyses of existing bridges, which must be conducted using AASHTOWare software
(49) when applicable to the bridge type under consideration. These processes are applicable to
projects led in house and by consultants.

When Modeling a Bridge
The CDOT Bridge Design Manual (78) provides the policies and procedures currently in effect
for the design, rehabilitation, and repair of bridges and structures, as well as for projects that use
federal or state funds. This manual presents the minimum requirements for structure projects,
including structural staff, submittals, design and construction specifications, and project pro-
cesses. Appendix A of this manual provides 13 solved design examples. This 443-page manual is
used along with the AASHTO LRFD specifications (50).
The CDOT Bridge Rating Manual (79) presents rating procedures for bridge decks, reinforced
concrete structures, prestressed concrete girder bridges, post-tensioned concrete girder bridges,
steel bridges, truss bridges, timber structures, and box culverts. Rating procedures for structure
types that are not identified in this manual are developed by the rater and subject to the review
and approval of the Staff Bridge Engineer. This 664-page manual is used along with the Manual
for Bridge Evaluation (46) and AASHTO LRFD specifications (50).

Case Examples 51
CDOT issues technical memorandums (80) when expediency is required or as a means for
introducing new policies and procedures. Technical memorandums defining policy govern over
the associated in-house bridge manual and AASHTO specifications.
When asked what new national guidelines they would like to see published, CDOT indi-
cated the scarcity of national guidelines for finite element analysis of complex bridges, including
modeling of connections between girders and deck. CDOT would also like to see more bridge-
specific STM analysis guidelines and examples.

CDOT has a written QA/QC process for both in-house and consultant bridge design projects,
as defined in Section 37 of the CDOT Bridge Design Manual (78). The process includes require-
ments categorized under two design phases. In the preliminary design phase, an independent design
check is required to verify the accuracy of the design work. An independent technical review is also
required to ensure conformance to CDOT’s bridge design practices. In the final design phase, the
independent design checker, a P.E. in the State of Colorado, is provided a complete set of final design
construction plans without any supporting calculations of the structural design engineer. Through
the independent design check, a second set of calculations is produced to support the design infor-
mation in the plans.
An exception to the independent design check process is made when STM models are used.
These models must be shared with the design checker to obtain concurrence as they are devel-
oped, rather than at the end of the design phase.
The comments received from the preliminary and final design meetings are documented to
include, at a minimum, reviewer comments, reference to the location in the reviewed document
(e.g., sheet number, chapter, and section) for each comment, responses to each comment, and
the confirmation that each comment has been incorporated into the document as appropriate.
For complex or unique bridge projects, CDOT may also hire external consultants for indepen-
dent reviews of the analysis and design work.

CDOT emphasizes the benefits of learning from the experience of other DOTs when working
on refined analysis models and unique design projects. Similar work may already be undertaken
by another DOT, and their approaches might provide a good starting point for advancement.
To recruit new staff, CDOT indicated the importance of sending staff to career fairs and pre-
sentations at colleges to network with new talent and provide information on engineering careers
at CDOT.
Since CDOT experiences senior engineer retirements and movements of a few intermediate
engineers to the consulting sector for better pay rates, it is important to hire and train new engi-
neering interns. Expertise sharing between the five design units by collaborating on certain
bridge projects is also noted as a successful approach for developing staff expertise.
Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT)

Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) employs 44 engineers, including manage-
ment, preliminary design (hydrology and hydraulics), final design, methods, bridge rating, and
maintenance and inspection. They complete approximately 50 new bridge and bridge replace-
ment projects in a typical year (more than 80% of which are designed by external consultants)

and approximately 130 existing bridge analyses in a typical year (5% of which are conducted by
external consultants).

Iowa DOT has two types of qualification-based consultant selection processes: a project-specific
selection and a statewide on-call selection. The project-specific selection process is for major and
complex structures such as border bridges. The process involves issuing an RFP and forming a
selection committee to review and evaluate the submitted proposals. The RFP typically includes
the following sections: introduction, project background, project scope, contact information,
general requirements, selection information, and proposal requirements. The evaluation criteria
and related weights are stated in the RFP. A sample outline is presented as follows:
• Organizational chart/roles of team/brief resumes (15 points)
• Prequalification to work with Bridges and Structures Bureau (30 points)
• Past performance with similar projects (20 points)
• Availability (10 points)
• MicroStation CONNECT (15 points)
• Initiative (5 points)
• Certifications (5 points)
The selection committee consists mostly of engineers with a lead. Engineers from other bureaus
and divisions of the department are also represented. Once they complete the evaluation, including
scoring and ranking, they make a recommendation to the steering committee, which consists of the
Director of the Bridges and Structures Bureau, the Deputy Director of the Transportation Develop-
ment Division, and often the Consultant Coordinator of the Bridges and Structures Bureau.
The steering committee may approve the recommendation, request a meeting for discussion, or
re-order the selection.
The statewide on-call process creates a pool of consultants to whom work is assigned. This pro-
cess is primarily used for ordinary bridge work, which may involve bridge repairs, replacements,
and new bridge designs. The largest and most complex project may be a flyover ramp bridge with
an estimated construction cost of 20–30 million dollars, while the simplest project may be a small
repair project with a construction budget of less than $100,000. The selection process is the same
as that for the project-specific selection process. One difference is that the consultants are evalu-
ated and ranked in two groups: unlimited and limited. The unlimited group is given three-year
contracts, while the limited group is given one-and-a-half-year contracts. The consultants in
the unlimited group are given more complex work than those in the limited group. This process
allows Iowa DOT to assess the actual delivery performance of consultants before assigning them
more complex work. The Consultant Coordination Unit of the Bridges and Structures Bureau is
responsible for distributing the work to on-call consultants based on their qualifications. In addi-
tion, this unit evaluates the performance of the consultants and uses this information as a part
of the evaluation criteria in consultants’ subsequent submissions for RFPs and statewide on-call
selections. The evaluation score is also provided to the consultants. Iowa DOT currently has 18
consultants to assign work based on a recent statewide on-call selection process.
In both processes, consultants are not required to have an office in the State of Iowa. Iowa DOT
aims to select the most qualified consultant for each specific project.

As defined in Conducting Business with the Iowa DOT Bridges and Structures Bureau (81), con-
sultants are required to submit their QA/QC plans for each new and replacement final bridge

Case Examples 53
design or rehabilitation design during contracting. The plan must list team members assigned to
the project and the responsibilities of each member. Independent design checks of all structural
elements are required as part of the QC plan.
The Consultant Coordination Unit reviews consultant plans and checklists (82) to ensure that
the policies are and will be followed. Noted issues are conveyed to the consultants for resolution.
In addition, this office arranges a QA/QC interview with consultants, commonly for new bridge
design projects, during the development of consultant plans. Unique aspects of the design are
also discussed. Meeting minutes are prepared and shared with the parties involved. The minutes
list the staff names associated with project roles, including the QA/QC manager, project manager,
lead engineer, review engineer, and technician. A sample of meeting minutes from February 2023
indicates the following related to verifying the analysis results:
• After the lead engineer self-checks the calculations, copies are made for use by the review
engineer.
• The review engineer highlights in yellow all that is agreed upon, redlines issues to be resolved,
and initials and dates the review prints in red.
• After resolution of the design issues by the lead engineer and review engineer, the calculations
are finalized by the lead engineer.
• The review engineer back-checks the finalized design calculations to verify that review comments
were implemented appropriately and initials and dates the calculations.
In addition, the sample meeting minutes state that the independent check of structural elements
will be conducted without access to the calculations conducted by the Lead Engineer, and that
the Independent Check Engineer will compare the analysis results with the Lead Engineer to
confirm that the design check is consistent with the analysis results.
In rare cases, Iowa DOT may hire additional consultants for independent reviews of the analysis
and design work completed by the project consultant. These reviews may be undertaken
for complex or unique bridge projects. One such current project involves a bridge replacement
project over the Mississippi River in Lansing, IA. Due to the complexities involved with the first
implementation of the AASHTO Guide Specification for Analysis and Identification of Fracture
Critical Members and System Redundant Members (83), Iowa DOT has hired an independent
review consultant. The role of this consultant is to conduct an independent design check of the
continuous steel truss bridge and other aspects of the plans and specifications for the project.

Iowa DOT has 11 engineers in the final design unit, including unit leaders (i.e., project managers).
The Bridges and Structures Bureau assigns bridge design work to unit leaders based on their teams’
experience and availability. Additional considerations for this decision include providing train-
ing for newer or less experienced staff or challenging more experienced staff with more unique
and interesting projects in order to grow staff capabilities. In many cases, the unit leader reviews
the files for upcoming programmed work, which allows the unit leaders to select the most suit-
able work for their teams. A design unit typically includes a unit leader who is an experienced
engineer in the classification of Transportation Engineer Manager, a mix of designers at various
experience levels from the entry-level Transportation Engineer Associate to the most experienced
designers who are Transportation Engineer Specialists. Upon earning their professional engineer’s
license, Transportation Engineer Associates are often promoted to Transportation Engineers, which
is a trainee-journey classification series. The design unit also includes design technicians at
various classification levels based on skills and experience. These technicians detail projects
and provide some basic design work themselves for standard reinforced concrete box culverts,

as one example. The team assigned by the unit leader to a design project includes a combina-
tion of experienced engineers, one of whom will often serve as the engineer of record, and
less experienced engineers to develop their skills. More staff are added to the team for more
complex projects and fast-tracked projects, such as response to over-height load impacts neces-
sitating emergency repairs. For simpler or ordinary projects, the designer and detailer may be the
same person.

Iowa DOT commonly conducts 1D line girder analysis using the distribution factors included in
the AASHTO LRFD specifications (50). The department has developed a number of Excel and
Mathcad worksheets which are shared on Iowa DOT’s website (84) for use by in-house engineers
and consultants, among others. Iowa DOT infrequently conducts finite element analysis in house
using one of two commercial software packages for which it has licenses. Rarely, STM analysis may
also be used based on AASHTO LRFD specifications (50).

The Iowa DOT Bridge Design manual defines the Bridges and Structures Bureau practice for typi-
cal Iowa bridges without restricting innovation for unusual site and design conditions. The words
“shall,” “required,” “Bureau policy,” and similar terms indicate mandatory specifications that must
be followed unless exceptions are approved by the supervising unit leader. This 1,070-page manual
is used along with AASHTO LRFD specifications (50).
Iowa DOT has a comprehensive and well-organized web page that includes bridge analysis
and design resources for use by in-house engineers and consultants, as shown in Figure 54.
The final bridge design software section (84) provides user guides and documentation for the
software, Excel spreadsheets, and Mathcad worksheets used by Iowa DOT, including the CIP
Reinforced Concrete Box Girder program, which was developed under Iowa Highway Research
Board Project TR-620, steel-girder-design Mathcad sheets, T-Pier examples, frame pier exam-
ples, super- and substructures design, and a few other programs.

The Iowa DOT LRFD Bridge Design Manual (86) describes in detail the QA/QC processes for
calculations and analysis results in Section 1.11. According to this section, the checker is responsible
for adequacy of all structural components and overall plan intent, which includes notifying the
designer and design technician of perceived problems in the design plans as well as the following:
• Reviewing the design plans for completeness, consistency, and constructability according to
standard design, detailing, and construction practice
• Reviewing the LRFD Bridge Design Manual (86) and all related specifications pertaining to the
type of structure being built
• Analyzing all structural components to verify the proposed structure is properly designed.
Analysis is conducted independently of any design calculations prepared during the initial
design. Original design assumptions can be supplied by the designer; however, the checker
makes an independent decision concerning the validity of the design assumptions. Documen-
tation of all computations, including computer-generated data, must be available for the file.
• Verifying all components by size and material
• Verifying all notes and specifications

Case Examples 55
Source: Iowa DOT.
Figure 54. Bridge analysis and design resources shared on Iowa DOT website (85).
Iowa DOT has a Methods Unit that currently employs five engineers and two technicians.
Each engineer is focused on a specific area of expertise, including software, policy and standards,
new engineer training, and digital delivery. The software engineer conducts analysis software
verification by creating examples of analysis models and comparing the results with other soft-
ware and hand calculations.
When asked what challenges they experience with commercial software, Iowa DOT empha-
sized the importance and current scarcity of software interoperability—that is, the functionality
of different programs to exchange information, share files, and use the same protocols. Inter
operability may include, for example, the design model to communicate with the analysis model,
which could help reduce input errors and facilitate a more efficient, seamless analysis and design
process.

Iowa DOT confirmed the success of their designer-checker pairing for the professional devel-
opment of engineering staff capabilities. While the inherent benefit of this process is to conduct
an independent check of the analysis and design work, by working in pairs, the less experienced
engineer acquires new skills from the more experienced engineer, which involves comparing the
results and working to resolve discrepancies. A similar lead and review engineer pairing is also
required from consultants, which is expected to have similar benefits in the consulting sector.
Another practice that Iowa DOT has found beneficial is to have a dedicated training budget for
the engineering staff, which has funded various training opportunities ranging from 0.5 to 2.5 days.

Training may include analysis and design aspects of various bridge types and components and may
be developed and delivered by consultants, as per Iowa DOT’s needs and specifications. In addi-
tion, Iowa DOT benefits from the standard courses offered by various agencies such as the National
Highway Institute.
The new design engineering staff is given analysis and design assignments with progressively
increasing difficulty. A common starting point may be a standard slab bridge or a single span
prestressed concrete beam bridge, followed by the foundation and piling elements. This process
allows new design engineers to develop new skills and experience over time while also creating
the designer-checker pairing practice described previously.
As Iowa DOT experiences record staff retirements—50% of Bridges and Structures Bureau’s
workforce has been retired and replaced in the past five years—the Bureau stressed the impor-
tance of new staff training based on the initiatives described previously.
Louisiana Department of Transportation

and Development (LaDOTD)
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOTD) employs 72 bridge design
section staff, including 57 structural, electrical, and mechanical engineers; 12 technicians; one IT;
and two administrative support personnel. LaDOTD completes approximately 30 new bridge and
bridge replacement projects in a typical year (this number varies depending on the size of projects)—
60% to 80% of which are designed by external consultants—and completes approximately 100 exist-
ing bridge analyses, including load ratings, in a typical year—approximately 25% of which are
conducted by external consultants.

LaDOTD uses a proposal-based consultant selection process for each specific project and issues
an advertisement on the LaDOTD website (87), which lists the requested scope of services, mini-
mum personnel requirements, evaluation criteria, contractual obligations, among other details.
Consultants responding to project advertisements must submit DOTD Form 24-102 (88),
which is a standard proposal template organized in 23 sections with headings, tables, fill-in
fields, and instructions. Some of the relevant sections include a past performance evaluation
discipline table, firm size, organizational chart, minimum personnel requirements, staff experi-
ence, firm experience, approach and methodology, workload, and QA/QC plan. The past perfor-
mance evaluation discipline table requests information about the percentage of the work to be
conducted by the prime consultant and subconsultant, respectively, for each discipline. This table
is used to establish an evaluation score for each proposal accounting for the past performance
of all consultant firms involved in a proposal. The consultant is not required to have an office in
the State of Louisiana.
When providing engineering services for LaDOTD, each consultant is evaluated by a project
manager and bridge task manager at major project milestones or at least once a year. The evalu-
ation is used to derive the past performance score for subsequent proposals by the consultant.
The project evaluation is shared with the consultants.
Submitted proposals are evaluated based on a set of criteria. A sample advertisement reviewed
for this synthesis includes the following evaluation criteria and weights:
• Firm experience on similar projects (weight factor of three)
• Staff experience on similar projects (weight factor of four)
• Firm size as related to project magnitude (weight factor of three)

Case Examples 57
• Past performance on similar LaDOTD projects (weight factor of six)

• Current workload with LaDOTD (weight factor of five)
• Approach and methodology (weight factor of nine)
Each criterion receives a rating on a scale of one to five. This rating is multiplied by the corre-
sponding weight factor. The rating in each category is added to arrive at the proposal’s final rating,
resulting in a maximum achievable score of 150. LaDOTD’s project evaluation team is responsible
for conducting this evaluation, and presents a shortlist of the top three (if three are qualified) highest-
rated consultants to the Secretary, who makes the final selection from the short list. The submitted
proposals are posted on LaDOTD’s website (89).

LaDOTD has a written QA/QC process for bridge projects designed by consultants, as defined
in Part I, Section 3.3 of the LaDOTD Bridge Design and Evaluation Manual (90). According to
this process, the prime consultant is required to submit a QA/QC plan document specifically
developed for the project as a part of the proposal DOTD Form 24-102 described previously. The
Bridge Task Manager for the project evaluates the QA/QC plan document in accordance with
the rating matrix, provided in Appendix G.2 (90), and completes the grading sheet, provided in
Appendix G.3 (90).
The rating matrix includes the following evaluation criteria:
A. Understanding of consultant’s and LaDOTD’s role in QA/QC of consultant’s work
B. Understanding of QA/QC concepts in bridge design
C. Responsibilities of designer, checker, reviewer, and engineer of record (EOR)
D. Description of QC and QA processes and their effectiveness to ensure the accuracy of the
design and the plan details
E. Identification of personnel qualified to execute bridge design and QA/QC of design and plan
details
F. Use of QA/QC tools, such as checklists, standard forms, and training materials
A score is given for each of the six evaluation criteria and entered into the grading sheet, as
shown in Table 2. An average score of the six evaluation criteria is calculated. The QA/QC grading
sheet is submitted to the Secretary along with the shortlist.
The prime consultant is fully responsible for the QA/QC of their work as well as the work of all
sub-consultants. All project submittals must include a QA/QC certification that the submittals
meet the requirements of the QA/QC plan document. The prime consultant is responsible for all
expenses incurred from design omissions, ignorance, and errors.
Table 2. Grading sheet for the QA/QC plan document.
Prime Evaluation
Score Overall Rating Justifications/Comments
Consultant Criteria
A
B
C
Consultant 1 D
E
F
Average
Source: Appendix G.3 (90).

For complex projects, in rare cases LaDOTD may also require the prime consultant to involve
a peer reviewer who is not employed by the same consultant. The peer reviewer is an experienced,
independent P.E. with no prior involvement in the project who checks the design calculations by
producing an independent set of calculations based on the drawings or conducts the review as
specified in the scope of work. The peer review comments must be submitted to LaDOTD and
the design team for evaluation. Resolutions agreed upon by all parties, including the designer,
peer reviewer, and LaDOTD, are incorporated in the final design.

LaDOTD has a written QA/QC process for in-house bridge design projects, as defined in Part I,
Section 3.2.2 of the LaDOTD Bridge Design and Evaluation Manual (90). According to this
process, the Bridge Design Engineer Administrator assigns a supervisor (or team leader) with
qualifications and experiences commensurate with the complexity of the bridge to be designed.
The supervisor or team leader must be a P.E. in the State of Louisiana and have substantial expe-
rience in the design of similar structures. The supervisor or team leader is typically one of the
Assistant Bridge Design Administrators or their designated engineers.
The supervisor or team leader is responsible for selecting the team members with the nec-
essary technical knowledge and experience required for the project. Team members typically
include a designer, detailer, design checker, detail checker, and reviewer. The designer may be
an engineering intern if the design checker is a P.E. or vice versa. The detail checker can be a
designer or a detailer. The design checker and detail checker cannot be the same individuals who
execute the original design and detailing. The reviewer must be a P.E. in the State of Louisiana.
On large projects, multiple personnel may be assigned to each role; if that is the case, each indi-
vidual is assigned a specific and definable portion of the project for which they are responsible.

For determining a suitable analysis method, LaDOTD uses the Bridge Design and Evalua-
tion Manual (90) along with AASHTO LRFD specifications, Section 4: Structural Analysis and
Evaluation (50). The department commonly conducts 1D line girder analysis using the distri-
bution factors specified in the AASHTO LRFD specifications (50). Refined analysis methods
are rarely used for new bridge analyses. Existing bridge evaluation projects, including load
rating analyses, may occasionally require the use of refined analysis methods if the simplified
analysis does not provide the required capacity to avoid posting truck weight restrictions.
These methods include linear-elastic finite element analysis or STM analysis for deep members.
LaDOTD has licenses for two finite element analysis software packages. STM is used occasion-
ally for hammerhead piers and column bents. Nonlinear finite element analysis is not used for
in-house analysis.
LaDOTD has a pre-approved software list for consultants, which is shared on its website (91).
If other software is required for unique applications for which the pre-approved software can-
not be used, a synopsis of the software is submitted to the Bridge Design Engineer Administrator
for approval before use. The synopsis includes the name of the software and the developer,
a general description of the functions, a certification from the software developer stating that it is
maintained in accordance with the latest AASHTO LRFD specifications (50) and the Manual for
Bridge Evaluation (46), as well as an account of the requester’s experience and the experience of
other organizations or agencies that use the software. Data or results from consultants’ in-house
software are not accepted as part of a deliverable.

Case Examples 59
LaDOTD has established a Bridge Design Software Committee to manage matters related to
software and 3D implementation. The committee currently has seven members: a chair and six
members, each with a specialty area focus, including general policy, software evaluation, bridge
information viewer app and Windows10 migration, 3D design and plan production for pilot
projects, CAD support, and IT support.

LaDOTD Bridge Design and Evaluation Manual (90) establishes the standard policies and
procedures in the preparation of engineering and construction plans for bridge and high-
way structures in the State of Louisiana. This manual is followed for all LaDOTD projects
regardless of project delivery method. Any deviations from the manual require approval of the
LaDOTD Bridge Design Engineer Administrator. Detailed justifications must be submitted
along with the request. Approved deviations from the manual are noted on the design criteria
of the project and contract plans as appropriate. This 780-page manual is used along with the
AASHTO LRFD specifications (50).
LaDOTD develops Bridge Design Technical Memoranda (BDTM), which is a communication
tool used by the Bridge Design Section to document and disseminate policies, procedures, and
updates to the Bridge Design and Evaluation Manual (90) and Standard Plans/Special Details (92)
for all bridge designers including in-house staff and consultants. The development process for
BDTMs is described in detail in Section 1.2 of the Bridge Design and Evaluation Manual (90),
and the developed BDTMs are shared on LaDOTD’s website (93).
LaDOTD engineers also use the documentation and user guidelines of the bridge analysis and
design software used in each specific project.

LaDOTD has a written QA/QC process for in-house bridge design projects, as defined in Part I,
Section 3.2.2 of the Bridge Design and Evaluation Manual (90). According to this process, the
design checker is responsible for conducting a full technical review of the design calculations.
The design checker must be a P.E. in the State of Louisiana or certified as an engineer intern; how-
ever, if the designer is an engineer intern, the design checker must be a P.E. The detail checker
is responsible for conducting a full review of the CAD drawings. The detail checker can be a
designer or a detailer. The design checker and detail checker cannot be the same individuals who
execute the original design and detailing.
During the design check process, the design checker verifies the accuracy of the designer’s
calculations by conducting a redline check or producing an independent set of calculations and
comparing the results. The supervisor or team leader determines the method to use depending
on the complexity of the project. Regardless of the checking method employed, the designer’s
calculations are the calculations of record, updated to correct any errors or omissions discovered
by the design checker. The calculations of the design checker also become a part of the calcula-
tion of record when the method of independent checking is employed.
The checker may begin the checking process at the completion of the design process or may
check components of the designer’s work as it is completed. Any discrepancies that arise are best
resolved between the designer and the checker, and the calculation details are corrected accord-
ingly. If the designer and the checker are unable to resolve the discrepancies, the issue is brought
to the attention of the supervisor or team leader.

Upon completion of the design check, the designer prepares a QA information package and
provides this package to the reviewer. This package includes the following documents:
• QA information package check list as included in Appendix C (90).
• Calculation book
• Plans
• Special provisions including non-standard items
• Cost estimate
• Any relevant documents (e.g., checklists, review comments) that are utilized by the designer,
design checker, detailer, and detail checker
The reviewer is responsible for ensuring that the QC process, described previously, is complete
and the design calculations are in accordance with LaDOTD bridge design practices, policies, and
procedures. The reviewer must be a P.E. in the State of Louisiana and have substantial experience in
the design of similar structures.
During the QA process, the reviewer conducts a cursory review of all documents in the QA
information package submitted by the designer. This review focuses on areas of critical struc-
tural importance—areas where, based on the reviewer’s experience, mistakes may be typically
found and areas that may be new to the design practice. The reviewer may (but is not required)
to produce independent calculations to verify the submitted information. The reviewer provides
feedback to the designer and resolves all issues. Upon completion of the QA process, the design
calculations are considered final. At this point, the QA/QC certification, as shown in Table 3, is
signed by the designer, design checker, detailer, detail checker, and reviewer.
Peer review is conducted only at the request of the Bridge Design Engineer Administrator
for complex projects. The peer review is the process by which an independent engineering
entity with no prior involvement in the project conducts a check of the designs by producing an
Table 3. QA/QC certification for bridge design projects.
P.E. Responsible Construction

Team Responsible
Name Registration Special Cost Signature
Members Plan Sheets
No. Provisions Estimate
Designers
Design
Checkers
Detailers
Detail
Checkers
Reviewers
Peer
Reviewer
Geotechnical
Engineer
Hydraulic
Engineer
Engineer of
Record
Source: Appendix D (90).

Case Examples 61
independent set of calculations based on the drawings or conducts the review as specified in the
scope of work.
The peer reviewer must be a P.E. in the State of Louisiana and have substantial experience in
the design of similar structures. The peer review comments must be submitted to LaDOTD and the
design team for evaluation. Resolutions agreed upon by all parties, including the designer, peer
reviewer, and LaDOTD, are incorporated in the final design. A Peer Review Resolution Agree-
ment, as included in Appendix E (90), must be signed by the peer reviewer, the supervisor or
team leader of the design team, and an LaDOTD representative.
The supervisor or team leader assigns an EOR for the project. The EOR is responsible for
sealing the calculations. The EOR must be a P.E. in the State of Louisiana and have commen-
surate experience in the design of similar structures. The EOR may be the designer, the design
checker, the reviewer, or the supervisor/team leader who is directly involved in the project design
activities.

LaDOTD emphasized the importance of training new staff for bridge analysis and design.
Some of the successful practices that the Bridge Design Section has employed include provid-
ing continuous training activities in the format of courses and sessions on, for example, refined
analysis methods such as STM; teaming new design engineers with senior design check engi-
neers; and strategically assigning each successive design task in increasing complexity to develop
staff capabilities.
As LaDOTD experiences senior staff retirements and difficulty recruiting new engineers, the
department stresses the importance of succession planning, hiring, training new engineering
staff, and actively recruiting summer students.
New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) employs 90–100 bridge design
engineers, completes approximately 50 new bridge and bridge replacement projects in a typi-
cal year (15% of which are designed by external consultants), and completes approximately
4,500 existing bridge analyses in a typical year (70% of which are conducted by external
consultants).

NYSDOT has two written processes for selecting appropriately qualified consultants for engi-
neering services. Both processes are administered by NYSDOT’s Consultant Selection System
web-based program, CSSWeb (94).
Selection Process II applies to most design projects and uses a two-step process. The first step
is evaluation by an automated process that produces a shortlist of the best-qualified teams. The
second step is an evaluation by a committee of experts who consider only the shortlisted teams.
From the results of these evaluations, NYSDOT executive management selects the most qualified
team for the designation.
Shortlisted consultants must submit the NYSDOT 255 Shortlist Submittal Form (95), which
includes questions such as the number of engineering staff for each discipline, their resumes, past
project experience, and familiarity with the proposed project type and location. A time limit is
set for past experience. For standard bridge projects, the time limit is commonly 3–5 years, while

it could be as high as seven years for complex and infrequent bridge projects. The design scoring
methodology for Process II is defined in detail in a dedicated document (96) and considers the
following rating factors:
• Prior experience
• Organizational capability for this type of work
• Logistics and familiarity
• Other factors (standard, special, technical proposal, and oral presentation)
• Minority/women business enterprise (MWBE) participation when federal funds are used or
disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) participation when state funds are used
• MWBE subconsultants or DBE subconsultants
• Time since last designation
Each factor is given a weight determined for each project. All factors and weights are
described in the project advertisement. Two sets of weights are typically used: one for the
automated evaluation step and one for the committee evaluation step. For each step, consul-
tant teams’ individual scores for each factor are multiplied by the weight of the factor. The
weighted scores are added to produce a final aggregate score for the team. The weights for
Factors 1–4 total 100%. Factors 5–7 are bonus or penalty points added to or subtracted from the
aggregate team score. More details are provided in NYSDOT’s Design Scoring Methodology–
PROCESS II (96).
Selection Process I is for projects sufficiently unique that scoring of submitted past project
inventories would have little value in demonstrating a firm’s qualifications. This one-step process
requires the consultant to prepare and submit an electronic expression of interest. There is no
initial short list; the assignment of design work is made to the highest-rated firm after evaluation
of the information.
NYSDOT updates load ratings with every inspection. The department has approximately
13,500 existing bridges in the AASHTOWare software. Considering biannual inspections, load
ratings of 4,000–5,000 existing bridges are updated every year. Consequently, consultants are
employed much more frequently for the existing bridge analyses, including load ratings, than
new bridge design. While this number appears high, if there is no change in the loading or bridge
condition, which is common, the load rating numbers are not updated.

The QA/QC processes of the NYSDOT are described in 21 pages in Appendix 12 of the Project
Development Manual (97). The following topics are covered:
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
1.2 Definitions
2.0 Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC/QA)
2.1 Region’s Responsibilities
2.2 Regional Design Quality Control Engineer’s Roles and Responsibilities
2.3 Guidance on Developing Quality Control Plan
2.4 Control Documents
2.5 Quality Organization Structure
2.6 Required Quality Control Review
2.7 Training for Design Quality
2.8 Main Office Role
2.9 Other State or Federal Agency Reviews

Case Examples 63
3.0 Project Reviews and Comment Resolution

3.1 Purpose and Application
3.2 Submissions
3.3 Review Times for Main Office Reviews
3.4 Categories of Review Comments
3.5 Comment Resolution and Required Documentation
3.6 Revised Submissions
Specific requirements for QA/QC processes for bridge design projects are described in Section 20
of the NYSDOT Bridge Manual (98). This section (1) establishes QA/QC procedures required
for the design of bridges and structures, (2) identifies who is responsible for performing the QA/QC
roles, and (3) describes the requirements for in-progress technical reviews of various project
types for design-bid-build projects.
According to the design computation checks described in Section 20, one of the primary elements
of QC for bridge design is detailed checking of design calculations. All design computations are
checked in detail in the bridge designer’s office. Checkers must be competent at the level of struc-
tural design required and aware that they are as responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the
design. The designer and checker must sign and date all computation sheets. Full agreement must
be reached and documented on all computations before any design is used in the development of
bridge plans.

NYSDOT consists of 11 regions and the main office in Albany, New York. Each region is respon-
sible for owning and maintaining their bridge assets. Main Office of Structures (MO Structures)
is responsible for overseeing all regions’ structures groups to make sure they adhere to the codes
and standards of NYSDOT. Each region is responsible for projects during inception, preliminary
scoping, design approval, environmental processes, public involvement, final design, and prepa-
ration of contract documents and plans delivered to contractors for bidding. The process may
take two years for typical projects and up to seven years for complex projects.
For the final design, NYSDOT’s in-house options are the regional structures group and MO
Structures. The regional structures groups are typically much smaller than those of MO Structures.
Each region has 8–10 structures staff on average while MO Structures has 65 design staff. The Direc-
tor of Structures Design Bureau, in conjunction with the Regional Structures Engineer, reviews the
capabilities, experience, and availability of the regional office staff in relation to the complexity of the
project—for example, a simple, single-span structure versus multi-span replacement that requires
continuous beam design and more complex substructure design. The final design and detailing of
most complex projects are typically executed by MO Structures. While the regional offices focus
on the complete project delivery process and execute final bridge design only twice a year, MO
Structures continuously executes bridge modeling, analysis, and design throughout the year. Con-
sequently, MO Structures possesses in-depth expertise and experience for the structural analysis
and design of bridges across the state.
MO Structures has eight design squads, each with two P.E.s and 5–6 entry-level engineers and
drafting technicians. The Director of Structures Design Bureau reviews the availability and specific
experience of the lead designers in each squad in relation to a specific project. While similar previous
work experience is important, NYSDOT also considers options to challenge their staff with new
experience and to develop staff capabilities. A typical project team includes a senior project engineer,
squad leader (a P.E. who is responsible for day-to-day production work and QC for design and draft-
ing), lead designer (another P.E. supported by entry-level engineers), and a few drafting technicians.


NYSDOT’s standard practice for the structural analysis of straight beams or girders is the
line girder method. A more refined analysis, such as a 2D grid or 3D finite element analysis, is
required when the range of applicability of the NYSDOT LRFD live-load distribution factors is
not met and for the following superstructure types and conditions, as per Clause 1.5.2.2 of the
Bridge Manual (98).
• Steel curved beams or girders, except those that meet the criteria defined in the NYSDOT
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (99) or the NYSDOT Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges (100) for ignoring the effects of curvature
• Girder or beam bridges with skews greater than 45 degrees
• Continuous girders with span configurations that induce uplift
• Bridges with flared girder(s)
• Bridges with faying girder(s) or beam(s)
• Curved tub and box girders
• Truss bridges
• Arch and tied arch bridges
• Rigid frames
• Segmental precast box girders
• Cable-stayed bridges
• Suspension bridges
• Bridges with integral piers
• Any other superstructure configuration that warrants refined analysis, per the NYSDOT
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (99)
Clause 1.5.2.2 (98) also states that, if a more refined analysis is not required for the design,
the load rating computations must be conducted using the line girder method regardless of the
methodology that was utilized for the design.
NYSDOT’s processes for the structural analysis methods and software are defined in Clause 1.5.2.1
of the Bridge Manual (98). According to this clause, computer software has become a valuable tool
for conducting complex analyses and automating repetitive design calculations. Even the best pro-
grams are subject to producing erroneous results if the input is incorrect or if there is an error in the
software programming. The inputs and results of all software programs and hand calculations are
included in the analysis documentation.
An overview of the software applications currently in use by NYSDOT is defined in Section 21 of
the Bridge Manual (98). Both in-house and commercial software applications are described in terms
of their analysis capabilities and types of bridges and elements for which they are most commonly
used. Two in-house and 12 commercial software applications are included. Section 21 states that this
information should not be construed as an endorsement of any particular software by NYSDOT.
Unless noted by contract, consultants to NYSDOT are not required to use the software listed in this
section. Users can refer to the corresponding manuals for more detailed instructions, specifications,
and limitations.
The design engineer may choose to use a different software program, which is a more common
situation for complex bridge analyses. The engineer must provide a written justification report on
the analysis software and the verification method proposed for a specific project. The template
of this report is provided in Appendix 3F: Structure Justification Report (98), which includes geo-
metrical information (e.g., number of spans, span length, width, superstructure, substructure,
skew), a question stated as “refined analysis required: yes/no (Provide an explanation for the need
of a refined analysis and the type of refined analysis, 2D grid, 3D finite element analysis, etc.),”

Case Examples 65
and evaluation of alternatives. An equivalent report template is also provided for bridge rehabilita-
tion projects in Appendix 19B: Complete/Phased Rehabilitation Bridge Rehabilitation Justification
Report (98). The justification reports are reviewed and approved by MO Structures and forwarded
to the Deputy Chief Engineer for Structures (i.e., State Bridge Engineer) for final approval.

NYSDOT Bridge Manual (98) provides policies, guidelines, and procedures for bridge project
development and design for the State of New York. It contains guidelines on decisions in the
bridge project process, cites document or reference policies and standards that must be consid-
ered, and provides a commentary discussing recommended bridge engineering practices.
NYSDOT Seismic Design Guidelines for Bridges in Downstate Region (101) includes provisions
for the minimum requirements for the analysis, evaluation, design, and retrofit of NYC bridges,
a flow chart diagram outlining use of provisions, a commentary, and supporting appendices. The
guidelines focus on the effects of several types of rock and soil profile on the ground motions, as
well as the effects of soil liquefaction and spatial variability.
NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (99) is used for the design of all new and replace-
ment bridges, including both superstructure and substructure designs. NYSDOT Standard Spec-
ifications for Highway Bridges (100) is used when necessary for the repair and rehabilitation of
structures.
NYSDOT develops user guides for a selection of their in-house computer programs, includ-
ing the Fatigue Life Evaluation Worksheet User Guide and the NYSDOT Scupper Program User
Manual, v1.0. The programs and user guides are shared on NYSDOT’s website (102). In addi-
tion, MO Structures continuously works to develop analysis and design guidelines for questions
frequently asked by designers, which are either incorporated into the Bridge Manual (98) or
published as stand-alone reference documents.
NYSDOT has an Engineering Programs Support internal website for information on bridge
design software used in the Main Office and Regions. This website provides current information
about various computer programs, including manuals, tutorials, and other important documents.
NYSDOT also uses external guidelines as appropriate for bridge analysis and modeling tasks.
Examples include the FHWA Manual for Refined Analysis in Bridge Design and Evaluation (51),
AASHTO/NSBA Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis (103), and various guidelines for the
AASHTOWare Bridge Design and Bridge Rating (BrD and BrR) software (49).
When asked what new national guidelines they would like to see published, NYSDOT indi-
cated the scarcity of guidelines for refined analysis methods for substructures. NYSDOT also
noted their current efforts to develop pioneering national guidelines on joint elimination meth-
ods over piers using link slabs, along with advanced analysis methods required for their design
and detailing.
Processes for Verifying Analysis Models and Results

NYSDOT’s processes for verifying analysis models and results are described in Clause 1.5.2 of
the Bridge Manual (98) as follows:
• Any refined analysis must be verified using a second software program with a comparable level
of model refinement. A detailed procedure must be prepared and submitted to the Deputy
Chief Engineer for Structures for approval before conducting any required refined analysis.

• The analysis of superstructure primary members, piers, and atypical abutment types must be
verified either by a second software program with a level of model refinement comparable
to the original analysis software or independent hand calculations.
• The analysis of all remaining structural bridge components must be verified by at least one of
the following methods:
– Checking of the calculations or software program input
– Independent hand calculations
– A second software program
The QA/QC processes for analysis results verification are documented in the Design Task
List, which must be submitted with all milestone submissions. This document lists all project
components that require analysis, design, and drafting. Multiple columns capture the responsible
project personnel, including designer, checker, and QA engineer, who must initial and date com-
pleted project components. A sample partial Design Task List is provided in Table 4.

As mentioned previously, NYSDOT consists of 11 regions and the MO in Albany, New York.
All structural experts traditionally work for MO Structures. MO Structures has realized over time
that many promising structural engineering candidates were graduating from colleges outside the
Capital District and did not want to relocate to Albany. MO Structures started the Satellite Squad
concept in the regional office in Buffalo in 2016. This squad had two structures design staff who were
physically located in Buffalo but working for MO Structures. Since then, the number of structures
design staff has grown to 19 in Buffalo, spread across five design squads.
The Satellite Squad concept has been greatly successful in hiring highly qualified candidates,
both at entry and intermediate (candidates with PE licenses) levels. Currently, a good mix of recent
college graduates and experienced staff switched from private consulting firms to NYSDOT. Hiring
success may be attributed to extensive recruitment efforts and the reputable engineering colleges
near the regional office in Buffalo.
Based on the success of the Satellite Squad program in Buffalo, MO Structures started another
satellite group in the regional office in Utica. This design squad currently includes four full-time
design staff and one drafting intern. Other offices have also started their own satellite groups. The
NYSDOT Office of Design for Highways has a satellite group in the regional office in Rochester,
while the Office of Environment has satellite staff in regional offices in Buffalo and Rochester.
NYSDOT has established a 24-session “Bridge 101” training series for new bridge engineers
across the state. These sessions focus on all aspects of bridge engineering from site layout, pre-
liminary bridge design, and rehabilitations to the proper use of the NYSDOT standards. These
training sessions are recorded and made available for future new hires across the state.
As NYSDOT experiences record staff retirements, the Satellite Squad concept has proven to
be a viable ONE DOT approach. By utilizing technology and remote working, the Satellite Squad
concept allows NYSDOT to maintain high levels of expertise.

Table 4. Sample Partial Design Task List used as a part of QA/QC processes for structural analysis models.
TASKS Calculations CADD(Eng.) Technical Review P: Drive Folder and

File Name
Description Done Date Check Date Plans Date Model Date Calc. Plans Date
PRELIMINARY
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
SUBSTRUCTURES
BRIDGEGEOMETRY
SUPERSTRUCTURE
DECK, APPROACH SLABS, AND BARRIER
LOAD RATING
ESTIMATES
CHAPTER 5
Summary of Findings
The objective of this synthesis is to identify and document state DOT practices related to
quality processes for bridge structural analysis models. Information was gathered through a
literature review (Chapter 2), an online survey of all DOT agencies yielding an overall response
rate of 100% (Chapter 3), and case examples for five selected state DOTs—California, Colorado,
Iowa, Louisiana, and New York (Chapter 4). This chapter summarizes the major findings of the
synthesis and indicates opportunities for future research.
Major Findings
The major findings from the survey are summarized as follows.
• The majority of DOTs assign more than half (59%) of their new bridge and bridge replacement
designs to consultants, while they assign almost half (47%) of their existing bridge analyses,
including load ratings, to consultants.
• The survey asked three questions about the presence of consultant quality processes. The most
common written consultant process, selected by 61% of DOTs, was “identifying appropriately
qualified consultants,” while the least common written process, selected by only 16% of DOTs,
was “verifying the analysis results obtained from consultants.” The most common “no process”
response, selected by 37% of DOTs, was “bridge analysis models developed by consultants.”
• The survey asked six questions about the presence of in-house quality processes. The most
common written in-house process, selected by 31% of DOTs, was “modeling a bridge.” The
least common written process, selected by only 12% of DOTs, was “identifying appropriately
qualified in-house engineers.” This result sharply contrasts with the consultant processes for
which “identifying appropriately qualified consultants” was the most common written process.
The most common “no process” response, selected by 41%, was “validating the analysis software.”
• State DOTs and their consultants most frequently use “one-dimensional line girder analysis.”
The least frequently used method is the “nonlinear finite element method.”
• The most common method for in-house analysis results verification is “checking of input vari-
ables.” “Another team of engineers uses a different method or software” and “analysis engineer
decides how to verify” were the other common responses. The least common method is the
use of NCHRP Process 12-50.
• The most common method for validating the analysis software is “analysis engineer decides
how to validate,” while the least commonly used validation method is “use of data from field
tests and sensor deployment.”
• The most common method for reconciling discrepancies between independent models is “the
same team of engineers works to resolve the discrepancies,” while the least common method
is “data from field tests and sensor deployment are used,” followed by “an external consultant
is involved to perform independent checks.”
68

Summary of Findings 69
• High-seismicity state DOTs assign a smaller percentage of their new bridge designs to consul-
tants and use more refined in-house analysis methods than the remaining DOTs. In contrast,
the percentage of high-seismicity state DOTs with written processes (for both consultant and
in-house projects) are lower than those of the remaining DOTs.
The major findings from the case examples are summarized as follows.
• Surveyed agencies use two types of consultant selection processes: project-specific or state-
wide on-call. The project-specific process issues a detailed RFP for a particular project and
selects one consultant. Consultants may be required to be pre-qualified in order to submit a pro-
posal. The statewide on-call process issues an RFQ and selects a pool of consultants to assign
projects. Evaluation processes and criteria are typically specified in both processes in the RFP
and RFQ.
• Surveyed agencies require consultants to either submit their QA/QC plans or follow the
agency’s specific QA/QC plans. As two examples, LaDOTD has well-defined evaluation and
scoring criteria for consultant QA/QC plans, while NYSDOT has specific QA/QC plans that
consultants must follow. Not all agencies that require consultants to submit their QA/QC plans
evaluate and score QA/QC plans—the presence of such plans and assurance that they will be
followed is considered adequate.
• All five surveyed agencies have informal processes that rely on a manager, supervisor, or unit
leader to select appropriately qualified engineers based on their experience and availability. This
decision also considers professional development needs, including training less experienced
engineers or challenging more experienced engineers with unique or interesting projects. The
district office associated with the bridge site commonly leads the projects.
• All five surveyed agencies most frequently use “one-dimensional line girder analysis.” While
all surveyed agencies rely on the analysis (or design) team to select the most appropriate
method(s), NYSDOT provides written guidelines on when to use refined analysis methods.
• All five surveyed agencies require a checker to independently verify the accuracy of design
engineer’s models, calculations, and results. For complex bridges, Caltrans requires project-specific
design criteria, a peer review panel, and an independent check conducted by an engineer not
associated with the group who has completed the original analysis. Both Caltrans and NYSDOT
require the use of different software in the independent check.
• To overcome the challenges of finding appropriately qualified engineers in district offices,
Caltrans established the SASA branch, which is focused only on structural modeling and
analysis, while NYSDOT established the MO Structures group with 65 design staff who con-
duct only structural analysis and final design. Note that NYSDOT assigns only 15% of new
bridge designs to consultants compared to the national average of 59%, while Caltrans assigns
only 15% of existing bridge analyses, including load ratings, to consultants compared to the
national average of 47%.
• For training engineering staff, Caltrans established a six-week “bridge design academy,” while
NYSDOT has a 24-session “Bridge 101” training series. Iowa DOT indicated the benefits of
designer-checker pairing and a dedicated training budget for the professional development
of engineering staff.
Opportunities for Future Research

This synthesis identifies the following knowledge gaps that may be addressed by future research.
• Future research could develop guidelines to help state DOTs assess the effectiveness and quality
of their QA/QC processes.
• Future research could develop guidelines and bridge-specific examples for finite element and
STM models.

• Future research is suggested to develop a nationwide repository for sharing finite element
and STM models between DOTs, which may help collectively develop and iteratively improve
common types of models.
• A qualified training system with standardized requirements could be developed for bridge
engineers conducting finite element and STM analyses.
• New training courses and seminars could be developed to educate bridge engineers on how
to effectively conduct important but commonly misunderstood analysis activities, such as
verification, validation, uncertainty, error, and calibration.

References
1. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Standard for Verification and Validation in Computational
Solid Mechanics. ASME V&V 10-2019. ASME, New York, 2020.
2. Trucano, T.G., Swiler, L.P., Igusa, T., Oberkampf, W.L., and Pilch, M. Calibration, Validation, and Sensitivity
Analysis: What’s What. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. Vol. 91, 2006, pp. 331–357.
3. FHWA. Guidance on QC/QA in Bridge Design in Response to NTSB Recommendation (H-08-17). 2011.
{Available from: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/h0817.pdf}
4. Babuska, I., and Oden, J.T. Verification and Validation in Computational Engineering and Science: Basic
Concepts. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. Vol. 193, 2004, pp. 4057–4066.
5. Oberkampf, W., Hirsch, C., and Trucano, T. Verification, Validation, and Predictive Capability in Computa-
tional Engineering and Physics. 2003. {Available from: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/918370/}
6. Technical Committee ISO/TC 176 Q management and quality assurance, SS 1, C and terminology. Quality
Management Systems-Fundamentals and Vocabulary ISO 9000:2015(E). ISO Stand. 2015. {Available from:
https://asq.org/quality-press/display-item?item=T1039&utm_source=qaqc&utm_medium=webpage&utm
_campaign=qaqc&utm_id=LAQ}
7. American Society for Quality. Quality Assurance and Quality Control. 2023. {Available from: https://asq.org
/quality-resources/quality-assurance-vs-control}
8. NCHRP. Best Practices in Quality Control and Assurance in Design. NCHRP Project 20-68A, Scan 09-01.
{Available from: https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/nchrp20-68a_09-01.pdf}
9. Hida, S., Ibrahim, F.I.S., Capers, H.A, Bailey, G.L., Friedland, I.M., Kapur, J., Martin, Jr., B.T., Mertz, D.R.,
Perfetti, G.R., Saad, T., and Sivakumar, B. Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe. 2010.
{Available from: http://international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl10014/pl10014.pdf}
10. von Wolffersdorff, P.-A., and Meier, T. Finite Element Analyses in Geotechnical Engineering–Some
Thoughts and Recommendations concerning Quality Assurance. 2011. pp. 211–19. {Available from:
https://www.baugrund-dresden.de/en/publications/documents/DGK-Beitrag-QM-Numerische-Methoden
_englisch_A4.pdf?m=1500381745}
11. Amati, L., Di Anselmo, A., Margheriti, C., and Kenn, J.M. Numerical Simulation Reliability; Quality Assur-
ance in Finite Element Analysis–A Review. WIT Transactions on Modelling and Simulation. 1993. {Avail-
able from: https://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-modelling-and-simulation/5/13168}
12. U.S. NRC. Software Quality Assurance Program and Guidelines (NUREG/BR-0167). 1993. {Available from:
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0167/index.html}
13. Mirsky, S.M., Hayes, J.E., and Miller, L.A. Guidelines for the Verification and Validation of Expert System
Software and Conventional Software. NUREG/CR-6316. 1995.
14. ANSI. Guidelines for the Verification and Validation of Scientific and Engineering Computer Programs for the
Nuclear Industry. ANS-10.4-1987 (R1998). American Nuclear Society, La Grange, IL, 2008.
15. Roache, P.J. Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering. Hermosa Publishers.
1998. {Available from: http://pages.swcp.com/~hermosa/html/books.html#VVCSE}
16. Oberkampf, W.L., Trucano, T.G., and Hirsch, C. Verification, Validation, and Predictive Capability in Com-
putational Engineering and Physics. Applied Mechanics Reviews. Vol. 57, 2004, pp. 345–384. {Available from:
https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/appliedmechanicsreviews/article/57/5/345/464639/Verification
-validation-and-predictive-capability}
17. AIAA. Guide for the Verification and Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations. AIAA
G-077-1998. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 1998.
18. Kraft E., and Marks, M. DoD Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Verification, Validation, and Accreditation
(VV&A). U.S. Gov. Counterterrorism, 2012.
71

19. NASA. NASA Handbook for Model and Simulations: An Implementation Guide for MASA-STD-7009. 2019.
20. Kwasniewski, L. On Practical Problems with Verification and Validation of Computational Models. Archives
of Civil Engineering. Vol. 55, 2009, pp. 323–346.
21. van Hees, P. Validation and Verification of Fire Models for Fire Safety Engineering. Procedia Engineering.
Vol. 62, 2013, pp. 154-168. {Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.08.052}
22. Szabo, B., and Babuska, I. Introduction to Finite Element Analysis. Wiley, 2011. {Available from: https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781119993834}
23. Murad, J. Errors in FEA and Understanding Singularities (Beginners’ Guide). SimScale blog. 2023. [Accessed
January 27, 2023]. {Available from: https://www.simscale.com/blog/errors-in-fea-and-singularities/}
24. Mason, R.L., Gunst, R.F., and Hess, J.L. Statistical Design and Analysis of Experiments. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2003. {Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/0471458503}
25. Pike, D.J. Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A,
Royal Statistical Society. Vol. 151, 1988, pp. 223–224.
26. Kleijnen, J., and Helton, J.C. Statistical Analyses of Scatterplots to Identify Important Factors in Large-Scale
Simulations, 1: Review and Comparison of Techniques. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 1999.
27. Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Tarantola, S., and Campolongo, F. Sensitivity Analysis Practices: Strategies for Model-
Based Inference. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2006, pp. 1109–1125.
28. Saltelli, A., and Scott, M. Guest Editorial: The Role of Sensitivity Analysis in the Corroboration of Models and
its Link to Model Structural and Parametric Uncertainty. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. Vol. 57,
1997, pp. 1–4.
29. Frey, H.C., and Patil, S.R. Identification and Review of Sensitivity Analysis Methods. Risk Analysis. Vol. 22,
2002, pp. 553–578.
30. Ionescu-Bujor, M., and Cacuci, D.G. A Comparative Review of Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis of Large-
Scale Systems–I: Deterministic Methods. Nuclear Science and Engineering. Vol. 147, 2004, pp. 189–203.
31. Cacuci, D.G., and Ionescu-Bujor, M. A Comparative Review of Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis of
Large-Scale Systems –II: Statistical Methods. Nuclear Science and Engineering. Vol. 147, 2004, pp. 204–217.
32. Kwasniewski, L., and Bojanowski, C. Principles of Verification and Validation. Journal of Structural Fire
Engineering. Vol. 6, 2015, pp. 29–40.
33. Mullerschon, H. Optimization and Robustness Analysis in Structural Mechanics. 2007.
34. Cosner, R. CFD Validation Requirements for Technology Transition. Fluid Dynamics Conference, San Diego,
CA. 1995.
35. Sindir, M., Barson, S., Chan, D., and Lin, W. On the Development and Demonstration of a Code Validation
Process for Industrial Applications. Fluid Dynamics Conference, New Orleans, LA. 1996.
36. Dai, K., Boyajian, D., Liu, W., Chen, S.-E., Scott, J., and Schmieder, M. Laser-Based Field Measurement for
a Bridge Finite-Element Model Validation. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. Vol. 28, 2014.
{Available from: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000484}
37. Reichenbach, M., White, J., Park, S., Zecchin, E., Moore, M., and Liu, Y., et al. Proposed Modification
to AASHTO Cross-Frame Analysis and Design. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2021.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.17226/26074.
38. Okumus, P., Oliva, M.G., and Arancibia, M.D. Design and Performance of Highly Skewed Deck Girder
Bridges. Report: 0092-16-05. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 2018. {Available from: https://
rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/64315}
39. Quirke, P., and Barrias, A. Validation of Finite Element Light Rail Bridge Model Using Dynamic Bridge Deflection
Measurement. Conference: CERI–Civil Engineering Research, Ireland. 2020.
40. Xiang, Y., Fayaz, J., and Zareian, F. Validation of Caltrans Ordinary Bridge Modeling Approach Using CSMIP
Data. SMIP19 Seminar on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data, Los Angeles, CA, 2019. pp. 11–26. {Available
from: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/documents/program-smi/seminar/SMIP19_proceedings.pdf}
41. Zoghi, M., and Farhey, D. Performance Assessment of a Precast-Concrete, Buried, Small Arch Bridge.
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. Vol. 20, 2006, pp. 244–252.
42. Hag-Elsafi, O., Albers, W.F., and Alampalli, S. Dynamic Analysis of the Bentley Creek Bridge with FRP
Deck. Journal of Bridge Engineering. Vol. 17, 2012, pp. 318–333. {Available from: https://ascelibrary.org/doi
/10.1061/%28ASCE%29BE.1943-5592.0000244}
43. Mlynarski, M., Puckett, J.A., Clancy, C.M., Goodrich, B.L., Jablin, M.C., Smyers, W., and Wilson, K. Bridge
Software Validation Guidelines and Examples. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 1696, pp. 143–151. {https://doi.org/10.3141/1696-17}
44. Baker, Jr. M., Bridge Tech, Inc., Modjeski and Masters, Inc. and Thompson, P.D. NCHRP Report 485: Bridge
Software–Validation Guidelines and Examples. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2003.
45. Choe, L., Varma, A.H., and Wheeler E. Evaluation of Prestressed Concrete I-Girder Bridge Design Software
with NCHRP Process 12-50. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2131, 2009, pp. 34–46. {Available from: https://doi.org/10.3141/2131-04}

References 73
46. AASHTO. Manual for Bridge Evaluation. 3rd ed., 2022 Interim Revisions. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2022.
47. Varma, A.H., and Seo, J. Verification of LRFD Bridge Design and Analysis Software for INDOT. FHWA/IN/
JTRP-2009/27. Technical Summary: Technology Transfer and Project Implementation Information. 2009.
{Available from: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2627&context=jtrp}
48. Gergely, J., Lawrence, T.O., Prado, C.I., Ritter, C.T., and Stille, W.B. Evaluation of Bridge Analysis Vis-à-Vis
Performance. Research Project No. HWY-2002-12. 2004.
49. AASHTO. AASHTOWare Bridge Design and Rating (BrD and BrR). AASHTOWare Bridge website. {Available
from: https://www.aashtowarebridge.com/bridge-rating-and-design/}
50. AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. 9th ed. AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2020.
51. Adams, A., Galindez, N., Hopper, T., Murphy, T., Ritchie, P., and Storlie, V., et al. Manual for Refined Analysis
in Bridge Design and Evaluation. Report FHWA-HIF-18-046. Washington, DC, 2019.
52. Chandrupatla, T., and Belegundu, A. Introduction to Finite Elements in Engineering. 2021.
53. Logan, D.L. A First Course in the Finite Element Method. 6th ed. Thomson: Boston, MA, 2022. {Available
from: https://www.cengage.com/c/new-edition/9780357676424/}
54. Nielsen, M.P., and Hoang, L.C. Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity. 3rd ed. 2016.
55. Marti, P. Basic Tools of Reinforced Concrete Beam Design. Journal Proceedings. Vol. 85, 1985, pp. 46–56.
{Available from: https://doi.org/10.14359/10314}
56. Schlaich, J., Schafer, K., and Jennewein, M. Toward a Consistent Design of Structural Concrete. PCI
Journal. Vol. 32, 1987, pp. 74–150. {Available from: https://www.pci.org/PCI/Publications/PCI_Journal
/Issues/1987/May–June/Toward_a_Consistent_Design_of_Structural_Concrete.aspx}
57. Hooke, R. Lectures de Potentia Restitutiva, Or of Spring Explaining the Power of Springing Bodies. London,
1678. p. 56.
58. Bernoulli J. History of the Royal Academy of Sciences . . . with the dissertations in mathematics and
physics . . . drawn from the records of this Academy. Paris; 1760. p. 572. {Available from: https://gallica.bnf.fr
/ark:/12148/bpt6k3558n}
59. Navier C. On the Resistance of Solid Bodies (3rd edition) / by Navier . . . ; with notes and appendices,
by M. Barré de Saint-Venant . . . Paris; 1864. p. 851. {Available from: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148
/bpt6k112967g}
60. Martin, Jr., B.T., and Sanders, D.H. Verification and Implementation of Strut-and-Tie Model in LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington,
DC, 2007.
61. Ashour A.F., and Yang, K-H. Application of Plasticity Theory to Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams: A Review.
Magazine of Concrete Research. Vol. 70, 2007.
62. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445. Strut-and-Tie Method Guidelines for ACI 318-19–Guide. ACI PRC-445.2-21.
American Concrete Institute, 2021.
63. Baniya, P., and Guner, S. Specialized Strut-and-Tie Method for Rapid Strength Prediction of Bridge Pier
Caps. Engineering Structures. Vol. 19, 2019. {Available from: http://www.utoledo.edu/engineering/faculty
/serhan-guner/docs/JP12_Baniya_Guner_2019.pdf}
64. Baniya, P., and Guner, S. STM-CAP (Strut-and-Tie Method for Pier CAPs). The University of Toledo, OH,
2017. {Available from: https://www.utoledo.edu/engineering/faculty/serhan-guner/STMCAP.html}
65. Ohio DOT. Bridge Design Manual. 2020 ed. 2023. {Available from: https://www.transportation.ohio.gov
/working/engineering/structural/bdm)
66. Qualtrics. Qualtrics Online Survey Platform. Qualtrics website. {Available from: https://www.qualtrics.com/}
67. ASCE. Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-22.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. 2022. {Available from: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/book
/10.1061/9780784415788}
68. Marsh, M.L., and Stringer, S.J. Performance-Based Seismic Bridge Design. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, 2013. Available from: {https://doi.org/10.17226/22632}
69. Caltrans. Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM). 2023. {Available from: https://dot.ca.gov
/programs/design/manual-project-development-procedures-manual-pdpm}
70. Caltrans. Structure Technical Policies (STPs). 2020. {Available from: https://dot.ca.gov/programs
/engineering-services/manuals/structure-technical-policies}
71. Caltrans. AASHTO LRFD CA Amendments. 2022. {Available from: https://dot.ca.gov/programs
/engineering-services/manuals/aashto-lrfd-ca-amendments}
72. Caltrans. Seismic Design Criteria (SDC). 2019. {Available from: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/engineering-services
/manuals/seismic-design-criteria}
73. Caltrans. Bridge Design Memos (BDMs). 2023. {Available from: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/engineering-services
/manuals/bridge-design-memos}

74. Caltrans. Bridge Design Practice (BDP). 2022. {Available from: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/engineering-services
/manuals/bridge-design-practice}
75. CDOT. Advertised Projects. {Available from: https://www.codot.gov/business/consultants/advertised
-projects}
76. BidNet Direct. CDOT Construction & Engineering Services Bid Opportunities. {Available from: https://www
.bidnetdirect.com/colorado/cdotconstructionengineeringservices}
77. CDOT. Consultant Pre-Qualification List, Work Codes and Application Internet. {Available from: https://
www.codot.gov/business/consultants/consultant-pre-qualification-list}
78. CDOT. Bridge Design Manual. 2023. {Available from: https://www.codot.gov/programs/bridge/bridge
-manuals/design_manual}
79. CDOT. Bridge Rating Manual. 2022. {Available from: https://www.codot.gov/programs/bridge/bridge-
manuals/rating_manual/bridge_rating_manual_2022_09.pdf}
80. CDOT. Technical Memorandums. {Available from: https://www.codot.gov/programs/bridge/bridge-manuals
/tech-memos}
81. Iowa DOT. Conducting Business with the Iowa DOT Bridges and Structures Bureau. 2021. {Available from:
https://iowadot.gov/projectdev/Consultant-Resources}
82. Iowa DOT. Bridge Plan Review. 2023. {Available from: https://iowadot.gov/bridge/Design-Policies
/Bridge-and-Culvert-Plan-Checklist}
83. AASHTO. AASHTO Guide Specifications for Analysis and Identification of Fracture Critical Members and
System Redundant Members, with 2022 Interim Revisions. 1st ed. American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2018.
84. Iowa DOT. Final Bridge Design Software. {Available from: https://iowadot.gov/bridge/automation-tools
/final-design-software#446761464-cip-reinforced-concrete-box-culvert-program}
85. Iowa DOT. Bridge Analysis and Design Resources. {Available from: https://iowadot.gov/business}
86. Iowa DOT. LRFD Bridge Design Manual. {Available from: https://iowadot.gov/bridge/design-policies
/lrfddesignmanual}
87. LaDOTD. Advertisements and Addenda. {Available from: http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD
/Divisions/Engineering/CCS/Pages/Advertisements.aspx}
88. LaDOTD. DOTD FORM: 24-102: Proposal to Provide Consultant Services.{Available from: http://wwwsp
.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/CCS/ProposalDocs/4400023689%20and%20
4400023690%20IDIQ%20Safety%20Studies/44-23689%20-%2044-23690%20Quality%20Engineering.pdf}
89. LaDOTD. Proposals. {Available from: http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering
/CCS/Pages/Proposals.aspx}
90. LaDOTD. Bridge Design and Evaluation Manual. {Available from: http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_
LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Bridge_Design/Pages/BDEM.aspx}
91. LaDOTD. Pre-Approved Software List. {Available from: http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD
/Divisions/Engineering/Bridge_Design/QCQA/Pre-Approved%20Software%20List.pdf}
92. LaDOTD. Standard Plans/Special Details. {Available from: http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD
/Divisions/Engineering/Standard_Plans/Pages/default.aspx}
93. LaDOTD. Bridge Design Technical Memoranda (BDTM). {Available from: http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov
/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Bridge_Design/Pages/Technical-Memoranda.aspx}
94. NYSDOT. CSS Web. {Available from: https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business-center/consultants/css-web}
95. NYSDOT. NYSDOT 255 Shortlist Submittal Form. {Available from: https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business
-center/consultants/consultants-repository/instr_nys255_ver07-2022.pdf }
96. NYSDOT. Design Scoring Methodology–PROCESS II. {Available from: https://www.dot.ny.gov/main
/business-center/consultants/consultants-repository/DesScore_Revised%2006-01-20.pdf}
97. NYSDOT. Project Development Manual, Appendix 12: Quality Control and Quality Assurance. {Available
from: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/pdm}
98. NYSDOT. Bridge Manual. {Available from: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/structures
/manuals/bridge-manual-usc}
99. NYSDOT. LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. {Available from: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering
/structures/manuals}
100. NYSDOT. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. {Available from: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions
/engineering/structures/manuals}
101. NYSDOT. Seismic Design Guidelines for Bridges in Downstate Region. {Available from: https://www.dot
.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/structures/manuals/seismic-references}
102. NYSDOT. Structures Design and Analysis Program. {Available from: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions
/engineering/structures/design/design-analysis-programs}
103. NSBA. Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis. G13.1-2019. {Available from: https://www.aisc.org
/globalassets/nsba/aashto-nsba-collab-docs/g-13.1-2019-guidelines-for-steel-girder-bridge-analysis
.pdf}

APPENDIX A
Survey Questionnaire
75

PROJECT 20-05, SYNTHESIS TOPIC 54-11: QUALITY PROCESSES FOR BRIDGE ANALYSIS MODELS
Dear AASHTO Committee on Bridges and Structures Member,
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) is preparing a synthesis on state DOT Quality Processes for Bridge Analysis Models. This
is being done for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), under the sponsorship of the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
The purpose of this survey is to document state DOT practices related to quality processes for bridge structural analysis models. More
specifically, the following processes will be documented: identifying appropriately qualified staff, choosing valid analysis methods and
software, modeling the structure, and verifying the analysis results. The results of the survey will be incorporated into a synthesis of
highway practice, with the intent of helping DOTs evaluate and improve their quality processes for bridge structural analysis models
including both super- and sub-structures.
This survey is being sent to voting members of the AASHTO Committee on Bridges and Structures. If you are not the appropriate
person at your agency to complete this survey, please forward it to the right person. A PDF version of the survey is attached to the
email for reference. The survey is designed so that the respondent can exit and return to the survey (from the same computer) if he/she
needs more time or input from others. We estimate that the survey should take no more than 20 minutes to complete. Please note that
DOT survey responses will be shown in the published synthesis report. However, the identity of the survey respondents will remain
anonymous.
Please complete and submit this survey by February 3, 2023. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the principal
investigator Dr. Serhan Guner.
Thank you for sharing your time and expertise with the state DOT community.
Serhan Guner, Ph.D., P.Eng.

Associate Professor
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
The University of Toledo
Contact Information (This information will remain anonymous.)
Respondent Name: _______________________________
DOT Agency: ___________________________________
Job Title: _______________________________________
Email: _________________________________________
Phone: _________________________________________
QUANTITY OF BRIDGE DESIGNS COMPLETED (5 questions)
1. How many bridge engineers currently work in your agency (direct employees only, not including consultants)?
0-10
10-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80+
2. Approximately how many new bridge and bridge replacement designs are completed in a typical year in house (by your agency) and
external consultants (total number of designs)?
0-10
10-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80+
3. Approximately what percentages of new bridge and bridge replacement designs in a typical year are completed by external
consultants?
Less than 10%
10% to 20%
20% to 40%
40% to 60% (approximately half)
60% to 80%
80% to 100%
4. Approximately how many existing bridges are analyzed in a typical year in house (by your agency) and external consultants (total
number of analyses)? Existing bridge design projects include load ratings, rehabilitation, retrofit, or any analysis performed on an
existing bridge.
Less than 25%
25-50%
50-75%
75-100%
100-125%
125+
5. Approximately what percentages of existing bridge analyses in a typical year are conducted by external consultants? Existing bridge
design projects include load ratings, rehabilitation, retrofit, or any analysis performed on an existing bridge.
Less than 10%
10% to 20%
20% to 40%
40% to 60% (approximately half)
60% to 80%
80% to 100%
BRIDGE DESIGNS COMPLETED BY CONSULTANTS (6 to 10 questions)
6. Does your agency have any written or informal processes for identifying appropriately qualified consultants for the structural design
of bridges?
Written (please upload the document or input a download link if possible)
Informal
No
7. How does your agency select appropriately qualified consultants for bridge design projects? Check all that apply.
Pre-qualification requirements
Proposal evaluation
Interview
Other (please specify):
Q8 only appears if ‘pre-qualification requirements’ is selected in Q7.
8. What requirements does your agency’s pre-qualification process include? Check all that apply.
Minimum years of design experience
Minimum number of similar project experience
Minimum number of design engineers for the project
Structural Engineer (S.E.) credentials based on project complexity
9. Does your agency have any written or informal quality processes for bridge analysis models developed by consultants?
Informal
No
10. Does your agency have an approved software list for bridge modeling and analysis?
Yes
No
11. Does your agency track what methods of analysis are used for bridges analyzed by the consultants?
Yes
No
Q12 only appears if Q11 is answered ‘yes.’

12. What methods of analysis are used for bridges analyzed by the consultants?
Often Sometimes Rarely Never

One-dimensional line girder analysis
using distribution factors
Two-dimensional analysis using line
elements with or without plate/shell
elements
13. Does your agency have any written or informal processes for verifying the analysis results obtained from consultants?
Informal
As defined in the proposal of the consultant
No
Q14 and Q15 only appear if Q13 is answered ‘written’ or ‘informal.’

14. Does your agency require an independent consultant, as the ‘checker,’ to verify the accuracy of the calculations performed by the
project consultant?
Yes, for every bridge
Only if specified in the selected proposal of the consultant
Not required.
15. Does your agency perform an in-house check of the analysis results obtained from consultants to verify accuracy?
Yes, for every bridge
Not required
BRIDGE DESIGNS COMPLETED IN-HOUSE BY YOUR AGENCY (7 to 10 questions)
16. Does your agency have any written or informal processes for identifying appropriately qualified in-house engineers for bridge
analyses?
Informal
No
17. Does your agency have any written or informal processes for choosing a suitable analysis method and/or software?
Informal
No
18. What methods of analysis are used for bridges analyzed in-house by your agency?

One-dimensional line girder
analysis using distribution factors
Two-dimensional analysis using

line elements with or without
plate/shell elements
Linear-elastic finite element
analysis
19. Does your agency have any written or informal processes for modeling a bridge (e.g., boundary conditions, material properties,
loading distribution, type of element, soil structure interaction)?
Written
Informal
No
20. Does your agency have any written or informal processes for validating the analysis software?
Written
Informal
No
Validation is the process of confirming that structural analysis software provides results that adequately represent the real physical
behavior of the structure being modeled. Methods for validating structural analysis software include comparing predictions of the
software to experimental results or benchmarks available in the literature.
Q21 only appears if Q20 is answered ‘written’ or ‘informal.’
21. How does your agency validate the analysis software for medium- to high-complexity bridges and substructures that require 2D or
3D analysis models?

Modeling of benchmark structures or specimens
(tested experimentally) and compare our (sic)
results.
Hiring of external consultants for software

validation.
Use of data from field tests and sensor
deployment.
Use of data from bridge inspection records for
existing bridges.
Analysis engineers decide how to validate.
22. Does your agency have any written or informal processes for verifying in-house analysis results?
Written
Informal
No
Verification is the process of confirming that the analysis is performed correctly and with the correct input. Methods for validating
structural analysis results might include comparing the results with the results obtained from another software, tool, or spreadsheet, or
from hand calculations.
23. How does your agency verify the in-house analysis results for medium- to high-complexity bridges and substructures that require
2D or 3D analysis models?

software to analyze the same bridge.
Another team of engineers uses a different method
or software to analyze the same bridge.
Comparison of the results with similar bridges
analyzed previously.
Use of NCHRP Process 12-50.
Checking of input parameters.
Analysis engineers decide how to verify.
24. Does your agency have any written or informal processes for reconciling discrepancies between independent models?
Written
Informal
No

25. How does your agency reconcile discrepancies?

discrepancies.
independent checks.
independent checks.
The more conservative set of results is used.
Data from field tests and sensor deployment are
used.
Analysis engineers decide how to reconcile.
Would you be willing to participate in a follow-up interview with the principal investigator to provide additional details for a possible
case example for the synthesis report?
Yes
No
APPENDIX B
Aggregate Survey Results
The following tables show the distribution of DOT responses for each question in the survey.
Q5. Approximately
what percentage of
Q2. Approximately Q3. existing bridge
Q1. How how many new Approximately Q4. Approximately how many analyses in a typical
many bridge bridge and bridge what percentage existing bridges are analyzed year are conducted
engineers replacement of new bridge in a typical year in-house (by by external
State DOT currently designs are and bridge your agency) and external consultants?
and work in your completed in a replacement consultants (total number of Existing bridge
Washington, agency (direct typical year in- designs in a analyses)? Existing bridge design projects
DC employees house (by your typical year are design projects include load include load ratings,
only, not agency) and completed by ratings, rehabilitation, retrofit, rehabilitation,
including external external or any analysis performed on retrofit, or any
consultants)? consultants (total consultants? an existing bridge. analysis performed
number of designs)? (%) on an existing
bridge.
(%)
AK 20–40 80+ Less than 10 125+ Less than 10
AL 10–20 20–40 10–20 Less than 25 Less than 10
AR 20–40 20–40 40–60 125+ Less than 10
AZ 10–20 0–10 20–40 Less than 25 Less than 10
CA 80+` 40–60 40–60 125+ 10–20
CO 20–40 0–10 40–60 75–100 60–80
CT 80+ 10–20 80–100 125+ 60–80
DC 0–10 0–10 80–100 Less than 25 80–100
DE 20–40 10–20 40–60 125+ 40–60
FL 80+ 80+ 80–100 125+ 80–100
GA 40–60 60–80 80–100 125+ 60–80
HI 0–10 0–10 80–100 50–75 80–100
IA 40–60 40–60 80–100 125+ Less than 10
ID 10-20 20–40 40–60 125+ 60–80
IL 40–60 80+ 80–100 125+ 20–40
IN 20–40 80+ 80–100 125+ 80–100
KS 10–20 40–60 60–80 100–125 40–60
KY 0–10 60–80 60–80 125+ 60–80
LA 40–60 20–40 60–80 100–125 20–40
84

Aggregate Survey Results 85
MA 10–20 10–20 80–100 25–50 80–100

MD 20–40 0–10 Less than 10 Less than 25 Less than 10
ME 20–40 20–40 60–80 50–75 60–80
MI 20–40 20–40 40–60 125+ 20–40
MN 40–60 20–40 40–60 125+ Less than 10
MO 40–60 40–60 60–80 125+ 40–60
MS 10–20 20–40 20–40 125+ Less than 10
MT 20–40 10–20 40–60 100–125 40–60
NC 80+ 80+ 80–100 125+ Less than 10
ND 0–10 10–20 40–60 25–50 20–40
NE 20–40 20–40 40–60 125+ 20–40
NH 10–20 0–10 60–80 50–75 20–40
NJ 80+ 10–20 60–80 125+ 40–60
NM 10–20 0–10 40–60 50–75 20–40
NV 10–20 0–10 20–40 75–100 60–80
NY 80+ 40–60 10–20 125+ 60–80
OH 20–40 20–40 80–100 125+ 60–80
OK 10–20 20–40 40–60 75–100 20–40
OR 20–40 0–10 10–20 75–100 40–60
PA 80+ 80+ 80–100 125+ 60–80
RI 20–40 20–40 80–100 125+ 80–100
SC 20–40 80+ 80–100 125+ 80–100
SD 20–40 10–20 10–20 50–75 Less than 10
TN 20–40 80+ 20–40 125+ 40–60
TX 40–60 20–40 40–60 125+ 60–80
UT 0–10 20–40 80–100 125+ 80–100
VA 80+ 20–40 60–80 125+ 60–80
VT 10–20 20–40 40–60 25–50 20–40
WA 40–60 40–60 60–80 50–75 40–60
WI 20–40 80+ 60–80 125+ 60–80
WV 40–60 60–80 40–60 125+ Less than 10
WY 10–20 0–10 20–40 75–100 Less than 10

Q6. Does your agency

have any written or
State DOT Q7. How does your agency select appropriately qualified consultants for
informal processes for
and bridge design projects? Check all that apply.
identifying appropriately
Washington,
qualified consultants for
DC
the structural design of Pre-qualification Proposal Other (please
bridges? Interview
requirements evaluation specify):
AK Informal X
AL Written X X
AR Informal X
AZ No
CA Written X
CO Written X
CT Written X X X
DC Informal X X X
DE No X X
FL Written X X X
GA Written X X
HI Written X
IA Written X X
ID Informal X X
IL Written X X
IN Written X X X
KS Written X X X
KY Written X X
LA Informal X X
MA Written X X
MD Informal X X
ME Written X X X
MI Written X X
MN Written X X
MO Informal X X X X
MS Informal X
MT Written X X
NC Informal X X X
ND Written X X X
NE Informal X X X
NH Written X
NJ Written X X
NM No X
NV Written X X X
NY Written X X
OH Written X
OK Informal X X X
OR Written X X X

PA Written X X
RI Written X X X
SC No X
SD Written X X
TN Informal X X
TX Written X X X
UT Written X X X
VA Written X X
VT Informal X X
WA Written X X
WI Informal X X
WV Informal X X
WY Informal X
Q6. If the document is available in a web page, you can paste the address into the text box below.
CO https://www.codot.gov/business/consultants/consultant-pre-qualification-list
GA https://www.dot.ga.gov/GDOT/Pages/EngineeringConsultantQualification.aspx
IL https://idot.illinois.gov/doing-business/procurements/engineering-architectural-professional-
services/prequalification.html
IN https://www.in.gov/indot/doing-business-with-indot/files/CPQM.pdf
KS https://www.ksdotike.org/about/doing-business-with-kdot
MN http://www.dot.state.mn.us/consult/prequal/worktype/work-type-3.1.docx
MT https://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/CDB/consultant_manual/consultant-design-
manual_combined.pdf#page=67
NH https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/highwaydesign/consultants/documents/consultant -
selection-manual-03012022.pdf
OH https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/working/engineering/consultant-services/manuals-and-contract-
documents/1-consultant-contract-admin
UT https://udot.utah.gov/connect/business/consultant-services/consultant-pools/
VA https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/doing-business/technical-guidance-and-support/technical-guidance-
documents/manual-for-the-procurement--management-of-professional-services/
WA https://wsdot.wa.gov/engineering-standards/all-manuals-and-standards/manuals/consultant-services-
manual
Q7. Other (please specify):
▪ We also use average evaluation scores from previous work.
▪ Proposal evaluation performed by design staff generates only a short list. Consultant selection is made
by the DOT Secretary.
▪ Interviews are only for large design-build projects.
▪ Limited Services Contract (LSC) selection process
▪ Consultant ratings for past projects
▪ Work history/Past performance/RFP with specific requirements

Q9. Does your

Q8. What requirements does your agency’s pre-qualification process include? Check all that agency have any
State DOT written or
apply. [Q8 appears only if “pre-qualification requirements” is selected in Q7].
informal quality
and
processes for
Washington, Minimum Structural engineer bridge analysis
DC Minimum years Minimum number of Other
number of (S.E.) credentials models
of design design engineers for (please
similar project based on project developed by
experience the project specify):
experience complexity consultants?
AK No
AL X Written
AR No
AZ No
CA X Written
CO Written
CT X X X Written
DC X X X Informal
DE Written
FL X X X No
GA X No
HI X Informal
IA X Written
ID X X Informal
IL X X X No
IN X X No
KS X Written
KY X X No
LA No
MA X X Written
MD X X Informal
ME X No
MI X X X X Informal
MN X X X Written
MO X X Written
MS No
MT X X X X Informal
NC X X X X Informal
ND X Written
NE X X X Informal
NH No
NJ X X X X X Written
NM Written
NV X X Informal
NY Written
OH X X No
OK X X X No

OR X X X Written
PA X X X Written
RI X X X X Written
SC No
SD X Written
TN X X X Informal
TX X X Written
UT X X X Written
VA No
VT No
WA X Written
WI No
WV X X X Informal
WY No

Services include bridge design.
If applicable, specialty experience
Professional Engineer (P.E.) license
https://www.dot.ga.gov/GDOT/Pages/EngineeringConsultantQualification.aspx
Employee experience, equipment, company experience
Project experience must be within the last 10 years. Must use applicable design codes (LRFD). Must be
certified plan. Must be licensed in our state. Must show capability to meet CADD standards. Must clearly
show each person's role in example projects.
Professional licensure requirements
P.E. Registration in our state
Depending on the complexity of the work or specialty work, we will typically state in the request for
proposals how much experience or what certifications they require in order to perform the work.
Otherwise, we base the consultant selection based on the proposals, interview, past experience, etc.
Revaluation Rating
State Registered P.E. & Certificate of Authorization to perform engineering services in our state,
project specific requirements as established in the RFP for the specific project
Pay rates
CO https://www.codot.gov/programs/bridge/bridge-manuals/rating_manual
DE https://bridgedesignmanual.deldot.gov/index.php/Main_Page
IA https://iowadot.gov/bridge/Design-Policies/LRFDdesignmanual
MN https://edocs-public.dot.state.mn.us/edocs_public/DMResultSet/download?docId=10175226
MO http://epg.modot.org/index.php/Category:751_LRFD_Bridge_Design_Guidelines
ND https://www.dot.nd.gov/construction-and-planning/construction-planning/research/design-manual
RI https://www.dot.ri.gov/business/contractorsandconsultants.php
UT https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R38biq78EI9Q1JiFyO -MI4icubM2Zdp5/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R38biq78EI9Q1JiFyO
WA https://wsdot.wa.gov/engineering-standards/all-manuals-and-standards/manuals/bridge-design-manual-lrfd

Q10. Does
Q11. Does your
your agency Q12. What methods of analysis are used for bridges analyzed by your consultants? [Q12 appears only if Q11 is answered “yes”].
agency track what
State DOT have an
methods of
and approved
analysis are used One-dimensional Two-dimensional
Washington, software list
for bridges line girder analysis using line Other
DC for bridge Linear-elastic finite Nonlinear finite Strut-and-tie method (STM)
analyzed by the analysis using elements with or (please
modeling element analysis element analysis analysis
consultants? distribution without plate/shell specify):

and analysis?
factors elements
AK No No
AL No No
AR No No
AZ No No
CA No Yes Sometimes Often Rarely Rarely Sometimes
CO Yes Yes Sometimes Often Rarely Rarely Sometimes
CT Yes Yes Often Sometimes Sometimes Often Rarely
DC No Yes Often Often Sometimes Never Rarely
DE No No
FL No No
GA No No
HI Yes Yes Often Rarely Sometimes Rarely Rarely
IA Yes No
ID Yes Yes Often Sometimes Rarely Rarely Sometimes
IL No No
IN No No
KS Yes No
KY No No
LA Yes No
MA Yes No
MD No Yes Often Sometimes Never Never Often
ME No No
MI No Yes Often Often Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes
MN No No
MO No No
MS No No
MT No No
NC No No
ND Yes No
NE No No
NH No No
NJ Yes Yes Often Sometimes Rarely Rarely Rarely
NM No Yes Often Often Sometimes Rarely Sometimes
NV No Yes Rarely Sometimes Often Often Often
NY Yes Yes Often Sometimes Sometimes Rarely Sometimes
OH Yes No
OK No No
OR Yes No
PA Yes No
RI Yes Yes Often Often Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes
SC No No
SD Yes No
TN Yes No
TX Yes No
UT No No
VA Yes No
VT No Yes Often Sometimes Sometimes Rarely Sometimes
WA Yes No
WI No Yes Often Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Often
WV No No
WY No No
Q13. Does your agency have any written or informal

processes for verifying the analysis results obtained from
consultants?
State DOT and
Washington, DC As defined in the
Written Informal proposal of the No
consultant
AK X
AL X
AR X
AZ X
CA X
CO X
CT X
DC X
DE X
FL X
GA X
HI X
IA X
ID X
IL X
IN X
KS X
KY X
LA X
MA X
MD X
ME X
MI X
MN X
MO X
MS X
MT X
NC X
ND X
NE X
NH X
NJ X
NM X
NV X
NY X
OH X
OK X

Q13. Does your agency have any written or informal

processes for verifying the analysis results obtained from
consultants?
State DOT
As defined in the
Written Informal proposal of the No
consultant
OR X
PA X
RI X
SC X
SD X
TN X
TX X
UT X
VA X
VT X
WA X
WI X
WV X
WY X
CO https://www.codot.gov/programs/bridge/bridge-manuals/rating_manual
MN http://www.dot.state.mn.us/bridge/pdf/lrfdmanual/section01.pdf
RI https://www.dot.ri.gov/documents/doingbusiness/RIDOT_LRFR_Guidelines.pdf
Q14. Does your agency require an independent consultant, as the “checker,” to verify the accuracy of
the calculations performed by the project consultant? [Q14 only appears if Q13 is answered “written”
State DOT or “informal”].
and
Washington, Yes, only Yes, based Only if specified in
DC Yes, for every Yes, for most for on a case- the selected Not
bridge bridges complex by-case proposal of the required
bridges decision consultant
AK
AL X
AR
AZ
CA X
CO X
CT X
DC X
DE
FL
GA X
HI X

IA
ID
IL X
IN X
KS X
KY
LA X
MA X
MD X
ME
MI X
MN X
MO X
MS
MT X
NC X
ND X
NE X
NH X
NJ X
NM X
NV
NY X
OH
OK X
OR
PA X
RI X
SC
SD X
TN X
TX
UT
VA
VT
WA
WI X
WV X
WY

Q16. Does your

agency have any Q17. Does your
Q15. Does your agency perform an in-house check of the analysis written or agency have any
results obtained from consultants to verify accuracy? [Q15 appears informal written or
State DOT only if Q13 is answered “written” or “informal”]. processes for informal
and
identifying processes for
Washington,
appropriately choosing a
DC
Yes, based qualified in- suitable analysis
Yes, for Yes, for Yes, only for house engineers method and/or
on a case- Not
every most complex for bridge software?
by-case required
bridge bridges bridges analyses?
decision
AK Informal Informal
AL X Informal Informal
AR No No
AZ No No
CA X Written Written
CO X Informal No
CT X Informal Informal
DC X No No
DE Informal No
FL No No
GA X No No
HI X Informal No
IA Informal Written
ID Written No
IL X Informal Informal
IN X Informal Informal
KS X Written Written
KY Informal Informal
LA X Written Informal
MA X No Written
MD X Informal Informal
ME No No
MI X Informal Informal
MN X Informal Written
MO X Informal No
MS Informal No
MT X Informal Informal
NC X Informal Informal
ND X Written No
NE X Informal Informal
NH X Informal Informal
NJ X Informal Written
NM X No No
NV Informal Informal

Q16. Does your

Q15. Does your agency perform an in-house check of the analysis agency have any Q17. Does your
results obtained from consultants to verify accuracy? [Q15 only written or agency have any
appears if Q13 is answered ‘written’ or ‘informal’] informal written or
processes for informal
State DOT identifying processes for
appropriately choosing a
qualified in- suitable analysis
Yes, for Yes, for Yes, only for Yes, based on
Not house engineers method and/or
every most complex a case-by-
required for bridge software?
bridge bridges bridges case decision
analyses?
NY X Informal Written
OH Informal Written
OK X No No
OR Informal Written
PA X Written Written
RI X No Written
SC No Written
SD X No Informal
TN X Informal Informal
TX Informal Informal
UT Informal No
VA No Informal
VT Informal Informal
WA Informal Written
WI X Informal Informal
WV X Informal No
WY No Informal
IA https://iowadot.gov/bridge/Automation-Tools/Final-Design-Software
KS See the Bridge Design Manual sections previously attached.
MN https://edocs-public.dot.state.mn.us/edocs_public/DMResultSet/download?docId=10175226
OH https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/wps/wcm/connect/gov/500258d3-ee36-462f-b7d6-
422c9caba872/2020+BDM_07-15-22-
Optimized.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE.Z18_M1HGGIK0N0J
O00QO9DDDDM3000-500258d3-ee36-462f-b7d6-422c9caba872-ofiiKLn
RI https://www.dot.ri.gov/documents/doingbusiness/RIDOT_LRFR_Guidelines.pdf
SC https://www.scdot.org/business/pdf/structural-design/SCDOT_Bridge_Design_Manual.pdf
WA https://wsdot.wa.gov/engineering-standards/all-manuals-and-standards/manuals/bridge-design-
manual-lrfd

Q19. Does your Q20. Does

Q18. What methods of analysis are used for bridges analyzed in-house by your
agency have any your
agency?
written or informal agency
One- Two- processes for have any
State DOT and dimensional dimensional modeling a bridge written or
Washington, DC line girder analysis Linear (e.g., boundary informal
Nonlinear Strut-and-
analysis using line elastic Other conditions, material processes
finite tie method
using elements finite (please properties, loading for
element (STM)
distribution with or element specify): distribution, type of validating
analysis analysis
factors without analysis element, soil the
plate/shell structure analysis
elements interaction)? software?
AK Often Rarely Rarely Rarely Sometimes Informal Informal
AL Often Sometimes Rarely Rarely Rarely Never No No
AR Often Sometimes Rarely Rarely Often No No
AZ Often Sometimes Sometimes Never Sometimes Informal No
CA Sometimes Often Rarely Rarely Rarely Written Written
CO Often Sometimes Sometimes Rarely Sometimes No No
CT Often Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Never Written Informal
DC Rarely Rarely Never Never Never Never No No
DE Often Sometimes Rarely Rarely Rarely Informal Informal
FL Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Informal No
GA Often Rarely Sometimes Rarely Rarely No No
HI Often Rarely Rarely Rarely Rarely No No
IA Often Rarely Rarely Rarely Sometimes Written Written
ID Often Sometimes Rarely Rarely Sometimes Informal Informal
IL Often Sometimes Rarely Never Rarely No Informal
IN Often Rarely Rarely Rarely Rarely No Informal
KS Often Sometimes Rarely Rarely Often Written Informal
KY Often Sometimes Sometimes Rarely Rarely Informal Informal
LA Often Sometimes Sometimes Rarely Sometimes No No
MA Often Never Never Never Sometimes Written No
MD Often Sometimes Never Never Often Informal Informal
ME Often Sometimes Rarely Never Often No No
MI Often Often Rarely Never Sometimes Often Informal Informal
MN Often Sometimes Often Never Often Written Written
MO Often Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Never Written No
MS Often Rarely Rarely Rarely Never No No
MT Often Sometimes Sometimes Never Sometimes Informal Informal
NC Often Sometimes Rarely Never Rarely Never Written No
ND Often Never Never Never Sometimes Written Informal
NE Often Rarely Never Never Never Informal Informal
NH Often Sometimes Rarely Never Rarely No Informal
NJ Often Sometimes Rarely Rarely Rarely Informal Informal
NM Often Often Sometimes Rarely Sometimes No Informal
NV Rarely Sometimes Often Often Often Written Informal

Q19. Does your Q20. Does

Q18. What methods of analysis are used for bridges analyzed in-house by your
agency have any your
agency?
written or informal agency
processes for have any
Two- modeling a bridge written or
One- dimensional (e.g., boundary informal
State DOT
dimensional analysis conditions, material processes
Linear- Nonlinear properties, loading for
line girder using line Strut-and- Other
elastic finite finite distribution, type of validating
analysis elements tie analysis (please
element element element, soil the
using with or (STM) specify):
analysis analysis structure interaction, analysis
distribution without
factors plate/shell etc.)? software?
elements
NY Often Sometimes Sometimes Rarely Sometimes Informal Written
OH Sometimes Often Rarely Never Never No No
OK Often Often Rarely Rarely Rarely Informal Informal
OR Often Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Often Informal Written
PA Often Rarely Rarely Rarely Rarely Written Written
RI Often Never Never Never Never Written Written
SC Often Sometimes Sometimes Rarely Rarely Written No
SD Often Rarely Sometimes Rarely Rarely Informal Informal
TN Often Sometimes Never Rarely Never Written No
TX Often Rarely Rarely Rarely Sometimes Informal Informal
UT Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Rarely Sometimes Written No
VA Often Rarely Rarely Rarely Sometimes Informal Informal
VT Often Sometimes Sometimes Rarely Sometimes No Informal
WA Often Rarely Sometimes Rarely Rarely Written No
WI Often Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Often Informal Informal
WV Often Sometimes Rarely Never Rarely Informal No
WY Often Rarely Rarely Rarely Rarely No No

▪ Often In-house Bridge Design Program
Q21. How does your agency validate the analysis software for medium- to high-complexity
bridges and substructures that require 2D or 3D analysis models? [Q21 appears only if Q20
is answered “written” or “informal”].
State DOT Modeling of
Q22. Does your agency have any
and benchmark Use of data
Hiring of Use of data written or informal processes for
Washington, structures or from bridge Analysis
external from field Other verifying in-house analysis results?
DC specimens inspection engineers
consultants tests and (please
(tested records for decide how
for software sensor specify):
experimentally) existing to validate
validation deployment
and comparing bridges
results
AK Often Informal
AL Informal
AR Informal
AZ Informal

CA Often Never Never Rarely Often Written

CO Written
CT Rarely Never Sometimes Often Often Informal
DC No
DE Often Sometimes Rarely Rarely Often Informal
FL No
GA No
HI Informal
IA Rarely Sometimes Rarely Never Often Written
ID Never Rarely Rarely Rarely Sometimes Often Informal
IL Rarely Rarely Never Never Often Informal
IN Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Informal
KS Often Informal
KY Sometimes Never Never Never Often Informal
LA Written
MA Informal
MD Often Rarely Never Sometimes Sometimes Informal
ME Written
MI Sometimes Rarely Sometimes Sometimes Often Informal
MN Sometimes Never Rarely Sometimes Sometimes Written
MO Informal
MS No
MT Never Rarely Never Rarely Sometimes Informal
NC Informal
ND Never Rarely Rarely Rarely Sometimes Informal
NE Often Never Never Never Sometimes Informal
NH Rarely Rarely Never Often Often Written
NJ Sometimes Rarely Often Often Sometimes Informal
NM Rarely Sometimes Sometimes Never Sometimes Informal
NV Rarely Rarely Rarely Rarely Often Often Informal
NY Often Sometimes Rarely Often Often Written
OH No
OK Never Sometimes Rarely Rarely Sometimes Informal
OR Rarely Sometimes Rarely Rarely Often Written
PA Often Rarely Sometimes Often Rarely Written
RI Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Often Often Written
SC Informal

SD Rarely Rarely Rarely Rarely Often No

TN Informal
TX Often Sometimes Rarely Never Often Often Written
UT No
VA Sometimes Never Sometimes Often Often Informal
VT Never Sometimes Sometimes Never Often Informal
WA Written
WI Rarely Sometimes Rarely Sometimes Often Informal
WV Informal
WY No

We do not rely on software.
Compare with other software
Comparison against the AASHTOWare model required to be submitted
Independent design using other software, spot checks with hand calculations/spreadsheets.
Checking engineer validates results as well.
Q23. How does your agency verify the in-house analysis results for medium- to high-complexity bridges and
substructures that require 2D or 3D analysis models? [Q23 appears only if Q22 is answered “written” or “informal”]. Q24. Does your
agency have any
Same team written or informal
State DOT Another team
of engineers processes for
and of engineers
uses a Comparison of reconciling
Washington, uses a Analysis
different results with Other discrepancies
DC different Use of NCHRP Checking of input engineers
method or similar bridges (please between
method or Process 12-50 parameters decide how
software to analyzed specify): independent
software to to verify
analyze the previously models?
analyze the
same
same bridge
bridge
AK Often Often Written
AL Often Rarely Often Never Often Often Informal
AR Sometimes Never Rarely Never Often Never No
AZ Often No
CA Rarely Often Never Never Often Often Informal
CO Sometimes Often Rarely Never Sometimes Often No
CT Rarely Rarely Sometimes Never Often Often No
DC No
DE Sometimes Sometimes Often Never Often Often No
FL Written
GA No
HI Sometimes Sometimes Often Rarely Often Rarely No
IA Sometimes Sometimes Rarely Never Sometimes Sometimes No
ID Often Often Sometimes Never Often Sometimes Written
IL Often Rarely Sometimes Rarely Often Often Informal
IN Sometimes Sometimes Rarely Never Sometimes Rarely Informal
KS Often Often Often Often No
KY Sometimes Sometimes Informal

LA Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Often Sometimes Written

MA Never Often Never Never Never Never No
MD Often Often Often Never Often Often No
ME Often Written
MI Often Sometimes Sometimes Rarely Often Rarely Informal
MN Often Never Often Never Often Often Informal
MO Sometimes Never Sometimes Never Often Often Informal
MS No
MT Sometimes Sometimes Often Sometimes Often Sometimes Informal
NC Often Rarely Sometimes Never Often Sometimes Never Informal
ND Sometimes Sometimes Often Never Often Often Informal
NE Often Rarely Sometimes Never Often Often Informal
NH Rarely Often Often Never Never Never Written
NJ Rarely Rarely Rarely Rarely Rarely Rarely Informal
NM Rarely Rarely Sometimes Often Sometimes Informal
NV Rarely Often Rarely Never Often Often No
NY Often Often Sometimes Often Often Often Informal
OH No
OK Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Rarely Often Often Informal
OR Often Often Never Sometimes Sometimes Written
PA Never Never Often Never Often Rarely Informal
RI Never Never Often Never Often Often Written
SC Sometimes Never Sometimes Often Often Informal
SD Informal
TN Never Sometimes Often Never Often Often Informal
TX Never Rarely Sometimes Rarely Often Often Informal
UT No
VA Sometimes Sometimes Rarely Never Often Sometimes Informal
VT Often Often Sometimes Rarely Often Often Informal
WA Rarely Often Sometimes Never Often Sometimes Informal
WI Sometimes Often Sometimes Rarely Often Often Informal
WV Often Sometimes Rarely Never Often Sometimes No
WY No

Independent check
Design checker is required in addition to the second software check required of the original designer.
Independent check of analysis using the same software

Would you be
Q25. How does your agency reconcile discrepancies? [Q25 appears only if Q24 is answered “written” or willing to
participate in a
“informal”].
follow-up
interview with
State DOT
the principal
and The same Another team of An external
The more Data from investigator to
Washington, team of in-house consultant Analysis
conservative field tests Other provide
DC engineers engineers is involved engineers additional details
set of and sensor (please
works to performs to perform decide how for a possible
results are deployment specify):
resolve the independent independent to reconcile case example for
used are used
discrepancies checks checks the synthesis
report?
AK Often Yes
AL Often Rarely Never Never Never Often Never No
AR No
AZ Yes
CA Often Rarely Rarely Often Never Often Yes
CO Yes
CT Yes
DC No
DE No
FL Never Sometimes Often Sometimes Sometimes Rarely Yes
GA Yes
HI No
IA No
ID Often Often Rarely Rarely Never Rarely No
IL Often Rarely Rarely Sometimes Never Often Yes
IN Rarely Often Sometimes Rarely Rarely Rarely No
KS No
KY Often Rarely Never Sometimes Never Often No
LA Often Sometimes Rarely Rarely Sometimes Often Yes
MA Yes
MD No
ME Often Yes
MI Often Often Rarely Rarely Rarely Rarely Yes
MN Often Never Never Often Never Often Yes
MO Often Never Never Sometimes Never Often No
MS No
MT Often Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Never Sometimes No
NC Often Rarely Never Never Never Often Never Yes
ND Sometimes Often Rarely Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes No
NE Often Rarely Rarely Often Never Sometimes No
NH Often Rarely Rarely Never Never Often No
NJ Often Often Rarely Often Sometimes Often No
NM Often Often Sometimes Often Rarely Often No
NV Yes

Would you
be willing to
Q25. How does your agency reconcile discrepancies? [Q25 only appears if Q24 is answered “written” or participate in
“informal”]. a follow-up
interview
with the
State
The same An external principal
DOT Another team The more Data from
team of consultant is Analysis investigator
of in-house conservative field tests Other to provide
engineers involved to engineers
engineers set of and sensor (please additional
works to perform decide how
performs inde- results are deployment specify): details for a
resolve the independent to reconcile.
pendent checks. used. are used. possible case
discrepancies. checks.
example?
NY Often Often Sometimes Often Rarely Often Yes
OH No
OK Often Sometimes Rarely Often Never Sometimes No
OR Often Often Often Rarely Rarely Often Often Yes
PA Sometimes Rarely Never Never Rarely Rarely Yes
RI Often Sometimes Sometimes Often Sometimes Often No
SC Often Never Never Sometimes Never Often Yes
SD Often Rarely Rarely Rarely Rarely Often Yes
TN Often Rarely Never Often Never Often No
TX Often Never Rarely Sometimes Never Often Sometimes No
UT Yes
VA Often Sometimes Rarely Often Sometimes Sometimes No
VT Often Sometimes Sometimes Rarely Sometimes Often No
WA Often Rarely Never Sometimes Never Never Often Yes
WI Often Often Sometimes Sometimes Rarely Sometimes No
WV Yes
WY Yes

Supervisors/chief bridge engineer decide.
Depending on the element being checked, the checker and designer need to be within a certain percentage of each
other.
Higher-level engineer provides input on how to solve issue that all parties can agree on.
Material/Subject Specialist is consulted.

APPENDIX C
Study Interview Questions
104

Study Interview Questions 105
The following seven questions were asked during the interviews.

1. Describe your agency’s process for selecting appropriately qualified consultants for bridge design
projects. Are there any specific bridge types or analysis methods commonly assigned to consultants?
2. Describe your agency’s process for verifying the analysis results obtained from consultants.
3. Describe your agency’s process for assigning bridge design work to appropriately qualified in-house
engineers. How do you select? How many engineers are assigned on average? Do you assign specific
roles to design team members?
4. Multiple analysis methods can be used for analyzing a bridge, each with its own advantages and
disadvantages. Describe your agency’s process for selecting the analysis method and/or software for
a specific project.What are the challenges encountered by your agency in this regard?
5. What guidelines and documents are used by your in-house engineers when modeling a bridge? Are
there any challenges with the availability and content of the current documents?
6. Describe your DOT’s process for verifying the in-house analysis models and results obtained using
the finite element methods (linear-elastic and nonlinear) and the strut-and-tie method. What are the
challenges encountered by your agency in this regard?
7. Do you have any suggestions for the lessons learned or effectivepractices for any of the following
processes?
• Identifying appropriately qualified staff for choosing an appropriate analysis method and software
• Modeling the structure
• Verifying the analysis results and/or validating the software
• Reconciling discrepancies between independent models


Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation


500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
ISBN 978-0-309-70958-3
90000
9 780309 709583

Quality Processes For Bridge Analysis Models (2024) : This PDF Is Available at

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quality Processes For Bridge Analysis Models (2024) : This PDF Is Available at

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.

Quality Processes for Bridge Analysis

FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION

NCHRP SYNTHESIS 620

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP SYNTHESIS 620

Published reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

Transportation Research Board

and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP SYNTHESIS 620

NCHRP PROJECT 20-05 PANEL

TOPIC 54-11 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

ABOUT THE NCHRP SYNTHESIS PROGRAM

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

8 Chapter 2 Literature Review

21 Chapter 3 State of the Practice

42 Chapter 4 Case Examples

68 Chapter 5 Summary of Findings

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Quality Processes for Bridge

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2 Quality Processes for Bridge Analysis Models

The major findings from the survey include the following:

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

4 Quality Processes for Bridge Analysis Models

• Standardized training of engineers in analysis of finite element and STM methods:

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Objective and Scope

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

6 Quality Processes for Bridge Analysis Models

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Internal QC Designer Internal QA

Figure 2. Conventional QA/QC processes for finite element

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

10 Quality Processes for Bridge Analysis Models

Verification and Validation

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

accurate (analytical or numerical) benchmark solutions, whereas validation compares the

Source: Kwasniewski (20), used with permission.

Figure 3. Relationships between modeling, verification,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

12 Quality Processes for Bridge Analysis Models

Verification can be conducted through tests of agreement between a computational solution

Additional terms describe verification activities in casual conversations in bridge engineering

Uncertainty and Error

Figure 4. Verification process.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Acknowledged Errors Unacknowledged Errors

Figure 5. Classification of errors.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

14 Quality Processes for Bridge Analysis Models