Visit the NDE Validation Center website at http:[Link]/hnr20/nde/home.
htm
TECHBRIEF Reliability of Visual Inspection
for Highway Bridges,
Volume I: Final Report and,
Volume II: Appendices
The NDE Validation Center was estab- Publication Nos. FHWA-RD-01-020 and -021
lished by the Federal Highway Admin- FHWA Contact: Glenn Washer, HRDI-10, (202) 493-3082
istration in 1998. The objective of the
NDEVC is to improve the state of the This technical summary announces the findings of an investigation
practice for highway bridge inspection. by the Federal Highway Administration’s Nondestructive Evalua-
The Center is designed to act as a re- tion Validation Center (NDEVC) concerning the reliability of Visual
source for State transportation agen- Inspection for highway bridges. Details and results are fully docu-
cies, industry, and academia con- mented in a two-volume final report entitled Reliability of Visual In-
cerned with the development and test- spection for Highway Bridges (Publication Nos. FHWA-RD-01-020
ing innovative NDE technologies. The and FHWA-RD-01-021). To obtain a copy of the report, ordering in-
NDEVC provides State highway agen- formation is included on the last page of this summary.
cies with independent evaluation and
validation of NDE technologies, devel- The Visual Inspection method is the predominant nondestructive
ops new NDE technologies, and pro- evaluation technique used for bridge inspection. However, since
vides technical assistance to States ex- implementation of the National Bridge Inspection Standards in
ploring the use of these advanced tech- 1971, a complete study of the reliability of Visual Inspection, as it
nologies. relates to highway bridge inspection, has not been undertaken.
Given these facts, and assuming that Visual Inspection may have
limitations that affect its reliability, the NDEVC initiated a compre-
hensive study to examine the reliability of the Visual Inspection
method for highway bridges as it is currently practiced in the Unit-
ed States.
The study had four specific objectives. Visual Inspection is a prima-
ry component of both Routine and In-Depth Inspections and, there-
fore, the first two objectives were to provide overall measures of
the accuracy and reliability of Routine and In-Depth Inspections.
The third objective was to study the influence of several key factors
to provide a qualitative measure of their influence on the reliability
of Routine and In-Depth Inspections. The fourth objective was to
Research, Development, and study the differences between State inspection procedures and re-
Technology ports.
Turner-Fairbank Highway
Research Center Three primary activities were performed during the course of this
study: (1) a literature review, (2) a survey of bridge inspection agen-
6300 Georgetown Pike
cies, and (3) a series of performance trials utilizing State depart-
McLean, VA 22101-2296 ment of transportation bridge inspectors. The performance trials
were conducted using 49 State bridge inspectors. These State
[Link] bridge inspectors completed six Routine Inspections, two In-Depth
Inspections, and two inspections following their respective State
procedures (i.e., State-dependent procedures). Extensive informa-
located in Northern Virginia and in The independent data in this
South-Central Pennsylvania. The study are the human and environ-
Virginia bridges are in-service mental factors. The independent
bridges under the jurisdiction of data were collected through self-
the Virginia Department of Trans- reports, direct measurements,
portation. The bridges in Pennsyl- and firsthand observations. The
vania are located on (or over) a de- methodology for the collection of
commissioned section of the this data is essential to establish-
Pennsylvania Turnpike, known as ing accurate cause-effect relation-
the Safety Testing and Research ships with the dependent data. In
(STAR) facility. The STAR facility is this regard, consistent and unbi-
an 18-km section of limited-access ased tools were developed to as-
highway that has been preserved sist in making these measure-
by the Pennsylvania Turnpike ments. Furthermore, an attempt
Commission as a location for con- was made to allow most data to
ducting highway-related research. be collected in a quantitative or
The STAR facility bridges have had pseudo-quantitative form to allow
minimal maintenance since being numerical correlation studies to
taken out of service in 1968 after be performed.
approximately 35 years in service.
Two principal types of dependent
All inspectors were provided with data were collected. The primary
identical sets of common, non-in- data collected for evaluating the
In-Depth Inspection performed with vasive inspection tools. These Routine Inspection results were
the aid of a lift vehicle. Also note the tools were introduced to the in- the standard Condition Ratings of
second observer and inspector per- spectors before they began any of the primary bridge components:
forming the Routine Inspector.
the inspection tasks and were deck, superstructure, and sub-
available for use during all inspec- structure. Secondary bridge com-
tion was collected about these in- tions. In addition to the basic in- ponent ratings, inspection field
spectors and the environments in spection tools, the inspectors were notes, and photographic docu-
which they worked. This informa- provided special access equip- mentation supplemented the pri-
tion was then used to study possi- ment (e.g., a man-lift) as needed. mary bridge component ratings
ble relationships of various fac- and were also evaluated. Condi-
tors with the inspection results. Two primary types of data were tion Ratings consider both the
collected. The dependent data are severity of bridge deterioration
Seven of the NDEVC test bridges the results of the inspections, and the extent to which it is dis-
were used for the 10 performance while the independent data are tributed throughout the compo-
trials. The NDEVC test bridges are the characteristics of the inspector nents. For this study, the standard
(i.e., human factors) and the in- Condition Rating guidelines, as
spection environment (i.e., envi- given in the Bridge Inspectors
ronmental factors). Two primary Training Manual, were used. The
media were used for the data col- primary data collected for evaluat-
lection. While completing their in- ing In-Depth Inspections were in-
spections, inspectors were asked spector field notes generated dur-
to prepare handwritten field in- ing the inspections. Specifically,
spection notes on typical National inspector notation of known defi-
Bridge Inspection Standards forms ciencies was the principal infor-
provided by the NDEVC. Field ob- mation used to evaluate the In-
servations made by NDEVC staff Depth Inspection results.
observers were recorded utilizing
Palm IIIx handheld computers.
Electronic forms were prepared Conclusions
for the computers using commer-
cially available software to expe- From the survey of bridge inspec-
NDEVC observer interviews an in- dite the process and ensure con- tion organizations, it was deter-
spector just before an inspection task. sistency in the data collection. mined that Professional Engi-
neers are typically not present on will be distributed over five con- relate with In-Depth Inspection re-
site for bridge inspections. Specif- tiguous Condition Ratings, cen- sults. In this study, they include
ically, 60 percent of State respon- tered about the average. Also, it factors related to inspector com-
dents indicated that a Profession- was observed that Condition Rat- fort with access equipment and
al Engineer was on site for less ings are generally not assigned heights, time to complete inspec-
than 40 percent of the inspections. through a systematic approach. tion, structure complexity and ac-
In addition, vision testing of in- Based on the distribution of the cessibility, inspector viewing of
spectors is almost nonexistent, Condition Ratings and observa- welds, flashlight usage, and num-
with only two State respondents tions made during the study, the ber of annual bridge inspections.
indicating that their inspectors National Bridge Inspection Stan- In addition, the overall thorough-
had their vision tested. As was an- dards Condition Rating definitions ness with which inspectors com-
ticipated, Visual Inspection was may not be refined enough to al- plete inspections tended to have a
the most frequently cited nonde- low for reliable Routine Inspection large effect on the likelihood of de-
structive evaluation technique results. Nonlinear, multivariate re- fect detection. Not surprisingly,
used for concrete, steel, and tim- gression analyses indicate that a there also appears to be some cor-
ber bridges. From the survey, it number of factors appear to corre- relation between the types of de-
was also found that many bridge late with Routine Inspection re- fects individual inspectors will
inspection organizations have a sults. In this study, they include note. Specifically, inspectors who
need for additional research in the factors related to Reported Fear of find small, detailed defects are
area of concrete deck and pre- Traffic, Near Visual Acuity, Color more likely to consistently note
stressed concrete inspection. Vision, Formal Bridge Inspection small, detailed defects regardless
Training, Light Intensity, Reported of the bridge. Also, inspectors who
Regardless of the type of inspec- Structure Maintenance Level, Re- find gross dimensional defects are
tion being completed, it was ported Structure Accessibility more likely to do so on other
found that, when asked, many in- Level, Reported Structure Com- bridges as well.
spectors did not indicate the pres- plexity Level, Inspec-
ence of important structural as- tor Rushed Level, and
pects of the bridge that they were Wind Speed.
inspecting. These would include
such items as support conditions, From the In-Depth In-
bridge skew, fracture-critical spection tasks, it was
members, and fatigue-sensitive observed that In-
details. In addition, there is signif- Depth Inspections are
icant variability in how long in- unlikely to correctly
spectors anticipate they need to identify many of the
complete an inspection and how specific types of de-
long the inspection actually takes. fects for which this
type of inspection is
From the Routine Inspection frequently prescribed.
tasks, it was observed that Rou- As an example, only Part of a Routine Inspection at a STAR bridge.
tine Inspections are completed 3.9 percent of weld in-
with significant variability. This spections correctly
variability is most prominent in identified the pres-
the assignment of Condition Rat- ence of crack indica-
ings, but is also present in inspec- tions. Furthermore, it
tion documentation. As an exam- is concluded that a
ple, on average, four or five differ- significant proportion
ent Condition Ratings were as- of In-Depth Inspec-
signed to each element. Based on tions will not reveal
the application of statistical mod- deficiencies beyond
els, it is predicted that only 68 per- those that could be
cent of the Condition Ratings will noted during a Rou-
vary within one rating point of the tine Inspection. As
average. Similarly, it is predicted with Routine Inspec-
that 95 percent of the Condition tions, a number of
Ratings from bridge inspections factors appear to cor- Part of an In-Depth Inspection task at a STAR bridge.
Based on the State-dependent in- state-of-the-practice, as well as ad- could be further increased by con-
spection tasks, it appears that most ditional research needed in the ap- sidering the identified factors dur-
States follow similar inspection plication of Visual Inspection to ing the selection and training of in-
procedures and provide the same highway bridges. spectors, as well as during the de-
general information in their inspec- sign of bridges. Additional research
tion reports. With some notable ex- With respect to Routine Inspec- is needed into each of these factors
ceptions, when element-level in- tions, the accuracy and reliability to establish useful guidelines.
spections were completed, they may be greatly increased by revis-
were generally consistent with the ing the Condition Rating system. Additional research is also needed
Commonly Recognized Element to determine whether ensuring
Guide for the major bridge ele- Additional work is needed to clear- minimum vision standards through
ments. Inconsistencies were ob- ly define the source(s) of the inac- vision testing programs (with cor-
served in the use of units, division curacies. Similarly, the accuracy rective lenses, if necessary) would
of quantities, and the definitions of and reliability of In-Depth Inspec- benefit bridge inspection.
the Condition States. From the tions could be increased through
State-dependent Routine Inspec- increased training of inspectors in Since the primary focus of the Rou-
tion, it appears that few inspection the types of defects that should be tine Inspection tasks in this study
teams perform an in-depth level in- identified and the methods that was on the assignment of Condi-
spection of bridge decks as part of would frequently allow this identi- tion Ratings, more research should
their Routine Inspection. When in- fication to be possible. be performed to determine the ac-
spection teams were asked to per- curacy with which the Commonly
form an in-depth level inspection of Further examination and definition Recognized elements are used in
a bridge deck, it was found that sig- of the types and sizes of specific the field.
nificant inaccuracies existed. As an defects that are likely to be identi-
example, only 6 of 22 teams were fied during an In-Depth Inspection Further study of deck inspections is
within 5 percentage points of the are warranted. Specifically, this also required. This research should
delamination percentage deter- would include a study of the types investigate team and individual de-
mined by the NDEVC for the deck. of defects occurring in concrete su- tection abilities, as well as difficul-
perstructures, as well as different ties inherent in the reporting
Recommendations sizes of defects occurring in steel process. This research could also
superstructures. compare mechanical sounding
Based on these conclusions, sever- deck inspection techniques to oth-
al recommendations have been de- The accuracy and reliability of both er nondestructive evaluation tech-
veloped related to improving the Routine and In-Depth Inspections niques.
Distribution—This TechBrief is being distributed according to a standard distribution. Direct distribution is being
made to the Resource Centers and Divisions.
Availability—The publication is available now. Copies will be available from the National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. A limited number of copies will be available from the R&T Re-
port Center, HRD-11, FHWA, 9701 Philadelphia Court, Unit Q, Lanham, MD 20706, telephone: (301) 577-0818, fax:
(301) 577-1421.
Key Words—Bridges, Routine Inspection, In-Depth Inspection, Delamination Survey, National Bridge Inspection
Standards (NBIS), Condition Ratings.
Notice—This TechBrief is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest
of information exchange. The TechBrief provides a synopsis of the study’s final publication. The TechBrief does not
establish policies or regulations, nor does it imply FHWA endorsement of the conclusions or recommendations. The
U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or their use.
Researcher—This study was performed by Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., 225 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite
1600, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, telephone: (404) 577-7444. The investigators for this research were: Brent Phares, Den-
nis Rolander, Ben Graybeal, and Mark Moore from Wiss, Janney, Elstner, and Glenn Washer from the Federal High-
way Administration. Contract No. DTFH61-96-C-00054.
SEPTEMBER 2001 FHWA-RD-01-105
