Cdot Bridge Design Manual 2023 02

TABLE OF CONTENTS i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
A. GENERAL POLICY 1
B. BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL DISTRIBUTION AND MAINTENANCE 2
C. REVISIONS 2
D. DEFINITIONS 2
E. STRUCTURES PROCESS 6
1. Project Scoping for Major Structures, Walls, and Tunnels 6
2. Preliminary Design 7
3. Final Design 9
4. Final Design Submittal 11
5. Construction 13
6. Archiving 14
F. CDOT STAFF BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS 15
1. CDOT Bridge Detail Manual 15
2. CDOT Staff Bridge Worksheets 15
3. Bridge Rating Manual 17
4. Project Special Provisions 17
5. Deck Geometry Manual 18
6. Staff Bridge Records 18
7. Retaining and Noise Wall Inspection and Asset Management Manual 19
G. CDOT STANDARDS PUBLISHED OUTSIDE STAFF BRIDGE 19
1. CDOT Standard Specifications and Special Provisions 19
2. CDOT Design and Construction Manuals 19
3. CDOT M & S Standard Drawings 19
H. STANDARDS PUBLISHED OUTSIDE CDOT 19
I. EXCEPTIONS 20
J. LOCAL AGENCY PROJECTS, DEVELOPER PROJECTS, AND UTILITY AND
SPECIAL USE PERMITS WITHIN CDOT ROW 21
1. General Services for All Local Agency Projects, Developer Projects, and Access
Permits 21
2. Requirements for Local Agency Projects 21
3. Requirements for Utility and Special Use Permits 22
K. REFERENCE 23
APPENDIX A - STRUCTURES PROCESS DIAGRAM
APPENDIX B - FINAL SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
APPENDIX C – LOCAL AGENCY BRIDGE PROJECT CHECKLIST
CDOT Bridge Design Manual February 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1-1
1.2 DEFINITIONS 1-1
1.2.1 Bridge Definition 1-1
1.2.2 Culvert Definition 1-1
1.2.3 Glossary of Terms 1-1
1.3 DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 1-4
1.3.1 Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) 1-4
1.3.2 Load Factor Design (LFD) 1-4
1.3.3 Allowable Stress Design (ASD) 1-5
SECTION 2 GENERAL DESIGN AND LOCATION FEATURES

2.1 GENERAL 2-1
2.2 LOCATION FEATURES 2-1
Alignment 2-1
Vertical Clearances 2-2
Horizontal Clearances 2-2
Criteria for Deflection 2-4
Sidewalks 2-4
Environmental Considerations 2-5
2.3 AESTHETICS 2-5
General Requirements 2-5
Lighting 2-6
Form Liners and Veneers 2-7
2.4 RAILING AND FENCING 2-8
Railing 2-8
Fencing 2-10
2.5 RAILROAD REQUIREMENTS 2-12
Vertical Clearance 2-13
Horizontal Clearance 2-13
Construction Clearance 2-13
Protection and Screening 2-14
Collision 2-14
2.6 INSPECTION ACCESS 2-14
2.7 FORMWORK 2-16
2.8 UTILITIES 2-16

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
2.9 FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION 2-17

General 2-17
Geotechnical Report Requirements 2-17
Code 2-17
Global Stability 2-18
Deliverable 2-18
2.10 STRUCTURE SELECTION REPORT 2-18
Major Structures 2-19
Minor Structures 2-20
Wall Structures 2-20
Overhead Sign Structures 2-21
Tunnels 2-21
Accelerated Bridge Construction 2-22
Life Cycle Cost Analysis 2-22
Aesthetics 2-22
2.11 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS 2-23
Drainage Report Requirements 2-23
Scour 2-23
Deck Drainage Requirements 2-23
2.12 BRIDGE SECURITY 2-24
2.13 APPROACH SLABS 2-25
2.14 PIGEON PROOFING 2-25
2.15 SPREAD FOOTING EMBEDMENT 2-25
2.16 DAMAGE AVOIDANCE DETAILS 2-25
2.17 DISSIMILAR METALS 2-26
APPENDIX 2A- STRUCTURE SELECTION REPORT QA CHECKLIST
SECTION 3 LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS

3.2 CODE REQUIREMENTS 3-1
3.3 CONSTRUCTION LOADING 3-1
3.4 DEAD LOADS 3-1
3.4.1 Stay-in-Place Metal Deck Forms 3-1
3.4.2 Wearing Surface 3-1
3.4.3 Utilities 3-2
3.4.4 Girder Concrete 3-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
3.5 COLLISION LOAD 3-2

3.5.1 Policy 3-2
3.5.2 New Bridges 3-2
3.5.3 Existing Structures 3-3
3.5.4 Temporary Works 3-3
3.6 VEHICULAR LIVE LOAD 3-4
3.7 VEHICULAR LIVE LOAD ON CULVERTS 3-4
3.8 DECK OVERHANG LOAD 3-5
3.9 CENTRIFUGAL FORCES 3-5
3.10 BRAKING FORCE 3-5
3.11 FATIGUE LOAD 3-6
3.12 STREAM FORCES AND SCOUR EFFECTS 3-6
3.13 SEISMIC LOADING 3-6
3.14 TEMPERATURE / THERMAL FORCES 3-6
3.15 EARTH PRESSURES AND SETTLEMENT EFFECTS 3-6
3.16 PEDESTRIAN LOADING 3-7
3.17 BLAST LOADING 3-7
3.18 WIND LOADS 3-7
3.19 FENCE LOADS 3-7
3.20 REFERENCES 3-8
SECTION 4 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

4.3 MODELING METHODS 4-1
4.4 DEAD LOAD DISTRIBUTION 4-2
4.5 LIVE LOAD DISTRIBUTION 4-2
4.5.1 Exterior Girder Live Load Distribution 4-3
4.6 SKEW EFFECTS ON BRIDGES 4-3
4.7 FOUNDATION STIFFNESS AND SOIL-PILE INTERACTION 4-4
SECTION 5 CONCRETE STRUCTURES

5.3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES 5-1
Concrete Classes 5-1
Modulus of Elasticity 5-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS v
Relative Humidity 5-2

Reinforcement 5-3
Prestressing Strand and Bars 5-3
Concrete Inserts 5-4
5.4 REINFORCED CONCRETE 5-4
Bar Size Availability 5-4
Development and Splice Lengths 5-4
Clear Cover 5-5
Spacing 5-5
Corrosion Protection Requirements 5-6
Splash Zone Definition 5-6
Crack Control Factors 5-6
Mass Concrete 5-6
Seismic Detailing 5-7
Drilled Shaft and Round Column Shear Reinforcing 5-7
Pier Cap Reinforcing Details 5-7
Combination of Flexural and Axial Effects 5-9
5.5 PRESTRESSING 5-9
General 5-9
Pretensioned Concrete 5-13
Post-Tensioned Concrete 5-17
5.6 LONGITUDINAL REINFORCEMENT FOR SHEAR 5-21
General 5-21
Direct Loading and Supports 5-21
Indirect Loading and Supports 5-22
Simply Supported Girder Ends 5-23
5.7 SIMPLE SPAN PRESTRESSED MADE CONTINUOUS 5-23
General 5-23
Age of Girder When Continuity Is Established 5-23
Degree of Continuity at Various Limit States 5-23
5.8 PRECAST SPLICED BRIDGES 5-24
General 5-24
Girder Age Restrictions 5-24
Joints Between Segments 5-24
Details of Closure Joints 5-24
Segment Design 5-24

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
Consideration of Future Deck Replacement 5-24

Girder Camber, Haunch, and Dead Load Deflections 5-25
5.9 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE GIRDERS 5-25
General 5-25
Box Girder Bottom Slab Slope 5-25
Box Girder Formwork Load 5-25
Web Reinforcement 5-25
5.10 SEGMENTAL BOX GIRDERS 5-26
General 5-26
Provision for Future Dead Load or Deflection Adjustment 5-26
APPENDIX 5A - DEVELOPMENT LENGTH & LAP SPLICE LENGTH DESIGN AIDS
APPENDIX 5B - GIRDER PRELIMINARY DESIGN AIDS
APPENDIX 5C - PARTIAL PRESTRESSING
SECTION 6 STEEL STRUCTURES

6.3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES 6-1
6.3.1 Steel Components 6-1
6.4 FATIGUE AND FRACTURE CONSIDERATIONS 6-2
6.4.1 Fatigue 6-2
6.4.2 Fracture 6-2
6.5 GENERAL DIMENSION AND DETAIL REQUIREMENTS 6-3
6.5.1 General 6-3
6.5.2 Dead Load Camber 6-3
6.5.3 Minimum Thickness of Steel 6-5
6.5.4 Diaphragms and Cross-Frames 6-5
6.6 I-SECTION FLEXURAL MEMBERS 6-5
6.6.1 Composite Sections 6-6
6.6.2 Minimum Negative Flexure Concrete Deck Reinforcement 6-6
6.6.3 Non-composite Sections 6-6
6.6.4 Constructability 6-6
6.6.5 Longitudinal Stiffeners and Cover Plates 6-8
6.6.6 Simple Made Continuous 6-8
6.7 TUB/BOX-SECTION FLEXURAL MEMBERS 6-8
6.7.1 General 6-8
6.7.2 Bearings 6-8

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
6.7.3 Cross-Section Proportion Limits 6-8

6.8 CONNECTIONS AND SPLICES 6-9
6.8.1 Bolted Connections 6-9
6.8.2 Flange Splices 6-9
6.8.3 Welded Connections 6-9
6.9 REFERENCES 6-10
APPENDIX 6A - TYPICAL TUB/BOX GIRDER DETAILS
APPENDIX 6B GIRDER PRELIMINARY DESIGN AIDS
SECTION 7 ALUMINUM STRUCTURES

SECTION 8
DECK AND DECK SYSTEMS

9.3 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 9-1
9.3.1 Service Life 9-1
9.3.2 Maintenance Requirements 9-2
9.4 ANALYSIS METHOD 9-2
9.4.1 General 9-2
9.4.2 Deck Design Tables 9-3
9.5 DECK THICKNESS 9-9
9.6 LONGITUDINAL REINFORCEMENT 9-9
9.6.1 Minimum Required Reinforcing 9-9
9.6.2 Negative Moment Reinforcing 9-9
9.7 DECK OVERHANG DESIGN 9-10
9.7.1 Overhang Requirements 9-10
9.7.2 Deck Overhang Loading and Design 9-10
9.8 SKEWED DECK LIMITS 9-11
9.8.1 Transverse Reinforcement 9-11
9.8.2 Reinforced End Zones 9-11
9.9 OVERLAYS 9-12

TABLE OF CONTENTS viii
9.10 WATERPROOFING 9-13

9.10.1 Membranes 9-13
9.10.2 Sealer 9-13
9.11 DECK POURING SEQUENCE 9-13
9.11.1 Rate of Pour and Direction 9-13
9.11.2 Deck Pour Sequence Details 9-13
9.11.3 Diaphragms 9-14
9.12 DECK JOINTS 9-14
9.12.1 Transverse Joints 9-14
9.12.2 Longitudinal Joints 9-14
9.13 STAY-IN-PLACE FORMS 9-14
9.13.1 General 9-14
9.13.2 Concrete Stay-in-Place Forms 9-15
9.13.3 Metal Stay-in-Place Forms 9-15
9.13.4 Transparent Stay-in-Place Forms 9-15
9.14 FULL DEPTH PRECAST CONCRETE DECK PANELS 9-16
9.15 DECK DRAINS 9-16
9.16 LIGHTS AND SIGNS ON DECK 9-16
9.17 CONDUIT IN DECK 9-16
9.18 ANTI-ICING SYSTEMS 9-17
SECTION 10 FOUNDATIONS
10.1 GENERAL SCOPE 10-1
10.2 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS 10-1
10.2.1 Ring-Lined Split Barrel Sampler 10-1
10.2.2 Energy Measurements for Sampling Hammers 10-1
10.3 LIMIT STATES AND RESISTANCE FACTORS 10-2
10.3.1 Service Limit State 10-2
10.3.2 Strength Limit State 10-2
10.3.3 Extreme Event Limit State 10-2
10.4 SPREAD FOOTINGS 10-2
10.4.1 General 10-2
10.4.2 Footing Embedment 10-2
10.4.3 Tolerable Movements 10-2
10.5 DRIVEN PILES 10-3
10.5.1 General 10-3
10.5.2 Geotechnical Design and Analysis 10-5

TABLE OF CONTENTS ix
10.5.3 Top of Pile Fixity 10-6

10.5.4 Field Splice 10-7
10.5.5 Dynamic Testing 10-8
10.5.6 Plan Requirements 10-8
10.5.7 Load Testing 10-8
10.6 DRILLED SHAFTS 10-9
10.6.1 General 10-9
10.6.2 Geotechnical Design and Analysis 10-9
10.6.3 Non-destructive Integrity Testing 10-10
10.6.4 Load Testing 10-11
10.6.5 Plan Requirements 10-11
10.7 REFERENCES 10-12
SECTION 11 ABUTMENT, PIERS, AND RETAINING WALLS

11.3 ABUTMENTS 11-1
11.3.1 Integral Abutments 11-2
11.3.2 Semi-integral Abutments 11-6
11.3.3 Seat Type Abutments 11-8
11.3.4 Tall Wall Abutments 11-10
11.3.5 Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Abutments 11-10
11.3.6 Wingwalls 11-15
11.3.7 Approach Slabs 11-21
11.4 PIERS 11-21
11.4.1 Multi-Column Piers 11-25
11.4.2 Single Column (Hammerhead) Piers 11-25
11.4.3 Solid Wall Piers 11-25
11.4.4 Straddle Bent Piers 11-25
11.4.5 Aesthetics 11-26
11.4.6 Details 11-26
11.5 RETAINING WALLS 11-27
11.5.1 Cantilever Retaining Wall 11-28
11.5.2 Counterfort Retaining Wall 11-28
11.5.3 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall 11-30
11.5.4 Drilled Shaft Walls 11-32
11.5.5 Anchored Walls 11-33

TABLE OF CONTENTS x
11.5.6 Soil Nail Walls 11-33

11.5.7 Gravity Walls 11-33
11.5.8 Landscape Walls 11-33
11.5.9 Load Combinations 11-34
11.5.10 Resistance Factors 11-35
11.5.11 Collision with a Wall 11-35
11.5.12 Global and Compound Stability 11-36
11.5.13 Designer Responsibility for Walls 11-37
11.5.14 Designer Responsibility for Using MSE Wall Worksheets 11-38
11.5.15 Designer Responsibility for Using Soil Nail Wall Worksheets 11-38
11.5.16 Seismic Design Requirements 11-39
11.6 DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS 11-39
11.7 SHORING 11-39
APPENDIX 11A - WORKSHEETS FOR EARTH RETAINING WALL TYPE SELECTION
SECTION 12 BURIED STRUCTURES AND TUNNEL LINERS

12.3 GEOTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS 12-1
12.4 CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS 12-1
12.4.1 Design Criteria 12-1
12.4.2 Loading 12-2
12.4.3 Replacement 12-2
12.4.4 Stream Crossing 12-2
12.4.5 Pedestrian Crossing 12-3
12.5 WILDLIFE CROSSING 12-3
12.6 TUNNELS 12-4
12.7 PIPES 12-4
SECTION 13 RAILINGS
13.2.1 AASHTO LRFD 13-2
13.2.2 AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) 13-2
13.2.3 FHWA Bridge Rail Requirements 13-3
13.3 CDOT BRIDGE RAILS 13-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS xi
13.3.1 Type 3 (Retired) 13-4

13.3.2 Type 4 (Retired) 13-4
13.3.3 Type 7 (Retired) 13-4
13.3.4 Type 8 (Retired) 13-4
13.3.5 Type 8R MASH 13-5
13.3.6 Type 10 (Retired) 13-5
13.3.7 Type 9 13-5
13.3.8 Type 10 MASH 13-5
13.4 COMBINATION VEHICULAR PEDESTRIAN RAILS 13-5
13.5 PIER AND RETAINING WALL PROTECTION 13-6
13.5.1 Pier Protection 13-6
13.5.2 Retaining Wall Protection 13-6
13.5.3 Sound Barriers 13-6
13.5.4 Rail Anchor Slabs 13-6
13.6 ATTACHMENTS TO BRIDGE RAIL SYSTEMS 13-7
13.7 AESTHETIC TREATMENTS TO BRIDGE RAIL SYSTEMS 13-7
13.8 RAILING ATTACHMENT TO HEADWALLS 13-7
SECTION 14 JOINTS AND BEARINGS

14.3 UNIFORM TEMPERATURE MOVEMENT 14-1
14.4 EXPANSION JOINTS 14-1
14.4.1 General 14-1
14.4.2 Design Guidelines and Selection 14-2
14.4.3 Small Movement Joints 14-3
14.4.4 Strip Seals 14-5
14.4.5 Modular Joints 14-6
14.4.6 Finger Joints 14-7
14.4.7 Cover Plates 14-7
14.4.8 Joint Headers 14-7
14.4.9 Expansion Joint Details 14-8
14.5 BEARINGS 14-8
14.5.1 General 14-8
14.5.2 Design Guidelines and Selection 14-8
14.5.3 Thermal Movement 14-9
14.5.4 Additional Rotation Requirements 14-9

TABLE OF CONTENTS xii
14.5.5 Design Coefficient of Friction Requirements 14-9

14.5.6 Bearing Inspection and Removal 14-9
14.5.7 Leveling Pads 14-10
14.5.8 Type I Bearings 14-10
14.5.9 Type II Bearings 14-11
14.5.10 Type III Bearings 14-11
14.5.11 Type IV & V Bearings 14-11
14.5.12 Bearing Details 14-11
14.6 SHOP DRAWINGS 14-12
SECTION 15 DESIGN OF SOUND BARRIERS

15.3 AESTHETICS 15-1
15.4 LOADS 15-1
SECTION 16 THROUGH 30
SECTION 31 PEDESTRIAN STRUCTURES

31.3 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 31-0
31.3.1 Service Life 31-0
31.3.2 Maintenance Requirements 31-0
31.3.3 Aesthetic Goals 31-0
31.4 GEOMETRY AND CLEARANCES 31-0
31.4.1 Geometry 31-0
31.4.2 Vertical Clearances 31-1
31.4.3 Horizontal Clearances 31-1
31.5 LOADS AND DEFLECTIONS 31-2
31.5.1 Live Loads 31-2
31.5.2 Collision 31-2
31.5.3 Deflection Limits 31-3
31.5.4 Vibration Limits 31-3
31.6 FRACTURE CRITICAL DESIGNATION 31-3
31.7 RAILING AND FENCING REQUIREMENTS 31-3
31.8 COVERED/ENCLOSED STRUCTURES 31-3

TABLE OF CONTENTS xiii
31.9 DECK 31-3

31.10 LIGHTING 31-4
31.11 DRAINAGE 31-4
SECTION 32 SIGNS, LUMINAIRES, AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS

32.3 DESIGN CRITERIA 32-2
32.3.1 Loads 32-2
32.4 BRIDGE MOUNTED STRUCTURES 32-3
SECTION 33 PRESERVATION AND REHABILITATION OF STRUCTURES

33.1.1 Definitions of Preservation and Rehabilitation 33-1
33.1.2 Rehabilitation vs. Replacement Selection Guidelines 33-1
33.1.3 Required Inspection and Testing 33-3
33.2 CODE AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 33-4
33.2.1 Existing Structure Evaluation and Preservation Projects 33-4
33.2.2 Rehabilitation Projects 33-5
33.3 REHABILITATION 33-7
33.3.1 General Requirements 33-7
33.3.2 Added Service Life 33-7
33.3.3 Acceptable Methods 33-9
33.3.4 Timber Structures 33-10
33.3.5 Concrete for Repairs 33-10
33.4 BRIDGE WIDENING 33-11
33.4.1 General Widening Requirements 33-11
33.4.2 Design Considerations 33-11
33.5 BRIDGE DECK REPAIR AND REHABILITATION 33-13
33.5.1 Chloride Induced Corrosion 33-13
33.5.2 Susceptibility Index 33-14
33.5.3 Selection of Corrosion Control Alternatives 33-15
33.6 CONCRETE REHABILITATION – EXCLUDING BRIDGE DECKS 33-17
33.7 DECK REPLACEMENT 33-17
33.8 EXPANSION JOINT ELIMINATION 33-18
33.8.1 Expansion Joints at Abutments 33-18
33.8.2 Expansion Joints at Piers 33-19

TABLE OF CONTENTS xiv
33.9 BEARING REPLACEMENT 33-19

33.9.1 Structure Jacking Requirements 33-20
33.10 BRIDGE RAIL REPLACEMENT 33-21
33.11 FATIGUE 33-21
33.11.1 Load Induced Fatigue 33-21
33.11.2 Distortion Induced Fatigue 33-21
33.12 CULVERTS 33-23
33.13 SCOUR CRITICAL STRUCTURES 33-23
33.13.1 Evaluation of Existing Structures for Criticality 33-23
33.13.2 Rehabilitation of Scour Critical Structures 33-23
33.13.3 Structural Countermeasure Requirements 33-23
33.14 PAINTING OF STEEL STRUCTURES 33-23
33.14.1 Zinc Rich Paint Systems 33-24
33.15 BRIDGE PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE 33-25
33.15.1 Program Objectives 33-25
33.15.2 Bridge Preventative Maintenance Resources 33-26
33.15.3 Bridge Preventative Maintenance Project Delivery 33-28
SECTION 34 PLANS
SECTION 35 COST ESTIMATING AND QUANTITIES

35.2 BID ITEMS 35-1
35.3 PLANNING / CONCEPTUAL 35-1
35.4 SCOPING 35-2
35.5 PRELIMINARY / FIELD INSPECTION REVIEW (FIR) 35-2
35.6 FINAL / FINAL OFFICE REVIEW (FOR) 35-2
35.7 QUANTITY CALCULATIONS 35-2
35.8 ACCURACY AND FORMAT 35-3
SECTION 36 CONSTRUCTION
36.2 CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT 36-1
36.3 INQUIRIES DURING ADVERTISEMENT 36-1
36.4 CONTRACTOR DRAWING SUBMITTALS 36-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS xv
36.4.1 Shop Drawings 36-2

36.4.2 Working Drawings 36-3
36.4.3 Demolition and Girder Erection 36-3
36.5 REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION (RFI)/REQUESTS FOR REVISION (RFR) 36-4
36.5.1 As-Constructed Plans 36-4
36.6 BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION REVIEWS, FINAL INSPECTION 36-4
36.7 ARCHIVING 36-5
SECTION 37 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

37.2 PURPOSE 37-1
37.3 DEFINITIONS 37-1
37.4 QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 37-4
37.5 QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES 37-4
SECTION 38 ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY

38.1.1 Delivery Method Evaluation 38-1
38.2 DESIGN-BID-BUILD 38-1
38.3 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/GENERAL CONTRACTOR 38-1
38.4 DESIGN-BUILD AND STREAMLINED DESIGN-BUILD 38-2
38.4.1 Owner Representation – Preliminary Design 38-3
38.4.2 Owner Representation – Delivery 38-3
38.4.3 Contractor’s Designer 38-3
38.5 ALTERNATIVE BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATION 38-4
SECTION 39 ACCELERATED BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

39.1 GENERAL INFORMATION 39-1
39.2 ABC EVALUATION OVERVIEW 39-1
39.2.1 Background 39-1
39.2.2 ABC Evaluation Process 39-1
39.3 ABC MATERIALS AND RESOURCE GUIDANCE 39-2
39.3.1 ABC Evaluation and Decision Matrix Workflow – Attachment A 39-2
39.3.2 Pre-scoping ABC Rating – Attachment B 39-4
39.3.3 ABC Matrix – Attachment C 39-6
39.3.4 ABC AHP Decision Tool Software 39-6
39.4 OTHER RESOURCES 39-6

LIST OF TABLES xvi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1: Fence Loads 3-8
Table 5-1: Common Concrete Classes and Strengths 5-1

Table 5-2: Typical CIP Concrete Applications 5-1
Table 5-3: Minimum Lap Length for Epoxy-Coated Slab, Wall, or Footing Bars Spaced at
6.0 in. min. on Center with 2.0 in. min. Clear Cover and f’c = 4.5 ksi 5-4
6.0 in. min. on Center with 1.0 in. min. Clear Cover and f’c = 4.5 ksi 5-4
Table 5-5: Minimum Clear Cover for Drilled Shafts on Bridges 5-5
Table 5-6: Standard CBT Properties 5-11
SECTION 9 DECK AND DECK SYSTEMS
Table 9-1: CDOT Standard CBT Girder Load and Resistance Factor Design (fy = 60 ksi)
9-4
Table 9-2: Rolled Steel Beams/Steel Plate Girders (12 in. [min.] wide top flange) Load and
Resistance Factor Design (fy = 60 ksi) 9-5
9-6
Resistance Factor Design (fy = 100 ksi) 9-7
Table 10-1: Calculated Embedments 10-7
SECTION 11 ABUTMENTS, PIERS, AND RETAINING WALLS
Table 11-1: Limiting Structure Lengths for Integral Abutments 11-2

Table 11-2: Load Factors for Retaining Wall Design 11-34

LIST OF TABLES xvii
Table 32-1: Wind Speed Data at Other Mean Recurrence Intervals 32-3
Table 32-2: Torque and Tension Limits 32-6
Table 33-1: Maintenance Painting Frequencies 33-25

Table 33-2: BPM Joint Replacement Matrix 33-27
SECTION 35 COST ESTIMATING AND QUANTITIES
Table 35-1: Contingency and Quantity Accuracy Percentage 35-4

Table 35-2: Summary of Quantities Table Rounding 35-5

LIST OF FIGURES xviii
LIST OF FIGURES
SECTION 2 GENERAL DESIGN AND LOCATION FEATURES
Figure 2-1: Bridge Clearances – High Speed Roadway 2-3

Figure 2-2: Bridge Clearances – Low Speed Roadway 2-3
Figure 2-3: Bridge Clearances with MSE Retaining Wall 2-3
Figure 2-4: Standard Sidewalk Details 2-4
Figure 2-5: Vertical Concrete Surface Details 2-7
Figure 2-6: Bridge Rail Types 9 and 10 MASH 2-9
Figure 2-7: Fencing Types 2-11
Figure 2-8: Drop-Off Protection 2-12
Figure 2-9: Access Door Detail 2-15
Figure 3-1: Colorado Permit Vehicle 3-4
SECTION 4 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
Figure 4-1: Skew Angle Definition 4-3
Figure 5-1: Splash Zone 5-6

Figure 5-2: Pier Caps in Post-Tensioned Bridges with a Skew Angle of 20 Degrees or
Less and Deck Reinforcing Parallel to Cap 5-7
Figure 5-3: Pier Caps in Post-Tensioned Bridges with a Skew Angle Greater Than
20 Degrees and Deck Reinforcing Not Parallel to Cap 5-8
Figure 5-4: Pier Caps in Precast Girder Bridges with Constant-Depth Cap 5-8
Figure 5-5: Pier Caps in Precast Girder Bridges with Variable-Depth Cap (side steel not
shown for clarity) 5-9
Figure 5-6: Standard U Girder Dimensions 5-11
Figure 5-7: Through-the-Thickness Steel at Construction Joints 5-20
Figure 5-8: Plan View of Through-the-Thickness Reinforcing at a Web Thickness
Transition 5-20

LIST OF FIGURES xix
Figure 5-9: Examples of Direct Supporting and Loading Conditions 5-21

Figure 5-10: Indirect Support/Loading – Integral Pier Cap 5-22
SECTION 6 STEEL STRUCTURES
Figure 6-1: Recommended Fit Conditions 6-4

Figure 6-2: Deck Overhang Bracket 6-7
Figure 10-1: Pile Fixity 10-6

Figure 10-2: Moment Inflection Point and H-Pile Field Splices 10-7
SECTION 11 ABUTMENT, PIERS, AND RETAINING WALLS
Figure 11-1: Integral Abutment on H-Piles 11-4

Figure 11-2: Integral Abutment on Drilled Shafts 11-6
Figure 11-3: Semi-Integral Abutment (Alternative 1) 11-7
Figure 11-4: Semi-Integral Abutment (Alternative 2) 11-8
Figure 11-5: Seat Type Abutment 11-9
Figure 11-6: Tall Wall Abutment 11-11
Figure 11-7: GRS Abutment (Cut Case) 11-16
Figure 11-8: GRS Abutment (Fill Case) 11-17
Figure 11-9: Integrated Girder Seat with Footer 11-18
Figure 11-10: Separated Girder Seat with Footer 11-18
Figure 11-11: Transition Zone Behind Abutment Backwall (With Expansion Joint,
Concrete Slab, and Roadway Pavement) 11-19
Figure 11-12: Transition Zone Behind Abutment Backwall (With Asphalt Pavement, No
Approach Slab and No Expansion Joint) 11-20
Figure 11-13: Column-Drilled Shaft Connection Details 11-24
Figure 11-14: Footing on Pile 11-26
Figure 11-15: Shear Key 11-29
Figure 11-16: Cantilever Retaining Wall Reinforcement 11-29
Figure 11-17: Soil Nail Wall in Future Bridge Widening Area 11-34
Figure 11-18: Lateral Collision Distribution 11-35

LIST OF FIGURES xx
Figure 11-19: Global and Compound Failure Planes 11-37
SECTION 12 BURIED STRUCTURES AND TUNNEL LINERS
Figure 12-1: Minimum Deer and Elk Underpass Design Dimensions 12-4
SECTION 14 JOINTS AND BEARINGS
Figure 14-1: Silicone Seal 14-3

Figure 14-2: Compression Seal - Elastomeric 14-4
Figure 14-3: Compression Seal - Foam 14-5
SECTION 31 PEDESTRIAN STRUCTURES
Figure 31-1: CDOT Legal Load Type 3 31-2
Figure 32-1: Partial Special Wind Region Map (300 year MRI) 32-4
Figure 32-2: Sign Alignment for Curved Roadways 32-5
Figure 33-1: Asphalt Thickness Verification Detail 33-4

Figure 33-2: Optimal Corrosion Control Based on Susceptibility Index 33-15
Figure 33-3: Expansion Joint Relocation 33-19
Figure 33-4: Differential Deflection 33-22
Figure 33-5: Web Gap Distortion 33-22
SECTION 39 ACCELERATED BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
Figure 39-1: ABC Decision Matrix Workflow 39-3

Figure 39-2: ABC Matrix 39-7

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 1

A. GENERAL POLICY
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Bridge Design Manual
(BDM) provides the policies and procedures currently in effect for the design,
rehabilitation, repair of bridges/structures and for projects that use federal or
state funds. This BDM is also recommended as best practice for any project
that does not contain federal or state funds and other structures that are within
CDOT right-of-way (ROW). This BDM presents the minimum requirements for
structure projects including the structural staff, submittals, design and
construction specifications, and project processes. The BDM shall be applied
to structures that require special design (i.e., modified from the CDOT M & S
Standards) with the exceptions noted in Part I Exceptions, Number 4.
The latest edition of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO)

with current interim revisions is the primary document guiding the design of
highway structures. Other specifications may be required for structural design
but only as referenced by this BDM or by AASHTO. This CDOT BDM
supplements AASHTO, as well as other applicable AASHTO documents, by
providing additional direction, clarification, and requirements. Where
discrepancies arise between this BDM and applicable current AASHTO
specifications, this BDM will control. The State Bridge Engineer (defined in
Part D) shall resolve conflicting information between standards referenced
herein or any other CDOT document.
All AASHTO specifications and codes and BDM revisions shall apply to any
future design projects when they are officially issued. All projects should be
evaluated to ascertain the effects of using the new requirements immediately
for safety, design capacity, performance, schedule, cost, contractual and other
implications. If implications are minimal, design projects that are in preliminary
design stages should use the latest requirements. If implications are more
substantial, Shelf projects, post-FIR projects, and those projects with
contractual limitations may choose to continue with the previously issued LRFD
requirements. Safety revisions or standards revisions, such as crash tested
bridge rail, may be required to add at any stage of the project.
Using this BDM does not relieve the Engineer of their responsibility to provide
high-quality deliverables or to exercise sound engineering judgment. The
Engineer is to verify all figures. Figures are shown as examples only, but the
design responsibility is that of the Engineer. Staff Bridge will consider variances
from the policies presented in this BDM when warranted. If different
interpretations of a given article arise, guidance shall be obtained from Staff
Bridge. Unless otherwise specified, the Unit Leader in coordination with the
Staff Bridge Senior Design & Construction Engineer must authorize any
additional modifications and variances to the BDM. Variance request
examples can be found on the Bridge website.
Thorough knowledge of the contents of this BDM is essential for anyone

designing structures that meet the above defined criteria.

Previous editions of the BDM and Bridge Design Technical Memorandums are
now void.
B. BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL DISTRIBUTION AND MAINTENANCE

Copies of the CDOT BDM can be obtained from the CDOT website
The Office of the Staff Bridge Branch maintains the computer files containing
this BDM, coordinates revisions, and makes updates available. The Staff
Bridge Branch also maintains a revision log showing all the revision dates that
have transpired for each section and the person who wrote the revision.
Before starting a structural design project, the Engineer shall obtain a copy of
this BDM or if the Engineer already has a manual, they shall inspect the current
table of contents to make certain their copy of the BDM is up to date.
C. REVISIONS
This BDM is intended to be dynamic. Revisions will be incorporated as new
material is added and as criteria and specifications change. The State Bridge
Engineer shall approve and publish all revisions.
Suggestions for improving and updating this BDM are encouraged. Anyone
who would like to propose revisions should informally discuss changes with
other Bridge Engineers to further develop and refine ideas. All suggestions
shall be submitted to the Staff Bridge Manager of Policy and Standards, who
then will present the State Bridge Engineer with a preliminary draft showing the
developed concept.
On deciding to pursue the revisions, the State Bridge Engineer will assign them
to an Engineer. The Engineer receiving the assignment is responsible for
completing the final writing, distributing the revisions to all Staff Bridge
personnel for their review and comment, making revisions as appropriate
based on the comments received, and submitting the final draft to the State
Bridge Engineer for approval.
When a revision is made, the entire section containing the revision will be
reissued. The revision date is provided in the lower right corner of the page.
Whenever revisions are issued, they shall be accompanied by a cover
document signed by the State Bridge Engineer.
D. DEFINITIONS
Staff Bridge Managed Structural Assets: Structures managed and assigned
a structure number or structure ID.
All managed assets (bulleted items below) within CDOT ROW require a
structure number. Outside of CDOT ROW, only vehicular bridges longer than
20' and tunnels require a structure number. A structure number does not
denote CDOT ownership or maintenance responsibilities, only assets that
CDOT tracks within our ROW.
Refer to Part E2 of this Section for information about structure number
assignment.

• Major Structures: Bridges and culverts carrying vehicular traffic with

a total length greater than 20 ft. measured along the centerline of the
roadway between the inside face of abutments, inside faces of the
outermost walls of culverts, or spring lines of arches. Major Structures
also include culverts with multiple pipes where the clear distance
between the centerlines of the exterior pipes, plus the radius of each
of the exterior pipes, is greater than 20 ft.
• Minor Structures: Minor Structures are bridges, culverts, or a group
of culverts carrying vehicular traffic that have a total length greater
than or equal to 4 ft. and less than or equal to 20 ft. measured along
the centerline of the roadway between the inside face of abutments,
inside faces of the outermost walls of culverts, or spring lines of
arches.
▪ Walls: Retaining Walls, Noise Walls, and Landscape Walls as defined

below. Refer to the CDOT Retaining and Noise Wall Inspection and
Asset Management Manual for more detailed information.
• Retaining Walls: Any wall which supports or

protects a CDOT facility or asset, or any wall
retaining backfill measuring at least 4 ft. in height
from the finished grade to the top of the wall at any
point along the length of the wall.
• Noise Walls: Noise Walls with structural elements
including walls that do not typically retain soil. Refer
to the CDOT Retaining and Noise Wall Inspection
and Asset Management Manual if a Noise Wall
retains backfill.
• Landscape Walls: Walls retaining backfill measuring less
than 4 ft. in height from the finished grade to the top of the
wall at any point along the length of the wall.
Reinforced Slopes with no visible/inspectable facing elements are

tracked under the Geohazard Program and would receive a tracking
number from that group. Rock bolting although visible would also fall
under the geohazard program.
• Tunnels: An enclosed roadway for motor vehicular traffic with vehicle

access limited to portals, regardless of type of structure or method of
construction. Tunnels are structures that may include lighting,
ventilation, fire protection systems, and emergency egress capacity.
• Ancillary Structures: Ancillary structures are overhead signs, mast

arm signals, and high-mast lights (height greater than 55 ft.). Cattle
and deer guards are included in this category.
• Other Structures: A non-vehicular structure in CDOT ROW that does

not fit into any of the aforementioned categories. Examples include
overhead pipes, overhead cables, railroad bridges, pedestrian/bike

structures, private drive structures, overhead conveyor belts, and

overhead snow sheds.
On-System / Off-System Bridges: Any bridge owned by a local agency (cities

and counties) is considered Off-System with some exceptions. Any bridge
owned by CDOT or Colorado Bridge Enterprise (CBE) is considered On-
System. A more specific definition can be found in Colorado Off-System Bridge
Program Description and Guidelines for Selecting Bridges for Rehabilitation or
Replacement Funding.
Design Life / Service Life: The design life is the period for which a component,
element, or bridge is expected to function for its designated purpose when
designed, constructed, and maintained as per standards. The service life is the
period for which a component , element, or bridge provides the desired function
and remains in service with appropriate preservation activities. This may also
be called as useful life.
State Bridge Engineer: Chief Structural Engineer for the Staff Bridge Branch
of the Colorado Department of Transportation. The State Bridge Engineer is
responsible for structures within CDOT ROW and federally funded off-system
projects and manages CDOT’s Bridge Program, which includes Major
Structures, Minor Structures, Tunnels, Walls, and other highway structures,
including all ancillary and miscellaneous structures on the state highway
system and federally or state funded off-system projects.
Staff Bridge Manager of Policy and Standards: A CDOT Staff Bridge

employee who reports to the State Bridge Engineer and manages the
implementation of CDOT Bridge Design Policy and Standards used for the
design of transportation structures (standards include this CDOT BDM and the
documents defined in Part F). Staff Bridge Manager of Policy and Standards
ensures that the Department's policy is clearly communicated, is readily
referenced, and benefits the mission of the Department.
Staff Bridge Unit Leader: A CDOT Staff Bridge employee who reports to the
State Bridge Engineer and manages the bridges and highway structures
located in a geographical CDOT Transportation Region. Refer to the CDOT
website for Region jurisdictions.
Project Structural Engineer: A licensed professional engineer (by the State

of Colorado), with structural design experience, acting in responsible charge of
structural design work. Other than the sealing of plans and specifications, the
activities described in this BDM pertaining to the Project Structural Engineer
may be executed by a designee. There may be more than one Project
Structural Engineer on a project as in the case where there is more than one
structural design team working on separate Major Structures or for
Design-Build where the Contractor will have a Project Structural Engineer for
the Contractor's portion of the structural design work. For some Retaining
Walls with significant geotechnical design issues, such as soil nail walls,
tieback walls, and slurry walls, the Project Structural Engineer may be a
Geotechnical Engineer.

Structural Design Engineer: A design engineer responsible for generating

design calculations, construction plans, specifications, and reports. This
person can be the Project Structural Engineer. The Structural Design Engineer
may be referred to as the Designer or Engineer in this BDM.
Independent Design Engineer: A design engineer who develops an

independent set of calculations based on the construction plans and
specifications completed by the Structural Design Engineer. This includes
vendor provided structural products signed and sealed by a Colorado Licensed
Professional Engineer. This is a quality control task that is described in more
detail in BDM Section 37.
Independent Technical Reviewer: A highly experienced engineer

independent of the project team who conducts an independent technical review
of the project deliverables focusing on general conformance with standard
practice, AASHTO, and this BDM. This review does not involve development
of detailed calculations. The review should consider other aspects of
construction, such as interdisciplinary coordination, constructability, and
biddability. The independent technical review is also known as an independent
design review or a technical peer review. This is a quality control task that is
described in more detail in BDM Section 37.
Constructability Reviewer: A construction engineer or licensed professional

engineer with significant construction experience who reviews the project
deliverables focusing on constructability and inspectability. This is a quality
control task that is described in more detail in BDM Section 37.
CDOT Structural Reviewer: A CDOT employee with a professional engineer’s

license and structural design experience. This employee conducts the
Department's structural design reviews on a Consultant project. The Structural
Reviewer may delegate this task to a non-licensed engineer. This is a quality
assurance task that is described in more detail in BDM Section 37.
Program Engineer: The immediate supervisor of the Resident Engineer.
Resident Engineer: The CDOT employee who is responsible for the

administration of a project. The Resident Engineer, or their designee, can
either be the preconstruction Project Manager or the construction Project
Engineer, or both.
Project Engineer: As defined in CDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and

Bridge Construction, the CDOT Chief Engineer's authorized representative
who is responsible for the administration and satisfactory completion of a given
construction contract.
Local Agency Project: Federally funded off-system transportation project

executed by a public agency, local public agency, established publicly owned
organization, or private interest that can legally enter into an agreement with
CDOT.
Developer Project: A construction project within CDOT ROW sponsored and

funded by either a private or a public entity other than Federal/State funds.

Stamped Documents & Disclaimers: Stamped documents required as part

of this design manual are governed by applicable CDOT policies and State
Law. Disclaimers accompanying any Professional Engineer’s Stamp shall not
limit CDOT’s use of documents procured through CDOT contracts or for
projects within or impacting CDOT assets or Right of Way.
E. STRUCTURES PROCESS
Design of structures involves compliance with the minimum requirements
outlined in this BDM, as well as coordination with disciplines including, but not
limited to, Survey, Right-of-Way, Utilities, Roadway Design, Traffic, Hydraulics,
Geotechnical, and Environmental. The structures design process outlined in
Appendix A of this Policies and Procedures section presents a diagram for the
overall structure design and a more detailed breakdown of coordination with
hydraulic design. For simplicity, the process diagram may not specifically
address each aforementioned discipline; therefore, it is important to coordinate
with each discipline throughout the entire project. Process diagrams for
rehabilitation projects and overlays are found in Section 33. Projects involving
railroad agencies will require additional submittals and longer review time.
Note that all CDOT projects and Local Agency projects with CDOT oversight
are required to use CDOT ProjectWise© for storing all project files. Files shall
be placed in CDOT ProjectWise within 2 weeks of any meeting, milestone or
deliverable date. Files shall be in accordance with Section 6 Archiving.
1. Project Scoping for Major Structures, Walls, and Tunnels

Scoping: The Program Engineer and Resident Engineer will determine
when to involve structural engineering staff in project scoping. To prevent
later changes to the project scope, the Staff Bridge Branch should be
involved in any scoping related to Major Structures, walls, and tunnels.
When the project involves existing structures, the information available
from Staff Bridge on these structures shall be used.
Project scoping should include a determination that a new structure is

required or rehabilitation of an existing structure is feasible. This
determination shall be confirmed during preliminary design.
On Consultant projects, CDOT’s Structural Reviewer and the

Consultant’s Project Structural Engineer shall review the contract Scope
of Work before signing the Consultant's contract. The structure activities
in the Scope of Work shall be consistent with the requirements outlined
in this BDM.
Schedule and Workhour Estimates: When preparing schedules and

workhour estimates, the Resident Engineer shall obtain estimates for the
structure tasks from the Project Structural Engineer concerning the level
of work performed by Staff Bridge. The Resident Engineer shall obtain
these work estimates from the CDOT Structural Reviewer on Consultant
projects. The Resident Engineer will establish the final schedule and work
hours; however, this decision is not to be made independent of
information received from CDOT Staff Bridge.

Project Survey Request: The Project Structural Engineer shall

participate in developing the project survey request to determine if any
project-specific modifications to the basic information required by the
CDOT Survey Manual are necessary.
2. Preliminary Design
The preliminary design for Major and Minor Structures, Pedestrian
Structures, Walls, and Tunnels shall be conducted as outlined below to
ensure that CDOT obtains a structure layout and type selection that
achieves the project's objectives and minimizes revisions during the final
design and construction phases. The Structure Selection Report presents
the results of the preliminary design process. The report shall document,
justify, and explain the Project Structural Engineer’s structure layout and
type selection. The Project Structural Engineer is responsible for ensuring
that the following tasks are completed as appropriate:
a. Structure Number
All staff bridge managed structural assets must be assigned a
structure number. Tunnels and Major Structures outside of CDOT
ROW require structure numbers as well. If the owner does not provide
a number, CDOT Bridge Asset Management Unit will assign a
structure number. Tunnels, Major Structures, and other Ancillary or
Miscellaneous structures are given a structure number based on the
state grid system. Minor Structures and Walls are given a structure
number based on highway and milepost. Structure numbers for mast
arm signals are assigned based on milepost and quadrant. Any
location changes for Walls (primarily the beginning) may require a
new or a revised structure number. Locations should be finalized
before obtaining a structure number, if possible, to minimize rework.
Temporary structure numbers may be used before obtaining the final
structure number, but plans issued for construction or advertisement
shall use final structure numbers. For existing structures, the Project
Structural Engineer shall obtain new structure number from Staff
Bridge Asset Management Unit if not assigned before. For new
structures, Project Structural Engineer or PM must provide structure
information to CDOT Staff Bridge Asset Management Group as early
as possible for the assignment of a structure number. This structure
number shall be used on all subsequent correspondence and plan
sheets to identify the structure. Structure numbers should be provided
to the Project Engineer for inclusion into or updates of the SAP
system.
The Bridge Asset Management Unit is responsible for assigning

structure numbers and will make any decisions pertaining to structure
numbers. To submit a request for a structure number, use the
spreadsheet located on the CDOT website, Bridge Section, Forms
and Form Letters. The following information, shown on the
spreadsheet, is necessary before they can assign a number to a given
structure:
(1) Geographical Location

• County, Highway Number (State) and Milepost (If Milepost is

not known, Latitude and Longitude information may be
substituted). For walls, Latitude and Longitude for the
beginning (lowest mile point) of the wall is necessary.
• Feature Intersected (stream, river, highway, etc.), and facility

carried.
(2) Project Number and Subaccount

(3) Existing Structure Number, if applicable
(4) Structure Information
• Type
• Material
• Bridge Typical Section
• How many spans
• Structure Length
• Width
• Designer
• Notes
b. Structure Data Collection

Obtain all data necessary for the layout and design of the structure,
including, but not limited to, survey data, ROW restrictions, roadway
geometry and safety criteria, utility information, hydraulic information,
geotechnical recommendations, existing bridge data, accelerated
bridge construction opportunities, life-cycle maintenance
considerations, lighting/aesthetic requirements, and environmental
clearance issues affecting the structure.
c. Foundation Investigation Request

Initiate the foundation investigation as early as practical. On
documents such as preliminary plans or aerial mapping, identify test
holes with enough geometric information for the Geotechnical
Engineer to locate the holes in the field. Consider the certainty of
substructure locations before initiating the request so that borings are
located correctly and avoid additional drilling and changes to
foundation recommendations. Consideration should also be given to
locating borings in areas of suspected approach settlement and slope
instability. See BDM Section 2.9 for more details.
d. Structure Layout and Type Selection

Compile all the site and structure data and design criteria to
accomplish the following:
• Confirm that the scoping decision of constructing a new structure
or rehabilitating an existing structure is still feasible

• Determine structure meets hydraulic requirements

• Determine structure type or rehabilitation type alternatives
• Evaluate layout alternatives
• Determine feasible foundation types
• Develop phase/stage construction methods
• Compute preliminary quantities and cost estimates per BDM
Section 35
• Evaluate structure alternatives per criteria established in BDM
Section 2
• Select the preferred alternative
• Prepare a general layout for the preferred alternative
e. Structure Selection Report

Prepare the Structure Selection Report to document and obtain
approval for the preliminary structure design from the CDOT Unit
Leader via the SSR QA Checklist. This report should summarize the
site data and process used to select and lay out the structure.
Structure Selection Reports are required for Major Structures, Minor
Structures, Wall Structures, Pedestrian Structures, and Tunnels. The
Structure Selection Report for a Minor Structure, Major or Minor
Structure Widening, Landscape and Noise Wall, or Pedestrian
Structure are typically shorter since less items affect their selection.
See BDM Section 2.10 and Appendix 2A for more detailed
requirements for developing the report, report contents, submission,
and approval by CDOT Unit Leader.
The selection report should address any environmental concerns

such as lead paint, hazardous materials, and safety concerns for
designers or maintenance personnel.
When completed place the structure selection report in ProjectWise.
f. Field Inspection Review (FIR)

On obtaining initial approval, from the CDOT Unit Leader, for the
structure type selection and layout, the Project Structural Engineer
shall submit the general layout for inclusion in the FIR plans. After the
FIR, the general layout shall be revised as needed for final detailing.
Final approval, should be obtained from the Resident Engineer for the
revised general layout before proceeding with final design. The intent
of this approval is to confirm design assumptions prior to final design
to avoid costly re-designs at later design stages.
3. Final Design
The Project Structural Engineer shall ensure that the following tasks are
completed after the FIR:
a. Revise Structure Selection Report as required

Submit a revised Structure Selection Report that incorporates

comments received and accepted from the FIR submittal.
b. Perform Final Design Calculations

The Structural Design Engineer and Independent Design Engineer
shall perform calculations for all structures not predesigned by M & S
Standards supporting the contract documents in accordance with this
BDM and noted standards. Design and independent check
calculations should clearly state purpose, references, and
assumptions. Ratings shall be completed during final design and
checking.
c. Develop Construction Plans and Specifications

Develop Construction Plans in accordance with this BDM and the
CDOT Bridge Detail Manual. The Project Structural Engineer is
responsible for ensuring that all CDOT Staff Bridge Worksheets and
other standards are the current version before including them in the
plans.
Construction items not adequately covered by the CDOT Standard

Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and applicable
CDOT Standard Special Provisions for Road and Bridge Construction
will require Bridge Project Special Provisions. CDOT Standard
Special Provisions and Project Special Provision Worksheets are
available at CDOT’s website.
The design plans and specifications for the Release for Construction
submittal shall not name sole source or proprietary products unless
approved by CDOT Unit Leader. Sole source or proprietary products
should only be used for innovative products.
d. Final Office Review (FOR)

Complete structural plans, Standard Special Provisions, and Project
Special Provisions shall be submitted for inclusion in the FOR
submittal. The Project Structural Engineer shall attend the FOR
meeting to obtain review comments on the structural design. After the
FOR meeting, the Project Structural Engineer shall ensure the plans
and specifications are revised as needed and submitted for inclusion
in the final plan set.

4. Final Design Submittal

Final design submittal documents, including the Final Design Submittal
Checklist found in Appendix B, shall be submitted and placed in
ProjectWise prior to advertisement, or before construction for Design-
Build or CM/GC projects, unless otherwise approved by the CDOT Unit
Leader. All PDF documents shall be in conformance with ISO PDF/A-1b
archival specifications as described in section E.6 below. The final design
submittal shall include the following:
a. Construction Plans and Specifications
(1) Plans shall be submitted in both PDF and native file format. For
CDOT Projects, Microstation© files are required.
(2) Specifications shall be submitted in both PDF and Microsoft

Word© format.
(3) Plans and specifications will be electronically sealed, per CDOT

requirements but since this is a separate process, the record set
will not be a structural final submittal requirement. The Project
Engineer or Resident Engineer will send out the plan set and
specifications for sealing for placement into CDOT ProjectWise.
b. Final Hydraulic, Geotechnical and Structure Selection Reports

The final Structure Selection Report shall include the signature of the
CDOT Staff Bridge Unit Leader on in-house projects and by the CDOT
Structural Reviewer on Consultant projects to indicate concurrence
that conclusions in the report meet project goals and requirements.
Final Hydraulic and Geotechnical Reports must be signed and sealed

by a Colorado Licensed Professional Engineer (CO PE sealed).
Since sealing is a separate process, sealed reports will not be a
structural final submittal requirement although a stamped version is
preferred.
Geotechnical Report requirements can be found in BDM

Section 2.9.2. Hydraulic (Drainage) Report requirements can be
found in BDM Section 2.11.
c. Design Calculations and Independent Design Check Calculations.
Prepare design calculations and Independent Design Check

Calculations for submittal. Calculations shall be:
• Clear and legible

• Organized (indexed) so individual calculations are easy to find
• Easy to follow, i.e. calculations should provide inputs (givens) and
results
▪ Summary of purpose of calculation - project,
background, logistic, theme and basics of the
calculations

• Well documented (i.e. specification references for equations &

values, sketches, etc.)
• When software output is included, all inputs (sketches, etc.)
should be provided as well.
▪ Include all native software files including input files that support
the calculations. Spreadsheets, Mathcad files etc. are required
only if it is in the project scope, i.e. developed for the project.
(Example Program Management projects). Native files for priorly
created files are not required.
• Two PDFs, one consisting of the Design Calculations and the
other for Independent Design Check Calculations. Design
Calculations and Independent Design Check sets shall each be
sealed by a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of
Colorado and shall be submitted with the Final Design submittal.
Rating calculations or analysis for phasing shall be provided as a
separate document and will follow the requirements shown above.
This document is to verify the color code for the existing bridge is still
applicable during phased traffic loading.
Quantity calculations shall be calculated and independently checked

based on the requirements in BDM Section 35. A record set of final
quantity calculations for all pay items shown on the Summary of
Quantities shall be provided as a separate document. This
requirement does not apply to Design-Build Projects. See BDM
Section 38 for more information about the differences for Design-Build
projects.
d. Load Rating Package developed in accordance with the CDOT Bridge

Rating Manual.
Load rating package is required for all Major Structures and
pedestrian structures greater than 20 ft span which carry maintenance
or emergency vehicles. It must be CO PE sealed. Ratings for all
vehicles, including Colorado Permit vehicle must be ≥1 for all new
structures.
e. Miscellaneous Information:
(1) Verify a copy of the existing bridge plans is available when

requested. Due to availability of electronic records, a “field
information package” is no longer required unless requested.
When items are to be removed or widened (bridges, expansion

joints, bearings), verify the existing plans, shop drawings and
working drawings are available. Project drawings should
incorporate best available information. Existing plan sets are not
necessary for overlay work.
(2) For Deck Rehabilitation projects, a sketch of the plan view for
each bridge shall be provided to the largest scale that will fit on an
11”X17” and shall be provided to the Construction Manager for

delineating actual repair areas. Sketch shall include a 5’ grid

(horizontal and vertical) for aiding in delineating areas, north arrow
and pier and abutment labels.
f. A Final Detail Letter by CDOT and “Consultant Final Submittal Letter”

by Consultants verifying that the structural plans and specifications
have been prepared in accordance with CDOT’s current design
standards and quality control/quality assurance procedures. An
example letter can be found at
https://www.codot.gov/library/bridge/form-letters
g. Inspection Sketches
(1) Plans shall be submitted in both PDF and native file format. For
CDOT Projects, Microstation© files are required.
(2) Project Structural Engineer or Structural Design Engineer shall

place files in the inspection folder under “HQ/Staff Bridge.” If the
Consultant does not have access to ProjectWise, then the CDOT
Structural Reviewer shall move inspection sketches to the
specified location.
h. Structure Asset Management (SAM) Plan

(1) Verify that SAM plan includes all structure treatments in projects
using Construction Bridge Program (CBP), Construction Culvert
Program (CCP), or Construction Wall Program (CWP) funds.
i. For Design-Builds, the Contractor shall provide an FHWA Bridge

Replacement Cost Report for all bridges on the project. The report
shall include element costs of the structure and the unit cost of the
bridge as defined by FHWA. The report shall be submitted to CDOT
for acceptance with the Released for Construction (RFC) submittal for
the structure. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/uc_criteria.cfg
j. Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)

When agreements are made between or involve two or more
governments a copy of the IGA is needed to determine ownership and
who is responsible for the maintenance of bridges. This is necessary
for structures built by locals within CDOT ROW
5. Construction
The Project Structural Engineer or Structural Design Engineer shall be
available to the construction Project Engineer for assistance in
interpreting the structure plans and specifications and for resolving
construction problems related to the structure. Any changes or additions
to the structure, as defined in the contract documents, shall be
communicated to the Project Structural Engineer. BDM Section 36
describes all other construction-related procedures.
The Local Agency or Design Builder shall provide quality assurance (QA)
level fabrication inspection as defined in the Local Agency Manual or
Design Build RFP (Request for Proposal) unless otherwise approved by

the CDOT Fabrication/Construction Unit. The Fabrication/Construction

Unit shall provide fabrication inspection services when CDOT provides
the construction engineering, only on projects advertised for construction
by CDOT. The responsibility for fabrication inspection shall be clarified
before advertising a project.
A final inspection review (owner acceptance/final walkthrough) is required

after construction. See Section 36.7 of this BDM for a description.
6. Archiving
The Project Structural Engineer shall archive all pertinent documents in
ProjectWise when received or by Final Inspection/Owner Acceptance
Walkthrough. All PDFs with text or numerical data shall be 300 dpi, page
aligned, text searchable, compressed and in conformance with ISO
PDF/A-1b archival specifications. The Project Structural Engineer or
Structural Design Engineer is to make sure that all documents placed in
ProjectWise have their attributes updated to include all known
information. At a minimum, all documents shall include a Structure
Number. A full list of attributes and documents can be found in the CDOT
ProjectWise Reference Manual. CDOT employees are to refer to LMS My
Learning for Smart Scanning training; all others are to contact
DOT_Records_Mgmt@state.co.us for training on Smart Scanning and
Electronic Signatures. Repair and design build projects should also follow
the archiving requirements listed. Refer to ProjectWise Reference Manual
for the Bridge Project Folder Structure.
https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/cadd/projectwise-
reference-manual/view
At a minimum, pertinent documents include:
a. Design Calculations and Independent Design Check calculations
b. Final Structure Selection Report
c. Load Rating Package, including the electronic bridge model file
d. Final Geotechnical Report
e. Final Hydraulics Report
f. Final bid documents, including Plans and Specifications in PDF
format
g. Design Build RFP Structures Section
h. Design Build RFP Project Specials
i. Design Build RFP Alternative Technical Concepts (ATC) after award
j. MicroStation DGN files and related reference files. Verify that
reference file association is working correctly before finishing
archiving process. Provide cross-sections for walls in DGN format.
k. Final Design Submittal Checklist (by Unit Leader)
l. Correspondence directly affecting design and construction

m. Final Detail Letter & Consultant Final Submittal Letter (as applicable)
n. All construction documents, including, but not limited to, as-built
drawings, working drawings, shop drawings, material certifications,
and test reports
o. Inter-Governmental Agreements (IGA’s) when applicable
p. Inspection Sketch
q. Software Input Files (Calculations & Ratings)
r. Bid Summary
s. FHWA Bridge Replacement Cost Report for Design-Build projects.

Share with cost estimating group (EEMA).
t. SAM Plan verification of projects using CBP, CCP or CWP funds
F. CDOT STAFF BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS

Copies and revisions to these documents may be obtained from the CDOT
website (https://www.codot.gov/library/bridge) or from the Office of the State
Bridge Engineer.
1. CDOT Bridge Detail Manual

The CDOT Bridge Detail Manual provides the policies and procedures for
developing and checking contract plans. For CADD information not
covered by the Bridge Detail Manual, refer to CDOT's Office of CADD &
ProjectWise Programs, and Highway Engineering Design Processes.
2. CDOT Staff Bridge Worksheets

General Use: The CDOT Staff Bridge Worksheets are pre-detailed
drawings that include structure details for various bridge design policies.
The details are directly applicable for most projects; however, they should
be checked if project-specific modifications are necessary. The intent is
to standardize details as much as possible among CDOT projects;
however, it is important to understand that the accuracy and use of the
drawings is the responsibility of the Project Structural Engineer. Any
project changes to worksheets must stay in compliance with the specific
worksheet design policy and other Staff Bridge requirements and
practices. Typically, each sheet will note whether changes and which
changes are acceptable without a variance. An example of this are the
bridge rail worksheets. Some changes are expected depending on the
deck details, but changes to the reinforcing, dimensions, and detailing of
the bridge rail itself could affect their crashworthiness and requires a
variance by the State Bridge Engineer in coordination with the Bridge Rail
Subject Matter Experts. The worksheets do provide some minimum
requirements, such as concrete footers for MSE walls, so any planned
changes should be discussed with the Unit Leader in coordination with
the appropriate Subject Matter Expert.

All applications of these Worksheets shall originate from the file posted
on CDOT’s website. Note that Worksheet numbers are for identification
only and shall be removed at the same time the designer’s, detailer’s, and
checker’s initials are placed on the sheet.
In general, the CDOT Standard Plans (M & S Standards) do not provide

standard details used for bridges. There are exceptions to this. For this
reason, and because structural details often depend on the roadway
design standards, familiarity with the M & S Standards and the Staff
Bridge Worksheets is essential.
Distribution and Maintenance: CDOT Staff Bridge maintains the master

files, coordinates revisions, and posts them to CDOT’s website. Staff
Bridge will maintain a revision log showing all the revision dates that have
transpired for each Worksheet and the engineers and detailers who made
the revisions. This information is available to anyone for reference.
Revisions: The CDOT Staff Bridge Worksheets are intended to be

dynamic. Revisions will be incorporated as new material is added and as
criteria and specifications change. The State Bridge Engineer shall
approve all revisions to the master files.
Suggestions for improving and updating the Worksheets are encouraged.

Anyone who would like to propose revisions should informally discuss the
changes with other bridge engineers and detailers to further develop and
refine ideas. All suggestions shall be submitted to the Staff Bridge
Manager of Policy and Standards. The State Bridge Engineer should then
be presented with a preliminary draft showing the developed concept.
On deciding to pursue the revisions, the State Bridge Engineer will assign
them to an engineer and a detailer. The Engineer receiving the
assignment is responsible for completing the final design, distributing the
revisions to all Staff Bridge personnel for their review and comment,
making revisions as appropriate based on the comments received, and
submitting the final draft to the State Bridge Engineer for approval.
Revised and new Worksheets shall have their effective date given in the
upper left revision block of the drawing. On receiving new and revised
Worksheets, Staff Bridge will update the master files and the revision log.
The effective dates on the drawings and in the revision log provide a ready
means to check if a given copy is up to date.
Engineers making revisions to the CDOT Staff Bridge Worksheets should

submit design notes documenting their revisions to the Staff Bridge
Manager of Policy and Standards. These notes shall describe the
changes, identify why they were made, and provide supporting
calculations as appropriate. The Structural Design Engineer and the
Independent Design Engineer are to sign the notes.

3. Bridge Rating Manual

The Bridge Rating Manual and Bridge Rating Technical Memorandums
provide the policies and procedures for performing and submitting the
structural capacity rating of bridges.
4. Project Special Provisions

General: Contract documents primarily consist of plan sheets and
construction specifications. Structural engineers are responsible for the
construction specifications and the plan sheets, applicable to their
structure. Construction specifications consist of the CDOT Standard
Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, the Standard Special
Provisions, and the Project Special Provisions. See CDOT Standard
Specification 101.72 and 101.73 for more information.
If there is a discrepancy with the plans and specifications, the order of

precedence is as follows (see Standard Specification 105.09):
(a) Special Provisions
(i) Project Special Provisions
(ii) Standard Special Provisions
(b) Plans
(i) Detailed Plans
(ii) CDOT M & S Standard Drawings
(c) Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction
Since the Standard Special Provisions and the Project Special Provisions
take precedence over the plan sheets, the Project Structural Engineer
carefully prepares and reviews them. The plans should refer to the
Special Provisions where applicable.
Developing the Project Special Provisions is an integral part of the

structure design. To assist design engineers, Staff Bridge makes
available on the CDOT website the most commonly used Project Special
Provisions related to structures. Chapter 16.1 of the CDOT Roadway
Design Guide provides additional information on Project Special
Provisions.
All structural-related Project Special Provisions should originate from the

file located on CDOT’s website if there is a provision covering the subject
area. The master files shall not be modified without approval of the State
Bridge Engineer in coordination with the Staff Bridge Manager of Policy
and Standards.
Distribution and Maintenance: CDOT Staff Bridge maintains the master

files, posts them to CDOT’s website, and coordinates revisions to the
master files. Staff Bridge will also maintain a revision log with each Project
Special Provision.

The revision log lists all the revisions that have transpired for the Project
Special Provision by showing the date and author of the revision,
accompanied by a brief explanation of the revision. Where appropriate,
the explanation includes instructions for using the Project Special
Provision.
Revisions: Most Project Special Provisions kept on file require little or no

revision for most projects (e.g., the Removal of Portions of Present
Structure provision), while others are project-specific and require heavy
revision (e.g., the Alter and Erect Structural Steel provision).
Revisions made to prepare a Project Special Provision for a specific

project shall be made from the copy of the master file posted to CDOT’s
website. This is necessary to minimize errors and to account for the latest
policies for the subject area.
Errors and omissions in the master files or needed improvements are to

be reported to the Staff Bridge Manager of Policy and Standards. The
State Bridge Engineer will assign the necessary changes to an engineer.
The engineer receiving the assignment is responsible for completing the
final writing, updating the revision log to include the information described
above, and submitting the final draft to the State Bridge Engineer.
5. Deck Geometry Manual

The CDOT Bridge Geometry Program computes coordinates and
elevations at various locations on the bridge deck and approach slabs
used by the Contractor during construction. The point locations include
edges of deck and approach slabs; bridge rail inside face; support
centerlines and centerlines of bearing at support locations; and
centerlines of girders. Results are provided where girders intersect
supports and fractional points along the girders. The bridge deck
geometry program shall be used on all CDOT bridges unless the CDOT
Unit Leader approves an alternate method for deck evaluation tabulation.
6. Staff Bridge Records

Existing structure records maintained by Staff Bridge Asset Management
serve several functions for structural design. Bridge design engineers
primarily use them to evaluate existing structures for rehabilitation,
replacement, or impact to a project in which it is located.
Structure Folders: Every structure has a file whose contents include the
bridge inspection reports, the Structure Inventory and Appraisal Report
(SIA), and a summary of the structural capacity rating. CDOT personnel
(and Consultants with Staff Bridge permission) may access these folders
at:
https://sites.google.com/a/state.co.us/cdotstructures/?pli=1
As-built Construction Files: The project plans and other construction

documents are stored on ProjectWise© for the life of the structure. If these

files are not available on ProjectWise©, contact Staff Bridge Asset

Management.
CDOT Structure Inventory Coding Guide: This guide lists and explains
the structure inventory and appraisal items.
Field Log of Structures: This catalog lists all CDOT structures by

highway number and gives several attributes of each structure.
7. Retaining and Noise Wall Inspection and Asset Management

Manual
A manual describing the requirements for CDOT’s Retaining and Noise
Walls Inspection and Asset Management Program. The purpose of this
program is to establish and maintain a comprehensive inventory of all wall
assets that could potentially affect public safety, CDOT owned roads, and
ROW. In addition, the program outlines inspection requirements, risk
identifiers, and project funding and maintenance needs. The manual
establishes consistent condition ratings and coding guidelines for the wall
inventory.
G. CDOT STANDARDS PUBLISHED OUTSIDE STAFF BRIDGE

Copies and revisions to these documents may be obtained from the CDOT
website (https://www.codot.gov/).
1. CDOT Standard Specifications and Special Provisions

• CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction
• CDOT Standard Special Provisions
• CDOT Project Special Provision Worksheets and Samples
• CDOT Design/Build Special Provisions
• CDOT Innovative Contract Provisions
2. CDOT Design and Construction Manuals

• CDOT Survey Manual
• CDOT Roadway Design Guide
• CDOT Materials and Geotechnical Documents
• CDOT Drainage Design Manual
• CDOT Construction Manual
3. CDOT M & S Standard Drawings
H. STANDARDS PUBLISHED OUTSIDE CDOT

• AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
• AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges (Note: This
document is not permitted for design of new structures.)
• AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications

• AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges

• AASHTO Guide Specifications for Design and Construction of Segmental
Concrete Bridges
• AASHTO Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis
• AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation
• AASHTO LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs,
Luminaires, and Traffic Signals
• AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design
• AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5:2015 Bridge Welding Code
• American Railroad Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association
(AREMA) Manual for Railway Engineering (MRE) (Current Edition)
I. EXCEPTIONS
The following are exceptions to the policies above:
1. Structures (e.g., concrete box culverts) and sign bridges for which the
Department's M & S Standards are used are excluded from the final design
requirements previously described in Part E, Number 3, of the Policies and
Procedures (i.e., final design calculations, developing plans and
specifications). A bridge load rating sheet is still required for concrete box
culverts that are major structures based on the information in the M & S
Standards.
2. Sign bridges, cantilevers, and butterflies extending over traffic are excluded
from the preliminary design requirements stated in Part E, Number 2,
Items c through e (e.g., foundation investigations, structure layout, and
structure type selection).
3. The requirements in this BDM apply to Design-Build projects, except the

FOR tasks in Part E, Number 3, Item d (FOR meeting). In addition, the
quantity calculation requirements in BDM Section 35 will not apply to the
Contractor's design work. See BDM Section 38 for more information on the
differences for Design-Build projects.
4. Exceptions for special design structures based on S-Standards that use

BDM criteria include:
a. Structure Type Selection reports are generally not required; however,

a design memorandum is recommended to document how the structure
differs from a standard design and to outline the design methodology
b. Hydraulic and Geotechnical reports are only required based on design
needs.
c. Special design structures should be reviewed at project meetings.

J. LOCAL AGENCY PROJECTS, DEVELOPER PROJECTS, AND UTILITY

AND SPECIAL USE PERMITS WITHIN CDOT ROW
1. General Services for All Local Agency Projects, Developer Projects,
and Access Permits
For Local Agency projects, developer projects, and access permits with no
federal or state funding within CDOT ROW, Staff Bridge will provide
technical assistance, when requested, to Local Agencies, developers,
Consultant design engineers, CDOT Regions, and Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). This assistance will involve answering specific
questions and facilitating the use of CDOT structures-related documents.
This assistance will be provided by the Staff Bridge PE II assigned to the
Region where the project is located. This person will be the CDOT
Structural Reviewer for the project.
2. Requirements for Local Agency Projects

The requirements in this BDM apply to all local agency projects using
federal/state funds. In addition, Local Agency Checklist attached in
Appendix C shall also be provided. For more information regarding Local
Agency Projects, refer to the CDOT Local Agency Manual.
Staff Bridge will provide reviews of the structure plans and specifications to
help ensure that the Department’s written minimum requirements for
safety, inspection access, and geometry are satisfied and that the new
construction has no adverse impact on CDOT facilities. For bridges off of
the National Highway System, some CDOT practices may be omitted with
CDOT approval, by the State Bridge Engineer, through the variance
process. Currently these variances only consist of the requirements of
approach slabs on dirt or gravel roads. Crash tested rail below the TL-4
level will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The review will include
helping to ensure that CDOT’s written minimum requirements for structure
durability are satisfied. Examples of these requirements include those
related to corrosion protection and the use of bridge expansion devices.
A final inspection will be required for the structures that carry or could affect
the highway system. See Section 36.7 for a description.
Submittals for archiving shall be as listed in section E of this chapter with

the following exceptions. Any other exceptions will have to be approved by
the Unit Leader.
• SAM plan is not needed.
• Electronic stamping is optional.
• The Final Bid Documents (Plans and Specifications) (CO PE sealed).
Plans shall be submitted in both PDF and native file format.
Microstation© files are preferred, but CDOT recognizes that many Local
Agencies use AutoCAD© exclusively and, therefore, the latter is
acceptable. Verify that reference file association is working correctly
before finishing archiving process.

3. Requirements for Utility and Special Use Permits

Staff Bridge will provide reviews of the structure plans and specifications to
help ensure that the Department’s written minimum requirements for safety,
inspection access, and geometry are satisfied and that the new construction
has no adverse impact on CDOT facilities. A structure number is required
for any structure within CDOT ROW except small cell structures. If the
structure is owned and maintained by the Local Agency, their Structure
Number may be used.
A preliminary plans/scope and/or design criteria submittal and concurrence

from Staff Bridge is suggested to avoid any delays to the permit. The
following are required to be submitted as a minimum for structures.
Additional submittals and/or final walkthrough may be required based on
the complexity of the project. Design documents shall be stamped by a
Colorado licensed professional engineer. Unless the vehicular road is
private, any structures supporting or extending over the vehicular road shall
follow all requirements in section E with exceptions shown in section I.
Selection reports are typically not required although they are preferred.
a. Stamped final plans and specifications

i. Stamped plans and specifications shall be submitted for
all new structure(s) and any structure(s) being modified.
Stamped Plans and specifications are not required for
conduit placement based on electrical codes and
manufacturer’s recommendations. Addition of new utilities
in existing conduits or replacement of existing utilities in kind
do not require a PE Stamp.
b. Stamped design calculations
i. Stamped Design Calculations shall be submitted for new

structure(s) and any structure(s) being modified.
Calculations shall show design loads and codes used in the
design. If an existing structure is modified, structural
analysis of the existing structure after modification shall be
submitted.
ii. Stamped Design calculations are not required if designs are

following M & S standards.
iii. Stamped Design calculations are not required for conduit

support spacing provided by the National Electric Code, nor
for anchors that meet the manufacturers published
performance criteria and installation requirements. Tables
showing conduit support spacing shall be submitted. Any
anchors shall be submitted with manufacturer’s embedment
requirements or independent design calculations.
c. Stamped Geotech and Hydraulic reports (as applicable to and

available for the project)

d. Load Rating package (If existing CDOT structure is modified

causing 3% or more increase in operating rating or if the proposed
vehicular structure crosses or supports a highway) For more details,
see CDOT Rating Manual.
e. Provide as-built plans and construction drawings including working

and shop drawings after construction for archiving purpose.
Plans shall show CDOT ROW lines and any easements during construction.
K. REFERENCE
FHWA, Bridge Preservation Guide, Spring 2018.

APPENDIX A - STRUCTURES PROCESS DIAGRAM



APPENDIX B - FINAL SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST

This checklist is to serve as quality control/assurance of the finals submittal process as defined in the
Bridge Design Manual Policy and Procedures (BDM P&P). This checklist must be signed by the Staff
Bridge Unit Leader, prior to advertisement of the project or before construction for a Design-Build or
CM/GC project. Checked boxes indicate files are available in ProjectWise and are attributed.
Structure Number(s): __________________________________________________________________

Construction Plans and Specifications
☐Plan PDF
☐Plan Native format files
☐Specifications PDF ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Specifications Word document(s) ☐N/A:___________________________
Reports
☐Final Hydraulic Report ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Final Geotechnical Report ☐N/A:___________________________
☐FHWA Bridge Replacement Cost Report ☐N/A:___________________________
(Design/Build Only)
☐Element costs included
☐Bridge Unit Cost included
☐Final Structure Selection Report ☐N/A:___________________________
Calculations
☐Design Calculations (signed and sealed) ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Native format files received
☐Independent Design Check Calculations (signed and sealed) ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Native format files received
☐Rating calculations during phasing (signed and sealed) ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Quantity calculations and quantity check & comparison ☐N/A:___________________________
Load Rating
☐Load Rating package PDF (signed and sealed) ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Load Rating XML file ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Rating Package submitted to Rating Group ☐N/A:___________________________
Miscellaneous Information
☐Existing bridge plans ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Existing Shop Drawings ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Existing Working Drawings ☐N/A:___________________________
Final Detail Letter / Consultant Final Submittal Letter
☐Document verifying structural plans and specifications have been prepared in accordance with
CDOT’s current design standards and QA/QC procedures and all documentation is archived
Inspection Sketch
☐Inspection Sketch PDF ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Inspection Sketch Native format file ☐N/A:___________________________
Structure Asset Management (SAM) Plan
☐Project verified on SAM Plan (CBP Funding) ☐N/A:___________________________
Intergovernmental Agreement(s)
☐IGA(s) attached ☐N/A:___________________________
CDOT Staff Bridge Quality Assurance Sign-off

By signing this checklist Staff Bridge Unit Leader acknowledges receipt of a complete package of the
Final Submittal documents and that the package is in conformance with the CDOT Bridge Design Manual
requirements.
Print Name Signature Date

APPENDIX C – LOCAL AGENCY BRIDGE PROJECT CHECKLIST
Local Agency Bridge Project Checklist
PROJECT INFORMATION:
Project Code#: Subaccount#: Project Description: ______________________
Highway: MP: City: County: CDOT Region:____
Design Submittal Status:  Conceptual  Preliminary  FIR  FOR  Final
Remark: ______
Prepared by Engineer: Company: Date:_______
SCOPING:
 Rehab vs Replacement  Survey  Conceptual Plan
Remarks:_____________________________________________________________________________
PRELIMINARY DESIGN:
 Structure Number  Existing Structure details, if applicable  Preliminary Geotechnical Report
 Preliminary Hydraulics Report  Structure Selection Report  Utility Design  Structure Layout
Remarks:_____________________________________________________________________________
FIR SUBMITTAL:
 FIR Plans  FIR Specifications  FIR Cost Estimate
Remarks:_____________________________________________________________________________
FOR SUBMITTAL:
 FOR Plans  FOR Specifications  FOR Quantities  Final Geotechnical Report
 Final Hydraulics Report  Revised Structure Selection Report, if required
Remarks:_____________________________________________________________________________
FINAL SUBMITTAL:
 PE Sealed PS&E  PE Sealed Load Rating Package  PE Sealed Design Calculations
 PE Sealed Independent Design Check Calculations  Quantity Estimate Calculations
 Independent Quantity Check Calculations  Bridge Geometry Run  Inspection Sketch for Bridges
 PE Sealed Geotechnical Report  PE Sealed Hydraulics Report  CADD Files  Software Input Files
 Revised Structure Selection Report if required  IGA , if within CDOT ROW  Final Submittal Letter
Remarks:_____________________________________________________________________________
NOTE TO DESIGNER:
1. See CDOT Bridge Design Manual, Section J in Policies and Procedures Chapter for requirements.
2. For more details on final submittal documents, see CDOT BDM, Section E.4 in Policies and
Procedures at the following link: https://www.codot.gov/library/bridge/bridge-manuals/lrfd-bridge-
design-manual/bdm-policies-and-procedures/view
3. This checklist shall be submitted along with each submittal package by the structural designer.
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1-1
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The intent of the CDOT Bridge Design Manual (BDM) is to complement current
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Load and
Resistance Factor Design Bridge Design Specifications with current interim
edition (AASHTO) and to provide interpretations applicable to the design of
Colorado projects. This BDM also establishes CDOT policies and describes
preferred practices and procedures in the state of Colorado. Whenever
conflicts between AASHTO and this BDM arise, policies established in this
BDM shall govern.
1.2 DEFINITIONS
1.2.1 Bridge Definition
A bridge is a structure that spans over a road, railway, river, or other obstacle
to provide passage for pedestrians and vehicles from one side to the other.
1.2.2 Culvert Definition

In general, a culvert is a structure, conduit, or drain that passes underneath a
road, railroad track, or other obstruction to allow water to be directed away from
travel corridors. Some large culverts can carry pedestrian and vehicle traffic
inside.
1.2.3 Glossary of Terms

For additional acronyms and abbreviations, refer to CDOT Standard Plans
M-100-2.
AASHTO – American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials. For the purpose of the CDOT BDM, “AASHTO”’ will refer specifically
to Load and Resistance Factor Design Bridge Design Specifications.
ABC – Accelerated Bridge Construction
Abutment – A structure that supports the end of a bridge, provides lateral

support for fill material on which the roadway rests immediately adjacent to the
bridge, and transfers the loads from the superstructure into the ground.
Alignment – Control line used to determine the direction of travel in the

roadway.
Approach Slab – A concrete slab that provides a transition between roadway

pavement and the bridge and is used to alleviate problems with settlement of
the bridge approaches relative to the bridge deck.
ASD – Allowable Stress Design
Batter – Inclination of a vertical surface (typically wall or pile) in relation to a

horizontal plane.

BDM – CDOT Bridge Design Manual
Bent – A structure that supports the superstructure at each end of a span.
Bent Angle – Angle between the centerline of a support and a layout line (see
Figure 4-1). This angle is typically used as a bridge description skew and a
culvert skew.
CBT girders – Colorado Bulb Tee Girders
Clear Zone – The total roadside border area, starting at the edge of the traveled
way, available for safe use by errant vehicles.
Diaphragm (integral) – Concrete block encasing free ends of girders at

abutments or piers. Usually provided to resist lateral forces and to ensure
proper load distribution to points of support.
Diaphragm (intermediate) – A vertically oriented solid transverse member

connecting adjacent longitudinal flexural components to transfer and distribute
vertical and lateral loads and to provide stability to the compression flanges.
Efflorescence – White deposit on concrete caused by the crystallization of

soluble salts brought to the surface by moisture in the concrete.
Embankment – A bank of earth constructed above the natural ground surface

to carry a road.
End Block – An increase in web width at the girder end intended to provide
adequate bearing.
ERS – Earthquake resisting system
FHWA – Federal Highway Administration
FIR – Field Inspection Review, occurs at approximately 30% project

completion.
FOR – Final Office Review, occurs at approximately 90% project completion.
Freeboard – Clearance between the lowest point of the bridge superstructure

and the design water surface elevation immediately upstream of the bridge.
Girder – A main horizontal structural member that supports vertical loads.
GRS – Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil
Haunch – The section of concrete between the top of girder and the underside
of deck.
HCL – Horizontal Control Line
HLMR – High-Load Multi-Rotational bearings (pot, spherical, and disc

bearings)
LCCA – Life Cycle Cost Analysis

LFD – Load Factor Design
Life Cycle – The period of time used for the calculation of LCCA. A bridge is
expected to be in operation in excess of this period.
LRFD – Load and Resistance Factor Design
Milepost – A post placed along a roadway to mark a distance in miles.
MOT (Maintenance of Traffic) – Traffic flow alternatives used to allow

construction.
MSE – Mechanically Stabilized Earth
NBIS – National Bridge Inspection Standards
OSHA – Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PDA – Pile Driving Analyzer
Pier – The part of a bridge structure that provides intermediate support to a

superstructure.
PPC – Polyester Polymer Concrete
P&S Submittal – Construction plans and specifications
PTFE – Polytetrafluoroethylene (typically used for sliding bearings)
QA/QC – Quality Assurance and Quality Control
QMP – Quality Management Plan
Refined Analysis – Detailed, sophisticated structural modeling approach that

typically involves computerized finite element analysis.
RFC – Release for Construction
RFI – Request for Information
Riprap – Protective covering material deposited on river stream beds or banks

to prevent erosion and scour.
ROW (Right of Way) – A privately owned strip of land granted or reserved by

the owner for construction of facilities, such as highways, railroads, power
lines, and other infrastructure.
Sacrificial Anode – The anode in a cathodic protection system used to inhibit

the object’s corrosion.
SC – Site Class
SDC – Seismic Design Category

Skew Angle – Angle between the centerline of a support and a line normal to
the layout line (see Figure 4-1). This angle is typically used in Structure
Inspection Reports and Bridge Geometry.
Sleeper Slab – A strip of concrete that supports the free end of the approach
slab.
SPT (Standard Penetration Test) – An in-situ dynamic penetration test

designed to provide information on the geotechnical engineering properties of
soil.
Staff Bridge Branch – A branch of CDOT tasked with setting overall policies
and procedures for bridges and bridge-related structures, providing direction,
and reviewing and approving plans for the individual projects in the state of
Colorado. Review and approval shall be by CDOT Designer/Reviewer or
CDOT Unit Leader.
Substructure – The part of a bridge structure supporting the superstructure that

includes elements such as piers and abutments.
Superstructure – The part of a bridge structure that directly supports traffic

loads and includes elements such as bridge rail, bridge deck, and girders.
WEAP – Wave Equation Analysis of Pile driving
Wingwall – A retaining wall adjacent to an abutment or a culvert that serves to

retain earth in an embankment.
1.3 DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

1.3.1 Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) is a current design method that
shall be used for all new structure designs in the state of Colorado. It is a
reliability-based design methodology in which force effects caused by factored
loads are not permitted to exceed the factored resistance of the components.
Load and resistance factors are used to take into account statistical probability
of both the variability of loads and the uncertainty of material properties.
AASHTO
Load modifier ηi is not permitted to be less than 1.00 under any conditions for 1.3.3,4, 5
ductility, redundancy or operational importance.
1.3.2 Load Factor Design (LFD)

Load Factor Design (LFD), also known as Ultimate Strength Design, is a design
method that incorporates safety provisions by separately accounting for
uncertainties relative to load and resistance. CDOT Unit Leader may allow the
use of this design method on some rehabilitation and widening projects where
the original structure was designed in LFD. The intent to use the LFD method
shall be documented in the Structure Selection Report and approved by CDOT
Unit Leader before beginning the design process.

1.3.3 Allowable Stress Design (ASD)

Allowable Stress Design (ASD), also known as Service Load Design Method
or Working Stress Design, uses uniform factors of safety to account for
uncertainty in both applied loads and structure capacity. This method is
allowed on rehabilitation and widening projects only where the original
structure was designed in ASD to avoid conflicts between different design
philosophies. The intent to use ASD method shall be documented in the
Structure Selection Report and approved by CDOT Unit Leader before
beginning the design process.

SECTION 2: GENERAL DESIGN AND LOCATION FEATURES 2-1
SECTION 2
GENERAL DESIGN AND LOCATION FEATURES
2.1 GENERAL
This section addresses structure configuration, clearance requirements,
aesthetic guidelines, structure investigation, and selection report requirements.
2.2 LOCATION FEATURES

Alignment
Care shall be taken during the preliminary design phase to ensure that horizontal
and vertical alignments of the proposed bridge satisfy project objectives and
minimum requirements of this BDM. Careful consideration of all feasible
alternatives will minimize revisions at later stages. Structure layout alternatives
shall be evaluated based on economic, engineering, environmental, construction,
aesthetics, ease of inspection, cost of maintenance, traffic safety, bridge security,
and utility avoidance factors.
2.2.1.1 Horizontal Alignment

Abutments and piers on curved bridges shall be placed to optimize the span
lengths and girder spacings. Use of 1° increments is preferred when setting
bridge skew, especially when not restricted by the existing construction. When a
bridge is on a curve with a large radius, it is appropriate to consider a slightly
wider straight bridge to lower the cost of construction. The Designer shall perform
overhang design for the worst case cantilever.
When appropriate, preliminary design shall consider the possibility of future

bridge widening.
Where practical, ends of approach slabs on bridges with skew ≥ 30° should be
set square to the roadway to facilitate construction and to minimize direct impact
on the joint by snowplows.
2.2.1.2 Vertical Alignment

The Designer shall consider all local constraints and code requirements to ensure
safety and to minimize interference with traffic under the bridge. Ultimate
roadway configuration should be considered when setting bridge vertical
alignment to accommodate any future bridge widenings.
2.2.1.3 Screed Elevations

The plans shall provide elevations of the bridge deck, approach slabs, and
roadway approaches. Roadway approach and approach slab information is
intended to avoid misalignments between the roadway and bridge. At a minimum,
deck elevations should be provided at 1/10 points along control line, girder lines,
crown line/centerline of the bridge, flow line, and edges of deck. At a minimum,
approach slab elevations should be provided at 1/2 points along the approach
slab crown and flow lines.

Bridge geometry shall be presented in the plans in accordance with Chapter 14

of the CDOT Bridge Detail Manual and CDOT Structural Worksheets.
Vertical Clearances
Required minimum vertical clearances to bridges passing over the rural and AASHTO
urban principal arterial routes shall be 16.50 ft. The minimum vertical clearance 2.3.3.2
from the roadway to pedestrian bridges, utility bridges, and overhead sign
supports shall be 17.50 ft.
Vertical clearance over low speed, low volume undercrossings (i.e., collector
roads, streets, and private entrance crossings) may be modified to 15.00 ft.
minimum with approval from State Bridge Engineer and concurrence of the owner
of the low speed, low volume or private undercrossing. Any structures with
clearance less than 16.50 ft. shall be signed as part of the project.
These values include 6 in. clearance for future overlays, structure deflections,
snow on the road, vehicles oriented other than plumb, effects of sag vertical
curves, future expansion, etc., which can be modified at the Owner’s request.
Provided values should be true over the entire roadway width, including
shoulders. If construction requirements restrict the vertical or horizontal
clearances to values lower than required at final design, Staff Bridge shall notify
the Permit Department.
For vertical clearance from a pedestrian or bicycle path to an overhead
obstruction, refer to Section 31.4.2 of this BDM.
Vertical clearance over waterways should be established based on hydrology
and hydraulics explorations and shall also consider applicable watercraft
clearance requirements. The Designer is required to provide adequate freeboard
based on hydraulics elevations provided by the Hydraulics Engineer. At a
minimum, freeboard for 100-year flood should be 2 ft for low to moderate debris
streams with velocities > 6 fps. See Chapter 10 of the CDOT Drainage Manual
for additional clearance information. When minimum freeboard clearances are
not feasible, a hydraulic variance will be required. If freeboard requirements are
not met, bridge and bridge connections shall be designed for any additional
lateral loading due to the lack of clearance.
Horizontal Clearances
Horizontal clearances shall conform to AASHTO and A Policy on Geometric AASHTO
Design of Highways and Streets. 2.3.3.3
Figure 2-1 to 2-3 summarize the minimum requirements for horizontal

clearances. These are preferred configurations and should be evaluated and
modified as appropriate. Modifications may be appropriate based on the location
of the existing drainage features and the cost benefits of balancing or adjusting
span lengths.

Figure 2-1: Bridge Clearances – High Speed Roadway

Design speed > 45 MPH
Figure 2-2: Bridge Clearances – Low Speed Roadway

Design Speed ≤ 45 MPH
Figure 2-3: Bridge Clearances with MSE Retaining Wall

All undercrossings and roadways
Criteria for Deflection

AASHTO
Design shall follow deflection criteria outlined in AASHTO 2.5.2.6.2. When these 2.5.2.6.2
criteria cannot be met, a variance request shall be submitted to the Unit Leader.
Sidewalks
For an attached sidewalk on a vehicle bridge, the clear walkway shall be 5 ft. AASHTO
minimum but in no case shall it be narrower than the approaching sidewalk. 13.11.2
Additional width may be required in an urban area or for a shared pedestrian-
bikeway facility. Curb height of the raised sidewalk on the bridge should not be
less than 6 in. above the final grade. If the deck does not have an asphalt layer,
the sidewalk height should be increased to 9 in. to account for future overlays.
Raised sidewalk shall be connected to the deck using fully developed
reinforcement.
When requested by Owner or when pedestrian walkways are provided on

high speed, high volume bridges, walkways shall be protected with a combination
of inboard traffic barrier (Bridge Rail Type 9 or Type 10 MASH) and outboard
pedestrian railing. Any other rail shall be approved by the State Bridge Engineer
in coordination with the Bridge Rail SMEs. High speed roadways are defined as
those with a speed limit greater than 45 mph. Refer to Figure 2-4 for sidewalk
details. When pedestrian traffic is high, a separate pedestrian bridge shall be
considered based on a combination of factors such as cost, safety, phasing and
site conditions. Roadway / trail designers shall assist in performing applicable
studies as required. For high speed, high volume roadways, the Project Engineer
decides whether or not to separate traffic and pedestrian facilities. See Section
2.4.2 for fencing information.

Figure 2-4: Standard Sidewalk Details

Environmental Considerations
Minimizing and mitigating environmental impacts of any construction project shall
AASHTO 2.3.4
be given the highest priority. All proposed projects shall be evaluated for all
possible environmental impacts at the preliminary stages of the design.
Engineers and Contractors shall comply with state and federal laws concerning
all environmental issues, including, but not limited to:
• Ecological impacts on wetlands
• Water pollution and contaminated materials
• Erosion and sediment control
• Streams and floodplains encroachment
• Removal of embankment stabilizing vegetation
• Fish/wildlife habitation or migration routes
• Unstable slopes
• Noise/vibration control policy
• Hazardous materials and solid waste
• Asbestos containing materials/soils
• Transportation and discharge of hazardous materials
• Spill reporting
• Impact on local communities
• Historic/archaeological/paleontological sites
2.3 AESTHETICS
General Requirements
Aesthetic enhancements are defined as items not necessary for the load carrying
AASHTO 2.5.5
capability of a bridge or a structure, such as facades, monuments, and artwork.
The level of aesthetic treatment will vary from project to project depending on the
importance of the structure, sensitivity of the setting, construction budget,
location, historical value, and Owner’s preferences.
CDOT has a Visual Resources Program (VRP), administered by the CDOT

Environmental Programs Branch, Landscape Architecture Section. The CDOT
Landscape Architect’s primary goal regarding aesthetics is to objectively
measure, following standard methodology, the visual impacts for projects
supporting the transportation system to meet legal requirements and regulations,
while maintaining and improving scenic quality. The primary value of the
Landscape Architect in structure design is to create beautiful and pleasing
structures in harmony with the surroundings. Early in the project’s development
process, the Engineer shall coordinate with the Landscape Architect for project
aesthetics requirements. The Landscape Architect will review and provide
aesthetic recommendations for any bridge/structures based on the VRP
principles of integrating, designing, and recommending visual solutions for
bridges and other structures. “A beautiful design can only be achieved if the
aesthetics design is developed as an essential part of the total concept”
(Transportation Research Board and National Research Council, 1991, p. 8,
Bridge Aesthetics Around the World, Washington DC).

Bridge and structures will be reviewed from several vantage points. The CDOT
Landscape Architect shall determine the users and neighbors/community and
consider views of the road, both from and of the road, to generate a sense of
place, security, and context of scale by incorporating Context Sensitive Solutions
(CSS). Context sensitive design acknowledges a concern for local architectural
identity and investment.
The approach to CSS aesthetics is an iterative process with many aspects of

aesthetic design review, to build on a framework for color, scale, style, direction,
proportion, shape, form, balance, etc. Corridor themes are established by
developing a complementary appearance between varying bridge/structure types
and components along the corridor. Every structure will receive architectural and
aesthetic design reviews and recommendations during the design and
construction phase.
If the bridge is a part of a specific corridor, it must be visually consistent with the
overall scheme of the corridor. Cost-effective aesthetic treatment can be
achieved by using color coating, staining, colored concrete, form liners,
rustications, and other methods. CDOT practice limits aesthetic treatment costs
to less than 5 percent on any individual project and 2 percent at the statewide
program level, unless outside funding is provided. Veneers are generally
discouraged based on safety, durability, and maintenance concerns.
Aesthetic enhancements shall not be attached to the main load carrying

members of the structure, that is, girders, pier caps, columns, etc., without
approval from CDOT Unit Leader. Any attachment of aesthetic enhancements to
the structure shall be detailed and/or designed to prevent deterioration (e.g.,
corrosion) that may damage or degrade any component of the structure.
Aesthetic enhancements shall not be placed in locations or consist of
components that in any way limit access to or inhibit the inspection of the
structure. Any permanent aesthetic enhancements within CDOT ROW shall not
impact the safety of the traveling public.
The requesting entity shall maintain and repair the aesthetic enhancements. An
IGA is needed to determine appropriate responsibility to maintain which
bridge/structures/components and should be archived by the Engineer for future
reference. Access to CDOT ROW to maintain or repair the aesthetic
enhancements in the future would be requested and approved through the CDOT
Access Management Permit Office.
Lighting
The placement and type of lighting poles and fixtures can have a major visual
impact on the overall appearance of the bridge. Poles should be set such that
they are visually complementary to the structure.
Superstructure-mounted highway lighting shall be avoided wherever possible.

The Designer shall investigate the possibility of mounting the lighting on an
extended pier cap. If superstructure-mounted lighting cannot be avoided, it shall
be located as closely to a pier as is practical to limit movement and vibration.
Underdeck lighting should be provided on bridges over roadways and trails when
requested by the region. It is preferable to place the underdeck lighting on

substructure elements rather than directly on the deck to allow easier deck
repairs and replacement.
When lighting for pedestrian bridges is provided on poles, it should be

independent of the bridge structure where possible. Other lighting options can be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Pedestrian lighting should be incorporated
into local underpasses. Structural plans should be coordinated with electrical
plans for conduit splices and locations, expansion/deflection coupler locations
considering longitudinal and lateral deflections, fixture locations, and mounts to
avoid conflicts during construction. Any bridge lighting configuration must be
readily accessible for inspection and maintenance. All junction boxes maintained
by Xcel Energy must comply with Xcel Energy requirements. Xcel Energy
junction box size is typically 18 in. x 8 in. x 6 in.
Form Liners and Veneers

Both form liners and veneers can be used to create desired architectural surface
treatments, such as intricate patterns, stamps, murals, etc., to increase the
aesthetics of the bridge or retaining wall. The use of integral aesthetics, such as
form liners, rather than rock veneers, is preferred to limit possible delamination
and flying debris from impact. The CDOT Unit Leader shall approve any
attachment of architectural enhancements to the load carrying members. All such
attachments shall be adequately designed and detailed on the plans.
For vertical and nearly vertical concrete surfaces with rustications that are
accessible to pedestrians, practical means should be considered to make these
surfaces unattractive for climbing. To reduce the construction labor required to
make these rustications, they should be made in dimensions that use standard
lumber sizes with a minimum number of cuts. In all cases, grooves should have
at least one beveled edge to facilitate removal of the lumber strips used to form
them. Figure 2-5 shows examples of unacceptable configurations and suggested
details. This does not apply to standard prefabricated form liners with vertical
flute configurations that have proven to be practical from previous use.
Figure 2-5: Vertical Concrete Surface Details

2.4 RAILING AND FENCING

The overall height and shape of the safety barrier and fence should meet or
exceed AASHTO standards. Railings and fencing installed on retaining walls AASHTO 13.4
should be consistent with or complementary to those found on adjacent bridges.
To improve durability, the use of weathering steel for railing and fencing is
discouraged. Galvanizing of steel portions of safety barriers and fences is the
minimum standard required. In cases where steel portions of safety barriers and
fences are to be painted for aesthetic or other reasons, it must be done in addition
to galvanizing using a duplex coating system.
Chain link fence is not required to be painted, but for aesthetic purposes a vinyl
coating can be added.
It is recommended that dissimilar metals be avoided to improve durability. The

use of aluminum or galvanizing steel are acceptable but combinations should be
avoided.
Railing
2.4.1.1 Traffic Railing

AASHTO 13.7
MASH compliant and crashworthy railing systems shall be used adjacent to
vehicle traffic. Bridge rail Type 9 and Type 10 MASH are CDOT’s MASH
compliant bridge rails and shall be used for all new construction. New
construction consists of new bridges and bridges being rehabilitated or widened
in a manner that requires removal of the existing bridge railing. Refer to CDOT
Staff Bridge Worksheets for details of bridge traffic railings. Any changes made
to bridge rail and/or the transition worksheets will require a variance from the
State Bridge Engineer in coordination with the Bridge Rail SMEs. Any modified
or non-CDOT bridge rails proposed for projects should be crash tested or suitably
evaluated to ensure MASH compliance and crashworthiness.
All existing bridge rails that meet the current AASHTO and MASH criteria may
remain in place. If the bridge falls within the limits of a Federal-Aid project, if
sufficient funds exist, or if it is an essential repair, rails should be modified to meet
these standards or be replaced with a MASH compliant rail or rehabilitated to
meet MASH compliance.
The Type 9 and Type 10 MASH bridge rails, shown on Figure 2-6, are typically
used for nearly all new construction on state highway projects. These rails offer
the overall optimum solutions given safety, cost, maintenance, appearance, and
guardrail compatibility issues. For local agency projects a test level lower than
TL-4 may be approved by State Bridge Engineer in coordination with the Bridge
Rail SMEs based on design speed, ADT and other safety factors. Bridge rails
and transitions at any test level shall be MASH compliant and crashworthy.

Figure 2-6: Bridge Rail Types 9 and 10 MASH
2.4.1.2 Pedestrian Railing

The height of pedestrian railing should not be less than 42 in. Openings between AASHTO
horizontal or vertical members on pedestrian railings shall be small enough that 13.8.1
a 4 in. sphere (IBC requirement) cannot pass through them. This value shall be
used in lieu of AASHTO requirements and shall apply to the full height of the
railing.
2.4.1.3 Bicycle Railing

Where specific protection of bicyclists is deemed necessary the minimum height AASHTO
of railing used to protect a bicyclist shall be 42 in., measured from the top of the 13.9.1
riding surface. Bicycle railing with horizontal members is preferred when allowed.
Chain link fence may be used in lieu of bicycle railing. Smooth rub rail shall be
attached to the barrier or fence at a handlebar height of 42 in., unless a smooth
surface is already provided. See AASHTO Bicycle Facilities Guide and CDOT
Roadway Design Guide for more information.
2.4.1.4 Combination Railing

AASHTO
Combination railing is a type of traffic railing that also satisfies the height and 13.10.1
opening requirements of either the pedestrian or the bicycle railings. Where
combination railing (pedestrian/bicycle and traffic) is provided, the combination
rail modified from CDOT MASH compliant rails shall not interfere with the
crashworthiness of the MASH compliant rails or cause other hazards (such as
spearing) to the traveling public.
2.4.1.5 Safety Railing
Safety railing is intended to provide limited fall protection and visual identification
of the vertical drops. The top of safety railing should be at least 42 in. above

walking/working surface. Intermediate members (such as balusters), when used

between posts, shall not be more than 19 in. apart.
2.4.1.6 Handrail
Handrail is intended to meet ADA requirements (See Section 31.7) and may be
required in addition to Pedestrian and Bicycle Railing. When required, handrail
shall be placed at a height between 34 and 38 inches above finished grade.
Handrail may be similar to bicycle railing details.
Fencing
2.4.2.1 Chain Link Fence
All bridges with pedestrian or bicyclist access that cross roadways or railway
tracks shall be provided with chain link fabric fence or other approved fencing to
prevent objects from being thrown onto the road below. Fencing other than those
noted below shall be approved by the CDOT Unit Leader. The addition of fencing
to the bridge rail may affect its crashworthiness and test level criteria.
The maximum size opening for chain link fabric shall be 2 in. Other approved
fencing includes the use of picket fences with a maximum clear opening of 4 in.
between pickets. Fencing should extend, as a minimum, 30 ft. beyond the outside
shoulder line on the traveled way below, the bridge rail length, or as required per
railroad criteria. Bridges with pedestrian walkways over traffic should have
pedestrian fencing on the barrier or the curb.
Partial enclosure pedestrian fence should be considered at locations where there
is a history of objects being thrown over the fence. The Designer should
coordinate with the Region to determine these locations. The minimum overall
height of the barrier and fence above roadway surface should be 8 ft. Fence
above railway tracks shall be 10 ft. for vertical fence and 8 ft. for partial enclosure
fence. Refer to Figure 2-7 for more details.
Horizontal pipe members should be avoided as they are a spearing hazard.
2.4.2.2 Snow Fence
A snow fence prevents snow from splashing over the barrier during snow
removal. Snow fencing shall be required over highways, over railroad facilities,
and on other bridges per Region requests.
Snow fencing may be used over pedestrian paths per Region requests. The
minimum height of the snow protection should be 36 in. with 3/8 in. mesh and
should extend, as a minimum, 30 ft. beyond the outside shoulder line on the
traveled way below, the bridge rail length, or as required per railroad criteria.
Designer shall verify the limits of snow fencing with Traffic Safety for any
obstructions to sight distance.

Figure 2-7: Fencing Types

2.4.2.3 Drop-Off Protection

Drop-off protection is categorized as follows:
• Pedestrian Protection – Pedestrian railing shall be provided for any
sidewalk or shared use path adjacent to a wall with a drop-off greater than
30 in. Safety railing or fencing shall be provided for walls with
drop-offs greater than 30 in. that are generally accessible by the public
but not adjacent to sidewalks or paths.
• Shared Path Users Protection - It is preferred that a 5 ft separation be
provided between a shared use path and drop-offs or embankments with
slopes greater than 4:1. Otherwise a suitable barrier such as a railing or
fence shall be provided at the top to the slope. Refer to Chapter 14 of the
CDOT Roadway Design Guide for more details on shared use path next
to embankment slopes protection requirements. Safety railing or fencing
shall also be provided for walls with drop-offs greater than 30 in. that are
not adjacent to sidewalks or paths but are generally accessible by the
public."
• CDOT Maintenance Personal Protection – Fall protection, including
safety railing, fencing (chain link or 3 cable), or tie-off points, as approved
by CDOT Maintenance, shall be provided at all wall drop-offs greater than
or equal to 4 ft. in areas restricted to public access by either location or
fencing.
Safety railing and fencing in all cases shall be capable of resisting 200 lbs.
of force, applied to the top of the longitudinal element acting in any
direction.
Figure 2-8: Drop-Off Protection
2.5 RAILROAD REQUIREMENTS

New bridges designed to overpass a railroad should be designed per AASHTO
specifications, except for clearance requirements, which shall conform to the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA).

When designing a bridge carrying a railroad, using the railroad’s preferred design
and materials may accelerate the review process but a Structure Selection
Report is still required. Some local railroad agencies, such as BNSF and UPRR,
have set requirements that are more conservative than those outlined in AREMA.
These requirements should be met, if required. However, if adherence to the local
railroad’s requirements results in an impractical or a non-cost-effective design,
the Owner should be notified and the decision should be made on a case-by-
case basis. Railroads typically specify intermediate reviews of the design e.g.
30%, 60% and 100% etc. depending on the contract requirements. These
submittals may require extensive interruption in the design process while the
railroad reviews the design for compliance. It is important for a checker to be
assigned to the project early so any design discrepancies can be dealt with prior
to each submittal.
Vertical Clearance
All highway bridges over non-electrified railroads are required to have a minimum
vertical clearance of 23 ft above the top of rail per AREMA guidelines. Note that
greater clearances are required for tracks on a curve. For details, refer to AREMA
Manual for Railway Engineering, Chapter 28. Typically, local railroad request
clearance greater than 23’ (23’-4” for UPRR, 23’-6” for BNSF). The Structure
Selection Report should evaluate and discuss the difference in cost if a vertical
clearance larger than the normal practice specified in the design guidelines is
requested. If the cost is minimal, the project will fund the difference. If the cost is
excessive, the local railroad should be required to fund the additional cost. Please
refer to FHWA memo 130416 for discussion of funding eligibility for additional
information. The railroad shall document or justify by special site conditions the
need for clearances greater than those shown or referenced herein.
Horizontal Clearance
It is preferable to keep bridge piers outside the railroad ROW or the 25 ft clear
zone, measured perpendicular to the centerline of the track. Piers located less
than 25 ft from the centerline of the outside track shall meet the requirements to
qualify as heavy construction or are to be protected by a reinforced concrete
crash wall. Absolute minimum horizontal clearance to the face of the pier
protection wall should meet AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering or local
railroad’s requirements.
Construction Clearance
Minimum vertical temporary construction clearances shall be 21’-6” (22’-6”
AREMA) above the top of the high rail. Greater temporary clearances may be
required on a project-by-project basis. Minimum horizontal construction
clearances measured perpendicular to centerline of track to nearest obstruction
(formwork, equipment, stockpile materials, etc.) should satisfy requirements set
by the local railroad. Any excavation work within these limits requires approval of
the railroad.

Protection and Screening

All highway bridges over any railroad shall include a fence with a barrier,
approved by the railroad, on both sides of the structure, extending to the limits of
the railroad ROW.
If the structure over the railroad tracks is subject to snow removal, one of the
following must be provided: barrier rail with height not less than 42 in. or a snow
fence or splashboard extending to the limits of the railroad ROW. Splashboards
shall be included in the cost of Fence Chain Link (Special).
Some local electrified lines require arc flash shielding at the bottom of concrete
girders. Coordinate with the Owner’s design standards for protective shielding
details and grounding requirements.
Collision
Refer to the AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering or local railroad guidelines
for heavy construction piers and crash wall requirements. Criteria regarding
vehicle and railway collision loads on structures found in AASHTO are also
applicable to the design of crash walls, as appropriate.
2.6 INSPECTION ACCESS
All bridge girders, bearings, external tendons, and fracture critical details shall be
made accessible for long-term inspection from the ground, from walkways
installed within the girder bays, or by means of a Below Bridge Access Vehicle
(BBAV). Areas that are to undergo inspections shall be provided with handles
and ladder stops as applicable. Bridges requiring BBAV access shall have a
minimum clear distance of 12 ft. between the outside edge of barrier and any
obstruction (building, parallel structure, etc.) for access. Bridges accommodated
by regular inspection vehicles need 6 ft. minimum, up to 10 ft. preferred of lateral
shoulder clearance.
All steel box girders, cast-in-place concrete box girders and precast concrete tub
girders with an inside depth of 5 ft. or more shall be made accessible for interior
inspection. Bottom flange or slab access doors shall swing into the girder and,
when possible, shall be placed at locations that do not impact traffic under the
bridge. Lock protectors, doorstops, and tie off hooks inside the girders shall be
provided. Steel box girders, cast-in-place concrete box girders and precast
concrete tub girders without access shall have 4 in. (minimum) diameter weep
holes for camera access at 10 ft. maximum spacing.
Access doors into the girder shall be aluminum, providing a 2 ft. by 3 ft. minimum
opening, and shall open to the inside of the box girders. The doors shall be locked
by a single padlock protected by a lock guard. Neither bolts nor screws may be
substituted for the padlock. An example access door for steel box girders is
shown on Figure 2-9 and on Staff Bridge Worksheet B-618-2 for concrete box
girders.
To prevent corrosion between the aluminum door and the adjacent steel, the
plans should call for shop coating, as a minimum, of the aluminum to steel
surfaces on painted girders. The Designer may call for rubber shims at the
interfaces with unpainted ASTM A588 steel if desired.

For payment, the aluminum plate should be included in the work for the girder. It
should not receive a separate pay item. The plans should call for ASTM B209
aluminum plate, alloy number 6061-T6. Additional material specifications are not
needed.
Figure 2-9: Access Door Detail
Traffic, required ladder heights or BBAV reaches, and other obstacles shall be
considered when locating access doors. Where possible, access doors near
abutments should be placed 3 ft. minimum to 4 ft. maximum clear from top of
ground to allow entry without a ladder. Where a ladder must be used above slope
paving, support cleats or level areas for the ladder shall be provided in the slope
paving.

Access through diaphragms within boxes shall be provided by openings with a

minimum area of 5.70 ft2 and a minimum width dimension of at least 24 in. The
bottom of the opening through diaphragms within boxes shall not exceed 2.50 ft.
from the bottom of the girder unless details for passing through higher openings
are provided; for example, step platforms or climbing handles up the side of the
diaphragm, and, if necessary, along the bottom of the deck. If possible, the
bottom of diaphragm access should be flat for ease of use.
Attachments to diaphragms, such as bearing stiffeners, and to other possible

projections shall be detailed so that they will not present a hazard to someone
passing through the box. Using k-type bracing shall provide an opening through
steel box girder intermediate cross frames.
2.7 FORMWORK
All internal formwork, waste, and debris shall be removed from precast and cast
in place girders that are made accessible for internal inspection by means of an
access door or a camera. For shallow cast-in-place box girders with no access
door, pour should occur in two stages to allow formwork removal (unless
approved by CDOT Unit Leader.)
A note shall be placed on the plans to phase the construction and remove internal
formwork for both cast in place and precast girders that require internal
inspection.
2.8 UTILITIES
A request for permission to attach utilities to existing bridge structures should be
AASHTO
coordinated through the District Utility Engineer, who should submit the request, 2.5.2.5
in writing, to Staff Bridge. Such requests shall state the following:
• Proposed schedule for installation
• Location of the conduits
• Type of conduit sleeve required
• Size, spacing, capacity, and number of inserts
When attending the FIR meeting, the Designer should inquire as to what utilities
and conduits for future use the bridge will carry to assure that they are
accommodated. The Utility Group/coordinator should provide information on the
size and number of conduits needed for proposed utilities as well as required
future or spare utility conduits. The bridge plans shall indicate the size, spacing,
and capacity of the utilities and the basis of payment for installation. The Designer
shall verify and show the locations of pull boxes and j-boxes to allow future use.
Pull boxes or other method shall be provided for all utility lines. See BDM Section
2.3.2 for the typical size of Xcel pull boxes. Unless utilities provide more defined
guidance, pull boxes shall be provided every 150 ft. in length or 360 degrees of
turns of the conduit. Buried conduit is to have 500 ft. of length between pull boxes.
Each utility may have further guidance. The Designer shall coordinate with the
lighting and utility discipline for additional requirements.
Utilities should be installed either inside the concrete barrier or underneath the
bridge deck with the blockouts provided through abutments and pier diaphragms.
CDOT prefers to install small utility conduits inside the barrier whenever practical.

For aesthetic and safety reasons, conduits on new bridges will not be permitted
to be installed under deck overhangs or on bridge railings.
Installation of utilities on bridges in service shall be coordinated with CDOT Unit
Leader. Typically, spare conduits are used when utilities are added while a bridge
is in service. If spare conduits are not available, the Vendor will need to provide
anchoring details for approval by CDOT Unit Leader. Details will need to be
evaluated for any detriment to longevity or durability of the existing bridge.
Whenever utilities are installed externally, hanger or support spacing will depend
on the size and material of piping supported, e.g., 2 in. PVC conduit may require
5 ft. ± spacing, while 2 in. steel conduit may require 10 ft. ± spacing. Spacing
shall be designed to limit deflection to less than ½ in. The utility owner should
specify spacing, and it shall be coordinated with Staff Bridge. Information about
weight of piping and heaviest conductor can be found in the National Electrical
Code.
Blockouts shall be sized to accommodate only those utilities to be installed during
bridge construction. Blockouts for the installation of "future" utilities shall not be
provided. Blockouts shall not extend below the bottom of the girders. It is
preferable to avoid utilities with rigid pipes through integral abutment. When such
installations cannot be avoided, the effects of the abutment backfill settling and
the effects of superstructure translational and rotational movements need to be
considered in the design and properly detailed.
Waterlines, gas lines, and other safety issue utilities shall not be located within
tubs or boxes unless approved by CDOT Unit Leader. If a waterline is approved
for use inside tubs or boxes, relief or drainage valves shall not be located within
the girder and a full length casing for the utility is preferred.
ITS utility boxes need to be coordinated if a sound wall will inhibit access.
2.9 FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION

General
Geotechnical explorations shall meet requirements of AASHTO and the CDOT
Geotechnical Design Manual. The proposed subsurface investigation, including
means and methods, should be disclosed and fully discussed with the Structural
Engineer of Record prior to start of work.
Geotechnical Report Requirements

Minimum requirements for the Geotechnical Report deliverables for bridges, AASHTO 10.4
retaining walls, and box culverts, as well as the Geotechnical Report Checklist,
designed to assist a reviewer, can be found in the CDOT Geotechnical Design
Manual.
Code
All geotechnical design information shall be provided in LRFD format. Preliminary
design may be provided in Allowable Stress Design (ASD) format but shall not
be used for final design. Exceptions can be made for bridge widenings where the
original design was done in LFD.

Global Stability
Stability requirements, particularly global stability of walls and tall wall abutments,
shall satisfy the requirements of the Geotechnical Design Manual and AASHTO.
The Geotechnical Engineer of Record shall perform the overall global stability
calculations. Structural Engineer of Record is to verify that these calculations are
completed.
Loss of support due to erosion of riprap layers, soil removed during design and
extreme scour events, pavement structure replacement (wearing surface and
base course layers), future utility excavations, etc., should be considered in
design.
Deliverable
Final sealed Geotechnical Reports for all new structures shall be provided to
CDOT Staff Bridge. Preliminary foundation recommendations should be provided
when possible.
2.10 STRUCTURE SELECTION REPORT

The Structure Selection Report presents the results of the preliminary design
process and represents good stewardship of available funding. To find feasible
solutions, constraints such as serviceability requirements (deflection, settlement,
etc.) and spatial limitations (ROW, underground easement, etc.) should be
defined as comprehensively as possible. All solutions shall be evaluated,
compared or discussed regarding feasibility, advantages and disadvantages.
Although the selection report provides overall project requirements and
restrictions regarding the applicable structures, the primary purpose is to
document the possible structures and recommend the optimal structure to meet
project requirements. Cost savings should be analyzed based on a project total
cost, not a bridge cost specifically. For example, a $1 million savings in the bridge
should not lead to a $2 million increase in project costs. Ideally, structures with
the highest rank should be adopted for detailed design, and the rest can be used
as design alternatives. The Structure Selection Report shall document, justify,
and explain Project Structural Engineers' structure layout and type selection. If
the Designer anticipates the need for the refined method analysis, this should
also be documented in the Structure Selection Report (refer to Section 4.1 for
information on refined analysis requirements).
If the structure selection process indicates two options are not definitive in the
recommended solution, two designs may be shown in the bid package. Providing
two options as an ad alternative provides more competition in the bidding
process, as an example, concrete vs steel or precast concrete vs cast-in-place
concrete. A Project Special Provision will need to be included in the
specifications. Coordination with CDOT Unit Leader should be performed and
approval obtained prior to proceeding with this option in addition to a discussion
included in the Structure Selection Report.
For projects with multiple bridges or structures, common material may be

summarized for the project as a whole and need not be repeated in each

Structure Selection Report unless there are bridge or structure-specific

differences.
The Structure Selection Report for all structures shall be submitted to CDOT for
review and comment by the Project Design Team. For structures that are part of
Federal-Aid projects or National Highway System Projects, a Structure Selection
Report shall also be submitted to the FHWA Division Bridge Engineer. Allow at
least two weeks before the FIR meeting or as scheduled otherwise for report
review in the project schedule.
Appendix 2A includes the Structure Selection Report Checklist that shall be used
as a general guideline for Designers as to what topics to consider when writing
Structure Selection Reports. This list may not be all inclusive for topics that affect
the structure selection. If items are not applicable that may be left from the report
and the overall report shortened.
Staff Bridge Unit Leaders or designees are to use the checklist during their QA
process. After the process is completed, the Staff Bridge Unit Leader will sign the
provided Structure Selection Report QA Checklist to acknowledge approval and
to document in writing an acceptance of the recommended structure type, layout,
and all design deviations from CDOT Structural Standards. This should be done
before FIR documents are submitted to the Region. The structure type in final
design should match the Structure Selection Report. Otherwise, amendment to
the report or a revised report shall be submitted before FOR for approval.
Structure selection includes the following steps:
1. The Design Team evaluates all feasible alternatives through discussion,

tables, supporting drawings, etc., and prepares the Structure Selection
report. It is recommended to meet and discuss the bridge with Staff Bridge
and Region representatives.
2. Report undergoes QA/QC procedure before being submitted.
3. The Design Team submits the Structure Selection Report to the CDOT Unit
Leader for review. CDOT Unit Leader performs review of the Report and
signs off on the Structure Selection Report QA Checklist to acknowledge
approval.
4. Structure Selection Report is submitted to the Region and to the FHWA

Division Bridge Engineer (if applicable) for review and acceptance.
5. The Design Team updates Structure Selection Report as required per final
geotechnical and hydraulics reports.
Major Structures
The definition of the term Major Structures is found in the Policies and Procedures
section of this BDM.
2.10.2.1 Bridges
Different span arrangements and appropriate superstructure types should be
evaluated and findings presented in the Structure Selection Report. Site

conditions, phasing, bridge length, and required minimum horizontal and vertical
clearances will influence most decisions. The following are other factors that shall
be considered during the preliminary design phase:
• Construction cost
• Life cycle cost
• Possible future widenings
• Ultimate roadway section below
• Capacity of girders during phase construction
• Speed of construction and maintenance
Refer to Appendix 2A, Structure Selection Report Checklist, for more criteria to
be considered.
Adherence to the span-to-depth ratios in accordance with AASHTO AASHTO

Table 2.5.2.6.3-1 (Traditional Minimum Depth for Constant Depth 2.5.2.6.3
Superstructures), is not required but the table is a good starting point for
preliminary design.
In the Structure Selection Report, the Designer shall evaluate, confirm, and
document the stability of the existing bridge when it is used in a partial width
configuration as part of the new construction phasing. A separate rating may be
required for the configuration of the existing bridge during phased construction to
verify sufficient load capacity.
2.10.2.2 Culverts
A culvert is considered a major structure if its total length is greater than 20 ft.
measured along the center of the roadway between the inside faces of the
outside walls or spring lines of arches. It may also include multiple pipes where
the clear distance between the centerlines of the exterior pipes, plus the radius
of each of the exterior pipes, is 20 ft. or more.
A culvert is used in lieu of a bridge based on estimated construction and

maintenance costs when viable hydraulically. Culverts may have a lower initial
cost due to foundation conditions, shorter spans and shallower than bridges. In
general, culverts have less aesthetic value and are potentially more damaging to
streams than bridge structures, but much more durable and maintenance and
inspection friendly. These factors should be considered when making a decision
to choose a culvert over a bridge. Section 5.4.13 of this BDM outlines culvert
design criteria.
Minor Structures
The Structure Selection Report for minor structures shall be provided with
applicable sections. The definition of the term minor structures is found in the
Policies and Procedures section of this BDM.
Wall Structures
The definition of the three categories of walls: retaining walls, bridge walls, and
noise walls, is found in the Policies and Procedures section of this BDM.

2.10.4.1 Retaining Walls

The following considerations may affect the selection of a wall structure:
• Spatial constraints
• Behavior constraints
• Constructability
• Maintenance
• Schedule
• Aesthetics (Corridor requirements)
• Environmental concerns
• Durability
• Scour Potential
• Available standard designs
The selection process shall be documented as evidence to support the decision.

The wall Structure Selection Report shall be a stand-alone report with a cover
letter, and site plan clearly indicating the names and locations of the walls.
For walls that support a highway and are affected by scour, the selection report
shall document the cost of achieving stability for the 100 & 500 year scour
compared to replacement cost. Structural engineer should discuss with the
region for alternate criteria and resiliency requirements.
2.10.4.2 Bridge Walls

Bridge wall selection may be included in the Structure Selection Report for the
bridge and not as a separate report if there are no additional retaining walls on
the project. Selection considerations are the same as listed for retaining walls.
2.10.4.3 Noise Walls
Noise walls require a Structure Selection Report. Noise Wall discussions can be
a standalone document or included in the Environmental Concerns portion of the
Bridge or Wall Structure Selection Report. Refer to Chapter 18 of the CDOT
Roadway Design Guide for additional noise wall requirements and discussion.
Overhead Sign Structures
Overhead sign structures do not require a Structure Selection Report unless
requested by the Project Manager.
Tunnels
The definition of the term tunnels is found in the Policies and Procedures section
of this BDM.
2.10.6.1 Tunnels
Tunnels can typically be constructed with several different methods such as:
bottom up or cut and cover, top down, and use of boring machines. The Structure
Selection Report shall evaluate the various methods of construction and any
other criteria that may affect their design, maintenance, and construction. Site
conditions, phasing, span, length, and required minimum horizontal and vertical

clearances will influence most decisions. The following are other factors that shall
be considered during the preliminary design phase:
• Life cycle cost
• Possible future widenings
• Phase construction impacts
• Speed of construction and maintenance
• Construction methods
• Emergency egress
• Need for air recirculation
Accelerated Bridge Construction
The Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) design and construction method
uses several technologies to facilitate accelerated construction, such as rapid
embankment construction, prefabricated bridge elements, various structural
placement methods, fast track contracting, etc. This method of design and
construction usually results in an overall decrease in construction time when
compared to the historic construction methods used to build bridges. The ABC
Matrix shall be evaluated and included in the Structure Selection Report for all
structures. For more details, refer to Section 39 of this BDM and to the FHWA
Accelerated Bridge Construction Manual.
Life Cycle Cost Analysis

The structure selection process may consider the life cycle cost analysis (LCCA),
which tracks cost values that cover the full cycle of the structure from the initial
design to the end of the analysis period. The Designer shall assume all new
bridges will last 100 years if all requirements are followed. Since approximately
1990, CDOT has been performing the LCCA and has tracked many cost factors.
The following represent some of the factors engineers should determine:
• Design cost
• Traffic control cost
• Maintenance cost
• Rehabilitation cost
• User cost
For recommended default cost values to be used for CDOT projects, refer to the
latest Cost Data books published by CDOT and available online. For appropriate
interest rate values refer to the latest CDOT pavement design manual available
online.
Aesthetics
Aesthetic value shall be evaluated in a structure selection process for high profile
structures and structures with corridor aesthetic requirements.

2.11 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS

Drainage Report Requirements
Hydraulic analysis and the Drainage Report shall meet requirements of AASHTO
and the CDOT Drainage Design Manual. The format of the Drainage Report is
expected to vary based on a project’s needs.
Scour
Scour shall be considered when designing any structure located in a streambed
or impacted by streamflow. All bridges should be designed to withstand 100-year
and 500-year storm scour events without failing. Design for 100-year storm shall
be performed at the service and strength limit states, and 500-year storm scour
shall be considered only for the extreme event limit state analysis. The General
Layout and Hydraulics sheets shall show scour limits, elevations, and velocities
of these storm events. If the 500-year flow would overtop the structure, the
Designer should determine the appropriate AASHTO loads and groupings to
apply during the stability analysis.
Walls that support the highway should be designed to withstand 100-year and
500-year storm scour events without failing unless approved by CDOT Resident
Engineer/ Region. Region will evaluate the resiliency requirements for retaining
walls.
Based on FHWA’s model study, in instances where neither contraction scour nor
general degradation is expected to be significant, there is no benefit to be gained
from reducing local scour by placing the top of the footing supported by piles at
an elevation other than flush with the streambed. As a rule, the disturbance of
the streambed beyond the level described herein is discouraged.
Where substantial scour is predicted, the piles with pile caps may be designed to AASHTO
place the top of the pile cap below the estimated contraction scour depth where 2.6.4.4.2
practical.
In general, spread footing foundations shall not be used for stream crossings.
However, when shallow scour-resistant bedrock is present, spread footings may
be considered as a foundation option provided they are embedded 6” min. into
the bedrock. When considering this approach, Designers should consult with the
project geotechnical and hydraulic engineers to evaluate the suitability of the
bedrock present and get written approval from CDOT Unit Leader. When spread
footings are placed into rock the sides of the footing should not be formed and
then backfilled but should be placed to the rock.
Outlet Scour Protection and Roadway Overtopping & Revetment for culverts,
which is covered in the CDOT Drainage Design Manual, is a hydraulics design
issue and uses different criteria and definitions than typical bridge scour. The
Structural Designer should coordinate with the hydraulic designer to make sure
adequate requirements are met.
Deck Drainage Requirements

All bridges shall be investigated for drainage requirements. Bridge deck shall be
kept watertight and deck drains should be placed at the interval required by
design to intercept water surface and keep it away from expansion devices and

bearings. Special attention for deck drainage is needed for decks with super
elevation transitions. The FHWA publication, Design of Bridge Deck Drainage,
Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 21 (HEC-21) (Publication No. FHWA-SA-92-
010, May 1993), shall be used for the design of bridge drainage systems. The
hydraulic design frequency shall be 5 years rather than the frequencies specified
in HEC-21. The structural engineer shall coordinate with the Hydraulics Engineer
and Environmental Scientist to create appropriate details and required spacing
of drains as needed to meet their requirements.
Water exiting bridge drains shall not flow onto girder flanges, bearings, pier caps,
abutment caps, roadways, railroad templates, or pedestrian/bikeways. Pipe
drains, scuppers, and grated inlet drains shall extend below bottom of girders to
assure that drainage is kept off steel girder flanges. If possible, drains should not
be positioned above riprap. When drains must be placed over riprap, special filter
fabric shall be placed under the riprap. This filter fabric shall be highly permeable
and non-biodegradable. The bridge designer should coordinate with the
Hydraulics Engineer and show an appropriately sized energy dissipater at the
bottom of the bridge drain system to minimize scour.
Curb drains and pipe drains require approval from the CDOT Environmental
Department. When allowed, curb drains shall provide a continuous curb for wheel
impact. When allowed, pipe drains shall have a minimum diameter of 8 in. and
internal grates 2 in. below the surface or be covered by a grate designed for
16 kip wheel load. Inlet grates shall be removable for cleaning. Project-specific
details shall be included.
Approach slab drains shall be provided on the high side of expansion devices
located at the end of approach slabs. The purpose of the approach slab drain is
to minimize flow over the joint. The approach slab drain should be detailed such
that the approach slab drain is not affected from the anticipated bridge
movement. The location and size of the approach slab drain shall be designed
and coordinated with the roadway engineer and hydraulic engineer.
When a drain is placed within the limits of the sidewalk, it shall be pedestrian and
bicycle friendly.
Cleanouts shall be added to any closed pipe run to facilitate easier cleaning by
maintenance. These should be reviewed at FOR by maintenance personnel for
concurrence with the detailing and locations.
2.12 BRIDGE SECURITY

The Structure Selection Report will include discussion and recommendations on
providing security measures for all Major Structures defined by CDOT and FHWA
as structures with national importance and needs for protection. The Designer
will coordinate with Staff Bridge at the preliminary phase of the design to develop
both operational and engineering solutions to the proposed security measures
and to ensure that security solutions will be met in design, construction, and
operation stages.

2.13 APPROACH SLABS

Approach slabs are used to improve rideability and mitigate problems with
settlement of the bridge approaches relative to the bridge deck and shall be
provided on all vehicular bridges, except as noted below, or unless approved by
State Bridge Engineer.
Concrete approach slabs are not required on bridges with GRS abutments that
do not have an expansion device, as differential settlement between abutment
and roadway approach is not expected to be significant. Asphalt pavement
approach should be installed to allow minor grade corrections.
Approach slabs are not required on pedestrian bridges unless the Owner
requests them.
The Designer should evaluate the use of approach slabs on concrete box culverts
with no or minimal fill cover based on settlement concerns. An alternate may be
to utilize MSE fill in the roadway section adjacent to the culvert to deal with
possible settlement issues.
In all cases, the concrete approach slab shall be anchored to the abutment.
Approach slab notches shall be provided on all abutments, even if an approach
slab will not be placed with the original construction (see Section 11 of this BDM
for details). Refer to BDM Section 14 for expansion joint requirements.
Elevations of the approach slabs shall be coordinated with the roadway

approaches to avoid misalignment and must be provided in the plans in
accordance with Section 2.2.1.3 of this BDM.
Roadway drains shall be placed in approach slabs to prevent flows across the
expansion joint. Bridge designer shall coordinate with hydraulic engineer to
determine location, number and size of drain inlets.
2.14 PIGEON PROOFING

Bridge areas with inspection requirements (such as bearings, abutment and pier
caps) and roadway/pedestrian areas (such as utility pipes above pedestrian trails
and sidewalks) should be protected from bird droppings when requested by the
region or Staff Bridge. Methods to minimize potential pigeon roosting and nesting
areas include plates, grating, nets, spikes, electric systems, and wires. Bird
control and nest removal shall be taken into consideration when planning long-
term maintenance and inspections.
2.15 SPREAD FOOTING EMBEDMENT

Bottoms of spread footings shall be embedded below the local or regional frost
depth, with a minimum embedment of 3 ft.
2.16 DAMAGE AVOIDANCE DETAILS

CDOT Structural Worksheets and practice contain many details categorized as
“Damage Avoidance Details” (DAD) or best management practices. In most
cases, these details are intended to provide added durability to the structures,
but in some cases they are required for design considerations as well. The
minimum requirements are shown on the current worksheets published on the

Staff Bridge website. As with any worksheet, designers may elect to improve on
some of the shown details for project-specific requirements, but some changes
will require CDOT Unit Leader and State Bridge Engineer approval as noted in
the worksheets or within this Design Manual.
Common damage avoidance details such as the drip groove at the edge of the
deck and wall copings are intended to minimize water damage and shall not be
revised. The coping details shown in the worksheets for MSE walls in tight ROW
situations are intended to deal with trickle flows and increase durability. This
detail may be revised, especially if water is kept away from the walls using the
preferred method of separate ditches and swales. The two longer straps at the
top of MSE walls are a damage avoidance detail primarily for impact loads but
also serve for seismic purposes. The detailing of the rail anchor slab over the
MSE wall facing is a design detail intended to separate impact loads from the
wall facing. Wall copings are primarily intended to stabilize block walls during
seismic events. Shiplap panel joints with fabric backing are used to
accommodate settlement issues as well as seismic issues. Geomembrane over
the MSE prism has the dual purpose of controlling design loads and facing
durability. The FRP Bar or stopper at the base of precast panel walls is a seismic
detail. The use of a concrete footer for MSE wall facings is another damage
avoidance detail that will require approval to remove.
2.17 DISSIMILAR METALS

Dissimilar metals in contact with each other shall be avoided if possible.
Electrolytic isolation shall be provided to prevent contact of dissimilar metals.
Dissimilar metal-to-metal or aluminum-to-concrete post or rail installations shall
have contact surfaces separated by an approved protective coating. Protective
Coating shall be approved by SME. Asphaltic paint shall not be permitted to
remain on surfaces to be exposed or to receive a sealant or paint.

APPENDIX 2A - STRUCTURE SELECTION REPORT QA CHECKLIST
(An interactive PDF Form version of the
Checklist is available on CDOT website)

Structure Selection Report QA Checklist
This checklist is to serve as quality assurance of the structure selection process. The sections in the
report need not be in the same order as this checklist. This checklist must be signed by Staff Bridge Unit
Leader or designee prior to submittal of FIR documents to the Region.
Structure Number(s): ___________________________________________________________________
Cover Sheet
☐Name of the Project and Site Address
☐Structure Number(s)
☐Property Owner Name and Contact Information
☐Report Preparer Name and Contact Information
☐Submittal and Revision Dates as Applicable
Executive Summary
☐Project Description
☐Structure Recommendations
Site Description and Design Features
☐Existing Structure(s) ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Vicinity Map
☐ROW Impact ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Traffic Detour ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Constructability & Construction Phasing ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Utilities ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Geotechnical Summary
☐Hydraulics Summary ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Environmental Concerns ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Roadway Design Features
☐Cross Section
☐Vertical Alignment
☐Horizontal Alignment
Structural Design Criteria
☐Design Specifications
☐Loading ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Collision Load
☐Earthquake Load
☐Deck Drainage ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Aesthetic Requirements ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Possible Future Widenings ☐N/A:___________________________
Structure Selection
☐Selection Criteria
☐Rehabilitation Alternatives ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Inspection Summary
☐Load Testing Requirements ☐N/A:___________________________
Add figures/sketches to the following sections as needed:
☐Structure Layout Alternatives
☐Vertical Clearances
☐Horizontal Clearances
☐Skew

☐Span Configurations
☐Superstructure Alternatives ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Concrete Girder Alternatives
☐Steel Girder Alternatives
☐Deck Drains
☐Substructure Alternatives ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Abutment Alternatives (GRS, Integral, Semi-integral, etc.)
☐Pier Alternatives
☐Wall Alternatives ☐N/A:___________________________
☐Constructability & Construction Phasing
☐ABC Design (include pre-scoping ABC rating results from spreadsheet found on the CDOT website)
☐Maintenance and Durability
☐Corrosive Resistance
☐Summary of Structure Type Evaluation Table
☐Construction Costs (including costs of alternatives)
Other
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
Figures and Appendices
☐Alternative Typical Sections (if not provided in the report)
☐General Layout of the Selected Structure
☐Summary of Quantities and Cost Estimate Tables
List of Variances
Requested Variance:__________________________________________________________________
Approved?☐Yes ☐No
If you need more space, use an additional sheet(s) of paper.
CDOT Staff Bridge Quality Assurance Sign-off

By signing this checklist Staff Bridge Unit Leader acknowledges approval of the Structure
Selection Report findings, recommendations, and all design deviations from the CDOT Structural
Standards and design criteria.
Print Name Signature Date

SECTION 3: LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 3-1
SECTION 3
LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
The following section is provided as CDOT practice for loads and load factors.
The Designer shall coordinate with Staff Bridge regarding project-specific
circumstances warranting deviations from standard practices referenced
herein.
This section is complementary to the current CDOT Bridge Rating Manual,

CDOT Bridge Detailing Manual, CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and
Bridge Construction, and current Bridge Structural Worksheets.
3.2 CODE REQUIREMENTS

Unless otherwise modified by this section, the minimum requirement for loads
and load factors shall be in accordance with Section 3 of AASHTO. This section
of the BDM is intended to supplement AASHTO code requirements. Any
requests to vary from methodologies presented herein will be discussed with
Staff Bridge.
3.3 CONSTRUCTION LOADING

Construction loads act on the structure only during construction and are often
AASHTO
not accurately known at the time of design. If specific construction loads have
C3.4.2.1
been assumed as a part of the design, these loads shall be documented in the
plans. Otherwise, the Contractor’s Engineer shall determine the magnitude and
applicability of construction loads and provide falsework and temporary
supports as necessary to ensure the stability and constructability of the
structure during construction.
Transient construction loads shall meet all legal load limits or be approved by
CDOT’s permit office for both new and existing structures.
3.4 DEAD LOADS

3.4.1 Stay-in-Place Metal Deck Forms
In accordance with Section 9.13.3 of this BDM, form flutes shall not be filled
with concrete. A minimum of 5 psf (non-composite) shall be used to account
for stay-in-place metal deck forms, when they are allowed.
3.4.2 Wearing Surface

The following unit weight shall be used in the design of CDOT structures:
Asphalt Unit Weight: 146.67 lb/ft3
This unit weight results in 36.67 psf for 3-inch asphalt overlays. This unit weight
is equivalent to the roadway standard of using 110 pounds per square yard per
inch of thickness for quantities.
CDOT Bridge Design Manual April 2021

3.4.3 Utilities
Utility loads shall include the dead load of both the basic utility and all
connections, supports, casings, and other required appurtenances.
Waterlines carried in a casing shall be evaluated at the extreme event level for
the potential of waterline failure, resulting in the casing being filled with water.
An allowance of 5 pounds per square foot of composite load shall be included

for new bridges within urban areas to account for future utilities. For rural
bridges, the potential for future utilities should be discussed with the Local
Agency and the CDOT Project Manager. Refer to Section 4.4 of this BDM for
distribution of utility loads.
3.4.4 Girder Concrete

3.4.4.1 Concrete Unit Weight
The unreinforced concrete unit weight for use in calculating dead loads shall
be per AASHTO Table 3.5.1-1.
• For mildly reinforced CIP concrete, a minimum of 5 pcf shall be added to
the unreinforced weight to account for reinforcing. For Class D or G
concrete, the minimum unit weight is calculated to be 150 pcf.
• For shop produced precast girders, a minimum of 10 pcf shall be added
to the unreinforced weight to account for reinforcing. The unreinforced
weight for load purposes shall be calculated using the average actual f’c
given in Section 5.5.2.1D of this BDM. For Class PS concrete, the
minimum unit weight is calculated to be 163 pcf.
3.4.4.2 Weight of Curved Precast U Girders

The Designer is responsible for accounting for the increased self-weight due
to inside faces of webs being chorded for curved precast U girders. The
Designer should confer with local suppliers concerning the inside web form
geometry required for specific project parameters.
3.5 COLLISION LOAD

3.5.1 Policy
CDOT structures shall be evaluated for Collision Force (CT) as detailed in
Sections 3.5.2, 3.5.3, and 3.5.4 of this BDM. In certain cases, structures may
be deemed exempt from CT loads based on the criteria within the commentary
of AASHTO 3.6.5.1, including Equation C3.6.5.1-1 and Table C3.6.5.1-1.
Exemption from CT loads will be allowed only with CDOT Unit Leader approval
in coordination with the State Bridge Engineer and should be documented in
the Structure Selection Report.
3.5.2 New Bridges

The preferred strategy for new bridges is to meet the clearance and protection
AASHTO
requirements set forth in AASHTO. Exposed supporting elements of new
3.6.5
bridges that can be hit by errant or oversized vehicles shall be designed for a
Collision Force (CT) of 600 kip. The application shall be in accordance with
AASHTO.

This design criterion typically applies to pier columns and non-redundant

through type superstructure elements, such as through trusses or through
arches.
Columns subject to train impact shall be designed in accordance with the

AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering and the UPRR/BNSF Guideline for
Railroad Grade Separation Projects.
3.5.3 Existing Structures

Existing structures shall be evaluated for CT loads in accordance with
AASHTO. The preferred strategy for existing structures is to meet the AASHTO
3.6.5
clearance and protection requirements. If clearance and protection are
impractical, the columns shall be evaluated for a CT force of 600 kip. The
application shall be in accordance with AASHTO.
The Engineer shall consider retrofitting the column system to achieve the
required load capacity. The existing foundation should be evaluated, along with
the column system, to ensure proper load carrying capacity.
The structure may be alternatively checked for adequate redundancy to resist

collapse from the loss of the members that have inadequate strength to resist
the CT load. This is done by modeling the structure without the inadequate
members, with the structure subjected to a load of at least 1.0 DL and 0.5 LL+I.
3.5.4 Temporary Works

Temporary falsework towers that are within 30 ft. of through traffic shall be
designed to resist a 600 kip impact load without collapse of the supported
structure or shall be protected by concrete barriers or rigid steel barriers with a
minimum 2-ft. shoulder. In cases where loss of the temporary tower would
cause collapse of the supported structure the tower shall be protected with a
barrier and have a 2-ft shoulder.
The barriers shall have a minimum 2-ft. clear zone of intrusion from the tower
to the back face of the barrier. For speeds between 35 mph and 45 mph, the
barrier shall either be at least 54 in. tall or have a
10-ft. clear zone of intrusion and be at least 42 in. tall. If the speed is expected
to be over 45 mph, if the ADTT exceeds 10,000 vehicles per day, or if the
through traffic is railroad or light rail traffic, then the barrier shall have the
strength, stability, and geometry required for a TL-5 barrier. Guardrails
protecting falsework towers or piers shall continue at full rail height for at least
30 ft. either side of the tower and shall be configured with full height rigid
barriers to prevent vehicles from running around the rail end and hitting the
tower from the opposite side of the rail. If ends transition into lower approach
rails rather than crash cushions or barrels, that approach rail shall be a rigid
rail type (such as Type 7) and shall not end for at least an additional 170 ft.
This extension of the approach rail prevents a vehicle mounting and straddling
a barrier from reaching the tower or pier.

3.6 VEHICULAR LIVE LOAD

Vehicular live load shall be in accordance with AASHTO. AASHTO
3.6.1.2
Bridges should be designed such that future removal of medians and/or
sidewalks is considered in the design and rating of the bridge. Simultaneous
loading of the sidewalk dead load and vehicle live load is recommended when
barrier separation is not present to cover the likelihood of errant trucks
mounting the sidewalks or medians. Pedestrian load need not be applied in
addition to the vehicle live load in this case.
Live load factors for Service III shall be in accordance with AASHTO
Table 3.4.1-4. See Section 5.5.1 of this BDM for further explanation of
applicability of the different live load factors.
The Colorado Permit Vehicle shall be evaluated at Strength II. Figure 3-1
shows the axle weights and axle configuration that represent the Colorado
Permit Vehicle. This vehicle is used to determine the Overload Color Code for
bridges. It is a moving live load using the same live load distribution factors,
number of lanes loaded, and impact factors as the HL-93 truck.
Deck slabs do not need to be designed for the Colorado Permit Vehicle wheel
loads.
An operating rating for the Permit Vehicle shall be provided on the Bridge
Rating Summary Sheet (see the CDOT Bridge Rating Manual).
Additional design vehicles, such as Specialized Hauling Vehicles (SHVs),
Notational Rating Load (NRL), and other legal loads shall be evaluated in
accordance with the CDOT Bridge Rating Manual and the AASHTO Manual
for Bridge Evaluation.
Figure 3-1: Colorado Permit Vehicle
3.7 VEHICULAR LIVE LOAD ON CULVERTS

CDOT considers surcharge from lane loads in the design of box culverts. To AASHTO
maintain consistency with CDOT's M-standards, surcharge loads from lanes 3.6.1.2.6 and
3.6.1.3.3
shall be applied to the walls and bottom slabs of culverts using the Boussinesq
stress distribution.

Thrust may be considered in the design of box culverts (precast or cast-in-

place). If thrust is considered in the design, the rating is to incorporate thrust
and design assumptions are to be included within the design plans.
For arch culverts, soil structure interaction with refined analysis shall be used
for vehicular load and for identifying positive arch action.
3.8 DECK OVERHANG LOAD

Bridge deck overhangs shall be designed for horizontal loads resulting from AASHTO
vehicle collision in accordance with AASHTO. For deck overhang greater than 3.6.1.3.4
1/3 of the girder spacing, special attention shall be paid for shear capacity and
concrete screed machine load during deck pour.
The AASHTO Chapter methodology for determining impact loads on the

overhang as shown in the BDM examples is very conservative. Recent
research has shown that the combined impact tension load on deck reinforcing
at the flowline of concrete barriers may be as low as 14.8 kip/ft for a TL-4 rail.
This value would be increased 100% at rail expansion joints. These reduced
values are due to torsion and yield line capacities not currently shown in the
code.
3.9 CENTRIFUGAL FORCES

For piers and abutments with a pin connection between the superstructure and AASHTO
substructure, centrifugal forces may be assumed to act horizontally at the 3.6.3
roadway surface. For piers and abutments with a moment resisting connection
between superstructure and substructure, the eccentricity of the centrifugal
force shall be considered. Centrifugal forces shall be distributed to substructure
elements based on their relative individual longitudinal stiffness.
3.10 BRAKING FORCE

For piers and abutments with a pin connection between the superstructure and AASHTO
substructure, braking forces may be assumed to act horizontally at the 3.6.4
roadway surface. For piers and abutments with a moment resisting connection
between superstructure and substructure, the eccentricity of the braking force
shall be considered. Braking forces shall be distributed to substructure
elements based on their relative individual longitudinal stiffness.
CDOT has experienced loss of backfill material (voids) behind abutments of

existing bridges due to water intrusion over time. In addition, cyclical
temperature movements of bridges may cause gaps between backfill and
abutments. Due to these considerations, relying on passive earth pressure
behind abutments to resist braking loads is cautioned. If passive earth pressure
behind abutments is considered, AASHTO Table C3.11.1-1 should be used to
estimate the participation of passive earth pressure relative to pier stiffness.

3.11 FATIGUE LOAD

Due to the uncertainty of future traffic volumes, the maximum ADTT per lane
of 20,000 vehicles shall be used when evaluating fatigue. In lieu of site-specific AASHTO
fraction of truck traffic data, the values of AASHTO Table C3.6.1.4.2-1 may be 3.6.1.4.2
applied to obtain ADTT for use in Equation 3.6.1.4.2-1.
3.12 STREAM FORCES AND SCOUR EFFECTS

Stream forces shall be designed in accordance with Section 3.7.3 of AASHTO. AASHTO
3.7.2, 3.7.3,
Debris raft loads need only be applied on structures within high debris channels
and 3.7.5
as determined by the Hydraulic Engineer.
Scour of bridge foundations should be evaluated at two levels:
• Strength I – Evaluate 100-year scour in conjunction with maximum dead
load factors, live load, and stream forces. If the 100-year scour limits
undermine beyond the back of abutment, impeding live load from
approaching the structure, live load may be reduced.
• Extreme Event II – Evaluate 500-year scour in conjunction with
minimum dead load factors and stream forces. Live load may be
reduced if the approaches to the bridge are impassable due to scour.
The extreme event check should verify that the bridge will not collapse.
All other service, strength, and extreme event combinations need not be
checked concurrent with the 100-year or 500-year scour limits.
3.13 SEISMIC LOADING

For bridges and other structures within Seismic Zone 1, the minimum AASHTO
connection requirements of AASHTO shall apply. 3.10.9.2
For all other seismic zones, both force-based and displacement-based

analysis methods are allowed. A geotechnical investigation must be completed
for bridges to determine the site class of the foundation materials. When using
Extreme Event I, the load factor on live load should be 0.50. The 0.50 live load
factor signifies a low probability of the concurrence of the maximum vehicular
live load and the extreme event case.
Seismic analysis is not required for mechanically reinforced earth (MSE) and
Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) walls if Staff Bridge Structural Worksheets
are used. These worksheets contain damage avoidance details such as rail
anchor slab/beam, coping, and shiplap panel joints that cannot be revised
without approval by CDOT Unit Leader in coordination with the MSE Wall
SMEs. See Section 2.16 of this BDM for further details.
3.14 TEMPERATURE / THERMAL FORCES

Structures shall be designed for the temperature ranges detailed in Section 14
of this BDM.
3.15 EARTH PRESSURES AND SETTLEMENT EFFECTS

Appropriate earth pressures and predicted settlement should be provided in a
geotechnical investigation. The Geotechnical Engineer shall evaluate criteria
for settlement periods and potential down drag effects.

Consideration should be given to lateral earth pressures from surcharge loads AASHTO
in accordance with AASHTO 3.11.6, modified on a project-specific basis. For 3.11.6
structures that support vehicular live loads within the stated criteria of
AASHTO 3.11.6.4, the load factor on the surcharge shall be in accordance with
LS in AASHTO Table 3.4.1-1. For walls designed for a nominal surcharge to
account for backfilling operations, the load factor on the assumed surcharge
may be taken as 1.50. The lower load factor represents the temporary nature
of this surcharge effect and reflects the construction load factor in AASHTO
3.4.2.1.
A combination of mechanically reinforced earth (MSE) with a non-collapsible

void or a gap with low density polystyrene can be considered when reduced
earth pressure effects are required.
Settlement shall be evaluated at the service limit state with a load factor of 1.0
applied to all applicable loads. Transient loads may be omitted from settlement
analysis.
Effects of abutment settlement on bridges using Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil

(GRS) abutments shall be evaluated during the structure selection stage. See
Section 11 of this BDM for additional requirements.
3.16 PEDESTRIAN LOADING AASHTO

Pedestrian load should be considered in accordance with AASHTO and the 3.6.1.6
AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges.
3.17 BLAST LOADING

The potential for blast loading shall be evaluated and documented during the
AASHTO
structure selection process and coordinated with Staff Bridge on a 3.15
project-specific basis.
3.18 WIND LOADS

Wind loads shall be in accordance with AASHTO. Staff Bridge shall be
AASHTO 3.8
consulted for structures within special wind regions not covered by AASHTO.
3.19 FENCE LOADS

Table 3-1 shows the minimum load for which fences on bridges and other
structures shall be designed unless site conditions justify a different load
condition. Refer to Section 13 of this BDM for additional information. Calculated
load values were generated using the Chain Link Fence Wind Load Guide,
2007. Snow loads are based on energy momentum equations by calculating
the power available from a snowplow moving at 45 to 50 mph to determine the
maximum amount of snow that could be continuously thrown. This provides
the momentum of the snow thrown per second. Dividing the momentum by
time yields the snow impact loads that are shown in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Fence Loads
Chain
Link Wind
Fence Type Opening Load Snow Impact Load*
36" Chain Link splash
guard 3/8" 31 psf 96 plf 1'-6" up from bottom of fence
60" Chain Link 1" 14 psf 96 plf 1'-6" up from bottom of fence
* The required mesh opening for CDOT snow fence is 3/8”.
3.20 REFERENCES
Chain Link Fence Manufacturers Institute. 2007. Chain Link Fence Wind Load
Guide.

SECTION 4: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 4-1
SECTION 4
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
Section 4 discusses the preferred methods of structural analysis, design, and
evaluation of bridges. The section is limited to the modeling of structures and
the determination of member stresses, forces, and deformations. The primary
analysis goals for the Designer are to satisfy force equilibrium and to identify a
load path to adequately transfer the loads to the foundations.
Bridges are to be analyzed in accordance with AASHTO 4.5.2.2, except for

extreme limit states or with approval from CDOT Unit Leader in coordination
with the State Bridge Engineer.
In most cases, the Designer should use simple models using distribution
equations from AASHTO and reasonable assumptions. Complex structures
may require refined analysis, but refinement should not be used unless
necessary. Any cost savings realized by refined analysis may be negated by
the additional efforts needed for the independent design check and the rating.
Each bridge design must consider the need for a satisfactory bridge rating,
further supporting the need for simpler, more straightforward calculations
versus refined analysis.

AASHTO lists multiple acceptable methods of analysis options, allowing the
Designer to choose their preference. Staff Bridge does not require, prefer, or
forbid any specific method. The Designer must be knowledgeable about the
design specifics and the analysis parameters of the chosen approach.
The Designer must validate all computer software before it is implemented into
the design. Using a software program does not relieve the Designer of the
responsibility to properly apply and interpret results. Staff Bridge does not
support a preapproved list of software but reserves the right to disallow any
software on a regular or case-by-case basis. A list of specialized software shall
be noted in the Structures Selection report and shall be approved by the CDOT
Unit Leader in coordination with the Software SMEs.
4.3 MODELING METHODS

AASHTO allows the contribution of continuous composite barriers in service
and fatigue limit states for the calculation of the structural cross section of the
exterior girder. Staff Bridge’s preference is not to use the composite section for
new designs, but these sections may be considered in the evaluation or design
for rehabilitation. The Designer should not consider continuous composite
barriers in section properties without approval from CDOT Unit Leader in
coordination with the Bridge Rail SMEs.
Uplift at bearings is not allowed unless approval is obtained from CDOT Unit
Leader. Hold downs or anchorages are required if uplift is permitted in the
design. There may be additional requirements for bearings when uplift is
permitted, as outlined in Section 14 of this BDM.

Calculations are to follow a clear and detailed process. Spreadsheets should

show all equations, assumptions, design parameters, and references. When
modeling integral abutments, the Designer is to model the connection between
the superstructure and the substructure as a pin connection. The reason for
this is that integral abutments are not intended to transfer moment from
superstructure to substructure. Modeling the connection this way prevents
moment from being transferred into the substructure elements and eliminates
the need for negative moment design at the deck level.
Time-dependent material effects shall be modeled as outlined in Section 5 of

this BDM. Using code prescribed equations for these effects will account for
the impacts of creep, shrinkage, and relaxation.
Redistribution of moments in continuous bridges is allowed.
CDOT Unit Leader must review and approve non-standard resistance factors
for unique materials prior to implementation.
Staff Bridge allows the use of cracked section properties in the analysis of both
superstructure and substructure. The Designer should be aware that in some AASHTO 3.4.1
situations the use of 0.5 value for γTU, γCR, and γSH load factors no longer applies
in conjunction with cracked section properties.
When using moment magnification, the calculations shall follow AASHTO. AASHTO
4.5.3.2.2
4.4 DEAD LOAD DISTRIBUTION
Non-composite dead load should be distributed to the girders based on
AASHTO
tributary width for straight bridges. Non-composite dead load on curved I-
C4.6.1.2.4b
girders may be distributed uniformly to all girders, as long as intermediate
diaphragms or cross frames are provided and have been designed as primary
members per AASHTO. CDOT allows composite dead loads to be distributed
evenly to all girders; however, the Designer must use engineering judgment in
determining the distribution of heavier concentrated line loads such as utilities,
parapets, sidewalks, barriers, etc.
4.5 LIVE LOAD DISTRIBUTION

Theoretically, live load distribution factors (LLDF) change for each variance in
the cross section; this could result in more refinement than necessary. The
Designer must decide how often to calculate the LLDF along the span. All LLDF
used in the design must be included in the Bridge Load Rating Package,
developed in accordance with the CDOT Bridge Rating Manual.
AASTHO Table 4.6.2.2.1-3 provides simplified values to be substituted when

AASHTO
calculating the LLDF in corresponding tables in AASHTO 4.6.2.2. The State 4.6.2.2
Bridge Engineer has approved Table 4.6.2.2.1-3 for use to simplify
calculations.
When calculating LLDF, a refined analysis may be required whenever a AASHTO

variable falls outside the “Range of Applicability” as provided in the various 4.6.2.2.1
LLDF tables of AASHTO. Approval from CDOT Unit Leader may be obtained
to waive the need for the refined analysis if the value of the parameter is close

to the limit provided in the LLDF tables. Lever Rule may be used as a
conservative alternative.
LLDFs for culverts and three-sided boxes shall be calculated as outlined in

Section 12, Buried Structures and Tunnel Liners, of this BDM.
The use of our 5" minimum deck over side by side girders allows the designer
to utilize the distribution factors based on F type (AASHTO Table 4.6.2.2.1-1)
girder arrangements per AASHTO 5.12.2.3.3(f). For normal traffic bridges
utilizing adjacent box girders, shear keys shall not be used.
4.5.1 Exterior Girder Live Load Distribution

The LLDF of specific multi-girder cross sections reported in AASHTO were
calculated without consideration of interior diaphragms or cross frames within AASHTO
spans, or the effects of those members on the exterior girders. AASHTO C4.6.2.2.2d
Equation C4.6.2.2.2d-1 shall be checked for exterior girders when rigid cross
frames are present between girders that would cause the entire superstructure
to behave as a rigid body.
4.6 SKEW EFFECTS ON BRIDGES

Staff Bridge prefers bridge skews less than 50 degrees. Bridges with large
skew angles can produce differential deflection between adjacent girders and
AASHTO
unpredictable transfer of load from interior girders to exterior girders. Simple
4.6.2.2.3c
analysis will not be enough to correctly calculate deflection and load based on
diaphragm and deck stiffness variations; therefore, Staff Bridge prefers a
refined analysis to correctly model the effects of the large skew angles.
AASHTO provides correction factors for LLDF for shear; care must be taken to
not apply adjusted factors manually when software models the skewed
supports and makes adjustments automatically. Refer to Figure 4-1 for the
definition of skew angles.
Figure 4-1: Skew Angle Definition

4.7 FOUNDATION STIFFNESS AND SOIL-PILE INTERACTION

The following guidelines supplement the general information given in AASHTO AASHTO 4.5.4
regarding modeling foundation boundary conditions.
For non-complex bridges with a length of 300 ft. or less that do not require a
seismic analysis, Designers may use an assumed depth to fixity method to
model pile and drilled shafts for lateral foundation analysis. In this case, the
length used for determining lateral force effects, un-braced length, beam-
column buckling analysis, and field welding requirements (BDM Section
10.5.3), may be based on engineering judgment founded on successful past
practice.
For complex bridges, such as curved, highly skewed, and where an individual
substructure stiffness varies significantly from the group, any bridge over 300
ft, or bridges that require a seismic analysis, CDOT prefers that Designers
account for foundation stiffness in a more refined manner. This may be
accomplished with the use of direct soil springs, equivalent spring constants,
or equivalent depth to fixity calibrated with a soil/structure interaction analysis.

SECTION 5: CONCRETE STRUCTURES 5-1
SECTION 5
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
The provisions in this section apply to the design of reinforced concrete and
prestressed concrete.
Designs shall be consistent with AASHTO, unless modified herein.
5.3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Concrete Classes
5.3.1.1 Cast-in-Place Concrete
Table 5-1 and Table 5-2 show CDOT’s most commonly specified classes of
cast-in-place (CIP) concrete, typical design 28-day compressive strengths, and
typical uses. See CDOT Standard Specifications for more information on
concrete classes. Class DF shall be used to replace Class D concrete on
elements exposed to de-icing salts (Splash Zone) in new bridge structures. Do
not substitute Class BZ or S with Class DF. If stainless reinforcing is used, the
Class DF requirement may be waived. Class DF is not required for prestressed
elements or precast wall panels since the element is generally in compression
and will limit crack size and chloride intrusion. When substructure elements
are in separate construction pours such as columns and pier caps, the use of
Class DF for those elements outside of the splash zone are not required, i.e.
the quantities for the column could be Class DF while the quantities for the pier
cap could be shown as Class D. Class DF should be considered for elements
that are in areas that are exposed to leakage such as behind or near inlets.
Table 5-1: Common Concrete Classes and Strengths
Concrete D, DF,
BZ S35 S40 S50 Shotcrete
Class DR
f’c (ksi) 4.5 4 5 5.8 7.25 4.5
Table 5-2: Typical CIP Concrete Applications
Structural Element Typical Concrete Class

CIP Reinforced Concrete D or DF
CIP Post-Tensioned Concrete D or DF, S35, or S40
Drilled Shafts BZ
Spliced Girder Bridge Closure Pours D or DF, S35, S40, or S50*
Initial Facing for Soil Nail Walls and
Shotcrete
Top-Down Caisson Walls
Concrete Patching DR

*It is CDOT’s preference to avoid designs using Class S50 concrete due to
past difficulty in meeting the required cracking tendency test. In cases where
the supplier is known during design, S50 concrete may be evaluated for
feasibility.
5.3.1.2 Precast Concrete

Shop produced precast concrete girders shall be Class PS concrete and shall
be limited to the following maximum design strengths:
• f’ci = 6.5 ksi
• f’c = 8.5 ksi
Plans shall show minimum strengths required to meet design requirements.

These design strengths shall be used for all strength and service design
checks.
Higher design values of f’c and f’ci may be permitted for special cases, after
conferring with local precast suppliers and with approval from CDOT Unit
Leader in coordination with the State Bridge Engineer.
See Section 5.5.2.1D for optional compressive strength values that may be
assumed for girder camber and deflection estimates only.
Class DC concrete is a dry cast method of concrete used for precast box
culverts.
5.3.1.3 Lightweight Concrete

It is CDOT’s preference to avoid the use of lightweight concrete due to difficulty
in passing aggregate tests and associated concerns regarding freeze-thaw
durability. However, when the supplier is known during design, lightweight
concrete is permitted for use provided a suitable mix passing ASTM C66 and
C672 requirements is submitted for approval by the supplier to CDOT
Materials. Approval for the use of lightweight concrete by the Unit Leader in
coordination with the concrete SMEs is contingent on the passing mix design.
The rationale for using lightweight concrete shall be documented in the
Structure Selection Report.
Modulus of Elasticity
The unreinforced concrete unit weight for use in calculating the modulus of AASHTO
elasticity shall be per AASHTO Table 3.5.1-1 or C5.4.2.4. 5.4.2.4
Relative Humidity
When calculating creep and shrinkage coefficients, relative ambient humidity AASHTO
shall be taken as 55 percent. 5.4.2.3

Reinforcement
5.3.4.1 Mild Steel
Mild steel should typically be designed with a yield strength of 60 ksi. However,
the use of 75 ksi rebar is allowed to assist in meeting the seismic transverse
reinforcement detailing requirements when required in Seismic Zone 1 (see
Section 5.4.9 for more information).
Use of epoxy-coated mild steel is the standard of practice where corrosion

resistant reinforcement is required per Section 5.4.5, but alternates such as
stainless steel should be considered per Section 5.3.4.3.
5.3.4.2 Welded Wire Fabric

Reinforcement for CIP concrete should generally be detailed as rebar in the
contract plans, except for shotcrete wall facing where it is typically
advantageous to specify welded wire fabric (WWF). In other structure elements
where WWF may be an economical substitution, it may be noted as an
allowable substitution at the Contractor’s option.
5.3.4.3 Stainless Steel and Corrosion Resistant Alloy Steel (CRAS)

Both stainless steel and CRAS are acceptable alternatives to epoxy-coated
mild steel. When the Designer elects to use either of these for a project, it shall
be documented in the Structure Selection Report. The Designer is responsible
for determining appropriate lap lengths.
5.3.4.4 Glass FRP Rebar

Glass FRP rebar shall not be used unless approved by CDOT Unit Leader.
5.3.4.5 Epoxy Anchored Systems

Expansion type concrete anchors are undesirable because of the vibration and
pullout concerns. Instead, drilled-in-place anchor bolts bonded to the
supporting concrete with an approved two-part epoxy system may be used.
Two-part epoxy systems shall be approved by SME and CDOT Materials.
If the anchor is in continuous tension, the Designer shall use only an epoxy
system if it is approved for use in continual tension loading. Project approval
will be by the Unit Leader in coordination with the concrete SMEs and CDOT
Materials using NTPEP, APL or project specific material submittals. Many
epoxy systems are not allowed if the anchor is in continuous tension. Refer to
ACI 318 and ACI 355.4 for more information on use of post-installed adhesive
anchors.
Prestressing Strand and Bars

Prestressing strand shall be 0.60 in. diameter, low-relaxation strand, with a AASHTO 5.4.4
design ultimate tensile strength of 270 ksi. One exception to this requirement
is for precast panel deck forms for which strands shall be no larger than 3/8 in.
diameter. Prestressing bars shall have a design ultimate tensile strength of
150 ksi.

Post Tensioning Institute does not permit the use of tensioned galvanized bars
because during curing the zinc layer may react with the alkaline grout and may
generate hydrogen. Hydrogen can reduce the ductility of steel bars. Effective
long-term corrosion protection is provided by grouting uncoated bars inside
plastic ducts. The alkaline cement grout passivates the bar surface and the
plastic duct acts as a moisture barrier. Such corrosion protection requires
special anchorage details to maintain threadability and corrosion protection.
CDOT has adopted this policy.
Concrete Inserts
Material of concrete inserts/embeds that will be part of the permanent structure
shall match the material used for the attachments (e.g., bolts). Dissimilar
materials shall be avoided to prevent corrosion issues. Galvanized or stainless
steel inserts are preferred.
5.4 REINFORCED CONCRETE

Bar Size Availability
Reinforcing bars larger than #11 (that is, #14 and #18) may be used to
eliminate reinforcement congestion if availability from suppliers is verified
through the Engineering Estimates and Market Analysis Unit.
Development and Splice Lengths

AASHTO
Development lengths shall be calculated per AASHTO.
5.10.8
The general notes sheet of the bridge plans shall no longer contain lap splice
tables. The following tables are provided for Designer use in selecting lap
splices for epoxy coated bars in slabs, walls, and footings, or other non-stirrup
contained reinforcing.
6.0 in. min. on Center with 2.0 in. min. Clear Cover and f’c = 4.5 ksi
#4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11
1’-10” 2’-3” 3’-4” 3’-11” 4’-5” 5’-6” 6’-10” 8’-2”
6.0 in. min. on Center with 1.0 in. min. Clear Cover and f’c = 4.5 ksi
#4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11
2’-3” 3’-4” 4’-7” 5’-11” 7’-5” 9’-0” 10’-11” 12’-11”
For the same size bar in both top and bottom mat, the more conservative of
the two tables shall be shown for ease of construction inspection. Table 5-4 lap
splice values may be shown on the deck reinforcing sheet as applicable for
both top and bottom mats of reinforcing bars, conservatively. The Designer
may also choose to individually detail lap splices for deck rebar to take
advantage of the smaller lap lengths required for top slab bars.

All other required lap lengths shall be detailed in the contract plans.
Appendix 5A contains design aid tables for calculating development and lap
splice lengths for reinforcing not meeting the criteria of Table 5-3 or Table 5-4.
Clear Cover
Concrete cover to main reinforcing bars shall be provided per AASHTO AASHTO
Table 5.10.1-1 and its accompanying notes, except as modified herein. For 5.10.1
minimum clear cover specified in the table, use “severe to moderate exposure”
for all cases excepted as noted in this section.
• The AASHTO provision for reducing concrete cover in the table by 0.5 in.
for stirrups and ties shall apply only to precast girder faces and the
minimum clear cover for precast girder faces shall be 1.5 in. or as shown
in the worksheets.
• The minimum cover for reinforcing steel for concrete cast against earth
shall be 3 in. for uncoated, epoxy coated, or galvanized bars.
• For CIP slabs not cast against earth or CIP deck bottoms, 1 in. minimum
cover shall be used.
• For CIP piles, use “corrosive environments” for all cases.
• For drilled shafts on bridges, refer to Table 5-5 for the minimum required
cover. The increased covers are adopted from FHWA’s recommendations
due to constructability issues that may occur when lesser values of cover
are specified for large diameter caissons.
• For elements with rustications, such as columns or abutments, required
cover at innermost face of rustications may be reduced by 0.5 in.
Table 5-5: Minimum Clear Cover for Drilled Shafts on Bridges
Drilled Shaft Minimum

Diameter, D Concrete Cover
(ft.) (in.)
D≤3 3
3<D<5 4
D≥5 6
Spacing
Reinforcement spacing requirements shall be per AASHTO, except as AASHTO
5.10.3
modified herein.
Mild reinforcing bars shall have minimum clear spacing of at least 2 in. for both
CIP and precast members (this includes bundled and lapped bars) unless
noted otherwise in worksheets. This deviation from AASHTO results from past
concrete consolidation issues encountered in Colorado.

Corrosion Protection Requirements

Reinforcing in structural elements that may be subjected to anti-icing or deicing
chemicals shall be corrosion resistant (epoxy-coated mild steel, stainless steel,
or CRAS). This includes, but is not limited to, all layers of reinforcing in the
following elements and bars projecting therein:
• All deck slabs, approach slabs, CIP slab superstructures, and top flanges
of CIP box girder bridges used as decks, regardless of wearing surface
provided
• Concrete box culvert (CBC) top slabs with 2 ft. or less fill on top
• All abutment and pier diaphragms, abutment caps, and abutment wingwalls
• Pier caps and columns located under an expansion joint
• Retaining wall elements and pier columns located within the splash zone
• Ends of girders within 8 ft. of an expansion joint
Splash Zone Definition

The splash zone extends 10 ft. from the edge of the roadway shoulder, as
shown in Figure 5-1 and includes the deck and superstructure elements from
above.
Figure 5-1: Splash Zone
Crack Control Factors

When calculating maximum spacing for crack control, an exposure factor of AASHTO
0.75 shall be used for reinforcement that is required to be corrosion resistant, 5.6.7
except for decks. For all other reinforcement, including decks complying with
the wearing surface requirements of Section 9 of this BDM, 1.0 may be used.
Mass Concrete
Large volumes of concrete sometimes have an increased potential to generate
heat resulting in temperature-related cracking. This is typically an issue for
concrete placements with least dimension greater than 6 ft., including, but not

limited to, spread footings, thick walls, or bridge piers. In such cases, the
Designer should consider requiring the Contractor to submit a thermal control
plan. See ACI Manual of Concrete Practice Publication 207 for more
information.
Seismic Detailing
Per AASHTO, for bridges in Seismic Zone 1 where SD1 is greater than or equal AASHTO
to 0.1, seismic detailing of columns and caissons shall be required for 5.11.2
transverse reinforcement in potential hinge zones. When seismic detailing is
required for round columns or caissons, spirals are preferred over seismic
hoops.
Drilled Shaft and Round Column Shear Reinforcing

For shear reinforcing within drilled shafts and round columns that does not
require seismic detailing per BDM Section 5.4.9, hoops containing a lap splice
are generally more economical than spirals in the CDOT market.
Pier Cap Reinforcing Details

Cap reinforcement shall be placed below both mats of slab steel and below the
main girder reinforcement in mildly reinforced girder bridges. In post-tensioned
bridges, the cap reinforcement shall be placed below both mats of slab steel
or between the mats of slab steel, if necessary, to provide clearance for
post-tensioning ducts.
Hooks on integral cap shear stirrups shall be bent away from the centerline of
the cap. The hooks shall enclose a cap reinforcement bar and the stirrups shall
be adequately developed. To ensure proper concrete cover for stirrup hooks,
hooks shall be below the top mat of slab steel. Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3
provide details.
Figure 5-2: Pier Caps in Post-Tensioned Bridges with a Skew Angle of

20 Degrees or Less and Deck Reinforcing Parallel to Cap

Figure 5-3: Pier Caps in Post-Tensioned Bridges with a Skew Angle Greater Than
20 Degrees and Deck Reinforcing Not Parallel to Cap
For precast girder bridges, cap reinforcement shall be enclosed in closed stirrups, as
shown in Figure 5-4 and Figure 5-5. Stirrups shall be adequately developed.
Figure 5-4: Pier Caps in Precast Girder Bridges with Constant-Depth Cap

*Class B splice required

Figure 5-5: Pier Caps in Precast Girder Bridges with Variable-Depth Cap
(side steel not shown for clarity)
Combination of Flexural and Axial Effects

Members subjected to flexure and compression may be analyzed using the
method of creating an influence diagram using equilibrium and strain AASHTO
compatibility. Many commercial structural design software programs use this 5.6.4.5
approach to create interaction diagrams. Alternatively, AASHTO approximate
expressions may be used.
5.5 PRESTRESSING
General
5.5.1.1 Transformed Section Properties and Elastic Gains AASHTO

5.9.1.3 and
AASHTO allows the use of transformed section properties. The Designer C5.9.3.2.3a
should note that when calculating concrete stresses using transformed section
properties, the effects of losses and gains due to elastic deformations are
implicitly accounted for. Commercial software that calculates elastic gains
separately in conjunction with using transformed section properties shall not
be used.
Prestressed concrete components designed using the refined estimates of AASHTO 3.4.1
time-dependent losses as specified in AASHTO in conjunction with taking
advantage of the elastic gain shall use the increased SVC III live-load factor of
1.0. This increased live load factor also applies to designs using transformed
section properties since elastic gains from live load are implicitly accounted for.
When elastic gains are not taken advantage of, a live-load factor of 0.8 may be
used for SVC III.

If elastic gains due to slab shrinkage are taken advantage of, the corresponding AASHTO
girder moment due to slab shrinkage shall be considered in the girder stress 5.9.3.4.3d
calculations. Alternatively, the slab shrinkage elastic gain and the
corresponding girder moment may be disregarded.
5.5.1.2 Intermediate Diaphragms

The Construction Layout sheet shall show the location of intermediate
diaphragms for CBT girders.
The Designer is responsible for providing a design that considers stability at

the Strength I limit state of the girders during construction, especially the
stability of exterior girders that may be exposed to wind loads before the deck
pour. Additional diaphragms or modifications to CDOT’s standard diaphragm
details may be needed for special situations. Additional diaphragms or
modifications to the standard details should not be used unless determined
necessary by calculation.
The Designer should check that the resultant of factored construction loads
falls within the area of the leveling pad and that the compression in the portion
of the pad loaded in these cases is less than the pad strength. If the resultant
falls outside the pad or if the compression strength of the pad is exceeded,
additional diaphragms should be provided to reduce eccentricity by causing
the girders to overturn in concert.
5.5.1.3 Concrete Stresses

Girders shall be designed such that there is no tension in the concrete under
dead load acting alone, at service limit state, and after losses. This provision
applies to top and bottom of girders in precompressed tensile zones only.
Per AASHTO, compression stresses shall be limited to 0.65 f’c at release. This AASHTO
provision is cited in the BDM due to it being a relatively recent change in 5.9.2.3.1a
AASHTO.
5.5.1.4 Design Jacking Force

The maximum design jacking force in all prestressing strands (pretensioned or
post-tensioned) shall be no more than 75 percent of the ultimate tensile
strength of the strand.
5.5.1.5 Standard Girder Shapes

Table 5-6 identifies the standard properties of CBT girders. See CDOT
standard girder worksheets for standard CBT girder dimensions.

Table 5-6: Standard CBT Properties
A Ix Yb
Section Depth
(sq. in.) (in.^4) (in.)
CBT37.5 37.5 792 151579 18.5
CBT45 45 845 240424 22.08
CBT54 54 908 378473 26.40
CBT63 63 971 553233 30.74
CBT72 72 1034 767268 35.10
CBT81 81 1097 1023130 39.48
CBT90 90 1160 1323390 43.87
Figure 5-6 identifies the standard dimensions of precast U girders.
*When setting the top flange width of U girders, the Designer shall consider the loss of concrete
width for interface shear resistance due to the support requirements for partial depth precast
deck panels. While the top flange of U girders may be eliminated entirely from a fabrication
standpoint, the limited remaining interface width may preclude using partial depth precast deck
panels.
Figure 5-6: Standard U Girder Dimensions
Leap bridge concrete software girder library files are located in CDOT Bridge
homepage under Bridge Manuals & Documents section. Designers should
contact local suppliers for the following information, which may vary by
supplier:
• Pretensioned strand locations
• U girder radius limitations

• U girder height options

• Non-standard CBT girder height options
• U girder and CBT girder thickened bottom flange options
• U girder anchorage blister options
End blocks shall be used for box girders. End blocks are not required for typical
applications of the CBT or U girders, but an internal diaphragm of some type
is required at the ends of U girders to deal with bearing loads and splaying
loads from self-weight and handling.
The transverse reinforcing steel area in precast box girder flanges shall, as a
minimum, be equal to the minimum required shear reinforcing steel for one
web. If the top flange of the box is intended to serve as precast stay-in-place
formwork for the final deck, this reinforcing shall be designed as the bottom
mat of the deck.
5.5.1.6 Maximum Stirrup Spacing

Maximum stirrup spacing in prestressed girders shall be 18 in. AASHTO
5.7.2.6
AASHTO
5.5.1.7 Negative Moment Reinforcement C5.6.3.2.1
For simple made continuous bridges and spliced bridges, the negative moment
reinforcing shall be sized for the moment at face of support. The face of support
varies depending on pier details and shall be assumed as follows:
• For integral pier caps, the face of support is the face of pier cap.
• Where pier diaphragms are integrally connected to the pier cap, the face
of support is the face of diaphragm.
• For pier diaphragms that use the typical CDOT pin detail with a single line
of dowels between it and the pier cap, the face of support shall be taken as
the centerline of pier.
• For other situations, the Designer is responsible for determining the
appropriate face of support.
Longitudinal reinforcing for negative moment placed near the top of deck may
be accomplished one of two ways:
• Continuing the typical top longitudinal deck steel over the pier and bundling
to the typical bars with larger bars where needed.
• Discontinuing the top longitudinal deck steel and continuing with larger bars
where needed. Two bar bundles may be used for the peak negative
moment region for this option.
When partial depth precast deck panels are permitted on the project, bottom
longitudinal reinforcing in the deck shall not be used for composite girder
negative moment capacity calculations.
See Section 9 of this BDM for the minimum clearance required between deck
reinforcing and the top of partial depth precast deck panels.

5.5.1.8 Shipping and Handling

Per AASHTO, the fabricator is responsible for the shipping and handling AASHTO
design. However, when the Designer specifies temporary girder support 5.12.3.2.1
locations on the plans, the Designer is responsible for designing the girder for
the force effects resulting from that support condition.
5.5.1.9 Shipping Weights and Lengths

For typical locations along the Front Range urban corridor, typical maximum
girder length and shipping weights are 154 ft. and 240 kip, respectively. For
lengths or weights exceeding these limits and for project site locations where
delivery routes may have constraints, such as sharp curved roads and/or
tunnels, the Designer shall coordinate with local suppliers to determine the
dimensional and weight limitations of the proposed girders.
5.5.1.10 Partial Prestressing

Partial prestressing is not addressed in AASHTO. Partial prestressing as a
design strategy may be allowed with approval from CDOT Unit Leader and
concrete SMEs. See Appendix 5C for provisions regarding partial prestressing.
Pretensioned Concrete
5.5.2.1 Girder Haunch, Camber, and Dead Load Deflections
A. General
The Designer is responsible for setting the thickness of the haunch at supports,
such that an adequate haunch is maintained along the length of the girder
considering the estimated girder camber with tolerance, dead load deflections,
deck profile grade and cross slope, and required precast deck panel clearance
when applicable.
For side-by-side box or slab girders, the haunch is synonymous with the deck.
In this case, the Designer is responsible for setting the deck thickness at
supports and verifying that adequate deck thickness is maintained along the
length of girder, considering the applicable factors noted previously for girder
haunches.
B. Minimum Haunch
The minimum haunch at supports shall be 1.5 in. where partial depth precast
deck panels are permitted. This allows the required 1 in. vertical clearance
underneath the panels, plus 0.5 in. of tolerance that accounts for girder depth
variation and/or bearing seat height variability. Where partial depth precast
deck panels are not permitted, the minimum haunch at supports shall be 0.5 in.
The minimum estimated haunch between supports shall be 1 in. where partial
depth precast deck panels are permitted and may be taken as zero where
partial depth precast deck panels are not permitted.
For side-by-side box or slab girders, the minimum deck thickness specified at
supports shall be 5 in., in accordance with Section 9.5 of this BDM. The
minimum estimated deck thickness between supports shall also be maintained
at 5 in.

All minimum haunch requirements above must be met along the entire width
of the top flange of the girder, not only at centerline. The Designer must take
into consideration cross slope effect on the haunch variance.
C. Maximum Haunch
There is no limiting maximum haunch either at supports or for the estimated AASHTO
haunches between supports. For haunches with a side face dimension 5.10.6
estimated at 8 in. or greater, minimum temperature and shrinkage
reinforcement shall be added to the side faces of the haunch.
D. Camber Estimates
Release and erection cambers may be estimated using the plan specified
concrete design strength minimums per Section 5.3.1.2. Alternatively, the
average actual f’ci and f’c may be used for camber estimates and dead load
deflection values only (girder Strength and Service design checks shall use the
plan specified design strengths per Section 5.3.1.2). The averages of the
actual values provided from the primary CDOT girder suppliers are as follows:
• f’ci = 8.5 ksi
• f’c = 12.5 ksi
When using camber calculations where the age is a factor for the camber at
the time of deck pour, the age of the girder shall be assumed to be 60 days.
See Section 5.7.2 for situations where this age may be assumed to be less
than 60 days.
Tolerances for girder cambers with respect to estimating minimum and

maximum haunches are as follows:
• For CBT girders, camber shall be assumed to be up to 20 percent over or
50 percent under the predicted camber.
• For slab and box girders, camber shall be assumed to be up to 50 percent
over or 50 percent under the predicted camber.
• For design cambers greater than 1”, the camber tolerance shall be taken
as no less than ± 1 in. For camber designs less than 1”, camber tolerance
may be less than 1” with approval by CDOT Unit Leader. This is typically
restricted to widening with site constraints.
These camber tolerances are based on fabrication data for girders with
cambers greater than 1” and a 90% confidence range on the envelopes as
shown in Table 5-7. Data for design cambers under 1” have a higher camber
variance.

Table 5-7: Camber Data
Girder Type BT Girder BX Girder
Count 1259 871

Minimum -82.95% -90.33%
Maximum 113.53% 209.09%
Mean -14.65% -3.75%
Standard Deviation 21.65% 32.10%
99.9% -85.90% -109.40%
99% -70.40% -86.40%
Confidence Range 95% -57.10% -66.70%
90% -50.30% -56.60%
85% -45.80% -50.00%
E. Dead Load Deflections

Dead load deflections may be calculated assuming no long-term increase in
deflection beyond construction. This assumption may be used for the dead
load deflection reported on the girder sheet, for estimating haunches, and for
setting deck grades. The long term multipliers shall not be used in the girder
design.
The same value of girder f’c that is used for camber calculations shall be used
for dead load deflection calculations.
F. Deck Profile Grade Effect
The deck profile grade ordinate shall be taken as the difference between a
chord of profile grade from bearing to bearing and the actual profile grade at
any point along the chord line.
This ordinate will add to the haunch thickness if profile grade is higher than the
chord line and, conversely, will subtract from the haunch thickness if profile
grade is lower than the chord line.
G. Design Considerations
Side-by-side box girders shall be designed for service and strength criteria
using the range of deck thicknesses expected considering the assumed
tolerances for box girder cambers. The dead load deflection reported on the
plans and used to set deck grades shall be calculated with the deck thickness
resulting from the predicted girder camber. The deck concrete quantity may
also be based on this deck thickness. The use of our 5" minimum deck over
the girder allows the designer to utilize the distribution factors based on F type
(AASHTO Table 4.6.2.2.1-1) girder arrangements per AASHTO 5.12.2.3.3(f)
so shear keys are generally not allowed.

Other girders may be conservatively designed assuming the maximum

estimated haunch due to an under-cambered girder for all calculations.
Girder sag is not permitted for any girder type. Sag is considered prevented
when the girder camber remaining after deducting the under-camber tolerance
and the dead load deflection is greater than or equal to zero. The dead load
deflection used for this check need not be magnified by long-term effects. For
side-by-side boxes, the dead load deflection for this check shall be based on
the increased deck weight resulting from the girder being under-cambered.
In lieu of considering over-camber tolerance in the design of side-by-side box
girder bridges, the bearing seats may be lowered by the over-camber tolerance
amount. Shims shall be provided where the total shim stack height equals the
over-camber tolerance amount. If the girders are over-cambered, shims may
be removed as necessary to maintain a 5 in. minimum deck thickness.
A weighted average haunch (or slab depth for side-by-side boxes) may be used
for dead load calculations for girder design. The equation below is derived for
the midspan moment effect assuming the haunch (or slab) varies parabolically
with the apex (either concave or convex) at midspan:
(D1 + 10*D2 + D3) / 12 Eq. 5.1
A volume-based average haunch (or slab depth for side-by-side boxes) may
be used for the concrete quantity. The equation below is derived assuming the
top of girder is chorded between the end of girder and midspan:
(D1 + 2*D2 + D3) / 4 Eq. 5.2
Where D1 is the depth over one bearing, D2 at midspan, and D3 over the other
bearing.
See Example 7 for detailed examples of setting girder haunches and verifying
the above criteria.
5.5.2.2 Hold Down Limits

Harped strands shall be designed so that the hold-down force does not exceed
4.0 kip per strand.
5.5.2.3 Partially Debonded Strands

If debonding is used, the design shall follow the debonding criteria outlined in AASHTO
AASHTO 5.9.4.3.3.Minimum Plan Requirements 5.9.4.3.3
The contract plans for pretensioned members shall specify:

• Jacking force
• Area of prestressing steel
• Minimum concrete strength at jacking and at 28 days
• Center of gravity of prestressing force path
• Final force
• Dead load deflection

• Expected cambers (release and before deck pour)

• Estimated haunch at midspan (estimated deck thickness for side-by-side
box girders)
Post-Tensioned Concrete
5.5.3.1 Anchorages
The post-tensioning supplier is responsible for the design of the local zone, AASHTO
including the anchorage device itself and confinement reinforcement. The 5.9.5.6
Design Engineer is responsible for all other anchorage-related designs,
including the general zone. The Designer shall verify that all anchorage design
assumptions are correctly represented on the plans to aid the supplier in the
design of the local zone to coordinate with the design of the general zone.
AASHTO 5.4.5
Composite anchorages shall not be permitted. Multi-plane anchorages may be
used.
The design jacking force of strands shall be 75 percent of the ultimate tensile AASHTO
strength of the tendon for the design of the post-tensioned member. For the 5.9.2.2
design of anchorages, including the local and general zones, the anchorage
force shall be based on 80 percent of the ultimate tensile strength of the
tendon. This allows reserve capacity for increasing the jacking force to the
AASHTO limit, if needed, during construction.
Design of post-tensioned members shall not require the use of more than
27-0.6 in. strands per duct, corresponding to a maximum jacking force of
1,187 kip.
The plans shall show the configuration of the anchorages and the arrangement
of ducts at typical high and low points appropriate for the duct and strand size
noted on the plans. The arrangement of anchorages shall permit a center-to-
center anchorage spacing of at least √(2.2Pj / f’ci) in. and a spacing from the
center of each anchorage to the nearest concrete edge of at least half that
value. If web flares are needed for this arrangement, they shall be dimensioned
in the plans and included in the quantities.
5.5.3.2 Post-tensioning Ducts

A. Spacing AASHTO
5.9.5.1
• Minimum clear spacing of ducts shall be the greater of 40 percent of the
nominal duct diameter or 1.5 in.
• Bundled ducts shall not be used without approval from CDOT Unit Leader
in coordination with the Fabrication/Construction Unit. AASHTO
5.10.1
B. Clear Cover
• For cast-in-place bridges, the minimum clear cover to ducts shall be the
greater of 75 percent of the nominal duct diameter or 3 in.

• For precast girder bridges, the minimum clear cover to ducts shall be the
greater of 50 percent of the nominal duct diameter or 2 in. An exception to
this is post-tensioned CBT girders, which have demonstrated good past
performance with a minimum of 1.75 in. clear cover.
• Clear cover for ducts curved in plan shall meet the greater of the applicable AASHTO
criteria above, or the confinement criteria as specified in AASHTO. 5.9.5.4.3
C. Eccentricity AASHTO
5.9.1.6
Eccentricity of strand within ducts shall be considered when modeling the
tendons. In lieu of using the eccentricities specified in AASHTO
Figure C5.9.1.6-1, manufacturer-specific eccentricity may be used if known
during design.
5.5.3.3 Monostrands
Monostrand tendons shall be of a fully encapsulated waterproof construction
whether permanent or temporary.
Permanent monostrand tendons placed in any of the locations listed below

shall be of a type certified by their manufacturer for chloride contaminated
environments:
• In decks or haunches above girders
• When any part of the tendon is within a horizontal distance equal to the
structure depth of an expansion joint or within 6 in. of the back face of an
integral abutment
• When tendon is used in below ground construction
Monostrands and bundles of up to 4 monostrands in plant produced members

using a highly fluid small aggregate concrete, or using a moderately fluid small
aggregate concrete with form vibrators, shall have a clear spacing of at least
1.25 in.
Field produced members or members not using form vibrators or a fluid small
aggregate concrete shall have a clear spacing between monostrands or
bundles of monostrands of at least 1.5 in.
5.5.3.4 Unbonded Tendon Redundancy

An unbonded tendon is any tendon that is not bonded to the structure
throughout its length in its final installed condition. Common examples are
monostrand tendons and multi-strand tendons used in externally
post-tensioned precast segmental box girders.
For each girder, any two unbonded tendons shall be assumed to be failed. The
moment strength provided by the remaining tendons and reinforcement shall
be at least 80 percent of that required by the Strength I load combination. The
same provision applies to any 13.5 ft. width of slab. The 13.5 ft. limit is a
conservative limit based on the arching capability of the slab.

At the discretion of the Designer, for longitudinal tendons in multiple girder

systems in which there are adequate load paths between the girders, the entire
connected cross section may be considered a single girder element.
5.5.3.5 Transverse Post-Tensioning in Adjacent Precast Box Girders

For railroad bridges, adjacent box girders without a CIP deck are permitted with
the use of transverse post-tensioning, per AREMA. For the design of adjacent
box girders without a CIP deck, the design guidance of PCI Bridge Design
Manual Section 8.9 may be used.
Adjacent box girders without a CIP deck are not permitted for traffic bridges.
For normal traffic bridges utilizing adjacent box girders, shear keys shall not be
used. The use of our 5" minimum deck over the girder allows the designer to
utilize the distribution factors based on F type (AASHTO Table 4.6.2.2.1-1)
girder arrangements per AASHTO 5.12.2.3.3(f).
5.5.3.6 Severe Exposure Category for Tension Limits

The following locations shall be considered the severe exposure category for AASHTO
AASHTO concrete tension limits: 5.9.2.3.2b
• Tops of decks that are post-tensioned

• Top flanges acting as the deck for CIP post-tensioned girders
Tops of girders for post-tensioned spliced bridges need not be classified as

severe exposure.
5.5.3.7 Through-the-Thickness Web Reinforcing

Through-the-thickness reinforcing equal to 9 percent of the area of the tendon
shall be provided for the following situations:
• To arrest propagation of through-the-thickness cracks driven by
misalignment at construction joints. The specified amount of reinforcing
shall be placed near each tendon passing through a joint. The
reinforcement shall be split between each side of the joint.
• Due to potential through-the-thickness forces at thickness transitions at the
beginning and end of transitions of web or flange thickness. The specified
amount of reinforcing shall be located near the tendon and split between
each side of the transition beginning or end.
Through-the-thickness reinforcement shall be anchored as close to the face of

the concrete as practical. Headed studs or stud-rails may be used in lieu of
reinforcing.
Figure 5-7 and Figure 5-8 illustrate through-the-thickness reinforcement.

Section Elevation
Figure 5-7: Through-the-Thickness Steel at Construction Joints
Figure 5-8: Plan View of Through-the-Thickness Reinforcing

at a Web Thickness Transition
5.5.3.8 Horizontally Curved Tendons

Reinforcing requirements for horizontally curved tendons shall be per AASHTO
5.9.5.4.3
AASHTO.
5.5.3.9 Minimum Plan Requirements

The contract plans for post-tensioned members shall specify:
• Jacking force
• Area of prestressing steel
• Minimum concrete strength at jacking and at 28 days
• Center of gravity of prestressing force path
• Jacking ends
• Anchor sets
• Friction constants
• Long-term losses assumed in the design
• Strand and duct size assumed in the design
• Net long-term deflections and expected cambers
• Estimated haunches at midspans (for spliced girders only)

5.6 LONGITUDINAL REINFORCEMENT FOR SHEAR

General
AASHTO Equation 5.7.3.5-1 accounts for increased tension in longitudinal AASHTO
5.7.3.5
reinforcement caused by shear. The applicability of this interaction equation
depends on support and loading conditions. This section is provided as further
clarification of AASHTO.
Direct Loading and Supports

Direct loading may be assumed where the load introduces compression
directly onto the compression face of the member.
Direct supports may be assumed where the reaction introduces direct

compression directly onto the compression face of the member.
In simple-made-continuous bridges, pier caps that are detailed as pinned

connections to the pier diaphragms may be classified as direct supports.
Figure 5-9 presents examples of direct support and direct loading conditions.
Figure 5-9: Examples of Direct Supporting and Loading Conditions
For direct support/loading conditions, the following provisions apply:

• Checking interaction is not required at or near direct supports or at other
locations of maximum moment, such as at or near midspan. At these
locations, the longitudinal reinforcement needed for moment demand alone
need not be exceeded.
• Interaction shall be checked where longitudinal reinforcement is reduced
along the member. In this case, the equation shall be checked at 10th points

that are away from the maximum moment locations and at locations of
reinforcement reduction.
• In summary of the previous two notes, if the maximum needed flexural
reinforcement is continuous through the member and not reduced,
checking the interaction equation is not required.
Indirect Loading and Supports

Any load or support that is not classified as a direct load or support shall be
classified as indirect. For practical purposes in bridge design, this primarily
happens at integral pier caps.
In simple-made-continuous bridges, pier caps that are detailed as integrally

connected to the pier diaphragm shall be assumed to be indirect supports.
Figure 5-10 shows an example of an indirect support. In this case, the girders
shall be considered indirectly supported, and the pier cap shall be considered
indirectly loaded. The pier cap may be considered directly supported by the
columns.
Figure 5-10: Indirect Support/Loading – Integral Pier Cap
For indirect support and loading conditions for a typical integral pier cap, the
following provisions apply:
• Interaction shall be checked in the girder at the face of the integral pier cap,
at 10th points, and at places of rebar termination.
• Interaction does not need to be checked in the girder at midspan if it is
directly loaded.
• Interaction shall be checked in the pier cap at points of maximum positive
moment, at 10th points, and at locations where positive moment
reinforcement is terminated.
• Interaction need not be checked in the pier cap at or near the face of
column, as this is at a direct support. But if negative moment reinforcement
is reduced, then interaction shall be checked at 10th points away from the
direct support and at locations of rebar termination.

Simply Supported Girder Ends

AASHTO Equation 5.7.3.5-2 shall be satisfied at the inside edge of the bearing
area of simple supports. Girders supported by the typical CDOT integral
abutment are required to meet this provision.
5.7 SIMPLE SPAN PRESTRESSED MADE CONTINUOUS

General
These provisions apply to multi-span bridges composed of simple-span AASHTO
precast girders with continuity diaphragms cast with the deck between ends of 5.12.3.3
girders at interior supports. These bridges shall be designed using the specific
provisions for this structure type per AASHTO, except as amended herein.
Age of Girder When Continuity Is Established

The plans shall specify the minimum age of the precast girder when continuity AASHTO
is established (deck and continuity diaphragm placed). 5.12.3.3.4
For standard designs, the minimum age before establishing continuity shall be
60 days. If waiting 60 days for deck/diaphragm placement has negative
impacts to the project schedule, the minimum age may be specified as less
than 60 days. In either case, the following simplifications shall apply:
• Positive restraint moment caused by girder creep and shrinkage and deck
slab shrinkage shall be taken to be zero.
• Computation of restraint moments shall not be required.
• A positive moment connection shall be designed to resist 1.2*Mcr.
Degree of Continuity at Various Limit States

The connection between precast girders at a continuity diaphragm may be AASHTO
considered fully effective if the plans require that the age of the precast girders 5.12.3.3.5
be at least 60 days before deck/diaphragm pour.
If the precast girder connection between precast girders at a continuity
diaphragm does not satisfy this requirement, the joint shall be considered
non-effective.
Superstructures with fully effective connections at interior supports may be
designed as fully continuous structures for all loads applied after continuity is
established for both service and strength limit states.
Superstructures with non-effective connections at interior supports shall have
designs enveloped for the worst-case force effects between simple span and
continuous behavior for all loads applied after continuity is established for all
limit states. For example, simple span behavior will govern positive moment
regions, and continuous behavior will govern negative moment regions.
The provisions in AASHTO for partially effective continuity diaphragms shall be
disregarded.

5.8 PRECAST SPLICED BRIDGES

General
Precast spliced bridges are structures using precast girders fabricated in AASHTO
segments that are joined or spliced longitudinally to form girders in the final 5.12.3.4
structure. These bridges shall be designed using the specific provisions for this
structure type per AASHTO, except as amended herein.
Girder Age Restrictions
The contract documents shall show the minimum age of girder segments at
the time of post-tensioning. The age may be specified as the average age of
segments per girder line.
Where expansion joint movements are at or near the full joint design capacity,
the contract documents shall show the minimum time required to elapse after
post-tensioning and before installing expansion joints.
Joints Between Segments AASHTO

Match-cast joints shall not be used between segments unless approval is 5.12.3.4.2
obtained from CDOT Unit Leader in coordination with the
Fabrication/Construction Unit.
Details of Closure Joints AASHTO

5.12.3.4.2b
The width of closure joints shall not be less than 2 ft.
Segment Design
Where girder segments are handled before the application of prestressing, the AASHTO
provisions of AASHTO 5.6.7 shall apply until post-tensioning is applied. 5.12.3.4.3
Refer to Section 5.5.1.8 for additional segment shipping and handling design
requirements.
Consideration of Future Deck Replacement

To facilitate future deck replacement, the follow criteria shall apply: AASHTO
5.12.3.4.4
1. All post-tensioning tendons should be located fully within the girder.
2. All tendons shall be stressed before deck placement.
3. All temporary girder supports shall be removed prior to deck placement.
Deviations from items 2 and 3 may be permitted with approval from CDOT Unit
Leader in coordination with the State Bridge Engineer. In this case, an analysis
of the feasibility of future deck replacement shall be accomplished, and a future
deck replacement plan shall be provided in the bridge design plans. The deck
replacement plan shall delineate the construction steps necessary for deck
replacement including, but not limited to, the following, as applicable:
• Special requirements for deck removal sequencing

• Temporary girder supports required and accompanying reactions

• Additional post-tensioning required (if this is required, accommodations for

future post-tensioning shall be detailed into the plans)
• Special requirements for deck placement sequencing
Girder Camber, Haunch, and Dead Load Deflections

The provisions of Section 5.5.2 for pretensioned girder bridges should
generally be followed for spliced girder bridges with the following additional
considerations.
The total girder camber is the superimposed total of the individual segment
camber, the camber resulting from continuity post-tensioning, and the camber
induced through the setting of temporary support bottom-of-girder elevations.
The dead load deflection reported on the plans shall include long-term effects.
The long-term effects shall be estimated in conjunction with a time-dependent,
staged construction analysis method. The long-term dead load deflection shall
be used for setting deck grades, setting and estimating girder haunches, and
verifying overall girder camber.
CDOT has not experienced the same severity of issues regarding camber
variability and associated girder sag for spliced bridges as it has for
pretensioned girder bridges. For spliced bridges, the Designer is responsible
for determining appropriate camber tolerances used for setting and estimating
girder haunches and for verifying adequate final girder camber.
5.9 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE GIRDERS
General
CIP box and T-beam girders constructed on falsework shall be designed using AASHTO
the specific provisions for CIP girders per AASHTO, except as amended 5.12.3.5
herein.
Box Girder Bottom Slab Slope
Except for crowned roadways, the bottom slab should be made parallel to the
top slab. For crowned roadways, the bottom slab should be made horizontal.
Box Girder Formwork Load

Design shall include the additional dead load for deck formwork to be left in
place. This formwork load shall be applied over a width equal to exterior web
to exterior web.
Web Reinforcement
One-piece “U” stirrups shall not be used in box girder webs.
For post-tensioned girders, each web face shall contain continuous longitudinal
reinforcement of at least 0.20 in2/ft, spaced at 12 in. max.

5.10 SEGMENTAL BOX GIRDERS

General
Segmental box girder bridges are composed of multiple box girder segments AASHTO
where the width of each segment is typically the full width of the bridge. The 5.12.5
segments are post-tensioned together longitudinally to act as one continuous
structure. Segmental structures shall be designed using the specific structure
type provisions per AASHTO, except as amended herein.
Provision for Future Dead Load or Deflection

Adjustment
The AASHTO provision for detailing segmental structures to accommodate AASHTO
future unbonded tendons that provide at least 10 percent of the positive and 5.12.5.3.9c
negative moment post-tensioning force may be waived in spans for which the
long-term deflection is less than 0.5 percent of the span length. Long-term
deflection variability can be easily affected by the unpredictability of ultimate
creep and shrinkage coefficients, prestressing, losses, and weight; especially
if the future wearing surface occurs early. The addition of 10 percent future
tensioning to segmental spans with this magnitude of stiffness would not
change long-term cambers significantly.
This waiver is contingent upon the bridge being designed for a future wearing
surface in accordance with Section 3 of this BDM.

SECTION5: CONCRETE STRUCTURES
APPENDIX 5A- DEVELOPMENT LENGTH & LAP SPLICE LENGTH DESIGN AIDS

SECTION 5: CONCRETE STRUCTURES 5A-1
Tables for development length and lap splices are provided for the following cases:
• Table 5A-1: Tension Development Length of Deformed Bars

• Table 5A-2: Tension Development Length of Epoxy-Coated Bars (Coating
Factor = 1.5)
• Table 5A-3: Tension Development Length of Epoxy-Coated Bars (Coating
Factor = 1.2)
• Table 5A-4: Compression Development Length and Minimum Lap Splices in
Compression
• Table 5A-5: Tension Development Length of 90 and 180 Degree Standard
Hooks
• Table 5A-6: Class B Tension Lap Splice Lengths of Deformed Bars
• Table 5A-7: Class B Tension Lap Splice Lengths of Epoxy-Coated Bars
(Coating Factor = 1.5)
• Table 5A-8: Class B Tension Lap Splice Lengths of Epoxy-Coated Bars
The Designer is responsible for calculating development lengths and lap splices for
situations not covered by these tables.

Table 5A-1: Tension Development Length of Deformed Bars
Tension Development Length (Ld)

of Uncoated Deformed Bars (in.)
λrc = 0.4 λrc = 0.6 λrc = 0.8 λrc = 1.0

Top Top Top Top
Bar # Ldb Others Others Others Others
Bars Bars Bars Bars
3 25.5 14 12 20 16 27 21 34 26
4 33.9 18 14 27 21 36 28 45 34
5 42.4 23 17 34 26 45 34 56 43
6 50.9 27 21 40 31 53 41 67 51
7 59.4 31 24 47 36 62 48 78 60
8 67.9 36 28 53 41 71 55 89 68
9 76.6 40 31 60 46 80 62 100 77
10 86.2 45 35 68 52 90 69 113 87
11 95.7 50 39 75 58 100 77 125 96
14 114.9 60 46 90 69 120 92 150 115
18 153.2 80 62 120 92 160 123 200 154
Notes:
1. Values based on use of normal weight concrete.
2. Top bars are horizontal bars placed so more than 12 in. of fresh concrete is cast below the
reinforcement.
3. The minimum tension development length is 12 in.
4. See AASHTO 5.10.8.2.1.
Calculation Variables:
Tension Development Length, Ld = Ldb*λrl*λcf*λrc*λer/λ
Basic Tension Development Length, Ldb = 2.4db*fy/sqrt(f'c)
Reinforcement Location Factor, λrl = 1.3 For top bars
λrl = 1.0 For others
Coating Factor, λcf = 1.0
λrl*λcf = 1.3 For top bars
λrl*λcf = 1.0 For others
Excess Reinforcement Factor, λer = 1.0
Concrete Density Modification Factor, λ = 1.0
Reinforcing Steel Yield Strength, fy = 60 ksi
Compressive Strength of Concrete, f'c = 4.5 ksi
db = bar diameter
Reinforcement Confinement Factor, λrc: User shall calculate

Table 5A-2: Tension Development Length of Epoxy-Coated Bars (Coating Factor = 1.5)

of Epoxy-Coated Steel Reinforcing Bars (in.)
λcf = 1.5
(cover less than 3*db or clear spacing between bars less than 6*db)
λrc = 0.4 λrc = 0.6 λrc = 0.8 λrc = 1.0

Top Top Top Top
Bars Bars Bars Bars
3 25.5 18 16 26 23 35 31 44 39
4 33.9 24 21 35 31 47 41 58 51
5 42.4 29 26 44 39 58 51 73 64
6 50.9 35 31 52 46 70 62 87 77
7 59.4 41 36 61 54 81 72 101 90
8 67.9 47 41 70 62 93 82 116 102
9 76.6 53 46 79 69 105 92 131 115
10 86.2 59 52 88 78 118 104 147 130
11 95.7 66 58 98 87 131 115 163 144
14 114.9 79 69 118 104 157 138 196 173
18 153.2 105 92 157 138 209 184 261 230
Notes:
2. Top bars are horizontal bars placed so more than 12 in. of fresh concrete is cast below the reinforcement.
4. See AASHTO 5.10.8.2.1.
λrl*λcf = 1.7 For top bars (max. of 1.7)
λrl*λcf = 1.5 For others (max. of 1.7)
db = bar diameter

Table 5A-3: Tension Development Length of Epoxy-Coated Bars (Coating Factor = 1.2)

λcf = 1.2
(cover at least 3*db and clear spacing between bars at least 6*db)
λrc = 0.4 λrc = 0.6 λrc = 0.8 λrc = 1.0

Top Top Top Top
Bars Bars Bars Bars
3 25.5 16 13 24 19 32 25 40 31
4 33.9 22 17 32 25 43 33 53 41
5 42.4 27 21 40 31 53 41 67 51
6 50.9 32 25 48 37 64 49 80 62
7 59.4 38 29 56 43 75 58 93 72
8 67.9 43 33 64 49 85 66 106 82
9 76.6 48 37 72 56 96 74 120 92
10 86.2 54 42 81 63 108 83 135 104
11 95.7 60 46 90 69 120 92 150 115
14 114.9 72 56 108 83 144 111 180 138
18 153.2 96 74 144 111 192 148 240 184
Notes:
4. See AASHTO 5.10.8.2.1.
λrl*λcf = 1.6 For top bars (max. of 1.7)
λrl*λcf = 1.2 For others (max. of 1.7)
db = bar diameter

Table 5A-4: Compression Development Length and Minimum

Lap Splices in Compression
Min. Compressive Min. Compression

Development Length (Ldb) (in.) Lap Splice, (Lc)(in.)
Bar # f'c = 4.0 ksi f'c = 4.5 ksi f'c ≥ 4.0 ksi
3 8.00 8.00 12.00
4 9.45 9.00 15.00
5 11.81 11.25 18.75
6 14.18 13.50 22.50
7 16.54 15.75 26.25
8 18.90 18.00 30.00
9 21.32 20.30 33.84
10 24.00 22.86 38.10
11 26.65 25.38 42.30
14 32.00 30.47 50.79
18 42.66 40.63 67.71
Notes:
2. Values based on use of grade 60 reinforcement.
3. The minimum compression development length is 8 in.
4. The minimum compression lap splice length is 12 in.
5. Where bars of different sizes are lap spliced in compression, the splice
length shall not be less than the development length of the larger bar or the
splice length of the smaller bar.
6. See AASHTO 5.10.8.2.2 and 5.10.8.4.5.
Basic Development Length, Ldb = 0.63*db*fy/sqrt(f'c)
Ldb(lower limit) = 0.3*db*fy
Minimum Compression Lap Splice, Lc = m*(0.9*fy - 24)*db
Modification Factor, m = 1.0

Table 5A-5: Tension Development Length of 90 and 180 Degree Standard Hooks
Standard Hook Tension Development Length Ldh (in.)
Cover Factor λRC = 1.0 Cover Factor λRC = 0.8

Bar # Lhb (in.) Spacing Factor Spacing Factor Spacing Factor Spacing Factor
λrc = 1.0 λrc = 0.8 λrc = 1.0 λrc = 0.8
3 6.7 6.72 6.00 6.00 6.00
4 9.0 8.96 7.17 7.17 6.00
5 11.2 11.20 8.96 8.96 7.17
6 13.4 13.44 10.75 10.75 8.60
7 15.7 15.67 12.54 12.54 10.03
8 17.9 17.91 14.33 14.33 11.46
9 20.2 20.21 16.17 16.17 12.93
10 22.7 22.75 18.20 18.20 14.56
11 25.3 25.26 20.21 20.21 16.17
Notes:
2. The minimum development length is 6 in.
3. See AASHTO 5.10.8.2.4.
Basic Development Length, Lhb = 38*db/60*fy/(λ*sqrt(f'c))
Lhb(lower limit) = 8*db
Concrete Density Modification factor, λ taken as 1.0

Table 5A-6: Class B Tension Lap Splice Lengths of Deformed Bars
Class B Tension Lap Splice Length

of Uncoated Deformed Bars (in.)
λrc = 0.4 λrc = 0.6 λrc = 0.8 λrc = 1.0
Top Top Top Top
Bar # Others Others Others Others
Bars Bars Bars Bars
3 17.21 15.60 25.81 19.86 34.42 26.47 43.02 33.09
4 22.94 17.65 34.42 26.47 45.89 35.30 57.36 44.12
5 28.68 22.06 43.02 33.09 57.36 44.12 71.70 55.15
6 34.42 26.47 51.62 39.71 68.83 52.95 86.04 66.19
7 40.15 30.89 60.23 46.33 80.30 61.77 100.38 77.22
8 45.89 35.30 68.83 52.95 91.78 70.60 114.72 88.25
9 51.76 39.82 77.64 59.73 103.52 79.63 129.41 99.54
10 58.28 44.83 87.42 67.24 116.56 89.66 145.70 112.07
11 64.70 49.77 97.05 74.66 129.41 99.54 161.76 124.43
Notes:
reinforcement.
3. The minimum tension lap splice length is 12 in.
4. See AASHTO 5.10.8.4.3a.
Class B Lap Splice Length = 1.3*Ld
Compressive Strength of Concrete, f'c = 4.5ksi

Table 5A-7: Class B Tension Lap Splice Lengths of Epoxy-Coated Bars


λcf = 1.5
(cover less than 3*db or clear spacing between bars less than 6*db)
λrc = 0.4 λrc = 0.6 λrc = 0.8 λrc = 1.0

Top Top Top
Bar # Top Bars Others Others Others Others
Bars Bars Bars
3 22.50 19.86 33.75 29.78 45.01 39.71 56.26 49.64
4 30.00 26.47 45.01 39.71 60.01 52.95 75.01 66.19
5 37.50 33.09 56.26 49.64 75.01 66.19 93.76 82.73
6 45.01 39.71 67.51 59.57 90.01 79.42 112.51 99.28
7 52.51 46.33 78.76 69.49 105.01 92.66 131.27 115.82
8 60.01 52.95 90.01 79.42 120.02 105.90 150.02 132.37
9 67.69 59.73 101.53 89.59 135.38 119.45 169.22 149.31
10 76.21 67.24 114.32 100.87 152.42 134.49 190.53 168.11
11 84.61 74.66 126.92 111.99 169.22 149.31 211.53 186.64
Notes:
reinforcement.
4. λrc is the Reinforcement Confinement Factor (user shall calculate).
5. See AASHTO 5.10.8.4.3a.

Table 5A-8: Class B Tension Lap Splice Lengths of Epoxy-Coated Bars


λcf = 1.2
(cover at least 3*db and clear spacing between bars at least 6*db)
λrc = 0.4 λrc = 0.6 λrc = 0.8 λrc = 1.0

Top Top Top Top
Bar # Others Others Others Others
Bars Bars Bars Bars
3 20.65 15.88 30.97 23.83 41.30 31.77 51.62 39.71
4 27.53 21.18 41.30 31.77 55.07 42.36 68.83 52.95
5 34.42 26.47 51.62 39.71 68.83 52.95 86.04 66.19
6 41.30 31.77 61.95 47.65 82.60 63.54 103.25 79.42
7 48.18 37.06 72.27 55.60 96.37 74.13 120.46 92.66
8 55.07 42.36 82.60 63.54 110.13 84.72 137.67 105.90
9 62.11 47.78 93.17 71.67 124.23 95.56 155.29 119.45
10 69.93 53.80 104.90 80.69 139.87 107.59 174.83 134.49
11 77.64 59.73 116.46 89.59 155.29 119.45 194.11 149.31
Notes:
4. λrc is the Reinforcement Confinement Factor (user shall calculate).
5. See AASHTO 5.10.8.4.3a.

SECTION 5: CONCRETE STRUCTURES

SECTION 5: CONCRETE STRUCTURES 5B-1
General
The following table and graphs are design aids to assist with the selection of girder
types and spacing for preliminary design only. See Section 6 for span capabilities of
standardized steel girders.
Design assumptions for the table and the graphs are the same, except the f’ci in the
table may be up to 8,500 psi at the time of post-tensioning for spliced spans.
Table 5B-1
The span capabilities shown may be limited by maximum shipping weight (see
Section 5.5.1.9) or site-specific limitations. For the table, the following assumptions
apply:
• No splices in simple span
• One splice in end spans
• Two splices in interior spans
Haunched pier segments were not assumed but may be feasible. Pier segments may
require a thickened top flange and a thickened web. Economic spliced span
capabilities were based on 4 ft. clear between flanges.
The box section properties shown are for 6 in. webs, 6 in. bottom flange, and 4 in.
top flange. Actual box depths used on a project should optimize use of the available
superstructure depth.
Figures 5B-1 through 5B-3

The graphs are intended to provide a quick means to compare relative costs between
options. Actual cost estimates should reflect unit costs based on specific project
constraints and current market conditions.

Table 5B-1: Economic Span Capabilities

Figure 5B-1: Simple Span Girder Capabilities with Inexpensive Substructures

Figure 5B-2: Simple Spans Girder Capabilities with Expensive Substructures

Figure 5B-3: Proposed Colorado U Girders

SECTION 5: CONCRETE STRUCTURES
APPENDIX 5C - PARTIAL PRESTRESSING

SECTION 5: CONCRETE STRUCTURES 5C-1
Partial Prestressing
Partial prestressing refers to situations where the prestressing is insufficient to

reduce flexural tensile stresses to the Service III or temporary tensile stress limits.
When partial prestressing is used, expected crack openings shall be controlled to an
appropriate limit in the Service I load case. This control may be provided by
distribution of bonded reinforcement with an area of at least 1 percent of the area of
the tensile zone or by limiting tensile stresses or tensile strains. Also, when partial
prestressing is used, live and dead load deflections shall be calculated using the
appropriate cracked section properties. Strength shall be checked in all relevant load
cases, including construction and handling loads. In the instance of partial
prestressing, either compressive stress limits may be applied at the service loads or
ultimate strength limits may be applied.
For sheltered locations not subject to deicing salts, rain, snow, or direct sunlight,
0.024 in. may be an acceptable crack opening at the reinforcing depth. For locations
subjected to the above elements, 0.016 in. may be taken as an acceptable crack
opening.

SECTION 6: STEEL STRUCTURES 6-1
SECTION 6
STEEL STRUCTURES
The following section is provided as CDOT practice for steel structure design.
The Designer shall coordinate with Staff Bridge regarding project-specific
circumstances warranting deviations from standard practices referenced
herein.
This section is complementary to the CDOT Bridge Detail Manual, CDOT

Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Bridge Structural
Worksheets, and AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5 Bridge Welding Code.
CDOT strongly recommends constructability reviews for new steel structures;

review Section 37 of this BDM for more information.
Refer to BDM Section 10 – Foundations for steel piling design.
Refer to BDM Section 33 – Preservation and Rehabilitation of Structures for

rehabilitation of steel structures.
The following recommended resources for steel bridge design include design
examples of I-girder and tub/box girder design:
• American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) / National Steel Bridge
Alliance (NSBA) website (https://www.aisc.org/nsba/)
• FHWA website (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/steel.cfm)
Found on the NSBA website, the “Short Span Steel Alliance Standards” should
be used only for preliminary design and are not acceptable for final design.
Refer to Section 37 of this BDM for acceptable final design calculations.

Designs shall be consistent with AASHTO, unless modified herein. AASHTO
4.4
6.3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES
The economics of design, expected length, and location of a bridge generally
govern the choice of girder material. Steel girders shall be rolled I-beams,
welded plate I-girders, or tub/box girders.
6.3.1 Steel Components

All structural steel components, including structural steel, bolts, nuts, washers, AASHTO
and shear connectors, shall be in accordance with AASHTO steel grades, 6.4.1
strengths, available thicknesses, and properties.
Assume 50 ksi as the default steel yield strength. CDOT allows hybrid sections.
During the design phase, the Designer should contact fabricators and NSBA
to verify that the design cross section is the most economical.

Generally, unpainted weathering steel may be specified for CDOT bridge

girders, with the following exceptions:
1. Highway overpasses, with minimum vertical clearance, subject to a “tunnel”

effect, where vertical abutments are used and full height retaining walls
continue parallel to the abutment. This situation does not allow roadway
spray with deicing salt to dissipate by air currents.
2. Low level water crossings where the girder has less than 8 ft. clearance to
the Ordinary High Water elevation. This situation could result in prolonged
periods of wetness of the steel.
When specifying unpainted weathering steel, the last 6 ft. of girders on either
side of an expansion joint shall be painted, equivalent to Federal Standard
595B Color No. 30045 (weathered steel color).
Unpainted weathering steel shall not be used for railings. See Section 2.4 and
Section 13 of this BDM for minimum railing and fencing steel requirements.
Refer to Section 14 of this BDM for additional information on bearing design.
6.3.1.1 Bolts
ASTM F3125 Grade A325 high strength bolts are preferred. ASTM F3125
Grade A490 bolts should be used only when necessary. It is preferred practice
not to mix A325 and A490 bolt types in the same connection type. However, if
the use of mixed bolt grades is justified, it is recommended that different bolt
diameters be used to distinguish between the grades during construction.
A490 bolts shall not be hot-dip galvanized. If a zinc coating is required, it must
follow the mechanically deposited process.
The twist-off versions of Grade A325 and A490, F1852, and F2280,
respectively, are acceptable options in structural steel joints.
6.4 FATIGUE AND FRACTURE CONSIDERATIONS

6.4.1 Fatigue
Fatigue shall be categorized as load- or distortion-induced fatigue. Refer to AASHTO
AASHTO LRFD for fatigue design criteria for steel components and details. 6.6.1
6.4.2 Fracture
Refer to AASHTO LRFD for members that require mandatory Charpy V-Notch AASHTO
testing. If needed, Section 509 of CDOT Standard Specifications may be 6.6.2
revised with a Project Special Provision to resolve any differences with
AASHTO over which components and connections require Charpy V-Notch
testing. The Designer shall clearly identify on the contract plans all components
and connections requiring Charpy V-Notch testing.
The Designer shall clearly identify on contract documents all main members
and/or details that are to receive non-destructive testing.

A Fracture Critical Member (FCM) is defined as a component in tension whose

failure is expected to result in the collapse of the bridge or the inability of the
bridge to safely carry a minimum level of traffic (live load) in its damaged
condition. The Designer has the responsibility to clearly identify all FCMs on
the contract plans. All FCMs shall be fabricated to AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5
Bridge Welding Code.
As a default, Staff Bridge considers the following (but not limited to) fracture
critical members:
• Flanges and webs in tension on single-box girder bridges AASHTO

6.11.5
• Flanges in tension in two-box girder bridges
• Girders or tension sub-elements in a built-up member on a bridge with
fewer than three girders
The Designer has the option to perform a rigorous analysis with assumed
cracked components to confirm the strength and stability of a damaged
structure. However, the loading cases to be evaluated, the location of potential
cracks, the appropriate level of live loads, the degree to which dynamic effects
associated with a fracture are included, the refinement of models, and the
choice of element type shall all be agreed upon with Staff Bridge. The ability of
a software product to adequately capture the complexity of the analysis shall
be considered and mutually agreed upon with Staff Bridge.
6.5 GENERAL DIMENSION AND DETAIL REQUIREMENTS

6.5.1 General
Steel structure components shall be in accordance with the CDOT Bridge
Detail Manual and AASHTO LRFD.
6.5.2 Dead Load Camber

The general requirements for camber shall be in accordance with AASHTO AASHTO
6.7.2
LRFD, unless modified in this Section.
Steel girders should be cut or heat cambered to counteract service dead load
deflections and vertical profile requirements as needed.
A tabulation showing dead load deflections for the girder only, slab only, and
total shall be shown with the Girder Elevation, if “Camber and Dead Load
Deflection” sheets are not used.
For straight skewed I-girder bridges and horizontally curved I-girder bridges,
the Designer should clearly state in the contract documents the intended
erected position of girders and fit condition. The preference is to use Steel
Dead Load Fit conditions, but the Designer should consider the economic
implications of using other conditions. The selected fit condition must be either
recommended or acceptable in NSBA’s “Steel I-Girder Bridge Fit” Table 3 and
Table 4 (shown on Figure 6-1). The complete document is found on NSBA’s
website; the link is provided at the beginning of this section.

AASHTO
Eq. 4.6.3.3.2-2
Figure 6-1: Recommended Fit Conditions

Because box girders are inherently stiff in torsion, it is difficult to achieve fit-up AASHTO
of Total Dead Load Fit conditions. As a result, external cross-frames are 6.7.2
typically detailed and fabricated to fit to the girder geometry under No-Load Fit
or Steel Dead Load Fit conditions, depending on the intended erection
sequencing.
For curved or skewed box girder bridges where a line girder analysis was not
used, report deflections along individual webs, not along the centerline of the
girder.
6.5.3 Minimum Thickness of Steel

AASHTO
Refer to AASHTO LRFD and AASHTO/NSBA G12.1, Guidelines to Design for 6.7.3
Constructability, for minimum thicknesses of steel elements.
6.5.4 Diaphragms and Cross-Frames

AASHTO
Refer to AASHTO LRFD for the design and placement of diaphragms or 6.7.4
cross-frames for main I-beam and box section members.
CDOT prefers bolted connections. No tack welding is allowed before bolting.
Per AASHTO, all members included in the structural model that are used to
determine girder force effects shall be designed as primary members. This
includes all diaphragms or cross-frames in horizontally curved and heavily
skewed bridges.
In general, for bridges with skew angles of 20 or less, the diaphragms or cross-
frames shall be placed parallel to the centerline of the support.
For bridges with skew angles greater than 20, the diaphragms or cross-frames
shall be placed perpendicular to the main members.
Where a support line at an interior pier is skewed more than 20 from normal,
elimination of the diaphragms or cross-frames along the skewed interior
support line may be considered. Verify with Staff Bridge that this is an
acceptable option.
6.5.4.1 Box Section Members

The need for temporary or permanent intermediate internal diaphragms or
cross-frames, external diaphragms or cross-frames, top lateral bracing, or
other means shall be investigated to ensure that deformations of the box
section are controlled. If temporary intermediate diaphragms are specified,
they shall be removed once the entire deck is poured and has achieved its full
design strength.
6.6 I-SECTION FLEXURAL MEMBERS

Refer to Section 9.4.2 of this BDM for design of concrete decks and overhangs.
CDOT does not allow chorded girders, except for a simple made continuous
design (see Section 6.6.6).

6.6.1 Composite Sections

The Designer shall refer to AASHTO LRFD to calculate composite section AASHTO
properties in positive and negative moment regions. 6.6.1.2.1,
6.10.1.1.1b & c,
In situations where AASHTO does not consider the concrete deck when & 6.10.4.2
calculating composite girder section properties in negative moment regions,
only longitudinal reinforcing in the top mat, within the effective deck width, shall
be considered effective. If a project does not allow precast deck panels, then
the bottom longitudinal reinforcing may also be considered effective when
calculating said section properties.
6.6.2 Minimum Negative Flexure Concrete Deck Reinforcement

Refer to AASHTO LRFD for the minimum negative moment flexure AASHTO
6.10.1.7
reinforcement.
6.6.3 Non-composite Sections

CDOT does not permit the use of non-composite sections in positive moment AASHTO
locations. If the Designer finds that it is not economical to use composite 6.10.10.3
sections in negative moment regions, shear connectors and longitudinal
reinforcing shall satisfy requirements in AASHTO LRFD for the contra-flexure
points.
6.6.4 Constructability
Satisfy all requirements in AASHTO LRFD for primary members at all critical AASHTO
construction phases. 6.10.3
6.6.4.1 Wind Loads During Construction

The Designer shall verify stability of girders due to wind loading on girders
during construction. Be aware that not all design software addresses these
checks. Refer to AASHTO Guide Specifications for Wind Loads on Bridges
During Construction for guidance.
6.6.4.2 Deck Placement

Sections in positive flexure that are composite in the final condition, but are AASHTO
non-composite during construction, shall be investigated for flexure during the 6.10.3.4
various stages of deck placement.
Cantilevered brackets placed along the exterior girders typically support

concrete deck overhang construction loads. The overhang brackets with
construction loads, such as screeds, can result in excessive deflections and
rotation on exterior girders. The Designer may assume a deck overhang
bracket configuration shown in Figure 6-2, with the brackets extending to the
bottom flange, which is preferred. Alternatively, the brackets may bear on the
girder web if means are provided to ensure that the web is not damaged and
the associated deformations permit proper placement of the concrete deck.

Figure 6-2: Deck Overhang Bracket
Although the brackets are typically spaced at 3 to 4 ft. along the exterior girder,
all bracket loads except the finishing machine load are assumed to be applied
uniformly. The Designer calculates the vertical load, P, acting at the edge of
the overhang bracket. The bracket is assumed to extend near the edge of the
deck overhang; therefore, half the deck overhang weight is placed on the
exterior girder and half the weight is placed on the overhang brackets.
Designers may conservatively include one-half the deck haunch weight in the
total overhang weight.
Construction loads or dead loads and temporary loads that act on the overhang
only during construction are assumed (as minimum) as follows:
Overhang deck forms: P = 40 lbs/ft.
Screed rail: P = 85 lbs/ft.
Railing: P = 25 lbs/ft.
Walkway: P = 125 lbs/ft.
Finishing machine: P=3,000 lbs
The finishing machine load is estimated as one-half of the total finishing

machine truss weight, plus additional load to account for the weight of the
engine; drum and operator are assumed to be located on one side of the truss.
Note: The above loads are estimates only. It is recommended that the Designer
contact the Contractor, if known at the time of design, to obtain more accurate
construction load values. Otherwise, the Designer shall validate the assumed
loads during review of construction submittals regarding the deck forming
system and finishing machine.

Falsework shall not be used for new construction and deck replacement
construction. If falsework appears necessary during design, discuss with Staff
Bridge.
6.6.5 Longitudinal Stiffeners and Cover Plates

CDOT does not allow longitudinal stiffeners and cover plates on new
construction without CDOT Unit Leader approval in coordination with the State
Bridge Engineer.
6.6.6 Simple Made Continuous

The Designer is encouraged to consider simple made continuous (SMC)
bridges in the design of multi-span structures. SMC bridges reduce uplift in
unbalanced spans, reduce negative moments at the piers, simplify fabrication,
and eliminate the need for bolted field splices.
Critical to the functionality of SMC structures is the continuity connection at the

piers. As industry best practices develop with new research, the Designer is
encouraged to discuss with Staff Bridge to select the most appropriate
connection details for design and construction.
AISC Engineering Journal, Second Quarter, 2014, provides commentary on

several connection details and a design procedure for SMC bridges.
6.7 TUB/BOX-SECTION FLEXURAL MEMBERS

6.7.1 General
This section supplements AASHTO Section 6.11.
For reference, see the NSBA website for design examples for straight and
curved box/tub girders (https://www.aisc.org/nsba/nsba-publications/steel-
bridge-design-handbook/).
6.7.2 Bearings
Straight, not skewed, tub girders may use two bearings at supports. Curved or
skewed tub girders should have one bearing at supports.
6.7.3 Cross-Section Proportion Limits
In 2006, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) published a paper
“Practical Steel Tub Girder Design,” providing guidance for preliminary design
considerations, including preliminary girder sizing and spacing.
Bottom flange longitudinal stiffeners are permitted, but unstiffened bottom
flanges are preferred. Using longitudinal stiffeners may result in undesirable
fatigue details. The Designer should investigate thickening the bottom flange
and/or reducing the bottom flange width in lieu of using longitudinal stiffeners.
Bottom longitudinal stiffeners that terminate at the girder ends or at the end of
the flange at splices do not present a fatigue problem.
Box girder segment widths greater than 12 ft. may present transportation
issues and should be avoided where feasible. Be aware of girder curvature
because it increases the overall out-to-out segment width. Consult with

fabricators on shipping when wider segments could eliminate an extra field

splice.
Maximum allowable shipping lengths are highly variable from state to state, but
120 ft. is a common restriction. Splices may be used, but the Designer is
recommended to consult potential fabricators of tub/box girders when laying
out field splices.
Provisions for adequate draining and ventilation of the interior of the tub are
essential. Appendix 6A provides a typical drain hole detail.
6.8 CONNECTIONS AND SPLICES
6.8.1 Bolted Connections
Bolted connections of primary members subjected to significant load reversals, AASHTO
heavy impact loads, severe vibration or where a joint slippage would be 6.13.2.1.1
detrimental to the serviceability of the structure shall be designated and
designed as slip-critical. Load cases during construction should be considered.
Typical slip-critical connections include, but are not limited to, the following
connections:
• Girder splices
• Connections for primary member diaphragm that experience axial
tension or combined axial tension and shear
• Any connection in shear with oversized or slotted holes
The most typical surface condition used in Colorado is Class A, unpainted

clean mill scale, and blast-cleaned surfaces with Class A coatings. Where
special consideration is necessary, Class B surfaces may be submitted to Staff
Bridge for approval by CDOT Unit Leader in coordination with the
Fabrication/Construction Unit. When Class B friction surfaces are used, the
plans shall specify the connection surface conditions that must be present at
the time of bolting.
6.8.2 Flange Splices

CDOT allows flange width and thickness transitions at splices. The Designer
should ensure that enough material is saved for the flange transition to be
cost effective.
6.8.3 Welded Connections

Other than welds between girders and bearing plates, CDOT does not permit
any field welds or permanent tack welds.
Full penetration welds on webs and flanges made with backing should not be
allowed. The following pre-qualified welds may be used: B-U3c-S, B-Lla-S,
B-L2c-S, B-U6-S, C-U6-S, and B-U7-S.

6.9 REFERENCES
Azizinamini, Atorod. “Simple for Dead Load-Continuous for Live Load Steel
Bridge Systems.” Engineering Journal. American Institute of Steel
Construction, Vol. 51, No. 2 (2014): 59–81.
Coletti, Domenic; Zhanfei (Tom) Fan; John Holt; John Vogel. “Practical Steel
Tub Girder Design.” Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting,
2006.
Engineering Journal. American Institute of Steel Construction. Second Quarter.

Vol. 51, No. 2. 2014.
Johnson, Robert I., and Rebecca A. Atadero. “Simple-Made-Continuous Steel

Bridges with Steel Diaphragms.” Engineering Journal. American Institute of
Steel Construction, Vol. 54, No. 1 (2017): 3–19.

SECTION 6: STEEL STRUCTURES
APPENDIX 6A - TYPICAL TUB/BOX GIRDER DETAILS

SECTION 6: STEEL STRUCTURES 6A-1

SECTION 6: STEEL STRUCTURES 6A-2

SECTION 6: STEEL STRUCTURES

SECTION 6: STEEL STRUCTURES 6B-1
General
The following table and graphs are design aids to assist with the selection of girder
types and spacing for preliminary design only.
Table 6B-1
A simple spreadsheet was developed by CSU in conjunction with a research project
entitled “Development of Steel Design Details and Selection Criteria for Cost-
Effective and Innovative Steel Bridges in Colorado”, Report No. CDOT-2008-12. The
design tables below are a small sample of the design tables produced. The tables
shown below are for a 44 foot width bridge and simple spans. Additional tables are
available in the report and the spreadsheet is available on the CDOT website. These
tables and the software is based on rolled beam shapes and simple for dead load
and continuous for live load details. For continuous steel girders and longer span
capabilities, additional design standards can be found at:
https://www.aisc.org/nsba/design-resources/continuous-span-standards/
Some Design Assumptions:
• 8 - 9” slab depending on girder spacing 4.5 ksi concrete w/ 4” future wearing

surface
• 2 – 2.5 ft Overhang
• C15 x 33.9 Diaphragms
• 18 ft interior and 12 ft exterior diaphragm spacing
• 3 rows of 5” x 7/8” Shear Studs spaced at 5.25” or 6*dia throughout length for
conservative estimate
• 2 – 486 lbs/ft barriers with 1.5 ft width
• 2 design lanes when out to out width was 44 ft or less, 3 design lanes for widths
greater than 44 ft
• Weight estimate per square foot includes: Lightest wide flange beam weight,
shear studs, and diaphragm weight
• All design charts were designed using a HL-93 Design Truck

60 ft span
Erected
Cost per
Weight Square Pounds per
Nominal per linear Foot Square Foot
Longest Span L 60 ft Depth foot (Steel) (Steel)
Full Width w 44 ft W40 X 167 $17.17 19.05
Slab Thickness Ts 9 in W36 X 170 $17.41 19.32
No. of girders Nb 4 W36 X 182 $18.36 20.42
Girder spacing S 13 ft W40 X 183 $18.43 20.51
Overhang 2.5 ft W30 X 191 $19.06 21.23
Erected
Cost per
Full Width w 44 ft W33 X 141 $18.22 19.69
Slab Thickness Ts 8.25 in W40 X 149 $19.04 20.60
Girder spacing S 9.75 ft W33 X 152 $19.34 20.94
Overhang 2.5 ft W36 X 160 $20.15 21.85
Erected
Cost per
Full Width w 44 ft W33 X 130 $20.09 21.33
Overhang 2.5 ft W27 X 146 $22.06 23.51
70 ft span
Erected
Cost per
Full Width w 44 ft W40 X 211 $20.66 23.15
Overhang 2.5 ft W40 X 235 $22.47 25.33
Erected
Cost per
Full Width w 44 ft W40 X 167 $20.92 22.75
Overhang 2.5 ft W40 X 199 $24.07 26.39
Erected
Cost per
Full Width w 44 ft W40 X 149 $22.51 24.03
Overhang 2.5 ft W33 X 169 $24.92 26.76

80 ft span
Erected
Cost per
Full Width w 44 ft W40 X 277 $25.40 28.97
Overhang 2.5 ft W40 X 294 $26.59 30.51
Erected
Cost per
Full Width w 44 ft W40 X 211 $25.08 27.55
Overhang 2.5 ft W40 X 235 $27.33 30.28
Erected
Cost per
Full Width w 44 ft W40 X 183 $26.43 28.46
Overhang 2.5 ft W36 X 210 $29.56 32.14
90 ft span
Erected
Cost per
Full Width w 44 ft W40 X 324 $28.69 33.32
Overhang 2.5 ft W33 X 387 $32.75 39.05
Erected
Cost per
Full Width w 44 ft W40 X 249 $28.69 31.96
Overhang 2.5 ft W36 X 282 $31.65 35.71
Erected
Cost per
Full Width w 44 ft W40 X 215 30.21 32.92
Slab Thickness Ts 8 in W36 X 231 32.01 35.10
No. of girders Nb 6 W36 X 232 32.12 35.24
Girder spacing S 7.8 ft W40 X 235 32.46 35.65
Overhang 2.5 ft W33 X 241 33.12 36.47

Figures 6B-2
This table shows the current span capabilities of the “Press Brake Tub Girders”.
Based on a 2022 steel estimate of $2.50/pound the per costs will vary from $242 to
$277 per linear foot depending on girder type (U12 to U33). Actual cost estimates
should reflect unit costs based on specific project constraints and current market
conditions. In general, these tub girders are considered compact sections unless
skew is involved. Additional design will be required.

SECTION 7: ALUMINUM STRUCTURES 7-1
SECTION 7
ALUMINUM STRUCTURES
This section will provide guidance to the design and construction requirements
for aluminum structures. Unless specified in the latest edition of the CDOT
Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, M&S Standard
Plans, Staff Bridge Worksheets, or this BDM, the use of aluminum as a bridge
or structural component is not permitted.
Aluminum appurtenances to bridge structures may be used as shown in the

M&S Standard Plans or with the approval of CDOT Unit Leader in coordination
with the Concrete SMEs. Due to concerns with dissimilar metals in contact in
a corrosive environment and the occurrence of accelerated galvanic corrosion,
measures such as using plastic washers or bushings should be taken to
separate dissimilar metals.

AASHTO
The design of aluminum components shall be in accordance with AASHTO. Section 7

SECTION 8: WOOD STRUCTURES 8-1
SECTION 8
WOOD STRUCTURES
This section will provide guidance to the design and construction requirements
for wood structures. Unless specified in the latest edition of the M&S Standard
Plans, Staff Bridge Worksheets, or this BDM, the use of wood as a bridge,
retaining wall, sound barrier, or structural component is not permitted for new
on-system structures.
Wood appurtenances to bridge structures may be used as shown in the Staff

Bridge Worksheets only with the approval of CDOT Unit Leader in coordination
with the State Bridge Engineer. Review Section 508 of CDOT Standard
Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and AWPA standards for
treated wood in bridge applications and coordinate with CDOT Unit Leader and
State Bridge Engineer for best preservative treatment.
The use of timber piles for new construction is not allowed.
Temporary structures may be constructed of wood, with prior approval of

CDOT Unit Leader in coordination with the State Bridge Engineer.

The design of wood structures shall be in accordance with AASHTO and USDA AASHTO
Forest Service Timber Bridges, Design, Construction, Inspection, and Section 8
Maintenance.

SECTION 9: DECK AND DECK SYSTEMS 9-1
DECK AND DECK SYSTEMS

The following section provides CDOT practice for bridge deck thickness,
overhangs, transverse and longitudinal reinforcement, protection criteria, and
supplemental deck components. The Designer shall coordinate with Staff
Bridge regarding project-specific circumstances warranting deviations from
standard practices referenced herein.
To improve service life, weather resistance, and ease of future maintenance
procedures, all bridge decks shall be designed as continuous and without
expansion devices when possible. Additionally, the Designer shall incorporate
a deck protection strategy on all bridge decks in accordance with this BDM.
When the top slabs of CBCs are intended to be used as a driving surface, they
shall be protected with waterproofing membrane and asphalt or polymer
concrete similar to bridge decks.
Use of alternative deck systems, including but not limited to, open, filled, and
partially filled metal grid decks, orthotropic steel decks, aluminum decks, fiber
reinforced polymer (FRP) decks, and sandwich deck panels, requires
discussions with Staff Bridge during the preliminary design phase and approval
by CDOT Unit Leader in coordination with the State Bridge Engineer and shall
be documented in the Structure Selection Report.
Use of wood decks and bare concrete decks on new bridge construction is not
permitted.
Bridges should be designed to allow future deck replacement. This is important
for post-tensioned bridges for which detensioning may be required. See
Section 5.8.6 of this BDM for design requirements.
Unless otherwise modified by this section of the BDM, the minimum
requirement for loading, limit states, design analysis, and detailing for bridge
deck and deck systems shall be in accordance with Sections 3, 4, and 9 of the
current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO). This section
is intended to supplement AASHTO code requirements. Any requests to vary
from methodologies presented herein shall be discussed with Staff Bridge.
The Design Engineer is encouraged to review Design Example 6 – Deck
Design located in Appendix A.
9.3 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
9.3.1 Service Life
To minimize corrosion and deterioration, newly constructed bridge decks shall
implement practical designs, construction materials, and deck protection
strategies as specified in this BDM for the purpose of achieving a minimum
service life of 75 years.
A greater level of durability to attain a minimum service life of 100 years is
required for qualified bridges funded through the Colorado Bridge Enterprise

(CBE) Program. Prior to final design, Staff Bridge will provide the Designer
CBE’s Strategies for Enhancing Bridge Service Life Memorandum for
reference to approved deck protection methods of qualified bridges.
9.3.2 Maintenance Requirements

Bridge decks shall be designed and detailed to facilitate future maintenance
and inspection. This includes the following:
• Providing continuous and joint free bridges, where feasible
• Minimizing construction joints when required
• Using corrosion resistant reinforcing with recommended clear cover
• Specifying deck protection
• Optimizing placement of bridge deck drains.
Additionally, the Designer will give consideration to future deck repairs and the
inevitable replacement of bridge overlays during the initial design process.
Refer to BDM Section 5.4, Reinforced Concrete.
9.4 ANALYSIS METHOD
9.4.1 General
The approximate method of analysis specified in AASHTO shall be used for AASHTO
the design of concrete deck slabs that are within the limitations outlined for its 4.6.2.1
use.
For atypical bridge decks not meeting the conditions explicit to the approximate
AASHTO
method of analysis, refined methods of analysis, as identified in AASHTO, shall 4.6.3.2
be used.
The Designer may propose the use of the AASHTO empirical design method
for consideration by Staff Bridge during the preliminary design phase. Prior to AASHTO 9.7.2
CDOT consideration, the Designer will confirm that the design conditions
satisfy those outlined in AASHTO. Upon approval by CDOT Unit Leader in
coordination with the State Bridge Engineer, an explanation for the use of the
empirical method will be documented in the Structure Selection Report.
Use of AASHTO exposure factor coefficient in deck design shall be as follows: AASHTO 5.6.7
• Use Class 1 exposure factor when deck has a waterproofing membrane
and overlay or polyester overlay installed.
• Use Class 2 in all other cases.

9.4.2 Deck Design Tables

To maintain consistency in detailing, this section provides deck design values,
including recommended deck slab thicknesses, overhang widths, transverse
and longitudinal reinforcing, for a variety of girder arrangements (see Tables
9-1 to 9-4 and Figure 9-1). These design tables are valid for both CDOT
standard CBT girders and rolled steel or steel plate girders with a 12 in.
minimum top flange width. The Designer is responsible for exercising design
judgment when using these tables for final design, noting the following
limitations in their development:
• LRFD approximate method using 32 kip axle AASHTO design truck with
three or more girders.
• 3 in. wearing surface dead load = 36.67 psf.
• Deck skews less than 25°.
• Minimum concrete clear cover to bottom transverse reinforcement = 1 in.
• For economy, the maximum tension reinforcement ratio, ρ, is
approximately half the balanced reinforcement ratio, ρbal. This assumes
that controlling deck deflections is not critical to bridge performance.
• Top primary reinforcing extending into deck overhangs may not be
adequate to resist rail impact loads and shall be designed accordingly for
each project. Refer to BDM Section 9.7 for additional information.
• Use of precast deck panels is accommodated in the deck thicknesses
listed; however, the Designer shall confirm that the deck thickness
selected from the tables is adequate to accommodate both the deck
panels, if used, and any necessary negative moment reinforcing while
providing the minimum clearances. Refer to BDM Section 9.13.2 for
additional information.
• Use exposure factor of 1.0, assuming a waterproofing membrane or
epoxy overlay on the surface of the deck.

Girder Concrete
Transverse reinforcing Longitudinal reinforcing
spacing deck thick. * Maximum
CL to CL (w/o haunch) overhang Top / bot. mat slab reinforcing. ** Top mat (#4 min.) Bot. mat/ “D” bar (#5)
(ft.) (in.) (ft. - in.) Size Max. Spacing (in.) Max. Spacing (in.) Max. Spacing (in.)
4.00 8.00 2' - 3.5" #5 9 12 12

4.25 8.00 2' - 3.5" 9 12
4.50 8.00 2' - 3.5" 9 12
4.75 8.00 2' - 4.5" 9 12
5.00 8.00 2' - 6" 9 12
5.25 8.00 2' - 7.5" 9 12
5.50 8.00 2' - 9" 9 12
5.75 8.00 2' - 10.5" 9 12
6.00 8.00 3' - 0" 9 12
6.25 8.00 3' - 1.5" 9 12
6.50 8.00 3' - 3" 9 12
6.75 8.00 3' - 4.5" 9 12
7.00 8.00 3' - 6" 9 12
7.25 8.00 3' - 7.5" 9 12
7.50 8.00 3' - 9" 9 12
7.75 8.00 3' - 10.5" 9 12
8.00 8.00 4' - 0" 9 12
8.25 8.00 4' - 1.5" 8.5 12
8.50 8.00 4' - 3" 8.5 12
8.75 8.00 4' - 4.5" 8 11
9.00 8.00 4' - 6" 8 11
9.25 8.00 4' - 7.5" 8 11
9.50 8.00 4' - 9" 7.5 11
9.75 8.00 4' - 10.5" 7.5 11
10.00 8.00 5' - 0" 7.5 11
10.25 8.50 5' - 1.5" 7.5 11
10.50 8.50 5' - 3" 7.5 11
10.75 8.50 5' - 4.5" 7 10
11.00 8.50 5' - 6" 6.5 9
11.25 8.50 5' - 7.5" 6.5 9
11.50 9.00 5' - 9" 6.5 9
11.75 9.00 5' - 10.5" 6.5 9
12.00 9.00 6' - 0" 6 8
NOTES:
The design data does not apply to deck overhang that need to be designed according to AASHTO LRFD, Section A13.4.1.
* The deck overhang varies from 27.5” to 0.5 times the girder spacing that is measured from the center of the exterior girder.
** Negative moment reinforcing steel over the pier is not included.

Resistance Factor Design (fy = 60 ksi)
Girder Concrete
4.00 8.00 1' - 6" #5 9 12 12

4.25 8.00 1' - 6" 9 12
4.50 8.00 1' - 6" 9 12
4.75 8.00 1' - 7" 9 12
5.00 8.00 1' - 8" 9 12
5.25 8.00 1' - 9" 9 12
5.50 8.00 1' - 10" 9 12
5.75 8.00 1' - 11" 9 12
6.00 8.00 2' - 0" 8.5 12
6.25 8.00 2' - 1" 8.5 12
6.50 8.00 2' - 2" 8 11
6.75 8.00 2' - 3" 8 11
7.00 8.00 2' - 4" 7.5 11
7.25 8.00 2' - 5" 7.5 11
7.50 8.00 2' - 6" 7.5 11
7.75 8.00 2' - 7" 7 10
8.00 8.00 2' - 8" 7 10
8.25 8.00 2' - 9" 7 10
8.50 8.00 2' - 10" 6.5 9
8.75 8.00 2' - 11" 6.5 9
9.00 8.00 3' - 0" 6.5 9
9.25 8.00 3' - 1" 6 8
9.50 8.00 3' - 2" 6 8
9.75 8.00 3' - 3" 5.5 8
10.00 8.00 3' - 4" 5.5 8
10.25 8.50 3' - 5" 5.5 8
10.50 8.50 3' - 6" 5.5 8
10.75 8.50 3' - 7" 5 7
11.00 8.50 3' - 8" 5 7
11.25 8.50 3' - 9" 5 7
11.50 9.00 3' - 10" 5 7
11.75 9.00 3' - 11" 4.5 6
12.00 9.00 4' - 0" 4.5 6
NOTES:
* The deck overhang varies from 21” to 0.33 times the girder spacing that is measured from the center of the exterior girder.

Girder Concrete
4.00 8.00 2' - 3.5" #4 9 12 12

4.25 8.00 2' - 3.5" 9 12
4.50 8.00 2' - 3.5" 9 12
4.75 8.00 2' - 4.5" 9 12
5.00 8.00 2' - 6" 9 12
5.25 8.00 2' - 7.5" 9 12
5.50 8.00 2' - 9" 9 12
5.75 8.00 2' - 10.5" 9 12
6.00 8.00 3' - 0" 9 12
6.25 8.00 3' - 1.5" 9 12
6.50 8.00 3' - 3" 8.5 12
6.75 8.00 3' - 4.5" 8.5 12
7.00 8.00 3' - 6" 8 11
7.25 8.00 3' - 7.5" 8 11
7.50 8.00 3' - 9" 7.5 11
7.75 8.00 3' - 10.5" 7 10
8.00 8.00 4' - 0" 7 10
8.25 8.00 4' - 1.5" 7 10
8.50 8.00 4' - 3" 6.5 9
8.75 8.00 4' - 4.5" 6.5 9
9.00 8.00 4' - 6" 6.5 9
9.25 8.00 4' - 7.5" 6 8
9.50 8.00 4' - 9" 6 8
9.75 8.00 4' - 10.5" 5.5 8
10.00 8.00 5' - 0" 5.5 8
10.25 8.50 5' - 1.5" 5.5 8
10.50 8.50 5' - 3" 5.5 8
10.75 8.50 5' - 4.5" 5.5 8
11.00 8.50 5' - 6" 5.5 8
11.25 8.50 5' - 7.5" 5 7
11.50 9.00 5' - 9" 5 7
11.75 9.00 5' - 10.5" 5 7
12.00 9.00 6' - 0" 5 7
NOTES:
* The deck overhang varies from 27.5” to 0.5 times the girder spacing that is measured from the center of the exterior girder.

Resistance Factor Design (fy = 100 ksi)
Girder Concrete
4.00 8.00 1' - 6" #4 9 12 12

4.25 8.00 1' - 6" 9 12
4.50 8.00 1' - 6" 9 12
4.75 8.00 1' - 7" 8.5 12
5.00 8.00 1' - 8" 8 11
5.25 8.00 1' - 9" 7.5 11
5.50 8.00 1' - 10" 7.5 11
5.75 8.00 1' - 11" 7 10
6.00 8.00 2' - 0" 7 10
6.25 8.00 2' - 1" 6.5 9
6.50 8.00 2' - 2" 6.5 9
6.75 8.00 2' - 3" 6.5 9
7.00 8.00 2' - 4" 6 8
7.25 8.00 2' - 5" 6 8
7.50 8.00 2' - 6" 5.5 8
7.75 8.00 2' - 7" 5.5 8
8.00 8.00 2' - 8" 5.5 8
8.25 8.00 2' - 9" 5.5 8
8.50 8.00 2' - 10" 5.5 8
8.75 8.00 2' - 11" 5 7
9.00 8.00 3' - 0" 5 7
9.25 8.00 3' - 1" 5 7
9.50 8.00 3' - 2" 4.5 6
9.75 8.00 3' - 3" 4.5 6
10.00 8.00 3' - 4" 4.5 6
10.25 8.50 3' - 5" 4.5 6
10.50 8.50 3' - 6" 4.5 6
10.75 8.50 3' - 7" 4.5 6
11.00 8.50 3' - 8" 4.5 6
11.25 8.50 3' - 9" 4.5 6
11.50 9.00 3' - 10" 4.5 6
11.75 9.00 3' - 11" 4.5 6
12.00 9.00 4' - 0" 4.5 6
NOTES:
* The deck overhang varies from 18” to 0.33 times the girder spacing that is measured from the center of the exterior girder.

Figure 9-1: Deck Design Table Detail

9.5 DECK THICKNESS

The minimum deck thickness, not including allowances for haunch depth or the
wearing surface thickness (asphalt or PPC overlay), shall be as specified:
• Decks with overlays: 8 in.
• Adjacent box girders/T-beams/CBT girders: 5 in.
The flange thickness of precast box girders and T-beams shall be as AASHTO
determined by design per AASHTO, but the combined composite thickness of 9.7.1.1
the cast-in-place deck slab and top flange shall not be less than 8 in.
9.6 LONGITUDINAL REINFORCEMENT

9.6.1 Minimum Required Reinforcing
The minimum longitudinal reinforcing steel in the top of concrete bridge decks
shall be #4 at 12 in. spacing. This new spacing is assumed adequate for crack
control due to the use of Class DF with macrofibers as well as the required use
of deck protection such as waterproofing membrane and asphalt or Polyester
Polymer concrete. The designer will need to verify that all AASHTO
requirements are still met including distribution steel per 9.7.3.2 of negative
moment over girders.
The spacing of #4 at 6 in. was chosen in the early 1990s from an original #5 at
18” to improve crack control when bare deck bridges were still allowed.
Cracking was seen in bridge rail with a spacing of #4 at 18” and the cracking
was eliminated when changing to #6 at 18” (.41% of the section).
Longitudinal reinforcement in the bottom of the deck slab (D bars) shall be as

AASHTO
indicated in Tables 9-1 to 9-4 in Section 9.4.2. For girder arrangements or
9.7.3.2
specific circumstances not meeting the design table requirements, the
longitudinal reinforcement shall be distributed as a percentage of the primary
reinforcement in accordance with AASHTO.
To control transverse cracking at the bottom of deck overhangs, D bars shown AASHTO
in Tables 9-1 to 9-4 in Section 9.4.2 for various overhang widths is adequate 9.7.3.2
reinforcing. When the project requires a larger overhang, the Designer shall
design the longitudinal reinforcing steel in accordance with AASHTO.
9.6.2 Negative Moment Reinforcing

For simple span bridges made continuous, the negative moment at the pier AASHTO
may be taken at the face of the concrete diaphragm. Negative moment 5.10.8.1.2c
reinforcing shall be designed for composite load moments at the strength limit
state. Negative moment reinforcing shall terminate beyond the inflection point
per AASHTO.
To accommodate the longitudinal reinforcement required for negative moment

regions, small size bars bundled together or bars placed in two layers is
permitted. Use the smallest bar size allowed by design to meet clearance
requirements and avoid overcrowding bars when precast deck panels are
permitted.

Unless stay-in-place deck forms are prohibited by the contract documents,

bridge deck designs shall consider only the top longitudinal deck reinforcing
when determining the continuity reinforcing capacity.
9.7 DECK OVERHANG DESIGN

9.7.1 Overhang Requirements
Deck overhang shoring subject to screed rail loads and construction loads has
resulted in excessive deflections and torsional rotation of the exterior girders. To
eliminate potential construction problems from deflections and rotation, the limits
for deck overhangs shall be as described herein. The maximum deck overhang
for various beam types, measured from the centerline of girder web to edge of
deck, is presented as follows, where S’ (ft.) is the center to center spacing of
the webs for I girders or web of adjacent boxes or U girders, and b (in.) is the
top flange width:
• CBT girders, steel box, and concrete box girders: (S/2) <= 6 ft
• Steel I girders: Maximum overhangs shall not exceed the larger value:
▪ (S/3) <= 6 ft
▪ (b/2) + 12 in. <= 6 ft
Tables 9-1 and 9-2 in Section 9.4.2 calculate and show the maximum overhang
widths for both CBT and steel I girders.
On curved decks where the overhang varies along the bridge length, the
maximum overhang width should not exceed the average overhang width by
more than 1 ft.
A ¾ in. V-drip groove shall be located 6.00 in. from back face of barrier on the
underside of the deck overhang for all bridges. Where 6 in. cannot be provided
due to a minimal overhang width, 3 in. shall be used.
Deck overhangs shall extend beyond the edge of the top flange or box girder
web a minimum of 6.00 in. to prevent water from dripping onto the girder.
Additionally, cantilever shall extend 1 in. below the top of girder flange, and the
bottom flange or web shall not extend beyond the formed drip groove of the deck.
Any exceptions to the above criteria shall be addressed on a project-specific
basis and must be approved by CDOT Unit Leader.
9.7.2 Deck Overhang Loading and Design
To balance exterior girder designs with interior girder designs, overhangs
AASHTO
should generally be limited to less than half the interior girder spacing or less
3.6.1.3.4
as described in Section 9.7.1 of this BDM. Deck overhangs shall be designed
for bridge rail and self-weight dead loads, HL-93 live loads, and barrier impact
loads in accordance with AASHTO. The area of top transverse reinforcing
provided in Tables 9-1 and 9-2 in Section 9.4.2 may be counted toward the
area of steel required to resist moments caused by all overhang loads (see
Deck Design Example 6). Deck reinforcing required to resist overhang loads
shall be developed per AASHTO 5.11; larger reinforcing bars may require
hooks at the edge of deck to meet development length requirements. As
mentioned in Section 3.8 of this BDM, overhangs shall be evaluated for

construction loads as well. Some of these loads are discussed in

Section 6.6.4.2 of this BDM and are generally applicable to all girder types.
Refer to BDM Section 9.6 for recommended longitudinal reinforcing in the

bridge deck overhang.
9.8 SKEWED DECK LIMITS

The Designer is encouraged to reduce the skew of new bridges during the
preliminary bridge layout process. Highly skewed bridges are associated with
unwanted shear stresses at the deck corners and promote maintenance
concerns for expansion joints and bearings. Refer to BDM Section 4.6, Skew
Effects on Bridges, for additional information.
9.8.1 Transverse Reinforcement

When the skew angle of the deck does not exceed 25°, the primary AASHTO
reinforcement may be placed in the direction of the skew. As an alternative, 9.7.1.3
the primary reinforcing may be placed in a splayed arrangement as shown in
Figure 9-2, with reinforcing gradually adjusting along the bridge length from its
placement parallel to the skew near the bearings to perpendicular to the main
supporting members.
Figure 9-2: Splayed Deck Reinforcing
For skew angles exceeding 25°, the primary reinforcement shall be placed
perpendicular to the main supporting members. The Designer shall consider
performing a refined method of analysis as referenced in BDM Section 9.4.1
for the design of decks with extreme skews to limit cracking in the acute
corners. The design span length is taken parallel to the primary reinforcement,
as shown in Figure 9-3.
9.8.2 Reinforced End Zones

If the bridge skew exceeds 25°, additional reinforcement should be evaluated
to be placed below the main top mat (transverse and longitudinal) reinforcing
steel in the acute corners of the deck slab to control cracking and spalling of
the concrete. A finite element model may be helpful in determining additional
reinforcement requirements.

Figure 9-3: Skewed Deck Reinforcing Placement
The reinforcing shall be extended one development length past the centerline AASHTO
of the exterior girder in accordance with AASHTO (see Figure 9-4). 5.10.8.2.1a
Figure 9-4: Acute Corner Reinforcing
9.9 OVERLAYS
New bridge construction shall use one of the following deck protection
strategies:
1. 3 in. asphalt wearing surface over a waterproofing membrane applied over

the concrete bridge deck and approach slabs to allow future mill and fill
without damaging the waterproofing membrane. Asphalt overlays may not
be desirable where concrete roadway is adjacent to the bridge and will be
used as warranted by roadway requirements.
2. Polyester Polymer Concrete (PPC) overlay applied over the concrete

bridge deck and approach slabs. PPC overlays shall have a minimum
thickness of ¾ in, Requests to revise the thickness shall be at the approval
of CDOT Unit Leader in coordination with the Overlay SMEs. The layer of
PPC shall be omitted from the deck section properties.
New concrete deck slabs shall be designed to include 3 in. of asphalt overlay
of 36.67 psf applied as a superimposed dead load over the bridge deck area.

Concrete decks with a PPC overlay shall consider the asphalt overlay load as
a future load applied without the PPC in place. Construction notes shall include
a note stating that the PPC must be removed before placing an asphalt wearing
surface.
The Designer may discuss the use of alternative bridge deck overlays (e.g.,
Silica Fume modified concrete and Epoxy-polymer concrete) with Staff Bridge
during the preliminary design phase. Discussions shall be documented in the
Structure Selection Report.
9.10 WATERPROOFING
9.10.1 Membranes
All bridge decks using asphalt pavement as a deck and approach slab
protection measure shall require a waterproofing membrane between the
concrete deck and the asphalt overlay to serve as a deck surface sealant.
9.10.2 Sealer
Due to their low tolerance to abrasion and minimal service life, application of
concrete sealers on bridge decks is not permitted.
Sidewalks placed on bridges do not require a protective concrete sealer.
9.11 DECK POURING SEQUENCE

9.11.1 Rate of Pour and Direction
The rate of placing concrete shall equal or exceed half the span length per hour
but need not exceed 100 cy/hour for bridges designed as continuous. Concrete
pumps can reasonably be expected to provide 100 cy/hour without significant
malfunctions.
In general, the deck pour should progress uninterrupted from one end of the
bridge to the other, in the direction of increasing grade along the longitudinal
length of the bridge. If the bridge deck cannot be completed as a single pour,
the Designer shall follow the direction presented in Section 9.11.2 and
Section 9.12.
9.11.2 Deck Pour Sequence Details
All bridges with decks containing more than 300 cy of concrete shall have the
pouring sequence shown on the plans, including sections to be placed first and
last, pouring direction, and locations of transverse construction joints as
specified in Section 9.12. If the Designer elects not to detail on the plans, the
Designer shall add a note stating that the Contractor will submit a pouring
sequence for approval by the Engineer of Record in coordination with the
Fabrication/Construction Unit and Unit Leader.
As an alternative to starting at the ends of longer bridges, the deck pour
sequence may begin at any location along the bridge, completing positive
moment regions first and ending with negative moment regions over the piers.
Uplift at supports, girder deflections and stresses, in span hinges, and cut-off
points for continuity reinforcing shall be considered when designing and
detailing the deck pour sequence.

9.11.3 Diaphragms
For bridge abutment diaphragms and pier diaphragms designed integral with
the deck slab, the deck pour shall include the diaphragm and deck as one
continuous pour, with optional construction joint locations specified in
Section 9.12.
9.12 DECK JOINTS

9.12.1 Transverse Joints
Optional transverse construction joints are permitted on continuous concrete
deck structures to limit the concrete volume in a single pour. If used, locate
transverse construction joints near the ¾ point of the span being poured in the
direction of pour to minimize cracking in the negative moment region.
The General Notes drawing in the project plans shall include a note stating that
the Contractor shall notify the Engineer of Record for approval of emergency
construction joints.
For skewed bridges, transverse construction joints shall be parallel to the

transverse reinforcement.
9.12.2 Longitudinal Joints

Longitudinal joints are generally discouraged, even for wide bridges since
CDOT has not seen any durability issues without them. Longitudinal
construction joints may be necessary due to phasing and finishing machine
limitations for wide bridges. Construction joints are generally located near
girder edges to allow for deck forming but should be located under barriers for
additional protection when possible.
Use of closure pours shall be project specific and based on considerations

such as:
• Excessive dead load deflection that may prevent transverse reinforcing
bars from lining up properly prior to the closure pour.
• Excessive live load deflection during construction that may cause poor
concrete bond to the reinforcing. Lane closures adjacent to closure pours
should be used where possible.
• Construction phasing.
• Maintenance of traffic impacts.
Reinforcement through the construction joint shall be designed to limit

deflections and shall be detailed in the project plans. Refer to BDM Section 5,
Concrete Structures, for detailed reinforcing splice lengths.
9.13 STAY-IN-PLACE FORMS

9.13.1 General
The use of metal stay-in-place (SIP) deck forms is optional unless requested
by the Region or Staff Bridge. A note stating whether metal SIP deck forms are
required, prohibited, or optional shall be included on the General Notes

drawing in the final bridge plans. Metal SIP deck forms are encouraged for the
following conditions:
• Structures crossing over heavy traffic, interstate highways, or railroads
• Where form removal is difficult or hazardous
• As requested by the Region or Staff Bridge
Transparent or Precast concrete panel deck forms are preferred to metal SIP
deck forms.
Stay-in-place deck forms shall not be permitted for cantilevered portions of

decks or where architectural constraints prohibit their use.
Refer to BDM Section 5 for special requirements concerning SIP forms for the
regions of deck over U girders.
9.13.2 Concrete Stay-in-Place Forms

When partial depth precast concrete deck panels are used, one layer each of
both transverse and longitudinal reinforcing is required over the panels with a
minimum 3/8 in. clear distance between the top of deck panel and bottom of
longitudinal reinforcing.
Placing deck reinforcement with no clearance to the top of precast concrete

deck panels is not permitted. The Designer shall confirm that the deck
thickness selected from the deck design tables in Section 9.4.2 is adequate to
provide the required clearance when detailing longitudinal reinforcing in the
negative moment regions over piers.
Refer to CDOT Bridge Structural Drawings for additional information.
9.13.3 Metal Stay-in-Place Forms

All form flutes shall be kept free of concrete either by filling them with
polystyrene or by topping them with sheet metal covers.
The ability to perform comprehensive deck inspections and future deck

maintenance is restricted when using metal deck forms. Consideration for their
use should be acknowledged on a project-specific basis. The Contractor can
remove regions of metal deck forms to provide discrete location for inspecting
the deck subject to CDOT Unit Leader in coordination with the
Fabrication/Construction Unit approval. When not permitted, the final project
plans shall include a note disallowing their use.
9.13.4 Transparent Stay-in-Place Forms

For full depth CIP bridge decks, transparent SIP forms may be used.
Transparent forms allow for inspection during and after construction. Routine
inspection and maintenance can be performed with over 70% visibility to the
underside of the deck.

9.14 FULL DEPTH PRECAST CONCRETE DECK PANELS

Full depth precast concrete deck panels are an acceptable design solution for
bridges qualified under accelerated bridge construction techniques. Use of full
depth panels shall be discussed with Staff Bridge during the preliminary design
process, with discussions and approval by CDOT Unit Leader documented in
the Structure Selection Report.
9.15 DECK DRAINS

The Designer shall follow the deck drain procedures and details outlined in
AASHTO. Additionally, the Hydraulic Engineer shall use FHWA publications AASHTO 9.4.2
Design of Bridge Deck Drainage, Hydraulic Engineering Circular 21 and 22
(HEC-21 and HEC-22) to determine the type and size of bridge deck drains
appropriate for the bridge geometry and design storm.
Due to the high maintenance requirements associated with deck drainage

structures, it is preferred that the Designer minimize the number of bridge deck
drains by carrying the water to approach drainage grates off the bridge. Deck
drains shall be placed as necessary to intercept water away from expansion
joints and bearing devices and shall discharge water away from all girders, pier
and abutment caps, roadways, railroad properties, and pedestrian trails.
Openings in deck slabs due to drainage components shall include additional
reinforcing to account for changes in structural capacity.
Refer to BDM Section 2.11.3, Deck Drainage Requirements, and the CDOT
Drainage Design Manual for additional deck drain requirements.
9.16 LIGHTS AND SIGNS ON DECK

Bridge mounted lighting and signs should be avoided when possible to avoid
additional load and to avoid vibrations that may increase maintenance. Where
project circumstances require that a light or sign be located on the bridge, it
shall be located directly over the pier. The structure, including the anchor bolt
connection to the deck, shall be designed in accordance with the current
AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs,
Luminaires, and Traffic Signals.
9.17 CONDUIT IN DECK

Conduit used by CDOT for bridge deck lighting, traffic signals, or anti-icing
systems may be embedded in the concrete deck as an alternative to
embedding in the bridge rail if approved by CDOT Unit Leader. The conduit
shall be rigid and placed between the top and bottom reinforcing mats with
consideration for providing adequate concrete cover and reinforcement
spacing.
Conduit pipes for private utilities are not permitted in concrete decks and must
otherwise be attached externally to the structure in accordance with
agreements between CDOT and the private utility company. For aesthetic and
safety reasons, conduits are not permitted under deck overhangs or on bridge
railings.

9.18 ANTI-ICING SYSTEMS

Anti-icing systems involve treating the bridge deck before inclement weather
to prevent snow and ice accumulation, thus reducing traffic accidents and snow
removal efforts. Use of Fixed Automated Spray Technology (FAST) is a recent
development and is best suited for bridges with a higher level of service due to
the cost, attention, and commitment necessary for installation and future
maintenance. Installation of automatic anti-icing systems in new bridge decks
shall be discussed with Staff Bridge on a project-specific basis and shall be
approved by CDOT Maintenance in coordination with the CDOT Unit Leader
and AntiIcing SMEs, for qualified bridges. When implemented, the
manufacturer shall provide the locations of anti-icing nozzles in the bridge
deck.
Anti-icing systems are often necessary when the super-elevation reverses on

a bridge due to the zero cross-slope and ponding issues. Efforts should be
made to eliminate or shift super-elevation reversals on a bridge.
Refer to CDOT Bridge Structural Drawings B-614-1 through B-614-4 and

Anti-Icing Project Special Provisions for additional guidance.

SECTION 10: FOUNDATIONS 10-1
SECTION 10
FOUNDATIONS
10.1 GENERAL SCOPE
Design of structure foundations shall be in accordance with AASHTO, project
contract documents, and CDOT Geotechnical Design Manual, unless
otherwise specified in this Section of the BDM.
10.2 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Geotechnical investigations shall be conducted in accordance with AASHTO
and the guidance provided in the CDOT Geotechnical Design Manual.
10.2.1 Ring-Lined Split Barrel Sampler

The 2.5-in. outside diameter, ring-lined split barrel sampler, often referred to
as the Modified California (MC) sampler, is routinely used in Colorado to obtain
disturbed samples of cohesive soil/rock for swell testing.
If penetration resistance values (blow counts) obtained using an MC sampler

are used in conjunction with correlations based on standard penetration test
(SPT) resistance values (N-values), the penetration resistance values should
be corrected to account for the size of the MC sampler (see Fang, 1991), as
appropriate based on the judgment of the Geotechnical Engineer.
In general, it is preferable to use SPT resistance values in SPT-based

correlations rather than to correct MC penetration resistance values.
10.2.2 Energy Measurements for Sampling Hammers

The energy delivered to drill rods when conducting SPT and MC sampling can
vary significantly depending on factors, including the type of sampling hammer,
the general condition of the hammer, and the operator. Therefore, CDOT
requires the use of sampling hammers that have been tested to determine the
actual energy transfer to the drill rods.
All sampling hammers used to complete field explorations for CDOT projects
shall be tested to determine the energy transfer ratio (the measured energy
transferred to the drill rods divided by the theoretical potential energy of the
sampling hammer) in accordance with ASTM D4633. The testing shall be
completed no more than two years before the date of sampling.
The project geotechnical report or the individual boring logs shall indicate the
energy transfer ratio. The energy transfer ratio shall also be reported on the
geology sheet. In addition, the geology sheet shall indicate whether the
reported penetration resistance values are raw values or values that have been
corrected for hammer efficiency.
As appropriate for use in geotechnical evaluations, the Geotechnical Engineer

should correct penetration resistance values to an equivalent hammer
efficiency of 60 percent (N60 values).

10.3 LIMIT STATES AND RESISTANCE FACTORS

10.3.1 Service Limit State
Foundation design at the service limit state shall be in accordance with
AASHTO.
10.3.2 Strength Limit State

Resistance factors at the strength limit state for foundation design shall be in
accordance with AASHTO, unless otherwise indicated in this Section of the
BDM.
10.3.3 Extreme Event Limit State

As specified by AASHTO, resistance factors for the extreme event limit state, AASHTO
including earthquake, ice, vehicle, or vessel impact loads, shall be taken as 10.5.5.3.3
1.00. For uplift resistance of piles and shafts at the extreme event limit state,
the resistance factor shall be taken as 0.80 or less.
10.4 SPREAD FOOTINGS

10.4.1 General
The Designer shall evaluate the suitability and applicability of spread footing
foundations on a case-by-case basis.
10.4.2 Footing Embedment

The base of spread footings on soil shall be embedded below the local or AASHTO
10.6.1.2
regional frost depth, with a minimum embedment of 3 ft. The minimum
embedment of spread footings on bedrock may be reduced to less than 3 ft.
based on the recommendation of the Geotechnical Engineer.
For establishing spread footing embedment into stream banks based on scour
considerations, see Section 2.11.2 of this BDM.
The requirements of this section do not apply to MSE wall footers. Refer to
current Staff Bridge Worksheets for MSE Walls for MSE wall requirements.
10.4.3 Tolerable Movements

Tolerable foundation movements shall be in accordance with AASHTO. As AASHTO
noted by AASHTO, angular distortions between adjacent foundations should 10.5.2.2,
not exceed 0.008 radians in simple spans and 0.004 radians in continuous C10.5.2.2
spans.
Consistent with AASHTO, transient loads may be omitted from time-dependent

settlement analyses at the Service I Load Combination.

10.5 DRIVEN PILES

10.5.1 General
10.5.1.1 Pile Types
Driven H-piles are frequently used to support structures in Colorado. In most
applications, H-piles are driven to practical refusal on bedrock. H-pile sections
are supplied standard as Grade 50 steel (fy = 50 ksi).
For bridges, the most readily available H-pile sections include:
• HP 14x89
• HP 12x74
• HP 12x53
Other H-pile sizes may be used when availability is verified with local suppliers
and when any delays due to custom pile orders do not negatively affect the
project schedule.
Although less frequently used in Colorado, other pile types may be feasible
and preferable to H-piles depending on project requirements. For instance,
closed-end pipe piles may be advantageous at sites with relatively deep
bedrock, where a closed-end pipe pile may develop greater axial resistance at
shallower depths compared to a comparable H-pile section. Sheet piles may
be used for foundation support, especially for projects where such use may
benefit the construction schedule or cost.
When using a less common pile type, the Designer shall confirm that the
selected pile section is available from local suppliers.
10.5.1.2 Battered Piles

AASHTO
Battered piles may be used to increase lateral resistance of driven piles. The 10.7.1.4
Designer should consider that battered piles will provide a stiffer lateral
response than that of vertical piles.
Where used, the preferred pile batter is 1 horizontal to 6 vertical (1H:6V). The
maximum batter of driven piles shall not exceed 1H:4V due to constructability
considerations.
Piles less than 15 ft. in length and driven to refusal on bedrock shall not be
battered.
10.5.1.3 Embedment
The Designer should consider the potential for piles to encounter refusal on
bedrock or obstructions, such as boulders, before reaching the depth required
for stability under axial and lateral loading. The Designer may specify a
minimum tip elevation on the plans to address this issue. Pre-boring may be
used in cases where refusal is anticipated to occur above the required
minimum tip elevation, although the Designer should consider using other
foundation types that may be preferable in terms of design or constructability.

10.5.1.4 Corrosion of Piles in Soil/Rock

In aggressive soil/rock, the Designer shall incorporate appropriate corrosion AASHTO
mitigation measures. Acceptable corrosion mitigation measures for driven piles 10.7.5
include the use of sacrificial steel, concrete encasement, and factory-applied
coatings in combination with a reduced thickness of sacrificial steel. Field-
applied coatings shall not be used, except as repairs to factory-applied
coatings. Weathering steel is not considered a mitigation measure for
corrosion.
In general, corrosion of steel piles is greatest in soils that have been disturbed,
that is, where earthwork activities have occurred. Compared to undisturbed
soils, disturbed soils have increased oxygen content, which supports corrosion.
In undisturbed soils, corrosion may occur in the zone of unsaturated soil above
the groundwater table. Corrosion may be exacerbated in the zone of fluctuation
of the groundwater table. Significant corrosion does not generally occur in
undisturbed soil/rock below the groundwater table.
In soil/rock above the groundwater table, the Geotechnical Engineer shall

conduct corrosion testing of representative soil/rock samples. If any of the
following conditions exist, the soil/rock shall be classified as aggressive:
• Resistivity is less than 2,000 ohm-cm.
• pH is less than 5.5.
• pH is between 5.5 and 8.5 in soils with high organic content.
• Sulfate concentration is greater than 1,000 parts per million (ppm).
• Chloride concentration is greater than 500 ppm.
Where corrosion testing indicates aggressive soil/rock, the Geotechnical

Engineer shall indicate the elevation range(s) where the aggressive soil/rock
is anticipated based on test results.
Where aggressive soil/rock is present, the thickness of sacrificial steel shall be

calculated based on a minimum corrosion rate of 0.001 in. per year. Published
corrosion rates vary widely. The specified minimum corrosion rate is based on
criteria established by the California Department of Transportation (2013), the
US Army Corps of Engineers (2012), and the Florida Department of
Transportation (2016).
The Designer shall assume that corrosion occurs over all steel surfaces in
contact with the aggressive soil/rock. Corrosion rates greater than the
minimum value specified herein may be appropriate, particularly where piles
are installed in landfill materials, cinder fills, organic soils, or mine
waste/drainage. Corrosion mitigation is not required in soil/rock below the
groundwater table.
If factory-applied coal-tar epoxy coating is used for corrosion mitigation, the

coating shall be assumed to be effective for 30 years. In calculating the
sacrificial steel thickness, the Designer shall assume corrosion begins after the
first 30 years and continues through the remaining design life, as appropriate.
If protective coatings are used, the Geotechnical Engineer shall provide

appropriate axial design parameters accounting for a potential reduction in side

resistance.
Sacrificial steel is not necessary where concrete encasement is used for AASHTO
corrosion mitigation. Piles protected by concrete encasement should be coated C 10.7.5
with a dielectric coating near the base of the concrete jacket.
10.5.1.5 Corrosion of Piles Exposed to Atmospheric Conditions

The following provisions apply only to situations where piles are extended
above the ground, such as sheet pile abutments or H-pile/pipe pile piers.
For non-weathering steel piles, aggressive conditions shall be assumed for the
first 5 ft. of pile below grade and for the entire portion of the pile exposed to
atmospheric conditions.
Corrosion mitigation is not required for weathering steel piles exposed to

atmospheric conditions and not located within the splash zone or underneath
a bridge expansion joint.
Corrosion mitigation for the remaining portion of piles embedded in soil/rock

shall be as required in Section 10.5.1.4, for both non-weathering and
weathering steel piles.
10.5.1.6 Pile Cap Embedment

For establishing pile cap footing embedment into stream banks based on scour
considerations, see Section 2.11.2 of this BDM.
AASHTO
10.5.2 Geotechnical Design and Analysis 2.6.4.4.2
10.5.2.1 Point Bearing Piles on Rock
Piles that will penetrate the bedrock 3 ft. or more shall be designed in AASHTO
accordance with the requirements specified by AASHTO for “Piles Driven to 10.7.3.2.2 and
Soft Rock.” Piles that will penetrate the bedrock less than 3 ft. shall be designed 10.7.3.2.3
in accordance with the requirements specified by AASHTO for “Piles Driven to
Hard Rock.”
In general, it is anticipated that piles driven into the relatively weak sedimentary
bedrock typically encountered along the Front Range would classify as “Soft
Rock,” while piles driven to higher strength bedrock where significant bedrock
penetration is not typically achieved would classify as “Hard Rock.”
Pile protection (tips, points, or shoes) shall be included for all piles driven to
bedrock.
10.5.2.2 Small Groups of Piles

At the strength limit state, the resistance factor for geotechnical axial resistance AASHTO
shall be reduced by 20 percent for groups of piles containing three or fewer C10.5.5.2.3
piles, unless otherwise approved by CDOT Unit Leader in coordination with the
Foundation SMEs.

10.5.2.3 Drivability Analysis

CDOT Standard Specification 502 provides requirements for pile drivability AASHTO
analyses (wave equation analysis of pile driving [WEAP]). The Contractor 10.7.8
typically completes WEAP.
The Geotechnical Engineer should consider completing WEAP during the
design phase when:
• A pile type, section, or driving procedure not routinely used in local
practice (see Section 10.5.1.1) is proposed.
• A pile with an axial resistance greater than what is typically used in local
practice or which may require the use of a pile driving hammer larger than
typically used in Colorado (nominal resistance greater than approximately
500 kip) is proposed.
• A pile will be driven into a relatively deep bearing layer such that the
driving resistance is likely to exceed the required geotechnical axial
resistance (over-driving).
10.5.3 Top of Pile Fixity

The following simplified method may be used to calculate the minimum pile
embedment required to classify the connection at the top of the pile as fixed.
𝐿 3𝐿 𝐿 𝐿
𝑀𝑢𝑝 = 𝜑𝑓′𝑐 𝑏𝑓 ( ∗ − ∗ )
2 4 2 4
3 1
𝑀𝑢𝑝 = 𝜑𝑓′𝑐 𝑏𝑓 𝐿2 ( − )
8 8
4𝑀𝑢𝑝 = 𝜑𝑓′𝑐 𝑏𝑓 𝐿2
4𝑀𝑢𝑝
𝐿=√
𝜑𝑓′𝑐 𝑏𝑓
Figure 10-1: Pile Fixity
Where:
L = Required pile embedment into cap (in.)
ᶲ = Strength reduction factor for concrete bearing = 0.7 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2)
f’c = 28-day compressive strength of concrete (ksi)
Mup = Plastic moment capacity of pile about strong axis (kip-in.)
bf = Pile flange width (in.)

Table 10-1 presents the calculated embedments for the most common HP
shapes, based on a ᶲ of 0.7 and f’c of 4.5 ksi.
Table 10-1: Calculated Embedments
Minimum
HP Pile Section
Embedment (in.)
12x53 20
12x74 24
14x89 26
For specific criteria regarding pile embedment at integral abutments, see BDM
Section 11.
10.5.4 Field Splice

The Designer shall note on the plans the elevation above which complete joint
penetration (CJP) welds are required for the flanges of all H-pile field splices.
The Designer shall also note on the plans that below this elevation, partial joint
penetration (PJP) flange welds or other commercially available splices using
mechanical connections may be permitted upon review by the Engineer. The
elevation shall be taken as the lowest primary moment inflection point in the
pile obtained from all load combinations producing bending moment in the pile,
including scour and extreme event load cases (see Figure 10-2). At the
Designer’s discretion, piles that are not subjected to significant bending
moment may be exempt from this provision.
Figure 10-2: Moment Inflection Point and H-Pile Field Splices

10.5.5 Dynamic Testing

As required by AASHTO and CDOT Standard Specification 502, dynamic
testing shall be completed during pile installation to monitor potential pile AASHTO
10.7.3.8.3
damage, to determine axial resistance, and to establish driving criteria.
In accordance with AASHTO, higher resistance factors for geotechnical axial AASHTO
resistance may be used if dynamic testing is completed during pile installation. Table
The Designer should note that for bridges with more than 100 piles, the test 10.5.5.2.3-1
frequency required by AASHTO to use a resistance factor of 0.65 is more
stringent than the test frequency required by CDOT Standard Specification
502. Therefore, if a resistance factor of 0.65 is used for a bridge with more than
100 piles, a Project Special Provision is required to modify the dynamic testing
frequency indicated in the Standard Specification to maintain compliance with
AASHTO.
10.5.6 Plan Requirements

As applicable, the following information shall be included in a table in the plans:
• Pile size
• Maximum factored axial load per pile
• Maximum service load per pile
• Cutoff elevation
• Estimated bedrock elevation
• Estimated tip elevation
• Scour elevation
• Minimum required tip elevation (see Section 10.5.1.3 for applicability)
• CJP minimum splice elevation (see Section 10.5.4 for applicability)
• A location to record the as-built tip elevation of each pile
The plan notes shall indicate:

• The assumed strength limit resistance factor for geotechnical axial
resistance
• The steel grade
• If the pile is designed for side resistance, end bearing, or both
• The field splice requirements as a function of CJP minimum splice
elevation (see Section 10.5.4 for applicability)
10.5.7 Load Testing

Load testing (axial or lateral) may be conducted to justify the use of increased
resistance factors and to reduce uncertainty in the performance of driven piles.
During the structure selection process, the Designer shall review and evaluate
the need, benefits, and feasibility of conducting load testing.
When load testing is completed, the entity completing the load test shall
prepare a report sealed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of
Colorado summarizing test results.

10.6 DRILLED SHAFTS

The term “drilled shaft” as used herein is interchangeable with drilled pier,
drilled caisson, and other similar terms.
10.6.1 General
10.6.1.1 Geometry and Dimensions
Drilled shafts used to support bridges and retaining walls shall have a minimum
diameter of 24 in. Drilled shafts used to support sound walls shall have a
minimum diameter of 18 in. Length to diameter ratios, L/D, are typically less
than 25.
Where a drilled shaft supports a single column, the top of shaft shall be
embedded a minimum of 2 ft. below ground surface, unless the Geotechnical
Engineer recommends deeper embedment.
In contrast to AASHTO, CDOT allows the use of drilled shafts that are smaller AASHTO
in diameter than the columns they support. This allows constructability 10.8.1.3
advantages, such as eliminating the need for separate column dowels
embedded into the caisson.
10.6.1.2 Tip Elevation
The Designer shall add a note on the plans requiring drilled shafts to be
advanced to the estimated tip elevation or to the minimum penetration into
bedrock, whichever produces the lower tip elevation. No allowance will be
made to terminate the drilled shafts above the estimated tip elevation on
account of encountering bedrock above the anticipated elevation or any other
circumstances.
10.6.2 Geotechnical Design and Analysis
10.6.2.1 Axial Resistance in Weak Rock
Rock-socketed drilled shafts are frequently used in Colorado. SPT-based
methods are often used to estimate the axial resistance of sedimentary
bedrock encountered along the Front Range. For sites with bedrock N-values
typically between 20 and 100 blows per foot, the “soil-like claystone” design
procedure described by Abu-Hejleh et al. (2003) may be used to determine
nominal unit side resistance and end bearing values.
The resistance factor of 0.75 recommended by Abu-Hejleh et al. (2003) for the AASHTO
“soil-like claystone” method shall not be used because this value exceeds Table
typical resistance factors specified by AASHTO, including the maximum 10.5.5.2.4-1
resistance factor of 0.70, which assumes load testing is completed.
A resistance factor of 0.60 shall be used with the “soil-like claystone” method
(Abu-Hejleh et al., 2003). The resistance factor was calculated by fitting to
allowable stress design (ASD) assuming the following:
• Ratio between permanent and live loads of 3:1
• Permanent Load Factor of 1.25
• Live Load Factor of 1.75
• Factor of Safety of 2.25

For sites with bedrock N-values typically greater than 100 and where rock
AASHTO
coring produces suitable core recovery (i.e., samples can be recovered for 10.8.3.5
strength testing and the rock mass can be characterized to an appropriate
degree), it is preferable to evaluate axial resistance using design methods
based on the unconfined compressive strength, as described in AASHTO and
FHWA Report No. FHWA-NHI-10-016 (Brown et al., 2010).
10.6.2.2 Roughening and Shear Rings

Roughening may be completed to remove smeared or disturbed materials from
the sides of drilled shaft excavations. The Geotechnical Engineer shall indicate
when roughening is required. Roughening is difficult to inspect and should be
used only when approved by CDOT Unit Leader in coordination with the
Foundations SMEs.
Because shear rings are difficult to inspect, they shall not be used unless
approved by CDOT Unit Leader in coordination with the Foundations SMEs..
As an alternative to using shear rings to increase axial resistance, the drilled
shaft could be lengthened or increased in diameter.
10.6.3 Non-destructive Integrity Testing

10.6.3.1 Test Methods
Cross-hole sonic logging (CSL) is an acceptable non-destructive method to
evaluate the integrity of completed drilled shafts. Thermal Integrity Profiling
(TIP) may be used with approval from CDOT Unit Leader in coordination with
the Foundations SMEs. If TIP is specified, the designer shall prepare an
appropriate Project Special Provision.
Methods based on the analysis of stress waves, such as sonic echo and
impulse response, shall not be used as the primary test method unless access
tubes are unavailable.
All testing shall be completed in accordance with the applicable ASTM

standards.
10.6.3.2 Test Frequency

The requirements presented in this section are only applicable to drilled shafts
used as bridge foundations. The frequency of integrity testing for drilled shafts
used in other applications (retaining structures, landslide stabilization, etc.)
shall be at the discretion of the Designer, as approved by CDOT Unit Leader
in coordination with the Foundations SMEs. As necessary for non-bridge
applications, the Designer should prepare a Project Special Provision to
specify the desired test frequency.
CSL access tubes shall be installed in all non-redundant drilled shafts. With
respect to CSL testing requirements, a non-redundant drilled shaft is defined
as any drilled shaft at an abutment or a pier supported by two or fewer drilled
shafts. CSL access tubes shall also be installed in all drilled shafts to be
constructed in a water crossing and in all drilled shafts that will be constructed
in soil/rock requiring the use of temporary excavation support (i.e. casing or

drilling fluid). At the discretion of the Designer, other drilled shafts on the project
may be selected to require CSL testing, such as largely spaced shafts.
CSL testing shall be completed on all non-redundant drilled shafts. CSL testing
shall be completed on a minimum of 50 percent of drilled shafts equipped with
CSL access tubes. Testing locations shall be at the discretion of the Engineer.
If CSL testing indicates anomalies, the remaining drilled shafts at the
pier/abutment shall also be tested.
Installation of CSL access tubes and integrity testing are not required for drilled
shafts with permanent casing socketed into bedrock, regardless of redundancy
or shaft location.
Other agencies, such as railroads, may have more stringent testing

requirements. The designer shall determine if any non-CDOT entities have
applicable testing requirements.
The Designer shall indicate in the plans the minimum number of drilled shafts
to be tested.
10.6.3.3 Addressing Anomalies
Anomalies indicated by CSL testing shall be addressed in accordance with

Standard Specification 503.
Guidance on repairing drilled shaft anomalies is described in FHWA Report

No. FHWA-NHI-10-016 (Brown et al., 2010). Additional information is provided
in the ADSC – IAFD Standard Drilled Shaft Anomaly Mitigation Plan
(Association of Drilled Shaft Contractors – International Association of
Foundation Drilling, 2014).
If test methods other than CSL are proposed, the Designer shall specify criteria
for the evaluation and acceptance of test results in a Project Special Provision.
10.6.4 Load Testing

Load testing (axial or lateral) may be conducted to justify the use of increased
resistance factors and to reduce uncertainty in the performance of drilled
shafts. During the structure selection process, the Designer shall review and
evaluate the need, benefits, and feasibility of conducting load testing.
When load testing is completed, the entity completing the load test shall
prepare a report sealed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of
Colorado summarizing test results. The report shall include all necessary
information and data to enter the test into the DSHAFT load test database (see
Garder et al., 2012).
10.6.5 Plan Requirements

As applicable, the following information shall be included in a table in the plans:
• Drilled shaft diameter
• Maximum factored axial load per drilled shaft
• Maximum service load per drilled shaft

• Top of drilled shaft elevation

• Estimated bedrock elevation
• Minimum bedrock penetration
• Estimated tip elevation
• Scour elevation
• A location to record the as-built bedrock and tip elevation of each drilled
shaft
The plan notes shall indicate:

• The assumed strength limit resistance factor for geotechnical axial
resistance
• If the drilled shaft is designed for side resistance, end bearing, or both
• The number of drilled shafts, by substructure element, to be tested using
non-destructive integrity testing per Section 10.6.3.2
• The minimum total number of drilled shafts to be tested using non-
destructive integrity testing per Section 10.6.3.2
• Embedment criteria regarding tip elevation per Section 10.6.1.2
10.7 REFERENCES
CDOT Research, 2003, Improvement of the Geotechnical Axial Design
Methodology for Colorado’s Drilled Shafts Socketed in Weak Rocks, Report
No. CDOT-DTD-R-2003-6.
Federal Highway Administration, September 2018, Drilled Shafts: Construction

Procedures and Design Methods, Publication No. FHWA-NHI 18-024.
Colorado Department of Transportation, 2021, Geotechnical Design Manual.

SECTION 11: ABUTMENT, PIERS, AND RETAINING WALLS 11-1
SECTION 11
ABUTMENT, PIERS, AND RETAINING WALLS
This section provides design guidance and construction requirements for
abutments, piers, and retaining walls. Abutments and piers support bridge
superstructures, whereas retaining walls function primarily as earth retaining
structures but can serve a dual purpose as an abutment.
The design of abutments, piers, and retaining walls shall be in accordance with AASHTO
AASHTO, this BDM, the Geotechnical Design Manual, and current Staff Bridge Section 11
Worksheets.
11.3 ABUTMENTS
CDOT permits the following abutment types:
• Integral
• Semi-integral
• Tall Wall
• Seat Type
• Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS)
• Other, (i.e., semi-deep, exposed multi-column in front of a retaining wall,
integral on sheet piling) with approval from CDOT Unit Leader in
coordination with Foundations SMEs.
Abutments shall be designed for all applicable AASHTO load combinations. AASHTO
Loads from the girders shall be applied at the centerline of bearing and can be Table
assumed continuous over the centerline of foundation elements. Dynamic load 3.11.6.4-1,
allowance shall be included in the design of the bearing cap and diaphragm 3.11.6.5
but not the foundation elements. The Designer need only apply one-half of the
approach slab dead load to the bearing cap. Live loading on the approach slab
may be ignored. If no approach slab is provided, equivalent soil heights for live
load surcharge of varying abutment heights shall be as provided in AASHTO.
If the height of the bearing cap varies more than 18 in. from each end, the
Designer should slope the bottom of the cap.
When Strut & Tie Models are used for the design, they must be shared with
the design checker to obtain concurrence on the models. Refer to Section 37.5
of this BDM for more details.
Pile and drilled shaft spacing and minimum clearances shall be per AASHTO. AASHTO
The minimum foundation element length shall be 10 ft. below bottom of bearing 10.7.1.2,
10.7.1.3, &
cap.
10.8.1.2
The Structure Selection Report shall document the recommended type of
abutment selected for the project.

11.3.1 Integral Abutments

Integral abutments are preferred for most bridges due to the elimination of
expansion joints and bearings at supports, simplified construction, and reduced
maintenance costs. Integral abutments rigidly attach both superstructure and
supporting foundation elements so that the thermal translation and girder end
rotations are transferred from the superstructure through the abutment to the
foundation elements. The superstructure and substructure act as a single
structural unit by distributing system flexibilities throughout the soil.
Use integral abutments where continuous structure units are shorter than the
lengths shown in Table 11-1 (from FHWA Evaluation of Integral Abutments Final
Report, 2006). A bridge unit includes one or more spans and can be separated
at a pier from an adjacent unit by an expansion device or a fixed gap.
Table 11-1: Limiting Structure Lengths for Integral Abutments
Girder Material Maximum Unit Length

Steel 460 ft.
Cast-in-Place Concrete 460 ft.
Precast and Post Tensioned Concrete As calculated (460 ft. max.)
Assumptions:
• Point of zero movement is located at the midpoint of the bridge unit.
• Maximum unit lengths shown are per current research
recommendations.
In addition to meeting the maximum unit length restrictions in Table 11-1, the AASHTO
total factored movement in one direction, expanding or contracting, at the 3.12.2
integral abutment from the point of zero movement shall be 2 in. or less. The
total factored movement shall include temperature, creep, shrinkage, and elastic
shortening. The temperature range used to determine the movement shall be
per Section 14 of this BDM and AASHTO. Assume a base uniform temperature
of 60° in calculating the directional movement toward each abutment.
With CDOT Unit Leader approval, greater unit lengths may be used if analysis
shows that abutment, foundation, and superstructure design limits are not
exceeded, and that the expansion joint can accommodate movement at the
end of the approach slab. Include an analysis backing up the decision with the
design calculations for the structure. The Structure Selection Report shall
include a discussion of this approach. CDOT has successfully used longer unit
lengths on integral bridges of 1,000 ft. (for the Vasquez over Colorado Blvd
bridge) by using a finger plate expansion device. Unit lengths when using a 0-
4 in. strip seal shall be limited to 800 ft.
Do not use integral abutments when a straight-line grade between ends of a
unit exceeds 5 percent. Research shows that the presence of high grades
tends to lock up one end, thereby causing higher movements on the other.
During design, a pinned connection is assumed to develop between the pile
cap and foundation element to allow the transfer of vertical and shear loads
into the foundation element. If a pin does not develop, a fixed or partially fixed

condition will be present, which can cause cracking in the deck and girders due
to the developed moment from lack of girder rotation.
The preferred pile orientation is to align the weak axis of the pile with the
centerline of abutment. The Designer should use the detail shown on
Figure 11-1. Weak axis bending generates less resisting force in the piles from
unintended frame-action with the superstructure and better accommodates
bridge displacements, when compared with strong axis bending. A single row
of piles shall be used with integral abutments.
To increase pile flexibility, the Designer may use the details shown on
Figure 11-1 and shall determine the pile depth to establish stability. If oversized
holes are used, the length shall be determined by the design and the hole shall
have a minimum diameter of pile d + 1 ft., where “d” is pile depth. This detail
increases the depth to point of fixity, thereby decreasing pile stiffness. Assume
the point of fixity for laterally loaded piling as either the location of zero
movement or location of maximum moment. The pile should extend a minimum
length of 10 ft. beyond the prebore/pipe and through the overburden until
stability is achieved. Design the single row of piles as an axial loaded beam-
column interaction. Check steel H-piles for lateral stability and buckling
capacities. Ignore soil confinement to the full depth of estimated scour and
limits of pea gravel fill. Consider a semi-integral abutment configuration or seat
type abutment if there is uncertainty about the development of a pin, insufficient
flexibility, or if integral abutment design criteria cannot be met.
Drilled shafts may be used for integral abutments provided a pin detail such as
that shown on Figure 11-2 is specified at the top of caisson. Extending fully
developed drilled shaft reinforcing around the perimeter into the bearing cap
prevents a pin from forming and is not permitted. Design dowels connecting
the drilled shaft to the bearing seat for seismic loading.
To ensure that girder ends will rotate during the deck pour, the Designer shall
add a note to the plans requiring the Contractor to pour the deck within two
hours of the integral diaphragms.
The depth of the integral abutment, measured from top of deck to bottom of
pile cap, shall typically be less than or equal to 13 ft. The maximum pile cap
depth shall be less than or equal to 6 ft. and the minimum shall be 3.5 ft. These
maximum limits prevent framing action on an integral abutment from occurring
and ensure it acts like the intended pin by controlling bending and torsional
forces. Designs that require greater abutment depth will need a special design
with considerations for torsional and passive earth pressure bending forces.
The bottom of the bearing cap shall be embedded 1.5 ft. minimum into the
embankment and provide 2 ft. minimum from the top of the embankment to the
bottom of the girder. If the bridge is curved, the maximum degree of curvature
shall be less than or equal to 5°.
Skewed bridges induce biaxial bending into the foundation elements from
passive soil pressure. Unless otherwise approved by CDOT Unit Leader, limit
skew angles to 30° or less. The Designer shall also include in the analysis all
forces that rotate the structure.
On skewed bridges, the Designer shall provide 3 in. minimum clearance from
the girder flanges to the back face of abutment. If sufficient clearance is not

provided, the flange shall be coped or the abutment width increased. The
coping shall parallel the centerline of abutment and not extend across the
girder web.
For pre-tensioned or post-tensioned concrete bridges, use methods to
increase foundation flexibility when the girder contraction due to elastic
shortening, creep, shrinkage and temperature fall exceeds 1 in. Methods
include temporarily sliding elements between the diaphragm and bearing cap,
details that increase the foundation flexibility, or other details approved by the
CDOT Unit Leader. Take steps to ensure that the movement capability at the
end of the approach slab is not exceeded.
Figure 11-1: Integral Abutment on H-Piles

Notes:
1. All abutment and wingwall concrete shall be Class DF or D (Bridge).

2. Extend strands, per design, from the bottom of precast sections into the
abutment. See Staff Bridge Worksheets.
3. Anchor the bottom of steel girder sections to the abutment with studs,
bearing stiffeners, anchor bolts, or diaphragm gussets.
4. Pour the deck and portion above the bearing seat within 2 hours of each
other.
5. Reinforcing steel shall be determined by design.
6. All reinforcing shall be epoxy coated or corrosion resistant.
7. Place all horizontal reinforcement legs above the bearing seat parallel to
girders.
8. For integral abutments on drilled shafts, height of gap between top of
caisson and bottom of diaphragm shall be verified to ensure that girder
rotation will not cause the gap to close.
9. Use a leveling pad designed per Section 14.5.7 of this BDM on integral
type abutments.
10. For thermal stress relief, H-Pile should have the weak axis aligned with
centerline of abutment. Strong pile axis alignment is allowed provided
thermal modeling with a refined method of pile-soil interaction analysis to
determine actual movement is used and full thermal movement is
accommodated.
11. Include the cost of pipe (CMP/HDPE), prebore, and fill material inside pipe
(pea gravel or alternative approved by CDOT Unit Leader) in the work.
12. The field splice weld zones defined in Section 10.5.4 of this BDM shall be
noted in the plans.
13. Grout #7 Bars into the PVC sleeve prior to the diaphragm pour. The girder
worksheet should show the cast in PVC sleeve instead of a coil tie.

Figure 11-2: Integral Abutment on Drilled Shafts

(For details of reinforcement, refer to Figure 11-1. See Notes 1–13 with
Figure 11-1.)
11.3.2 Semi-integral Abutments
Semi-integral abutments are like integral abutments because both eliminate
the expansion joints at supports and encase the girder ends in concrete. The
difference is that the pin for a semi-integral abutment is located at the top of
bearing seat via a bearing device and the foundation element connection at
the bottom of bearing cap is fixed. The bearings accommodate the rotational
and horizontal movements. Using spread footings, footings on piles or drilled
shafts, multiple rows of piles, or drilled shafts can establish abutment fixity.
When semi-integral abutments are used, intermediate shear blocks between
girders or end blocks beyond the edge of deck shall allow a means for lateral
load distribution to the substructure. If a shear block is not practical, use anchor
bolts with a sole plate. The Designer shall provide an area to allow for jacking
the superstructure and bearing replacement per Section 14.5.6 of this BDM.
Figure 11-3 and Figure 11-4 show semi-integral abutments on drilled shafts.

Figure 11-3: Semi-Integral Abutment (Alternative 1)
Notes (For Figures 11-3 & 11-4):

2. Extend strands, per design, from the bottom of precast sections into the
abutment. See Staff Bridge Worksheets.
3. Anchor the bottom of steel girder sections to the abutment with studs,
bearing stiffeners, anchor bolts, or diaphragm gussets.
4. Pour the deck and portion above the bearing seat within 2 hours of each
other.
7. Place all horizontal reinforcement legs parallel to girders.
8. Provide lateral restraint with anchor bolts and/or intermediate or end shear
blocks.

9. Bearings pads designed per Section 14.5 of this BDM are required for
semi-integral abutment types. Leveling pads are not allowed.
10. Grout #7 Bars into the PVC sleeve prior to the diaphragm pour. The girder
worksheet should show the cast in PVC sleeve instead of a coil tie.
Figure 11-4: Semi-Integral Abutment (Alternative 2)

11.3.3 Seat Type Abutments
Seat type abutments have an expansion gap between the backwall and end of
girders, as shown on Figure 11-5, and are typically used when large
movements require a modular expansion device rather than a strip seal placed
at the end of the approach slab.

Figure 11-5: Seat Type Abutment

To provide a pinned connection between the superstructure and substructure,

place the girders on bearing devices, thereby allowing rotational and horizontal
movements. Using seat type abutments is discouraged due to the high
maintenance costs associated with leaking expansion joints, substandard
expansion device performance, and being prone to rotation and closing the
expansion device.
Notes:

4. Apply an epoxy protective coating to the exposed portion of backwall, top
of bearing seat, and front face of bearing cap.
5. Bearings pads designed per Section 14.5 of this BDM are required for seat
type abutments. Leveling pads are not allowed.
6. To decrease a lateral load pressure on backface of abutment, a woven

fabric soil reinforcing straps with 12 in. typical spacing with 3 in. low density
polystyrene board or collapsible cardboard isolator may be used.
11.3.4 Tall Wall Abutments

Tall wall abutments, as shown on Figure 11-6, are used to shorten span lengths
and are typically located at the approximate front toe of approach
embankment. Depending on the required height, they can be founded on a
single row of drilled shafts, footing on piles, or footing on drilled shafts. Due to
the high cost of concrete, careful cost comparisons should be done before
using this type of abutment instead of lengthening the bridge span.
Architectural requirements can drive the use of this type of abutment rather
than cost. The details shown in the semi-integral or seat type abutment
sections can be used to connect the superstructure to the substructure.
11.3.5 Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Abutments

Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) is a type of retaining structure that
consists of closely spaced (12 in. or less) geosynthetic reinforcement installed
in granular backfill, along with a facing system approved by the CDOT Unit
Leader in coordination with the Wall SMEs. GRS can be used at bridge
abutments to directly support the bridge superstructure without the use of deep
foundations. Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil – Integrated Bridge System (GRS-
IBS) is a unique application of GRS bridge abutments. Compared to a
conventional GRS abutment, which combines GRS with traditional elements of
bridge design, GRS-IBS integrates the bridge approach, abutment, and
superstructure to create a joint-free bridge system, without deep foundations
or approach slabs.

Figure 11-6: Tall Wall Abutment
The primary advantage of GRS abutments is that differential settlement

between the approach fill and the bridge is minimized. The abutment fill
supports the bridge, decreasing the severity of the “bump at the end of the
bridge.”
Other potential advantages of GRS compared to conventional bridges

supported on deep foundations include, but are not limited to:
• Decreased cost
• Accelerated construction

• Decreased reliance on specialized equipment and skilled labor for

construction
• Flexible design that can be adjusted easily in the field to fit actual
conditions
• Decreased maintenance due to the lack of expansion devices
GRS has been used most widely to support single-span bridges. However, the
use of GRS to support continuous-span bridges is also feasible.
As discussed in the following subsections, GRS is not appropriate for sites

where significant post-construction settlement or scour is expected.
11.3.5.1 Structure Selection Requirements

For bridges meeting one or more of the following structural, geotechnical, and
hydraulic criteria, GRS shall be considered during the structure selection
process:
a. Single or continuous span bridges where long-term foundation settlement

is anticipated to be less than 1 in.
b. Single-span bridges where bearing seat elevations can be adjusted during
construction to provide the required vertical clearance, accounting for the
anticipated short- and long-term foundation settlement.
c. Bridges where scour is negligible or can be mitigated to a negligible level
by features such as a cut-off apron wall, riprap, a reinforced soil foundation
(see FHWA-HRT-11-026), or a combination thereof.
11.3.5.2 Design Criteria

GRS shall be designed in accordance with this BDM, the CDOT Geotechnical
Design Manual, the FHWA publication Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated
Bridge System Interim Implementation Guide, FHWA-HRT-11-026 (FHWA,
2012), and AASHTO. The design shall be completed using LRFD methodology
(see Appendix C of FHWA-HRT-11-026).
Additional geotechnical borings may be required to adequately characterize

settlement of GRS abutments, particularly the settlement of the integration
zone (i.e., the reinforced transition zone immediately behind the abutment).
The geotechnical exploration shall be sufficient to characterize short- and long-
term settlement of the GRS abutments. As appropriate, obtain relatively
undisturbed thin-wall tube samples during the field investigation for
consolidation testing to support the evaluation of post-construction settlement
behavior.
The design of GRS abutments is an iterative procedure requiring coordination

among the structural, geotechnical, and hydraulics engineers, e.g., the
Geotechnical Engineer must know footing dimensions and bearing pressures
to estimate settlement values. Therefore, the design disciplines should
coordinate as necessary for the evaluation and design of GRS abutments.

11.3.5.3 Settlement
The tolerable settlement is defined in terms of angular distortion between AASHTO
supports. Without a refined superstructure and substructure interaction LRFD
analysis, use the angular distortion requirements stipulated in AASHTO as a 10.5.2.2,
guide. C10.5.2.2
The primary factor in the design of a GRS abutment is tolerable settlement,

which is closely related to superstructure continuity (simple or continuous).
Achieving and maintaining vertical clearance requirements must also be
considered.
Settlement of GRS abutments includes short-term settlement (occurring during

construction) due to the elastic compression of foundation materials and long-
term (post-construction) settlement, which can occur due to time-dependent
consolidation of clay soils. Settlement also includes compression of the GRS
itself.
Consider the estimated short- and long-term settlement when establishing

abutment girder seat elevations. Evaluate actual loads and loading sequences
before and after girder placement. For phased construction, evaluate the
settlement between abutment phases to determine if a closure pour is needed.
Surcharging and/or subgrade improvement measures can also be used to limit
the differential settlements between phases.
During construction, monitor and record settlements before and after

placement of girders and deck. Provide these settlements to the Bridge
Designer and Geotechnical Engineer for their information. Due to the variability
in methods available for settlement monitoring, write a Project Special
Provision to indicate the method to use, minimum number of points to monitor,
preservation of points, reporting frequency, and measurement and payment
criteria.
Uncertainty in the calculation and estimation of settlement values can

contribute to the risk of unsatisfactory long-term performance of a structure.
However, the risk can be managed by considering the likelihood and
consequences of settlement that are greater than the estimated values. For
example, a single-span bridge can tolerate more angular distortion than a
continuous-span bridge. Similarly, settlement of granular soils occurs relatively
quickly and could be compensated for during construction. Post-construction
settlement could also be corrected by adding an asphalt overlay, but the weight
of the additional overlay should be considered in the design. The risk of long-
term settlement can also be reduced by surcharging or pre-loading.
11.3.5.4 Approach Slabs and Pre-camber

For single-span bridges less than 150 ft. long and continuous-span bridges
with a total length less than 250 ft., CDOT prefers to use asphalt-paved
approaches and no expansion joints. See Figure 11-12.
To compensate for long-term differential settlement of the abutment and the

adjacent roadway, a pre-camber (increase in proposed profile to account for
settlement) of 1/100 longitudinal grade is allowed at either the expansion joint

at the end of the approach slab or, for bridges without an approach slab, at the
back face of abutment, as shown on Figure 11-11 and Figure 11-12,
respectively. The asphalt pavement camber can be accomplished with added
asphalt during construction or post-construction resurfacing if the actual
settlement is greater than that estimated.
The amount of pre-camber should be sufficient to compensate for long-term

differential settlement and to eliminate ponding near the expansion joint, if
used. Depending on the abutment height, a ½ in. to ¾ in. pre-camber has
typically been specified over the approach slab length. In addition to the pre-
camber, a 4 in. PVC trough (a PVC pipe cut in half and daylighted at the edge
of roadway), matching the roadway cross slope, should be used under the
expansion joint to capture surface run-off and reduce infiltration into the GRS.
11.3.5.5 Design and Detailing Requirements

Figure 11-7 through Figure 11-15 provide example details for GRS abutment
design. The following represent additional requirements and considerations:
a. Connect the soil reinforcement directly under the girder seat spread footing
to the facing with either a frictional or a mechanical connection.
b. Limit the nominal soil bearing resistance beneath the spread footing to
14,000 pounds per square foot or as stated in the project geotechnical
report. Higher bearing pressures may be feasible depending on the
maximum grain size of the backfill and the spacing and properties of the
reinforcement.
c. Require a setback equal to H/3, with a minimum value of 3 ft., from the
back of the facing to the centerline of the Service I resultant, where H is the
height from the bottom of the spread footing to the roadway.
See Figure 11-9 and Figure 11-10.
d. Use reinforced concrete for the girder seat and back wall.
e. Provide a GRS slope face with the reinforcement wrapped up and around
the face of the individual soil layers and anchored (burrito wrap) behind the
abutment and wingwalls.
f. Require a minimum vertical clearance of 2 ft. from the top of wall facing to
the bottom of girder (see Figure 11-7 through Figure 11-10 and Chapter 11
in the Bridge Detail Manual).
g. Use concrete for the leveling pad at the base of the GRS abutment.
h. Provide drainage measures to reduce the likelihood of water accumulating

in the GRS backfill. Appropriate drainage features could include
encapsulating the top of the reinforced soil zone with dual-track seamed
thermal welded geomembrane or providing an internal drainage system.
i. Provide a 3 in. minimum thick low-density polystyrene, collapsible

cardboard void, or a void space with burrito wrap geosynthetic
reinforcement behind the abutment back wall to isolate the back wall from
the GRS backfill and to allow thermal expansion of the bridge.

j. Provide a 6 in. wide polystyrene spacer or 3 in. minimum clear space

between the back of wall facing to the toe of abutment spread footing to
accommodate thermal movement.
k. Extend the length of abutment soil reinforcement as a stiffness transition

zone into the roadway embankment with a 1H(min):1V slope for cut or
2H(min):1V slope for fill to mitigate differential settlement caused by
dissimilar foundations.
l. Use GRS abutments with a truncated base (minimum reinforcement length

of 0.35DH, where DH is the design height measured from the top of the
leveling pad to the roadway) and cut benches with a maximum height of
4 ft. if the global stability requirements are met (see Figure 11-7). GRS
abutments with a truncated base are more likely to meet global stability
requirements in cut conditions rather than fill conditions.
m. For bridges with a non-yielding foundation at the pier(s) and a semi-yielding

reinforced soil/foundation at abutment(s), there is a possibility that cracks
will appear in the top of the deck over the first pier near the abutment. Cover
these cracks with waterproofing membrane and asphalt overlay; however,
with bare concrete decks, check the crack size and rigorously control or
mitigate with FRP top reinforcement in the deck.
11.3.6 Wingwalls
11.3.6.1 Wingwall Design Length
The wingwalls, as shown in the Bridge Detail Manual, shall be laid out from a
working point defined as the intersection of abutment back face and wingwall
fill face to 4 ft. minimum beyond the point of intersection of the embankment
slope with the finished roadway grade. In most situations, using the working
point provides the Contractor economy of design by having the same wingwall
length at opposite corners. It is preferred that the wingwall be constructed
parallel to girders to minimize the soil pressure against the wingwalls. The
maximum integral wingwall length from the working point shall be 20 ft. If a
longer wingwall is required, as shown in the Bridge Detail Manual, the Designer
should use a maximum of a 10 ft. long integral wingwall in conjunction with an
independent wingwall to achieve the required design length. It is not desirable
to add a footing or support at the end of wingwalls for integral abutments unless
provision for movement and rotation are provided. It is acceptable to support
the wingwall ends on seat type abutments, on semi-integral abutments if the
wingwall is not attached to the superstructure, or where no abutment rotation
is expected.
The Designer needs to be aware of the various effects of soil on wingwalls and
design for the anticipated loading due to the downdrag from fill settlement or
uplift due to expansive soils. These forces can cause cracking of the wingwalls
and abutment if they are not accounted for. If significant movement is
predicted, the Geotechnical Report shall provide design recommendations and
coordinate with the Designer on possible solutions. The Designer should
analyze the torsional effects from the soil on the wingwall abutment connection
and determine if 135° hooked stirrups are required. For wingwalls on box
culverts, see Section 12.

Figure 11-7: GRS Abutment (Cut Case)

Figure 11-8: GRS Abutment (Fill Case)

Figure 11-9: Integrated Girder Seat with Footer
Figure 11-10: Separated Girder Seat with Footer

Figure 11-11: Transition Zone Behind Abutment Backwall (With Expansion Joint,
Concrete Slab, and Roadway Pavement)

Figure 11-12: Transition Zone Behind Abutment Backwall (With Asphalt Pavement, No
Approach Slab and No Expansion Joint)

11.3.6.2 Wingwall Design Loads

Design cantilevered wingwalls for tangent, non-skewed bridges for an active
equivalent fluid pressure as recommended in the Geotechnical Report but not
less than 36 psf. Design all other wingwalls for an at-rest equivalent fluid
pressure recommended in the Geotechnical Report but not less than 57 psf.
At-rest pressure is recommended for design in most cases because wingwalls
on non-square bridges may undergo a transverse deflection into the backfill
during longitudinal bridge movements, which could increase the pressure
above active level.
The wingwall analysis shall include a live load surcharge load per AASHTO
3.11.6.4, regardless of the presence of an approach slab. Do not include
vehicular collision unless the barrier is attached to the top of the wingwall.
Due to equilibrium of fill pressures on each side of the wingwall, the Designer
may ignore the earth pressure below a line that extends from a point 3 ft. below
the top of the wingwall at the end of the wingwall to another point at the bottom
of the wingwall at the back face of the abutment. For erosion along the outside
of the wingwall, 3 ft. is an assumed depth. This trapezoidal loading condition
applies to wingwall design only and is not to be used for foundation stability
analyses. Refer to Example 8: Cantilever Wingwall Design Loads for sample
calculations and equations.
11.3.7 Approach Slabs

Construct approach slabs to match the required roadway width and sidewalk
approaches. When a guardrail transition is required, the Designer shall provide
6 in. between the outside face of the bridge rail and the inside face of the
wingwall, refer to the Bridge Detail Manual. This clearance may be eliminated
when no guardrail transition is required or when rail anchor slab is used.
If not using the details shown on the Staff Bridge Worksheets, design the AASHTO
approach slab per AASHTO. Limit post-construction settlement at the free end Sections 3
of the slab to 1 in. If the Geotechnical Engineer anticipates settlement greater &5
than 1 in., the Designer shall incorporate plan details to mitigate the amount of
settlement to 1 in. or less. One possible mitigation detail would be to raise the
end of approach slab by the anticipated long-term settlement. For additional
information on approach slabs, see Section 2.13 of this BDM and Staff Bridge
Worksheets.
11.4 PIERS
Bridge piers provide intermediate support to the superstructure and a load path
to the foundation. Suitable types of piers include, but are not limited to, the
following:
• Solid Wall Piers
• Multi-Column (Frame) Piers
• Single Column (Hammerhead) Piers
• Straddle Bent Piers

Forces acting on the pier in the vertical, longitudinal, and transverse direction AASHTO
shall be per AASHTO. The connection between the superstructure and pier 11.7.1
should be pinned by use of bearings or a key detail, allowing rotation in the
longitudinal direction of the superstructure and eliminating longitudinal moment
transfer to the substructure. Fixed or integral connections between the
superstructure and substructure are not desirable. If the bridge is being
designed with staged construction, each stage shall meet AASHTO.
The bearing cap should be a sufficient width and length to support the
superstructure, meet support length requirements, and provide adequate
bearings edge distances. A recommended pier width to depth ratio is less than
or equal to 1.25. If the depth of the cap varies more than 18 in. from each end,
slope the bottom of the cap. For precast prestressed concrete girder
superstructure types, place the bearing lines a minimum of 12 in. normal to the
centerline of cap. The minimum cap size shall be 3 ft. by 3 ft. and should
increase thereafter by 3 in. increments. In section, the cap should overhang
the column by 3 in. minimum. The length of the cap should not extend past the
drip groove and should be rounded down to the nearest inch.
When designing the pier cap for negative moment, the preferred design plane
is located at the face of the column or equivalent square for a round column.
To properly model the column / pier cap connection, provide a rigid link from
the centerline column to the face of the column. If a rigid link is not provided,
use the maximum moment at the centerline of column. See Section 5.4.11 of
this BDM for pier cap reinforcing details.
When Strut & Tie Models are used for the design, they must be shared with
the design checker to obtain concurrence on the models. Refer to Section 37.5
of this BDM for more details.
To ensure that the girder ends will rotate during the deck pour, the Designer
shall add a note to the plans requiring the Contractor to pour the deck within
two hours of the integral diaphragms.
Coordinate the selection of column type with the architect and CDOT. Possible
column types include, but are not limited to, round, square, rectangular,
tapered, and oblong. Standard forms should be used whenever possible and
shall be 2 ft-6 in. minimum. To match standard form sizes, round, rectangular,
and square columns should have length and width dimensions in 3 in.
increments. When the columns are tall, place construction joints at
approximately 30 ft. spacing. The preferred method of analysis for columns is
moment magnification.
In lieu of moment magnification analysis, a second-order analysis is required.

If magnification factors computed using AASHTO exceed about 1.4, then a
second-order analysis will likely show significant benefits. The second-order
analysis of the frame can be modeled using nonlinear finite element analysis
software. AASHTO Seismic 4.11.5 discusses P-  effects and when they
should be considered in the design.

Unless in a seismic zone as defined in Section 5.4.9 of this BDM or requested AASHTO
otherwise, tied hoops are preferred for transverse reinforcement, rather than 4.5.3.2.2
spirals. The column spacing on framed piers should balance the dead load
moments in the cap.
When setting the foundation location, the Designer shall provide 2 ft. minimum
cover on top of the foundation element. To protect from frost heave, place the
bottom of any footing below the frost depth indicated in the Geotechnical
Report and no less than 3 ft. minimum below finished grade. See
Section 10.4.2 of this BDM for additional details.
The minimum depth of a footing on pile/drilled shafts and spread footings is

2 ft.-6 in. A footing on pile/drilled shafts shall have a minimum of four pile/drilled
shaft elements.
When placing a pier in the floodplain, the Designer should align the pier with
the 100-year flood flow. The preferred pier location is outside the floodplain
whenever possible. To prevent drift buildup and when recommended by the
Hydraulics Engineer, provide web walls between columns. The Designer shall
consider the effects of uplift due to buoyancy forces when designing piers
located in floodplains. Final pier locations should be coordinated with the
Hydraulics Engineer.
When checking cracking, all caps and columns shall use Class 1 exposure
condition. Foundation elements shall use Class 2 exposure condition.
The Structure Selection Report shall document the selected pier type and its
location for the project.
If the pier has bearings that may need future maintenance or replacement, the
Designer should show jacking locations and loads on the drawings. CDOT
Standard Specification 503.20 provides the following horizontal tolerances for
drilled shaft construction:
• 3 in. for shafts with diameters less than or equal to 2 ft.

• 4 in. for shafts with diameters greater than 2 ft. and less than 5 ft.
• 6 in. for shafts with diameters 5 ft, or larger.
These construction tolerances must be accommodated in the pier cap design

to prevent a need to adjust the pier cap location during construction. In
situations where the column steel has a contact lap splice with projected drilled
shaft reinforcing, the column is required to follow the drilled shaft if the drilled
shaft is misaligned. Therefore, provide pier cap overhang (distance from the
column to the face of the cap) equal to or greater than the construction
tolerance above to allow column location adjustment while the pier cap remains
in place.
Also provide adequate dimensional tolerance between the column and drilled
shaft via a non-contact lap splice, either by oversizing the drilled shaft or by
oversizing the column. The inside cage should be able to move laterally by the
amount of specified allowed construction tolerance without compromising the
design or details of the members.

Figure 11-13: Column-Drilled Shaft Connection Details

11.4.1 Multi-Column Piers

Multi-column piers, the most commonly used pier type, consist of two or more
transversely spaced columns. This type of pier is designed as a frame about
the transverse direction (strong axis of the pier). The columns are usually fixed
at the base and supported by one of the following foundation types: spread
footing, footing on pile/drilled shafts, or drilled shafts.
11.4.2 Single Column (Hammerhead) Piers
Single column (Hammerhead, Tee) piers are usually supported at the base by
a drilled shaft, spread footing, or footing on pile/ drilled shafts. Either the pier
cap can be pinned in the longitudinal direction to the pier diaphragm and the
diaphragm poured monolithically with the superstructure or the pier cap can be
poured integrally with the superstructure. The column cross section can be
various shapes and can be either prismatic or flared to form to the pier cap.
It is recommended that hammerhead style piers be modeled using the strut-
and-tie method. This method creates an internal truss system that transfers the
load from the bearings through the cap to the columns. The truss uses a series
of compressive concrete struts and tensile steel ties to transfer the loads. Place
nodes at each loading and support point. The angle between truss members
should be between 25° minimum and 65° maximum with a preferred angle of
45°. If a wide column is used, place two or more nodes at points along the
column.
11.4.3 Solid Wall Piers
Design solid wall piers per AASHTO. Assume the top of pier wall to be pinned AASHTO
or free at the top. Support the bottom of wall on either a spread footing or 5.11.4.2
footing on piles/drilled shafts.
11.4.4 Straddle Bent Piers
Use straddle bent piers where there is a geometrical constraint in placing the
piers. Such geometrical restrictions can be one or more of the following:
• Spanning a wide roadway
• Right-of-way (ROW) issues not permitting placing columns under the
bridge
• Presence of railroad tracks to span over
• Presence of underground utilities where relocating them can be cost
prohibitive
• Other
Straddle bent piers are non-redundant structures that can be conventionally

reinforced, pre-tensioned or post-tensioned. Consider constructability, cost,
span, and construction schedule when selecting the type of bent style.
Steel straddle bent caps are not permitted due to corrosion issues, inspection
access concerns, fracture critical designation, high cost, and maintenance
issues.

11.4.5 Aesthetics
Special corridor projects and signature bridges can have variations of the
standard pier types or entirely unique pier designs. Coordination with Staff
Bridge is essential at the preliminary phase of the project to determine the
aesthetic requirements. The Structure Selection Report should document all
aesthetic treatments required by the project.
11.4.6 Details
When a footing on pile is used, refer to Figure 11-14.
Figure 11-14: Footing on Pile

11.5 RETAINING WALLS

Design permanent retaining walls for a service life based on AASHTO. Design AASHTO
retaining walls for temporary applications for a service life of 3 years. Section 11
Retaining walls can be classified into three categories according to their basic
mechanisms of soil retention and source of support. Externally stabilized
systems use a physical structure to retain the soil. Internally stabilized systems
involve reinforcement (e.g., soil nails and geosynthetics) to support loads. The
third system is a hybrid that combines elements of both externally and internally
stabilized systems.
Calculate earth pressures in accordance with AASHTO. The Designer shall AASHTO
use Coulomb’s earth pressure theory to determine the active coefficient of Section
lateral earth pressure. The minimum equivalent fluid due to soil pressure shall 3.11.5
be 36 pcf. If the wall design height is less than 4 ft. and a geotechnical report
is not required or has not been provided, the Designer may assume a nominal
soil bearing capacity of 6 ksf.
Settlement criteria will depend on the wall type and project constraints, such
as nearby structures and the project schedule. The structural and geotechnical
engineers should coordinate to select and design an appropriate wall system
capable of meeting project requirements. For instance, the bearing resistance
of wall footings will depend on the footing size.
Most walls that support vertical loads, unlike columns, do not require the 1%
AASHTO
minimum longitudinal steel. When the vertical load becomes so great that
5.11.4.1
buckling is a concern, walls should be treated like columns and meet
compressive member requirements. A ratio of the clear height to the maximum
plan dimensions of 2.5 may be used per AASHTO to differentiate between
walls and columns (C5.11.4.1), but it should primarily be behaviorally based.
Some references use b/d ratios of 3 to 6 to differentiate between walls and
columns. See Section 11.4.3 of this BDM for more information on solid pier
walls.
Provide weep holes or a drainage system behind the wall stem to prevent water
accumulation. The Designer should reference Staff Bridge Worksheets for
required size and spacing of weep holes or provide drainage system details in
the project plans. The final drainage system selected will depend on the
amount of water anticipated to infiltrate into the backfill and shall consider
groundwater conditions.
Runoff shall not be permitted to pass freely over the wall; rather, a wall coping,
drain system, or a properly designed ditch shall be used to carry runoff water
along the wall to be properly deposited. Where this is not feasible, such as soil
nail walls in steep terrain, the Designer shall coordinate with Staff Bridge to
develop a solution that has concurrence from Region Maintenance and Bridge
Asset Management.
When laying out walls, if possible, provide a 10 ft. inspection zone in front of
the wall. The Designer must consider ROW limits for placement of the footings
and if temporary easements are needed for excavation. Any wall footings,
straps, soil anchors, or other wall elements shall be contained within the
established ROW limits unless a permanent easement is obtained. The

Designer shall coordinate with the Roadway Engineer to determine final wall
layouts and grading requirements.
The Wall Structure Selection Report shall be provided per Section 2.10.4 of
this BDM. Appendix 11A contains worksheets to assist in developing wall
selection options.
The following are the most common retaining walls used in Colorado:
11.5.1 Cantilever Retaining Wall
Cast-in-place and precast cantilever retaining wall systems are considered
semi-gravity walls. Conventional cantilever walls consist of a concrete stem
and a concrete footing, both of which are relatively thin and fully reinforced to
resist the moment and shear to which they are subject. A cantilever wall
foundation can be either a spread footing or a footing on deep foundations.
Document the recommendation of the soil parameters and preferred
foundation type in the Geotechnical Report and include in the plan set.
For retaining walls without concrete curb or barrier attached to the top of the
wall, top of the wall shall be a minimum of 6 in. above the ground at the back
face.
If a shear key is required to provide adequate sliding resistance, place it
approximately one-third of the footing width from the heel to the centerline of
the key. If additional depth for development length of the reinforcing is needed,
it may be shifted to under the stem in lieu of increasing the footing thickness.
Passive resistance shall be neglected in stability calculations and shall not be
counted on for sliding resistance unless a shear key below frost depth is
provided. Soil that may be removed due to future construction, erosion, or
scour shall not be included in determining passive sliding resistance. The
Designer shall, at a minimum, ignore the top 1 ft. of front face fill when
determining sliding resistance. See Figure 11-15 for the passive resistance
loading due to the shear key.
Protect retaining wall spread footings from frost heave by placing the bottom
of the footing a minimum of 3 ft. below finished grade at front face. Top of
footings shall have a minimum of 1.50 ft. of cover.
Sloped footings are permitted with a maximum slope of 10 percent.
Stepped footings may be used with maximum step of 4 ft.
Reinforcement should be as shown on Figure 11-16.
11.5.2 Counterfort Retaining Wall

Counterfort retaining walls, another type of semi-gravity wall, are an
economical option for wall heights 25 ft. and taller. They are designed to carry
loads in two directions. The horizontal earth pressure is carried laterally to the
counterfort through the stem. The counterfort is a thickened portion that
extends normal to the stem and is used to transfer the overturning loads
directly to the foundation.

Figure 11-15: Shear Key
Figure 11-16: Cantilever Retaining Wall Reinforcement

11.5.3 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall

MSE walls, as detailed in the Staff Bridge Worksheets, are reinforced soil
retaining wall systems that consist of vertical or near vertical facing panels or
blocks, metallic or polymeric tensile soil reinforcement, and granular backfill.
MSE walls are typically classified into one-stage and two-stage, where two-
stage are used for large long-term settlements as outlined in Section 11.5.3.1
of this BDM. The strength and stability of MSE walls derive from the composite
response due to the frictional interaction between the reinforcement and the
granular fill. MSE systems can be classified according to the reinforcement
geometry, stress transfer mechanism, reinforcement material, extensibility of
the reinforcement material, and type of facing.
Sufficient ROW is required to install the reinforcing strips that extend into the AASHTO
backfill area 8 ft. minimum, 70 percent of the wall height or as per design 11.10.2.1
requirements, whichever is greater. Truncated base or linearly varied
reinforced zone per Staff Bridge Worksheets is allowed in cut conditions; they
can be used when space constraint is a concern. Barrier curbs constructed
over or in line with the front face of the wall shall have adequate room provided
laterally between the back of the curb or slab and wall facing so that load is not
directly transmitted to the top wall facing units. For more details, refer to Staff
Bridge Worksheets B-504-V1.
For block walls and partial height panel facing walls, set the leveling pad a
minimum of 18 in. from finished grade at front face to top of pad. When using
full height panels, set them a minimum of 3 ft. below finished grade at front
face to top of pad. If the front face fill is sloped in either direction, the Designer
shall provide a 4 ft. minimum horizontal bench measured from the front face of
facing. MSE structures are considered earth structures and are not subject to
the minimum depth requirements for frost heave. The concrete leveling pad
shall be reinforced along its entire length per the worksheet details.
For a retaining wall with a rail anchor slab placed at the top of the wall, allow a
minimum 8 ft. wide (including rail), 20 ft. long monolithically constructed
reinforced concrete barrier and slab system to carry and spread loads. See
Example 12, Rail Anchor Slab Design, for additional information on the design
of a rail anchor slab.
Attach a minimum 12 in. wide geotextile to the back face of all joints in facing
panels to reduce the loss of backfill through the joints.
The Designer shall reference the Standard Special Provisions, Standard

Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, and Staff Bridge Worksheets
for the most current design requirements and material properties required for
design.
11.5.3.1 Two-Stage MSE Walls

One-stage MSE wall detail shown on Staff Bridge MSE Wall Worksheets can
accommodate up to 1 in. of differential settlement between soil mass and the
panels. If this limit is exceeded, the wall shall be evaluated for use of modified
details or a two-stage MSE Wall. Geotechnical Engineer shall provide wall type
recommendations for every project.

Two-stage MSE walls are constructed in two stages. During the first stage, the
reinforced soil mass is constructed and left to settle until the remaining
settlement is within the tolerances of the permanent facing. Settlement could
be accelerated by installing wick drains, if necessary. The second stage is the
installation of the permanent wall facing.
Other options to mitigate the long-term settlement, such as excavation and

replacement of soil, deep foundations, and ground improvement, may be more
expensive than a two-stage wall. In the Structure Selection Report, all
alternatives should compare settlement mitigation, schedule, constructability,
and cost.
11.5.3.2 Precast Concrete Panel Wall

MSE walls often use a fascia consisting of precast concrete panels. Full height
or segmental panels based on the corridor architectural requirements are
allowed.
Full height panel width is limited to 10 ft. and the height to 30 ft. The use of
larger panel dimensions will require the approval of CDOT Unit Leader in
coordination with the Wall SMEs and must be documented in the Structure
Selection Report.
The segmental panel area is limited to a maximum of 50 sf. with a minimum

panel height of 2.5 ft.
The segmental panel will tolerate more differential settlement than the full
height panel.
11.5.3.3 Modular Block Wall

Block wall facing is made of various shapes and colors of concrete block units
that will fit many architectural needs and has been specifically designed and
manufactured for retaining wall application. Two types of blocks are available
for use: dry cast and wet cast. Dry cast blocks have shown a propensity to
degrade with age and exposure to weather and salts and can be difficult and
expensive to repair. Wet cast blocks have been shown not to have many of
these issues.
This type of retaining wall will tolerate greater differential settlement between
the blocks than a segmental panel or full height panel.
Use of dry cast blocks in a wall is not a preferred option adjacent to a roadway
due to challenges of repair in the event of vehicular collision, water intrusion,
and deterioration from de-icing chemicals and therefore their use requires Unit
Leader approval. Dry cast blocks are an acceptable facing solution for
landscape walls and around detention basins.
CDOT has experienced wall failures when using blocks in front of soil nail walls
with inadequate block anchoring. To prevent future failures, the Designer shall
apply the full earth pressure to the block anchorage connection.

11.5.3.4 Cast-in-Place and/or Shotcrete Facing

MSE walls can also have a cast-in-place (CIP) facing in front of the reinforced
soil mass. The CIP facing can be either CIP and/or shotcrete concrete.
11.5.3.5 GRS Walls

This type of wall is generic (non-proprietary) and has a single grade of woven
geotextile spaced at 8 in., including 4 ft. of tail soil reinforcement. Every
modular block facing in a GRS wall is connected with a layer of soil
reinforcement, Reinforcement-to-block connection mechanism is primarily
based on friction and clamping action. Soil reinforcement-to-block pullout test
is waived for this type of MSE wall; thus no soil reinforcement schedule or
shop drawing submittal is required.
The design Engineer of Record shall thoroughly check internal, external, and
global stability. The geotechnical report shall address temporary cut slope
stability.
11.5.3.6 Truncated Base Walls

For a MSE wall within a cut condition, a truncated base soil reinforcing zone
can provide an economical space constrained solution. The truncated base
of trapezoidal soil reinforcing zone shall be 45 percent of design wall height
or 4 ft., whichever is greater. The linearly varied soil reinforcement length and
its maximum length at top depend on temporary cut slope stability. Use of this
type of MSE wall is determined by geotechnical stability.
11.5.3.7 Collision on MSE Walls

MSE wall panels are considered sacrificial and do not require design for the
vehicular collision force (CT), unless directed otherwise.
Current interpretation of AASHTO and federal design guidance for collision

loads is shown on Staff Bridge Worksheets (B504H or B504O series).
Depending on selected barrier type or moment slab use, the application of
force may vary. Standard design practice will use a TL4 transverse design
force of 80 kips. This force shall be distributed horizontally along the barrier
and vertically into the resisting elements as appropriate. For rail slab
applications, the 80 kip force is distributed along a 10.83 ft. length and linearly
from a maximum to zero at a depth of 15.1 ft. When using a moment slab a
factored impact load of 900 lbs is applied to each of the top two reinforcing
layers. See Staff Bridge MSE Wall Worksheets for additional information.
NCHRP 663 may be used as a reference for collision design.
11.5.4 Drilled Shaft Walls

Drilled shafts walls, also known as secant or tangent pile walls, consist of drilled
shafts spaced along the wall alignment with an attached precast or CIP facing.
They are typically used in areas where excavation limits are restricted due to
ROW or there is an obstruction such as a building or utility. Micropiles can also
be used when access is limited for drill rigs. The micropiles can be a single row
or two rows with one battered to form an A-frame configuration.

11.5.5 Anchored Walls

Anchored walls (externally stabilized), although not routinely used in Colorado,
may be appropriate for relatively high cuts or sites with stringent deformation
criteria, particularly in situations where top-down construction is required.
Anchored wall systems use ground anchors (e.g., tiebacks bonded into the
ground, deadman anchors) to resist earth pressures acting on the wall.
Anchored systems may include soldier pile and lagging, sheet pile, and drilled
shaft walls.
AASHTO
The design of anchored walls should follow AASHTO. 11.8
11.5.6 Soil Nail Walls
Soil nail walls (internally stabilized) are frequently used as top-down, AASHTO
permanent retaining structures in Colorado. Soil nail walls are best suited to 11.9
sites with adequate “stand-up” time, i.e., the ability of the soil to stand
unsupported during wall construction.
The FHWA publication Soil Nail Walls Reference Manual (FHWA-NHI-14-007)

provides guidance for the design of soil nail walls and is the recommended
design manual for soil walls used on CDOT projects.
The Geotechnical Engineer shall be responsible for the entirety of the wall
design, except for structural components such as the permanent facing, or as
otherwise identified by the Geotechnical Engineer and shown in the Structure
Selection Report.
When soil nail walls extend past the existing bridge abutment, future widenings
need to be considered. To allow room for future pile installation, diamond
patterns shall not be used within the ultimate configuration of the bridge
(Figure 11-17).
Soil nail walls are typically designed with the assumption of dry soil conditions.
For dry conditions, the typical soil nail bond strength is 10 to 15 psi with a
maximum of 30 psi. However, for a high ground water table, spring water
seepage, or heavy storm water runoff conditions, bond strength is reduced
significantly. Without rigorous temporary drainage measures required during
construction, wet condition bond strength must be considered and designed
for by the Contractor's design Engineer of Record.
11.5.7 Gravity Walls
Rigid retaining walls of concrete or masonry stone that derive their capacity
through the dead weight of their mass may be used for earth retention. Due to
increases in material costs, conventional types of these walls made from
concrete or stone are expensive. More affordable gravity walls, such as gabion
baskets, have become more prevalent and are easily constructible.
11.5.8 Landscape Walls
Landscape walls retain soil less than 4 ft. in height from the finished grade to
the top of the wall at any point along the length of the wall.

Figure 11-17: Soil Nail Wall in Future Bridge Widening Area
11.5.9 Load Combinations

Table 11-2 summarizes the load combinations used for wall design. Use AASHTO
Strength Ia and Extreme Event II to check sliding and overturning and to 3.4.1
minimize resisting loads and maximize overturning loads. Use Strength Ib and
Extreme Event II to check bearing and maximize loads for both overturning and
resisting.
Table 11-2: Load Factors for Retaining Wall Design
Combination DC EV LS_V LS_H EH CT Application
Sliding,
Strength Ia 0.90 1.00 – 1.75 1.50 –
Eccentricity
Bearing,
Strength Ib 1.25 1.35 1.75 1.75 1.50 –
Strength Design
Strength IV 1.50 1.35 – – 1.50 Bearing
Sliding,
Extreme II 1.00 1.00 – – – 1.00 Eccentricity,
Bearing
Service I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 – Wall Crack Control

Note that live load surcharge (LS) and horizontal earth load (EH) are not
included in the Extreme Event load case for vehicle collision load (CT). It can
be assumed that the horizontal earth pressure is not activated due to the force
of the collision deflecting the wall away from the soil mass at the instant of
collision.
Use the service limit state for the crack control check.
11.5.10 Resistance Factors

Resistance factors shall be per AASHTO or as given in the Geotechnical AASHTO
Report. Resistance factors for sliding and bearing are given in AASHTO 10.5, 11.5
Table 11.5.7-1. Resistance factors for passive pressure resistance are given
in AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.2-1. If an extreme event affects the wall, the
resistance factors shall be per AASHTO 11.5.8.
11.5.11 Collision with a Wall

AASHTO does not explicitly address how to design for collision load (CT) with
a wall or how the load is distributed. Conservatively, CT shall be applied at the
end of the wall unless the barrier does not extend to the end of the wall.
Figure 11-18 provides an example of the distribution. Assume that the
horizontal earth pressure is not activated due to the force of the collision
deflecting the wall away from the soil mass at the instant of collision.
For a Type 9 barrier, assume that the total lateral distribution will extend
horizontally for 3.5 ft. and then downward at 45° from the point of collision. The
length of distribution from impact force, Lt = 3.5 ft., for a TL4 rated barrier is
taken from AASHTO LRFD Table A13.2-1.
For collision with a Type 10 barrier (post and rail), distribute CT horizontally
between posts (3 maximum) and down from top of curb/wall to bottom of
footing at 45°. At the end of a wall, assume a horizontal distribution distance
from the edge distance to the first post plus one bay and then down at
45 percent.
Figure 11-18: Lateral Collision Distribution

The previously described method is fairly conservative and does not always
correlate with reality well since it assumes that reinforcing is similar vertically
and horizontally. Walls with barrier on top should generally be designed using
Chapter 13 of the AASHTO code as a very tall parapet which makes Lu a
function of the relative strength vertically and transversely. For barrier with steel
posts, the transferred load should be based on the capacity of the post as the
impact is typically shared between 3 and 6 posts.
The findings of NCHRP 22-20(2) and report 663 may be used to determine
equivalent static forces for sliding and overturning stability on MSE walls. For
CIP walls the load may be reduced as the section of interest goes below the
riding surface due to the increased mass and reaction time as more of the wall
is involved. These values can be tentatively used as 100% at the ground line,
33% at 6' below the load application and 0% at 9' below the load application.
These values are extrapolated from the data in 22-20(2) with the “6' below”
percentage reflecting the results for sleeper significant movement at the back
of the sleeper for TL3 and 4 crashes. The value of the 0% at 9' reflects the
depth at no movement for TL-5 crashes.
To mitigate the effects of live load collision with CIP or precast face panels, for
all walls that use face panels (e.g., caisson walls, soil nail walls, MSE Walls),
a void between soil mass (or caissons) and back face of the panel shall be
filled with granular material to the minimum height of 5 ft. above the roadway
surface. Wall panels shall be required to support their own weight in case of
impact damage that would allow the panel to slip below precast copings or clip
angles. Reinforcing spacing should be minimized on panels to limit projectile
size when impacted (6 in. max spacing). Welded wired fabric may be used in
addition to reinforcing to minimize projectile size.
11.5.12 Global and Compound Stability

The global stability and compound stability shall be per AASHTO and the AASHTO
Geotechnical Design Manual. Global stability of the wall depends on the footing 11.6.2.3
width and embedment.
The project Geotechnical Engineer shall evaluate global stability. Minimum

factors of safety for global stability shall meet the requirements of the
Geotechnical Design Manual and AASHTO. The Geotechnical Engineer shall
specify the minimum requirements to achieve the specified factors of safety
(e.g., minimum reinforced zone length for MSE walls, minimum soil nail length,
and configuration for soil nail walls).
Compound stability of MSE and soil nail walls will depend on the reinforcement
type, length, and spacing. Therefore, the wall designer shall provide the
required information to the project Geotechnical Engineer to evaluate the
compound stability (see Figure 11-19).

Figure 11-19: Global and Compound Failure Planes
11.5.13 Designer Responsibility for Walls

External stability addresses concerns with the stability of sliding masses AASHTO
defined by slip surfaces that pass outside the reinforced soil zone. The checks 11.6.2.3
required include global stability of the structure, determination of eccentricity
limits, sliding analysis, bearing capacity analysis of the foundation/supporting
soils, and settlement analysis. These checks shall be performed by the
Engineer of Record responsible for the design, whether that be the owner’s
representative, Geotechnical Engineer, Structural Engineer, or Vendor. If the
wall is a vendor design, the vendor’s Independent Design Engineer is
responsible for submitting stamped calculations showing the external stability
check for review.
Internal stability typically includes both pullout and rupture of the reinforcement.
Responsibility for this check includes wall system components, including facing
units, soil reinforcements, structural attachments, reinforcement connections
to the facing units, bearing pads, and joint covering filter fabrics. Design
responsibility shall fall on the engineer responsible for the design, whether that
be the owner’s representative, Geotechnical Engineer, Structural Engineer, or
Vendor.

Global stability, compound stability, and deep seated failure conditions are
closely related to external stability checks. It can be defined as the overall
stability of the wall and surrounding slopes and structures. It requires the
analysis of the surrounding circular slip surfaces. See Section 11.5.12 of this
BDM for global stability requirements.
The Project Engineer of Record is responsible for collecting and reviewing wall
submittals, which can include, but are not limited to, stamped calculations,
shop drawings, etc. During the shop review process, bearing pressure, strap
length and other minimum requirements from the worksheets shall be
reviewed. Separate contractor designs are required when not meeting
minimum requirements of the worksheets.
11.5.14 Designer Responsibility for Using MSE Wall Worksheets

CDOT MSE wall worksheets contain details such as vertical slip joints, coping,
leveling pad, end of wall treatment, waterproofing membrane with drainage,
and damage avoidance measures for improving wall and seismic performance.
These worksheet details are CDOT minimum requirements consistent with
MSE/GRS wall design criteria and policies. The Designer may provide
alternatives for approval by CDOT Unit Leader to some of these details as
identified in the worksheets and in Section 2.16.
Internal, external, and compounded stability are checked based on assumed

soil reinforcement shown on the wall worksheets. In addition to using the
worksheets, the Project Structural Engineer shall be responsible for site
geometry, soil conditions, slope stability checks, and construction sequencing.
For a GRS wall with only one specific grade of geotextile with a fixed spacing,
the Contractor’s selected supplier is only required to meet material certification
and shop drawings are not required.
Alternate contracting methods may alter Designer responsibility on a project-

specific basis. For example, if a project requires a complete MSE design
proposal by a Contractor or appropriate Subcontractor, the Contractor is
responsible for all elements of design, including reinforcement grade and
placing schedule, and will provide in stamped shop drawings. The
aforementioned damage avoidance details still apply.
11.5.15 Designer Responsibility for Using Soil Nail Wall Worksheets
Soil nail walls can either be designed by an in-house or consultant designer in
a Design-Bid-Build situation or provided using more of a "Design Build"
approach where the Contractor will design the wall based on project
requirements. The soil nail worksheets provide generic details for construction
as well a project example set. CDOT Geotechnical will typically design in-
house soil nail walls in coordination with Staff Bridge. At a minimum, the
Designer will provide the required wall alignment and determine the required
project requirements. Designer shall show proposed locations of verification
tests. Where geotechnical report shows varying strata or for very long walls,
more than the minimum of 2 tests should be shown.

11.5.16 Seismic Design Requirements

Seismic analysis for retaining walls is not required unless they are supporting AASHTO
a bridge abutment or liquefaction that will affect the foundation performance is 3.10.9.2,
anticipated. Section 3.13 of this BDM provides additional information on 11.6.5.6,
seismic design requirements. Current Staff Bridge Worksheets for MSE walls 4.7.4
use details for improved seismic performance, thus, if the worksheets are used,
AASHTO 11.10.7.4 can be waived.
11.6 DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS

Backfill material behind abutments and retaining walls shall be well drained AASHTO
and not allow water to collect. If this cannot be accomplished, the abutment 11.8.8,
and retaining walls should be designed for loads due to earth pressure plus 11.9.9,
11.10.8
hydraulic pressure due to water in the backfill. Class 1 backfill can have up to
20 percent fines and thus may not be classified as free draining. Design a drain
system if using a Class 1 backfill.
If the wall or abutment includes conditions or areas that promote the trapping
or intrusion of water, such as low point on a sag curve or a drainage inlet, the
Designer shall create details to address the issues that may occur. The
approach slab drain details used shall allow movement of the abutment while
noting that the approach slab drain does not move. Add water sealers,
waterproofing membranes, and protection details to the plans.
11.7 SHORING
Shoring is generally not designed by the EOR, but shall be designated in the
plans and indicate which shoring areas will require an independent review.
Areas that typically need review are those areas that support the roadway or
could cause a safety issue.
11.8 REFERENCES
FHWA, 2012, Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System Interim
Implementation Guide, Publication No. FHWA-HRT-11-026.
FHWA, 2015, Soil Nail Walls Reference Manual, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-
14-007.
NCHRP, Report 663: Design of Roadside Barrier Systems Placed on MSE

Retaining Walls.

SECTION 11: ABUTMENT, PIERS, AND RETAINING WALLS
APPENDIX 11A - WORKSHEETS FOR EARTH RETAINING WALL TYPE SELECTION

SECTION 11: ABUTMENT, PIERS, AND RETAINING WALLS 11A-1





SECTION 12: BURIED STRUCTURES AND TUNNEL LINERS 12-1
SECTION 12
BURIED STRUCTURES AND TUNNEL LINERS
This section covers the design of buried structures, including, but not limited
to, precast and cast-in-place concrete box culverts, wildlife crossings, tunnels,
and pipes.

Design shall be in accordance with AASHTO, unless modified herein.
Chapter 9 of the Drainage Design Manual shall be referenced for buried

structures that convey water.
12.3 GEOTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

All major structures, as defined in Part D of the Policies & Procedures section
of this BDM, require a geotechnical analysis. Minor structures may require a
geotechnical investigation when issues such as thrust blocks, large settlement,
and deep foundations affect the design.
12.4 CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS

12.4.1 Design Criteria
CIP and precast concrete box culverts (CBCs) and wingwalls shall be designed
according to the applicable M-Standard drawings and design criteria. Designs
not meeting the standard sizes, loadings, or conditions provided in the M-
Standard drawings require a site-specific design. Site-specific design is
generally required for non-standard box culvert spans or heights, CBCs with
top and/or bottom corner chamfers, live load surcharge greater than 2 ft., fill
heights or wearing surface thickness greater than those listed in the M-
Standards, wingwalls subject to live load surcharge, and headwalls subject to
live load impact, including transfer of live load impact into the top slab. A site-
specific design may provide significant cost savings, especially in the case of
long CBCs due to the conservative nature of the assumptions used to develop
the design tables.
Site-specific designs shall follow AASHTO standards and design criteria listed
in this section. Thrust (axial compression) shall be assumed to be zero for
design of CIP and precast culvert top and bottom slabs. Wingwalls shall be
monolithic and rigidly connected to concrete headwalls to reduce the possibility
of differential movement. The design of M standard M-601-20 is based on this
assumption of 2 way action. In the event that a non-rigid connection is allowed
by the unit leader, an independent wingwall design and check is required.
The limits of a CBC should be kept within CDOT right-of-way (ROW). If the end
of a culvert extends beyond the ROW, the Engineer shall provide inspection
access from within the ROW.

12.4.2 Loading
When designing non-standard CBCs, live load is applied as follows:
• For design of culvert walls and bottom slabs, only the design lane load
is applied.
• For design of culvert top slabs, only axle loads of the design truck or
design tandem are applied.
Apply live loads to both earth pressure cases shown in the M-Standard and as
described in AASHTO 3.11.7 and AASHTO C3.11.7. Note that, due to the 50
percent reduction in earth pressure, the minimum load factor need not be
applied to the 30 lb/ft3 horizontal earth pressure load case. Live load
distribution for various earth fills shall be per AASHTO 12.11.2.1. For CBC
designs using either M-Standard or site-specific method, the controlling fill
heights shall be shown on the plans. Designer shall consider live load on travel
lanes and shoulders and any future roadway expansion.
It is preferred that bottom slabs for non-standard designs be modeled as rigid,

not using soil springs, unless significant benefits can be demonstrated.
Thrust (axial compression) shall be assumed to be zero for design of CIP and
precast culvert top and bottom slabs. Applying thrust forces is inadvisable
when designing non-standard CBCs unless significant benefits can be
demonstrated. This criterion is consistent with CBC M-Standard and AASHTO
BrR rating software design methodology, and is conservative due to
unpredictable on-site foundation conditions and preparations. The Engineer
may consider the benefits of thrust forces in non-standard designs but shall
discuss its use in the Structure Selection Report and obtain approval from
CDOT Unit Leader in coordination with the Staff Bridge Manager of Policy and
Standards.
12.4.3 Replacement
Existing culverts under consideration for replacement, extension, or other
modifications shall be assessed as part of the Structure Selection Report. A
culvert that shows no visible distress but yields an operating rating factor less
than 1.0 when rated in accordance with the Bridge Rating Manual is not
necessarily a candidate for replacement; refer to Section 33 – Rehabilitation of
Structures of this BDM for additional information. Considerations for keeping
an existing culvert include the age and condition of the existing culvert
compared with the constructability and economy of a proposed replacement.
12.4.4 Stream Crossing

When designing non-standard CBCs, the Engineer shall consider both the
presence and absence of water to determine controlling force effects acting on
a CBC. Design water levels shall be in accordance with the maximum
headwater to depth ratios provided in Table 9.3 in the Drainage Design Manual,
unless otherwise directed by a Hydraulic Engineer. While required for design,
water loads may be excluded when performing load ratings.

If requested or recommended by CDOT Environmental, water slowing devices

may be required to assist upstream fish passage through culverts. Concrete
aprons shall be provided as recommended by a Hydraulic Engineer.
12.4.5 Pedestrian Crossing

Pedestrian underpasses shall be designed to remain dry by providing
waterproofing etc. and provide a clear line of sight through the underpass.
Precast and steel arch structures shall use seals between joints to prevent
water leaks. The Engineer shall reference the CDOT Lighting Design Guide for
lighting requirements. CDOT shall approve lighting plans designed by a
qualified lighting designer. The minimum opening provided for pedestrian
crossings and equestrian paths shall be 10 ft. high by 10 ft. wide.
12.5 WILDLIFE CROSSING

Open-span bridges and overpasses are CDOT’s preferred structure types for
wildlife crossings, followed by arch structures and, lastly, CBCs. For guidance,
refer to Wildlife Crossing Structure Handbook - Design and Evaluation in North
America (FHWA-CFL/TD-11-003, March 2011) and Safe Passage: Developing
Effective Highway Crossings for Carnivores and Other Wildlife by Bill Ruediger
(USDA Forest Service, 2007).
The Engineer shall coordinate with CDOT Environmental for guidance on

sizing arch structures and CBC crossings. Underpasses designed for deer and
elk should be a minimum of 13 ft. high by 23 ft. wide (see Figure 12-1), but
preferred dimensions may be greater than those minimums. Coordinate with
Environmental group for project specific requirements. If wildlife underpass
openings do not meet the minimum dimensions shown in Figure 12-1, a
variance is required unless approved by the Environmental group and
coordination is documented. All crossings shall provide a line of sight through
the structure, and the structure invert elevation shall be below existing grade
to maintain the natural path.
The design and layout of wildlife crossings shall include 8 ft. high game fencing
and escape ramps at a 3H:1V slope. Game fencing shall be installed between
the structure and roadway, rather than terminated at the wingwalls. Note that
nonstructural items, such as fencing, are typically the responsibility of the
Roadway design team and are included in Roadway bid items.

Figure 12-1: Minimum Deer and Elk Underpass Design Dimensions
12.6 TUNNELS
For tunnel design criteria, refer to AASHTO, Technical Manual for Design and
Construction of Roadway Tunnels – Civil Elements (FHWA-NHI-10-034),
NFPA 502: Standard for Road Tunnels, Bridges and Other Limited Access
Highway and AASHTO LRFD Road Tunnel Design and Construction
(LRFDTUN).
12.7 PIPES
For design of metal pipe, reinforced concrete pipe, corrugated polyethylene
pipe, PVC pipe, metal pipe arches, pipe headwalls and outlet paving, and
concrete and metal end sections, refer to the M-Standards.

SECTION 13: RAILINGS 13-1
SECTION 13
RAILINGS
This section will provide guidance on the selection, design, and construction
requirements for bridge railing. For pedestrian, bicycle, and safety railing
requirements, refer to Section 2.4 of this BDM and to AASHTO.
Traffic railings provide protection at the edges of traffic and pedestrian

structures and in median areas to prevent crossover collisions. In achieving
this function, the railing must have the strength to withstand the vehicular
impact and safely contain and redirect vehicles without snagging or
overturning.
CDOT Bridge Rail Type 9 and Type 10 MASH are provided by CDOT to meet
MASH 2016 Test Level 4 (TL-4) and in some cases TL-5 requirements. They
are to be used on all new and widened bridges, box culverts, and retaining
walls. M-Standard options such as inside mounted MGS rail on CBCs or MGS
rail a minimum of 3 feet away from wall faces are acceptable options but only
provide TL-3 protection. Other available or retired Colorado railing systems
shall be used only with approval from the State Bridge Engineer in coordination
with the bridge rail SMEs.
Any other proposed railing system shall be documented to be MASH compliant

by meeting the full-scale crash test criteria established in the most current
AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH), professional
evaluation by a crash test facility, comparative analysis to other crash test rails,
non-linear time dependent FEM analysis and/or analysis through AASHTO
LRFD Appendix A13 with the latest loads from crash testing research and
experience. The previous list is in order of preference. Due to the complicated
nature of crash and impact mechanics, the best evaluation of a bridge rail
system is a physical crash test. Transitions should be evaluated using the
same criteria.
AASHTO defines TL-4 as “taken to be generally acceptable for the majority of

applications on high speed highways, freeways, expressways and Interstate
highways with mixture of trucks and heavy vehicles.” For local agency projects
a test level lower than TL-4 may be accepted by CDOT Staff Bridge based on
design speed, ADT and other factors but any rail systems and transitions shall
still be MASH compliant for the selected test level. A variance/risk recognition
letter will be required from the local agency as well as attesting data supporting
the bridge rail selected (evaluation factors, test level etc.).
MASH testing involves utilizing vehicles with characteristics similar to, or more
critical than, 85% to 95% of vehicles of the type and speeds and angles of
incidence similar to, or more critical than, 85% to 95% of road departure
incidences. Actual crash conditions are at least partially random and chaotic
in behavior so design and testing does not assure benign behavior during all
crash incidents. Bridge rail design and evaluation should:

• Use best available methods (MASH criteria, current research, similarity

with Crash tested rails, professional evaluations, non-linear time
dependent FEM analysis, AASHTO Chapter 13).
• Use redundancy to protect from the unknown or occurrences beyond

assumptions. Prevent progressive collapse under realistic but rare
loads.
• Promote continuity in rail system
• Avoid obvious snag points or spearing issues
• Avoid transitions with markedly different stiffness
CDOT will monitor in-service behavior of rail types to identify flaws in design
or operation. Most fatalities associated with rail are due to rollovers or
“bouncing” out into thru traffic for another collision (vehicle interaction).
Deflection of a rail system reduces occupant injury potential and the tendency
for the vehicle to be thrown back into traffic, if without penetration or
“pocketing”. Looking at old bridge rails, abutments, and piers that previously
lacked motorist protection you will occasionally come across little crosses
painted or scratched into them. There is a reason that bridge rail ends were
called tombstones. CDOT will make any crash test results and evaluations of
current bridge rails available upon request.

The design of the railings shall be in accordance with AASHTO and MASH
criteria and follow current Staff Bridge Worksheets, when applicable.
13.2.1 AASHTO LRFD

Bridge railing test levels and crash criteria shall be in accordance with AASHTO
AASHTO
and MASH. The minimum test level shall be TL-4 for all new bridges, culverts, 13.7.2,
and retaining walls except as noted. Table 13.7.2-1
Railing design, including, but not limited to, height of traffic barrier or railing,
AASHTO
bicycle railing, pedestrian railing, and design live loads for pedestrian railings, Section 13
shall adhere to AASHTO and MASH evaluation criteria.
Railing geometry and anchorages shall be in accordance with AASHTO and AASHTO
MASH. Appendix A13
Traffic railing design forces for concrete railing and post and beam railing shall AASHTO
follow AASHTO and MASH criteria. A13.2,
A13.3.1,
Design calculations are not required to be performed for Type 9 and Type 10 A13.3.2
MASH bridge railings, provided they are not modified to affect performance
from the worksheet details.
13.2.2 AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH)

MASH is the state of practice for crash testing of safety hardware devices for
use on the NHS. It updates and replaces NCHRP Report 350 Recommended
Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features.

MASH presents uniform guidelines for crash testing permanent and temporary
highway safety features and recommends evaluation criteria to assess test
results.
• All new testing will follow MASH evaluation techniques.
• Guardrail hardware shall meet MASH requirements for replacement and
new installation.
• All new products must be tested using MASH crash test criteria for use
on the NHS.
MASH loads and evaluation are based on the most recent research and crash
testing and is typically more up to date than the AASHTO Chapter 13 analysis.
Below are the loads that should be used in any evaluation or analysis of
existing or new rails.
13.2.3 FHWA Bridge Rail Requirements

FHWA mandated all new bridges carrying traffic on the NHS to have crash
tested railing in accordance with MASH 2016
All projects on the NHS after December 31, 2019, shall be at least TL4 MASH
compliant bridge rail systems per CDOT requirements.
Existing bridge rails not meeting the above FHWA mandate should be
evaluated based on site and traffic conditions and the condition of the existing
railing. Rails that are too short or too weak for the appropriate TL level should
be replaced. For additional information about evaluation and rehabilitation of
existing bridge rail, refer to Section 2.4.1.1 of this BDM.

13.3 CDOT BRIDGE RAILS

The region typically selects the rail type, which shall be documented in the
Structure Selection Report. Corridor requirements, aesthetics, hydraulics,
environmental concerns, maintenance, snow removal, and railroad crossings
shall be used in the selection. The use of weathering steel is not allowed for
bridge railing. Galvanizing of steel portions of a bridge rail is the minimum
standard required. In cases where the steel portion of the bridge rail is to be
painted for aesthetic or other reasons, it must be done in addition to galvanizing
using a duplex coating system. Details for Rail Type 9 and 10MASH can be
found in the Staff Bridge Worksheets and Section 2.4 of this BDM. Bridge Rail
Types 3, 4, 7, 8 and 10 have been retired but are prevalent on CDOT’s
roadways and should be used only for rehabilitation of the existing railing.
Details can be obtained from Staff Bridge if not on the website. The following
railings are available for use.
13.3.1 Type 3 (Retired)

Bridge Rail Type 3 is composed of continuous steel W shape attached to steel
posts. The posts can be mounted on a bridge deck, a concrete box culvert top
slab or headwall, or the top of a retaining wall. It should be used only for a
railing repair of an existing bridge that has Type 3 on it. This railing shall not
be used on CDOT structures without prior approval from State Bridge Engineer
in coordination with the Bridge Rail SMEs. Due to primarily height issues, Type
3 bridge rail is most likely TL-2 or below and may need to be replaced or
modified as safety funding allows.

Bridge Rail Type 4 is a reinforced concrete barrier with a sloped front face.
This type of barrier is not allowed for use on new bridges or as part of rail
replacement rehabilitation projects. This rail, however, remains in service on
several existing bridges and may require repair if damaged. Details for Type 4
barrier are not in the Staff Bridge Worksheets but can be obtained from Staff
Bridge upon request. Due to primarily height issues, Type 4 bridge rail is most
likely TL-3 or below and may need to be replaced or modified as safety funding
allows.

Bridge Rail Type 7 (F-shape) is a reinforced concrete barrier with a sloped
front face. This type of barrier is no longer allowed for use on new bridges or
as part of rail replacement rehabilitation projects. This rail, however, remains
in service on several existing bridges and may require repair if damaged.
Details for Type 7 barrier are not in the Staff Bridge Worksheets but can be
obtained from Staff Bridge upon request. Due to primarily height issues, Type
7 bridge rail is TL-3 or below and may need to be replaced or modified as
safety funding allows.

Bridge Rail Type 8 is composed of a continuous horizontal steel tube attached
to steel tube posts. The posts are mounted on a reinforced concrete curb
anchored to the bridge deck. Use of this railing originated during the

construction of the I-70 corridor through Glenwood Canyon. For aesthetic

reasons, use of this rail may be allowed for repairs. This railing shall not be
used on new CDOT structures without prior approval from State Bridge
Engineer in coordination with the Bridge Rail SMEs. It is classified as a TL-2
railing by NCHRP 350 although a recent crash test article passed a TL-3 crash
test. Due to primarily height issues, Type 8 bridge rail is TL-3 or below and
may need to be replaced or modified as safety funding allows.
13.3.5 Type 8R MASH

Bridge Rail Type 8R MASH is composed of a continuous horizontal steel tube
attached to steel tube posts. The posts are mounted on an existing reinforced
concrete curb anchored to the bridge deck. This rail is intended for retrofits or
rehabilitation of existing Type 8 rail (primarily in Glenwood Canyon) and is
crash tested to a TL-3 level.

Bridge Rail Type 10 is composed of two continuous horizontal steel tubes
attached to steel W shape posts on top of a concrete curb. This type of barrier
is no longer allowed for use on new bridges or as part of rail replacement
rehabilitation projects. This rail, however, remains in service on several existing
bridges and may require repair if damaged. Details for Type 10 barrier are not
in the Staff Bridge Worksheets but can be obtained from Staff Bridge upon
request. Due to primarily height issues, Type 10 bridge rail is TL-3 or below
and may need to be replaced or modified as safety funding allows. The Type
10 bridge rail with 12’-6” spacing is weaker than the 10’-0” spacing.
13.3.7 Type 9
Bridge Rail Type 9 (Single Slope) is a reinforced concrete barrier with a sloped
front face. This bridge rail meets MASH requirements for TL-4 and in some
cases TL-5. This bridge rail can be mounted to a bridge deck, to a
moment/gravity slab, or on top of cast-in-place retaining walls. CDOT requires
the use of Bridge Rail Type 9 or Type 10 MASH on all new and rehabilitated
bridges, concrete box culverts, and retaining walls. To maximize splash
protection and allow easier installation of protection panels, this is generally
the required railing for bridges over railroads.
13.3.8 Type 10 MASH

Bridge Rail Type 10 MASH is composed of two continuous horizontal steel
tubes attached to steel W shape posts on top of a concrete curb. Type 10
MASH rails meet AASHTO and MASH TL-4 requirements and in some cases
TL-5. CDOT requires the use of Bridge Rail Type 10 MASH or 9 on all new and
rehabilitated bridges, concrete box culverts, and retaining walls. Because of
splash and railroad requirements, this rail may not be allowed for bridges over
railroads without additional features.
13.4 COMBINATION VEHICULAR PEDESTRIAN RAILS

Combination vehicular pedestrian railings shall be used at the edge of deck AASHTO
when the sidewalk is not protected from traffic. If the sidewalk is protected from 13.10
traffic, the edge of deck shall protect the pedestrians with a fence or another

combination railing. Combination vehicular and pedestrian railing shall meet

AASHTO requirements. Galvanizing of steel portions of rail is the minimum
standard required. In cases where the steel portion of the bridge rail is to be
painted for aesthetic or other reasons, it must be done in addition to
galvanizing using a duplex coating system.
13.5 PIER AND RETAINING WALL PROTECTION

13.5.1 Pier Protection
Piers or abutments located inside the clear zone, as defined by AASHTO AASHTO
Roadway Design Guidelines, and not designed to resist the vehicular collision 3.6.5.1,
force (CT) shall be protected with a TL-5 rated barrier, approved by the State Section 13
Bridge Engineer in coordination with the Bridge Rail SMEs, that meets
AASHTO and MASH crash test requirements. Because CDOT does not have
an approved TL-5 barrier, the Designer may submit a crash tested TL-5 barrier
from another state to State Bridge Engineer and Bridge Rail SMEs for review
and possible acceptance. The submittal shall include all documentation
showing conformance to current criteria outlined in AASHTO, MASH, this
BDM, and FHWA acceptance. If a TL-5 barrier is not used as pier protection,
the pier shall be designed to resist the CT load in accordance with AASHTO.
For piers located inside the clear zone and designed for the CT force, the
Designer shall consult the CDOT Project Manager to determine if safety
protection is still desired.
Clear zone to the pier shall be determined at the ultimate configuration of the
roadway adjacent to the pier. It shall consider all anticipated widenings.
13.5.2 Retaining Wall Protection

When a retaining wall front face is located within the clear zone or when
requested by the region, it shall be protected by a barrier. See Section 11.5.11
of this BDM for details.
13.5.3 Sound Barriers

Sound barriers within the clear zone shall meet AASHTO collision AASHTO
15.8.4
requirements. The Designer shall coordinate with the region and roadway
engineer to determine the type of protection and setback. If the sound barrier
is outside the clear zone, it does not need to be designed for collision.
13.5.4 Rail Anchor Slabs

Bridge rails are often required on retaining walls, culverts, and or other
structural systems. Due to the significant loads associated with vehicular
impact, railings can be connected to an independent structural foundation
called a rail anchor slab. The Designer shall evaluate the cost difference
between mounting the barrier directly to the structure or using a rail anchor
slab.
To avoid excessive damage from an impact, expansion joint material or other

type of separator shall be installed between the nose of the anchor slab and
the wall facing below. The Designer shall evaluate vertical and lateral loads

that may be transferred from the anchor slab to the wall element below during
a vehicular impact.
When a rail anchor slab is required to be designed, the Designer shall use the
recommended design procedures from NCHRP Report 663 and outlined in the
BDM Example 12, Moment Slab Design. For anchor slab details on MSE walls,
the Designer should reference the Staff Bridge Worksheets for MSE walls.
13.6 ATTACHMENTS TO BRIDGE RAIL SYSTEMS

During collisions with barrier systems, it has been shown that vehicles slide
along the top of the barrier and that parts of the vehicle extend over the barrier
a considerable distance. This envelope of the vehicle encroaching beyond the
barrier is known as the zone of intrusion. Attachments to barrier systems within
the zone of intrusion, such as fencing, signs, and light poles, should address
safety concerns such as snagging, spearing, and debris falling into traffic
below. If attachments are used, they should be placed a minimum of 1 ft.
behind the front face of rail. The Designer should minimize any attachments to
the railing system within this zone whenever possible. Whenever possible, light
poles should be located behind the back face of the barrier.
13.7 AESTHETIC TREATMENTS TO BRIDGE RAIL SYSTEMS

Except for color treatments, aesthetic enhancements shall not be applied to
the traffic face of the barrier systems. Applying aesthetic enhancements to this
face increases the likelihood of vehicle snagging and damage caused by
snowplows, thereby increasing maintenance costs, and decreasing traveler
safety.
13.8 RAILING ATTACHMENT TO HEADWALLS

If a railing is attached to a headwall on a culvert, the Designer shall analyze
the structure for collision loading. Headwall mounted barriers are required only
if they are within the clear zone and not protected with a roadway barrier.

SECTION 14: JOINTS AND BEARINGS 14-1
SECTION 14
JOINTS AND BEARINGS
Joint and bearing systems shall be designed to accommodate all calculated
movements and loading expected throughout the life of the bridge. Joints and
bearings shall also be designed to accommodate regular maintenance activities
that will prolong the life of these devices.
Unless otherwise noted, the design of joints and bearings shall be in accordance
with the latest AASHTO, as supplemented by the AASHTO Guide Specifications
for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, where applicable.
AASHTO
Long-term concrete properties, including creep and shrinkage strains, shall be
determined in accordance with AASHTO. 5.4.2.3.1
14.3 UNIFORM TEMPERATURE MOVEMENT

Bridges are subject to heat transfer from the ambient air temperature and radiant
heat from direct sunlight. Bridges of different structure types react at different
rates, with concrete structures reacting more slowly due to a larger thermal mass
than that of steel structures, making them less susceptible to large temperature
swings over a short amount of time.
Variations in the average temperature of the bridge superstructure result in
thermal expansion and contraction. Maximum and minimum anticipated
temperatures over the life of the structure shall be used for design.
Temperature ranges for either Procedure A or B (preferred) may be used for
structures designed in accordance with AASHTO 3.12.2, along with the
appropriate load factors provided in AASHTO Table 3.4.1-1. Temperature
gradient may be considered where appropriate in accordance with AASHTO
3.12.3.
14.4 EXPANSION JOINTS
14.4.1 General
Bridges shall be capable of accommodating movements, rotations, and
deformations imposed on the structure through temperature changes, concrete
creep and shrinkage, and shortening due to applied loading. Expansion joints
shall also accommodate both bridge skew and curvature and have adequate
maintenance access.
Other possible sources of joint movement and rotation include, but are not limited
to, live load (such as braking), wind, seismic loads, and settlement. Movements
from these force effects vary based on code requirements, bridge configuration,
and the complexity of the bridge and shall be considered as appropriate.
Expansion joint devices shall prevent water, deicing chemicals, and debris
infiltration to the substructure elements below. Expansion joints shall also provide

a relatively smooth riding surface between approach pavements and the

structure, or adjacent structural elements.
The Designer is responsible for giving adequate thought to the type, size, and
performance of the selected expansion joint system to ensure that the
appropriate system is used on the structure.
When the skew angle is greater than or equal to 30o, the Designer shall consider
placing the expansion joint normal to the roadway alignment to prevent snowplow
damage.
Due to maintenance concerns with expansion joints, it is preferred to implement

jointless construction wherever possible. Jointless construction uses integral or
semi-integral abutments and piers to eliminate expansion joints on the bridge
superstructure. A joint at the end of the approach slab shall be used to
accommodate movement and to prevent damage to the roadway pavement as
defined in 14.4.2.
Refer to BDM Section 11.3 for additional information on integral abutments and
approach slab requirements.
14.4.2 Design Guidelines and Selection

The need for an expansion joint will be determined based on the amount of bridge
movement (determined from design) and roadway approach type. Bridges with
total temperature movement (expansion plus contraction) of ¾ in. (which typically
corresponds to a bridge length of about 150 ft.) or less are not required to have
expansion joints at substructure locations or at the ends of approach slabs,
unless the roadway approach is concrete pavement. When the roadway
approach is concrete pavement, an expansion device shall be required between
the end of the approach slab and the roadway approach despite the amount of
bridge movement in order to deal with the concrete pavement growth, unless
approved by CDOT Unit Leader in coordination with the Expansion Joint SMEs.
In lieu of a strip seal joint, a silicone seal joint or compression seal joint may be
used between the end of the approach slab and the roadway.
For non-complex straight bridges with no skew, the total movement shall be
determined by using AASHTO 3.12.2 and 14.5.3.2. For complex bridges,
movement calculation shall include consideration for superstructure type,
contributing length, structure curvature, construction phasing, fixity condition
between superstructure and substructure, superstructure rotations, and
substructure stiffness. Skews, horizontal and vertical alignment, grade, and cross
slopes shall be considered when selecting and designing a joint system. This can
be accomplished by finite element analysis, modeling soil as springs, calculating
depth of fixity based on soil/structure interaction analysis, etc.
Wherever practical, expansion devices shall be installed in preformed concrete

block-outs after completion of the bridge deck. The installed expansion gap shall
correspond to the ambient temperature at the time headers are placed. The plan
sheets shall include installation gaps sizes and corresponding temperatures for
the range recommended by the manufacturer.

14.4.3 Small Movement Joints

Small movement joints are not recommended when total movement is greater
than 2 in. The total movement shall be determined in accordance with
AASHTO 14.5.3.2. These joint systems shall not be used for new construction
on Interstate Highways or State Highways without CDOT Unit Leader in
coordination with Expansion Joint SMEs approval.
Asphaltic Plug
Asphaltic plug joints consist of modified asphalt installed in a preformed block-
out over a steel plate and backer bar. These joints provide a smooth riding
surface that is built to match the adjacent roadway.
Due to observed creep and poor expansion performance of these joints, CDOT
does not recommend asphaltic plug joints on Interstate Highways, State
Highways with high traffic counts, or roadways with heavy trucks. Therefore, use
of asphaltic plug joints requires approval from CDOT Unit Leader in coordination
with Expansion Joint SMEs approval.
Silicone Seals
Silicone seals are flexible, poured sealants designed to provide a watertight
expansion joint seal in both new and rehabilitation projects. Silicone sealants
allow good elastic performance over a range of temperatures; provide self-
leveling installations; can be installed against non-parallel surfaces; and bond
without the use of additional adhesives.
Silicone seals shall be considered for rehabilitation projects where long-term

closures are not acceptable or where rehabilitation on the joint header is not
possible, thereby eliminating compression seals as a viable option.
Silicone seals shall be installed such that the maximum tension movement is no
more than 100 percent of the install width and the compression movement does
not exceed 50 percent of the install width. Silicone seals shall be installed a
minimum of ¼ in. below the pavement surface to minimize contact with crossing
tires.
Installation gaps shall not be less than 1 in. at 60o F.
Figure 14-1: Silicone Seal

Compression Seals – Elastomeric or Foam

Compression seals are continuous manufactured elastomeric or foam elements,
typically extruded with an internal grid system. These joints shall be installed
against prepared concrete or steel faces with adhesive material and may or may
not be armored.
Foam elements shall be comprise of a precompressed, silicone and foam hybrid

system. Generally, foam joint systems come in stick lengths between 6 and 7
feet and are installed into field-applied epoxy adhesive on the joint faces. The
sticks are easily joined in the field with silicone to accommodate the total gap
length. Additional silicone sealant bands are applied to the joint faces and are
tooled to a cove-bead to provide a watertight seal.
Elastomeric compression seals shall be furnished and installed as a single

continuous piece across the full width of the bridge deck. Field splices are not
allowed. Termination in median barriers is recommended on wide bridges.
The maximum gap shall not exceed 2 in. at -30o F to prevent damage from debris
and wheel loads.
Compression seals are not allowed on bridges with skew angles exceeding 15o.
This is due to past performance and improper joint sizing to accommodate the
transverse movement component.
Figure 14-2: Compression Seal - Elastomeric

Figure 14-3: Compression Seal - Foam

Saw-Seal Joint
A saw-seal joint shall be placed in the top of asphalt and polyester polymer
concrete (PPC) overlays when expansion joints are not used at the following
locations:
• Interface between the bridge deck and approach slab

• Interface between the approach slab and roadway approach pavement
Saw-seal joints control cracking in the overlays and reduce potholes, which
increase the likelihood of water intrusion in the deck.
14.4.4 Strip Seals

Strip seal systems consist of a preformed neoprene gland mechanically locked
into steel edge rails embedded into concrete on both sides of an expansion gap.
Strip seal joints provide a cost-effective joint system that allows easy neoprene
gland replacement when needed.
The use of epoxy bonded strip seal joint systems is not allowed on new
construction.
Strip seal steel rail components shall be installed as one continuous length where
possible due to maintenance concerns. It is preferred to have the steel rail
component of the strip seal be supplied in as long of pieces as possible based
on phasing and slope changes to minimize the number of field splices. Horizontal
angle changes in the expansion joint exceeding 35o shall be avoided so that the
factory requirement of vulcanizing the strip seal corners is not necessary.
Strip seal neoprene glands shall be installed as one continuous length to provide
a watertight joint sealing system.

Strip seals are the preferred joint alternative for bridge lengths greater than 250 ft.
because they have proven to provide the best long-term performance. Strip seals
shall be used for all new construction where the total joint movements are
expected to be 4 in. or less and the skew is less than or equal to 25o. For joints
between ¾ to 2” of movement, small movement joints may be used with CDOT
Unit Leader’s approval in coordination with Expansion joint SMEs. If the skew is
greater than 25o, oversized glands shall be considered subject to the conditions
below.
CDOT Unit Leader in coordination with Expansion Joint SMEs will approve the
use of oversized glands, but oversized glands may be considered under the
following conditions:
• Total factored joint movement does not exceed 5 in.
• Factored cyclical (Thermal) joint movement does not exceed 3.5 in.
• Modular joints are not practical due to joint lead time during construction.
• Use of oversized glands allows the bridge to require joints at the ends of
approach slabs only.
Due to life-cycle maintenance costs with oversized glands in comparison to

modular joints, the use of oversized glands shall not be made based solely on
initial construction cost alone but also consider the durability of the joints.
Evaluate on a case-by-case basis.
Appendix A contains a design example for a strip seal expansion.
14.4.5 Modular Joints

Modular joints are complex structural assemblies that consist of multiple pre-
molded neoprene strip seals held into place by separate extruded steel beams.
These joints are designed for movements greater than 4 in. The use of modular
joints should be avoided by designing multiple strip seals if possible. For new
bridges, use of modular joints needs Unit Leader approval. Modular joints shall
not be placed at either end of approach slabs due to maintenance and inspection
concerns.
Modular joints shall be designed by the manufacturer to the latest AASHTO

requirements for fatigue and fracture. The Contractor shall submit to the Engineer
of Record calculations signed and sealed by a Colorado Professional Engineer,
along with the shop drawing, for review and acceptance l prior to fabrication. The
Designer shall be responsible for ensuring this requirement is in the project
specifications.
Modular joints shall be specified in 3 in. increments, with 6 in. being the minimum.
In addition to thermal movements determining the size of joints, manufacturers
have gap requirements that may increase the size of the required joint. For
example, a 0 in. to 9 in. joint may be required where movement indicates that a
0 in. to 6 in. joint is feasible. The Designer shall check manufacturer's
requirements before final sizing.

Modular expansion joints shall be installed as one continuous unit due to

maintenance and manufacturer concerns. Field splicing of modular joints is not
allowed without CDOT Unit Leader in coordination with Expansion Joint SMEs
approval. Where field splicing is required, all splices shall be fully welded or
hybrid welded/bolted splices. Fully bolted splices are not allowed.
14.4.6 Finger Joints

Finger joints can be used to accommodate moderate to high movement ranges.
Finger joints can also accommodate minor rotations and vertical displacements
across the joint. Finger joints are fabricated from steel plate, with the fingers sized
to maintain minimum spacing and to minimize live load deflections. Fabricated
sections shall be less than or equal to 6 ft. to allow maintenance access. A taper
shall be fabricated on each finger to ease the transition between plates and to
minimize the potential for snowplow damage.
To provide a watertight seal, finger joints require the installation of an elastomeric

or metal trough to capture water and convey it away from the substructure.
Without proper and routine maintenance, these trough systems clog and lead to
water damage to the joint and substructure below. For this reason, finger joints
shall be limited to replacement of existing finger joint expansion devices only.
14.4.7 Cover Plates

Sidewalk Cover Plates
Expansion joints shall be extended across all sidewalks and into the bridge rail.
Accessible sidewalks shall have expansion joints covered with Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant cover plates. Cover plates may be fabricated or
proprietary but shall comply with the latest ADA requirements. ADA compliant
expansion joints installed at the top of the sidewalk shall not have cover plates.
Cover plates shall not protrude above the walking surface by more than ½ in. and
shall be installed flush with the walking surface whenever possible. Where cover
plates protrude more than ¼ in. above the walking surface, a 2:1 edge taper shall
be provided.
Cover plates shall have an anti-slip surface treatment such as treads and
roughened surfaces. These surfaces shall be galvanized.
Bridge Rail Cover Plates

Bridge Rail and bridge rail curbs shall have removable steel cover plates to
provide continuity of the bridge rail over the expansion joint and to protect the
expansion joint embedded in the bridge rail. See the CDOT Staff Bridge
Structural Worksheets for bridge rail for cover plate details.
14.4.8 Joint Headers

Expansion joint headers shall be the same material as the bridge deck or better
products approved by the CDOT Unit Leader in coordination with the Expansion
Joint SMEs. They shall be installed ¼ in. above the top of the expansion system
and even with the final roadway surface.

When using modular joints or replacing finger joints, the Engineer of Record shall
be responsible for ensuring that the provided block-out can accommodate the
specified joint system, regardless of manufacturer.
The use of accelerated mix designs and bagged mixes is allowed per the
requirements of Concrete Class DR.
14.4.9 Expansion Joint Details

CDOT Staff Bridge provides Structural Worksheets for 0 to 4 in. expansion joints,
modular expansion joints, and asphaltic plug joints.
14.5 BEARINGS
14.5.1 General
Bridge bearings transfer permanent and transient loads from the bridge
superstructure to the substructure. These loads can be vertical (e.g., dead load
or live load) and horizontal (e.g., wind, braking, or seismic). Bearings shall also
accommodate anticipated movements (e.g., thermal/creep/shrinkage) and
rotations. When bearings and expansion joints are collocated, movements
allowed by bearings shall be accommodated by adjacent expansion joint
systems, which requires that bearings and expansion joints be designed
interdependently and in conjunction with the anticipated behavior of the overall
structure.
Several bearing types are available that can achieve the above requirements,
including elastomeric bearings (plain and reinforced); polytetrafluoroethylene
(PTFE) sliding bearings; and High-Load Multi-Rotational (HLMR) bearings (pot,
spherical, and disc bearings). Each bearing type differs in regard to vertical and
horizontal load carrying capacity, displacement capacity, and rotational capacity.
Understanding the properties of each bearing system is critical for economical
selection of bearing systems or the elimination of bearings in favor of integral
connections of the superstructure to the substructure.
14.5.2 Design Guidelines and Selection

Where bearings are required, the following bearings shall be used unless
otherwise approved by CDOT Unit Leader in coordination with the Bearing SMEs
through the Structure Selection Report process:
• CDOT Type I (plain or steel reinforced elastomeric bearing pads)
• CDOT Type II (PTFE sliding elastomeric bearings)
• CDOT Type III (pot or disc bearings)
• CDOT Type IV (rocker plate with elastomeric pad)
• CDOT Type V (rocker plate with PTFE)
All bearings shall be the same size and type at each substructure unit. This is
due to potential damage from differing deflection and rotational characteristics.
Bridge superstructure units (e.g., superstructure limits between expansion joints)
requiring Type III bearings shall use Type III bearings for the entire superstructure

unit except where the superstructure is integrally connected to the substructure

(e.g., integral abutments and fixed piers with integral pier diaphragms).
14.5.3 Thermal Movement

All bridges with bearings shall be designed for a thermal movement range
determined in accordance with AASHTO 3.12.2 and factored using AASHTO
Table 3.4.1-1, plus the effects of creep, shrinkage, and post-tensioning, if
applicable. When designing the elastomer for Type I and Type II bearings, the
65 percent reduction of the design thermal movement range shall not be used.
This allows the bridge to be constructed on the hottest day of the year without
having to reset the bearings after construction is complete.
When the erection temperature of the bridge is known or if a special provision to

verify/adjust the position of the bearings after the completion of the bridge is AASHTO
included in the construction specifications, the application of the 65 percent 14.7.5.3.2
reduction in the design thermal movement may be used.
14.5.4 Additional Rotation Requirements

CDOT follows the AASHTO requirement that adds a tolerance of 0.005 rad. to
the calculated rotations of the structure to account for uncertainties in the AASHTO
fabrication and placement of the bearings. Section 512.11 of CDOT’s Standard 14.4.2
Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction provides a flatness tolerance for
the bearing seat location, which is included in this tolerance.
14.5.5 Design Coefficient of Friction Requirements

PTFE sliding surfaces can be effective in reducing the friction coefficient between
the bearing and the sliding surface. When the temperature is cold, the coefficient
of friction can increase dramatically. CDOT uses a range of friction values in the AASHTO
design of bridges to cover the variations in the coefficient of friction that the Table
structure may see during its life. A minimum coefficient of friction shall be 0.02, 14.7.2.5-1
and the maximum coefficient of friction shall be taken from AASHTO. The
maximum coefficient of friction shall be based on the Dead Load only case for
determining the compressive stress on the PTFE.
14.5.6 Bearing Inspection and Removal

All bridges shall be designed such that the bearings can be inspected, and if
necessary, the bearings can be removed without special tools. Normal girder
construction typically provides access to the bearings from both the front and the
sides of the bearings. These access locations shall be kept clear whenever
possible. Cast-in-place concrete box girder bridges are the hardest to inspect and
replace the bearings. Pedestals for bearings shall be used whenever practical.
The bridge plans shall provide all structural elements necessary to jack and
support the bridge for bearing replacement. This may consist of a block-out in the
superstructure diaphragm, corbels, or steel jacking brackets bolted to the
substructure. The design of the jacking system shall be based on using either
50-ton or 100-ton jacks, which are commonly used in Colorado. The minimum
size of 50-ton jacks is 6 in. high by 8 in. in diameter. The minimum size of
100-ton jacks is 8 in. high by 10 in. in diameter. Designing for these sizes ensures
that most jacks that differ from these sizes will still fit the designed structural

element supporting the jack. Only one size of jack shall be used at each
substructure location. If multiple jacks are required or a jacking block-out in the
diaphragm is used, an additional 3 in. horizontally shall be provided for the
hydraulic jack hoses. Bearings shall be designed to be removed with a jacking
height of ¼ in. or less. Other commonly used and available jacks with reduced
height requirements may be used with CDOT Unit Leader in coordination with
the Fabrication/Construction Unit approval.
Jacking the bridge under live load is not permitted without CDOT Unit Leader in
coordination with the State Bridge Engineer and Fabrication/Construction Unit
approval. Live load may be placed on the bridge provided that temporary blocking
is in place or the jacks are securely locked out. The substructure plans shall state
this policy and show the Service Loads for Dead Load, Live Load, and Live Load
plus Dynamic Load Allowance.
14.5.7 Leveling Pads

Leveling pads are plain elastomeric pads used for locked-in-girders at integral
substructures and shall be thick enough to prevent girder-to-support contact due AASHTO
to anticipated girder rotations up through and including the deck pour. Leveling 14.7.6
pads shall be designed for dead loads only using AASHTO Design Method A.
Rotation restrictions other than preventing girder-to-support contact shall not be
considered. Compressive stress and stability during construction shall be
checked in accordance with BDM Section 5.5.1.2. A Shore A durometer hardness
of 60 shall be used in the design. Normally these pads are ½ in. thick and may
be up to 1 in. thick.
Appendix A includes a leveling pad design example.
14.5.8 Type I Bearings

Type I bearings that are plain pads may be designed using AASHTO Design
Method A. The minimum Shore A hardness shall be 60 durometer.
AASHTO
Type I bearings that are steel reinforced elastomeric pads shall be designed
14.7.5
using AASHTO Design Method B. If approved by CDOT Unit Leader in
coordination with the Bearing SMEs, AASHTO Design Method A may be used
for light to moderately loaded steel reinforced elastomeric bearings if determined
to be more economical based on eliminating the testing and quality control costs
required for AASHTO Design Method B. The minimum low-temperature grade of
elastomer shall be Grade 3.
The minimum bearing height shall be 2 in. to facilitate inspection and removal of
the bearing. The bearing height shall be limited to 6 in. based on constructability
and cost-effectiveness.
Appendix A includes reinforced Type I Bearing design examples.

14.5.9 Type II Bearings

A Type II bearing is a Type I bearing with a bonded PTFE surface with a stainless
steel mating surface to provide the necessary horizontal displacement capacity AASHTO
for the bridge. The elastomeric portion of the bearing shall meet the requirements 14.7.2
of a Type I bearing. The sliding surfaces shall meet AASHTO requirements.
The Structural Design Engineer shall verify that the stiffness of the elastomeric AASHTO
pad is sufficient to enable the sliding surface to engage without excessive pad 14.7.5.3.2
deflection.
Appendix A includes a Type II bearing design example.
14.5.10 Type III Bearings

Type III bearings shall consist of HLMR bearings and are a special design for AASHTO
each bridge. These bearings shall follow the AASHTO specifications for pot 14.7.4 &
bearings and disc bearings. Disc bearings are preferred to pot bearings. 14.7.8
The minimum bearing height shall accommodate minimum jacking spacing
required for the readily available jacks. This requirement is applicable to any
other bearing type that is desired to be replaceable or reparable.
14.5.11 Type IV & V Bearings

Type IV and V Bearings consist of rocker plates on top of elastomeric pads with
and without sliding surfaces. These bearings are not typically used but may be
an option.
14.5.12 Bearing Details

CDOT Staff Bridge provides Structural Worksheets for Type I, II, III, IV, and V
bearings.
All bearings shall be installed on a level concrete surface. In the direction of

movement, the minimum length of the concrete surface (beam seat) shall be the
maximum of the following:
• The dimension of the bearing in the direction of consideration, plus
50 percent of the maximum horizontal displacement (∆o) on each side, or
50 percent of the minimum longitudinal plan dimension of the bearing,
whichever is greater
• The minimum support length for the seismic design requirements of
AASHTO 4.7.4.4
The size of the level concrete surface is to provide the ability to adjust the position
of the bearing in the future and to provide adequate beam seat width for seismic
displacement. CDOT Unit Leader shall review all deviations from the
aforementioned seat width requirements, such as a narrower beam seat with a
recessed bearing.
The plans shall clearly show the orientation of guided bearings along the bent
line.

Sole plates and masonry plates shall be a minimum of ¾ in. thick at the edges of
the plate.
Sole plates and bearing top plates shall be oversized 2 in. longitudinally (1 in. in
each direction) to accommodate construction tolerances.
Because Type III bearings are dependent on the manufacturer of the bearing,
they are generally shown schematically on design drawings. The Structural
Design Engineer shall be responsible for coordinating with bearing suppliers
and/or manufacturers when Type III bearings are required.
If slotted holes are needed in bearing top plates for anchor bolts in the direction
of structure movement, they shall be sized for the maximum horizontal
displacement (∆o). Slots shall be oversized a minimum of 1 in. (½ in. in each
direction) or 1 anchor bolt diameter, whichever is greater.
Anchor bolts in sole plates may be omitted if an alternate transverse restraint is

provided. Sole plates without anchor bolts shall be a minimum of 2 in. wider than
the bearing device or the girder to accommodate construction tolerances.
14.6 SHOP DRAWINGS

The Structural Design Engineer shall review shop drawings for all fabricated bearing
and joint elements. Particular attention shall be paid to Type II and Type III bearings
and modular expansion joints. The Contractor performing the work shall submit
modular joint calculations. Working drawings for 0 in. to 4 in. expansion joints shall
be reviewed as time allows to avoid possible construction issues. In addition,
compatibility between the bearings and the joint elements shall be checked. The
Structural Design Engineer shall be responsible for reviewing calculations submitted
with the shop drawings. The review verifies that calculations, shop drawings, and
design drawings are compatible and in compliance with AASHTO and the BDM.

SECTION 15: DESIGN OF SOUND BARRIERS 15-1
SECTION 15
DESIGN OF SOUND BARRIERS
This section provides guidance for the design of sound or noise barriers.
AASHTO and CDOT pay items refer to sound barriers while FHWA typically
refers to noise barriers. The terms should be considered interchangeable
although noise wall is preferred and used throughout this Design Manual,
inspection reports, and APL lists.

This section of the BDM supplements AASHTO Section 15.
AASHTO generally concerns itself with the structural design requirements for
noise barriers while FHWA Noise Barrier Design Handbook deals with the
noise reduction properties of the wall.
15.3 AESTHETICS
A typical CDOT noise barrier consists of a concrete panel mounted on concrete
or steel posts. Refer to Section 2.3.3 of this BDM for acceptable concrete
aesthetic treatments.
Wood is not allowed because of past experience with durability issues. Staff
Bridge will consider other materials and designs if design criteria are met.
15.4 LOADS
AASHTO 3.8
Wind loads shall be in accordance with AASHTO. When a noise barrier is in & Figure
Colorado’s special wind region, use the Partial Special Wind Region Map in 3.8.1.1.2-1
Section 32 of this BDM to determine wind speed.
Vehicle collision forces need not be considered for the following cases: AASHTO
15.8.4
• Noise barriers located beyond the acceptable clear zone.
• Noise barrier/rail systems within the clear zone that have been
successfully crash tested.
• Noise barriers behind a crashworthy traffic railing with a setback greater
than 4 ft. The Designer should make every effort to achieve a minimum
setback greater than 4 ft.
• Noise barriers or portions thereof at locations where the collapse of a
wall has minimal safety consequences, as determined by Staff Bridge.
When the above requirements cannot be met, the railing test levels and crash AASHTO
Sections 13,
criteria shall be in accordance with AASHTO.
A13.3, & 15
Noise barrier materials shall be selected to limit shattering of the noise barrier AASHTO
during a vehicle collision. When reinforced concrete panels are used, AASHTO 15.8.4
recommends the use of two mats of steel to limit the concrete shattering during
a vehicle collision.

SECTION 15: DESIGN OF SOUND BARRIERS 15-2
New noise barriers shall meet AASHTO Test Level 3 (TL-3) requirements. AASHTO
Table A13.2-1

SECTION 16 THROUGH 30 16-1
SECTION 16 THROUGH 30
Reserved for Future Use
CDOT Bridge Design Manual January 2018

SECTION 31: PEDESTRIAN STRUCTURES 31-0
SECTION 31
PEDESTRIAN STRUCTURES
This section addresses design and performance requirements for typical
pedestrian bridges intended to carry pedestrians, bicyclists, equestrian riders,
and light maintenance vehicles.

Design shall be in accordance with the AASHTO Standard Specifications for
Highway Bridges, except as modified by the AASHTO LRFD Guide
Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges and this BDM.
31.3 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

31.3.1 Service Life
Pedestrian bridges must be designed to achieve a minimum service life of
75 years.
31.3.2 Maintenance Requirements

Pedestrian bridges should be designed to allow ease of inspection and
maintenance. Periodic preventive maintenance and inspections will be
performed on all pedestrian bridges to extend the service life of the structure.
Preventive maintenance may include cleaning, removing debris, painting,
sealing deck joints, etc.
31.3.3 Aesthetic Goals

Refer to Section 2.3 of this BDM for information about aesthetic requirements.
31.4 GEOMETRY AND CLEARANCES

31.4.1 Geometry
31.4.1.1 Width
Bridge deck width should be based on the type of anticipated local usage and
corresponding current ADA Standards for Accessible Design guidelines. Clear
width should be measured from face to face of rail.
Wider bridges are preferred for two-directional pedestrian traffic rather than
narrow decks with passing spaces due to the difficulty in design and
constructability of the landings. However, when passing spaces are used, they
should conform to ADA requirements and be located at reasonable intervals,
not to exceed 200 ft.
Coordinate with the local agency to determine the final section on a pedestrian
or bicycle bridge.
Refer to Chapter 14 of CDOT Roadway Design Guide for additional pedestrian

facilities geometry requirements.

31.4.1.2 Profile and Grade

Refer to current ADA Standards for Accessible Design for maximum grade
allowed on pedestrian bridges.
Pedestrian bridges over waterways shall satisfy all requirements set for vehicle
bridges for freeboard, scour, and overtopping.
31.4.1.3 Ramps
Pedestrian overpass structures, if practical, may be provided with both ramps
and stairways, but under no condition should a structure be built with stairs
only.
Maximum grades on approach ramps shall conform to ADA requirements.

Whenever existing structures or other local constraints prevent design of the
structure that satisfies maximum grade requirement, landings shall be provided
to accommodate a maximum rise of 2.5 ft. Landings shall be level, the full width
of the bridge, and a minimum of 5 ft. in length. Landings shall also be provided
whenever the direction of the ramp changes. However, straight grades or
vertical curves are preferred instead of landings whenever possible.
The deck and ramps shall have a non-skid surface, such as a transverse fiber
broom finish for concrete. Concrete bridge decks must have transverse joints
to minimize map cracking. The Designer shall specify the spacing of the joints.
31.4.1.4 Physical Requirements

The Structure Selection Report should evaluate all feasible structure types.
The deck of the bridge should maintain the cross-slope of the approach trail.
Cover plates should be provided at all expansion joints to minimize tripping
hazards. Approach slabs are not required on pedestrian bridges unless
requested by the Owner.
Section 2.4 of this BDM outlines the requirements for the pedestrian and
bicycle railing.
31.4.2 Vertical Clearances

The minimum vertical clearance from an under-passing roadway surface to a
pedestrian bridge shall be 17.5 ft. as outlined in Section 2.2.2 of this BDM. The
minimum vertical clearance from a pedestrian or bicycle path to an overhead
obstruction shall be 8 ft.-4 in., or 10 ft. for an equestrian path, measured at 1 ft.
from the face of curb, parapet, or rail.
31.4.3 Horizontal Clearances

Horizontal clearances shall conform to AASHTO. AASHTO 2.3.3

31.5 LOADS AND DEFLECTIONS

31.5.1 Live Loads
31.5.1.1 Pedestrians
Refer to the current edition of AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for the
Design of Pedestrian Bridges for the design value of the pedestrian live load.
31.5.1.2 Maintenance Vehicles

Whenever vehicle access is not prevented by permanent physical methods,
pedestrian/bicycle bridges shall be designed for vehicle live load. In most
cases, maintenance vehicle H5 or H10 will be used (refer to AASHTO LRFD
Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges for maintenance
vehicle configurations).
However, in some locations pedestrian bridges are expected to carry

emergency vehicles and construction live loads, such as firetrucks in rural
areas where no other route is available. In such instances, pedestrian
structures must be designed to carry CDOT Legal Load Type 3 (shown on
Figure 31-1). The Designer must coordinate with Staff Bridge and the local
authority to determine the type of live load required on each pedestrian bridge.
The Structure Selection Report and bridge project special specification must
discuss live load selection. No vehicle live load is required for bridges with clear
widths equal to or less than 7 ft.
All pedestrian bridges designed to carry vehicle load must be rated, with the
rating factor specified on the plans or shop drawings. Either the truss
manufacturer or the Engineer of Record is expected to perform the rating.
Rating requirements should be coordinated with Staff Bridge to determine the
appropriate vehicles and load case assumptions.
Figure 31-1: CDOT Legal Load Type 3
31.5.2 Collision
Vehicular collision load will not be considered in the structural design of the
pedestrian bridge superstructure. However, all pedestrian bridges must be
provided with the means to prevent the superstructure from sliding off the
supports and onto the highway in case of collision. These means can include
shear keys, keeper blocks, and anchor bolts at piers and abutments.

Design of the sliding prevention mechanisms can be done based on a

concentrated 54 kips collision load applied at the support. Note that this load
value is taken directly from AASHTO Table A13.2-1, as transverse collision
load on traffic barrier at Test Level-4. No additional research or case studies
were performed prior to publication to improve the accuracy of this value. The
Designer must exercise engineering judgment when using this design method.
31.5.3 Deflection Limits

AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges
outlines requirements for deflection limits of pedestrian bridges.
31.5.4 Vibration Limits

AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges
outlines requirements for vibration limits of pedestrian bridges. However, in
rare cases that experience unusually high pedestrian traffic loads, setting lower
vibration limits is advised, such as bridges next to sport stadiums. The
Designer is expected to exercise engineering judgment and consult similar
projects.
31.6 FRACTURE CRITICAL DESIGNATION

Fracture critical members and welds shall satisfy provisions of AASHTO LRFD
Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges and be clearly
identified on both the structural plans and the shop drawings. The reviewing
engineer is responsible for identifying missing fracture critical designations
while checking vendor shop drawings.
31.7 RAILING AND FENCING REQUIREMENTS

Pedestrian railings shall be designed in accordance with AASHTO LRFD
Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges. Handrails shall be
provided for all stairs and ramps with grades greater than 5%. Refer to current
ADA guidelines and Section 2.4 of this BDM for pedestrian and bicycle railing
and fencing requirements.
31.8 COVERED/ENCLOSED STRUCTURES

Staff Bridge does not regulate the use of enclosed bridge structures. Local
Agencies or the Landscape Architect can decide when to use them. However,
whenever covered bridges are used, the roof of the enclosure should be
designed to all applicable Local Agencies’ loads and load cases, including the
uplift wind forces. Because this topic is not covered by AASHTO, the Designer
can use other applicable codes, such as IBC and ASCE 7 – Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
31.9 DECK
Any available deck types, except steel grid, are allowed on pedestrian bridge
structures. The Designer should consider the use of protection systems on all
pedestrian bridge decks to extend the service life of the structure. Use of
innovative materials is encouraged but must be discussed with Staff Bridge. All
pedestrian bridge decks shall have non-skid surfaces.

31.10 LIGHTING
For pedestrian bridge lighting requirements, refer to Section 2.3.2 of this BDM.
31.11 DRAINAGE
Curbs shall be provided on both sides of pedestrian bridges that cross roads
and highways to prevent water running over the sides. Drainage systems must
be installed at bridge ends in combination with the curbs. Positive deck cross-
slope may be used to facilitate drainage.

SECTION 32: SIGNS, LUMINAIRES, AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS 32-1
SECTION 32
SIGNS, LUMINAIRES, AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS
This section provides guidance for the design and construction of signs,
luminaires, and traffic signals. Such structures include but are not limited to:
• Bridge mounted signs.
• Ground mounted signs, including overhead sign bridges (that is, single
span, multi-span), and cantilevered sign structures (that is, single sided,
two sided/butterfly).
• Pole and wire systems for signs and traffic signals; and
• Poles for traffic lighting, luminaires, and traffic cameras.
Existing caissons are not to be reused for new sign structures unless they
match the current standards or can be analyzed to verify they match any new
loads from the current code.
Unless modified herein, design of highway signs, luminaires, and traffic signals
shall be in accordance with the most current edition of AASHTO LRFD
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and
Traffic Signals (AASHTO LTS) or current M&S Standards. The M&S Standards
take precedence, even though the current M&S Standards have not been
updated to most current AASHTO LTS. If a design falls within the parameters
of the M&S Standards, then the M&S Standards shall be used. A project
specific or special design is only required when a project specific design does
not meet the limits of the M&S Standard. When a project specific design is
required, it shall follow the most current edition of AASHTO LRFD LTS. Where
sign panels are changed or updated at existing sign structure locations, the
original design assumptions may be used to evaluate the additional or revised
signage.
When M&S Standard requires that the Contractor submit a design for the item,
for example M-613-1 Roadway Lighting, then the design shall follow the most
current edition of AASHTO LRFD LTS. A summary of Contractor submittals
can be found in Table 105-1 of CDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and
Bridge Construction.
Designs falling outside the limits of the S-Standards will require a special
design. Sign structures are to follow the Major Structures requirements in the
Structures Process outlined in Part E of the Policies and Procedures section of
this BDM.
Due to concerns with fatigue, CDOT limits pole shapes to those that are round AASHTO
or have greater than or equal to the minimum number of sides defined in LTS 5.6.2
AASHTO LTS.

32.3 DESIGN CRITERIA

Designs shall follow AASHTO LTS for all design elements and include the
following design clarifications.
32.3.1 Loads
32.3.1.1 Live Load
Live load shall be applied at the most critical locations to determine the design AASHTO
LTS 3 . 6
envelope.
32.3.1.2 Ice Load

Unless requested by the region, ice loading is not required. If ice load is to be AASHTO
applied due to the special icing requirement, consult the most recent edition of LTS 3.7
ASCE/SEI 07 for guidance.
32.3.1.3 Wind Load
AASHTO basic wind speeds cannot be directly compared to wind speeds used
for design in the current M&S Standards. The code design factors, probability
of exceedance, and/or averaging times associated with the wind velocities in
the M&S Standards vary. If the member selection tables in the M&S Standards
do not accommodate the given sign panel and span dimensions, the structure
design shall use the wind loads described herein.
All CDOT on-system sign structures and signals should be considered high risk AASHTO
and can cross travel ways if they fail. Thus, the basic wind speed, V, used to LTS 3 . 8
determine the design wind pressure shall be 120 mph per the 1700 year Mean
Recurrence Interval (MRI) drawing shown in AASHTO LTS Figure 3.8-2a and
discussed in C3.8. The basic wind speed shall be used except in the following
circumstances:
• Colorado’s Special Wind Region (SWR) requires that the basic wind
speed be calculated case by case. The western edge of the SWR
follows the Continental Divide extending from the Colorado/Wyoming
border south to the Colorado/New Mexico border. The eastern edge of
the SWR is defined as a line extending from 5 miles west of I-25 at the
Colorado/Wyoming border to 5 miles west of I-25 at the Colorado/New
Mexico border, including all of Boulder County. A 300-year MRI shall be
used to determine the basic wind speed and design wind pressure for
all structures within this region.
• Figure 32-1 was developed from a partial SWR map for the northern
section of the state. The southern portion of the map is a projection of
the wind contours south to the border. An electronic Google Earth ©
version of this map is available and can be accessed by following this
link: Colorado Gust Map.kmz. All data south of the “assumed data
demarcation line” (39.39 degrees North) are assumed wind gust routes.
Data are to be updated pending the completion of a wind gust study
project.
• For special structures not noted previously, such as span wire signal
structures, contact CDOT Unit Leader in coordination with the Signal
SMEs for basic wind speed design values.

The alternate method for fatigue design per AASHTO LTS Appendix C shall
not be used to determine alternative wind loads.
The effects of torsional load on caisson-soil interaction must be evaluated for
all structures where torsional load is present due to wind load and structure
geometry. This check is shown in Example 10 of this BDM.
Dampeners or other mitigation for galloping will be considered on a project
basis since galloping is challenging to predict.
Table 32-1: Wind Speed Data at Other Mean Recurrence Intervals
Mean Recurrence Interval

Line
Color 10 25 50 100 300 700 1700
years years years years years years years
Green 75 mph 85 mph 90 mph 95 mph 105* mph 115 mph 120 mph
Blue 85 mph 95 mph 100 mph 105 mph 120 mph 125 mph 135 mph
Yellow 90 mph 100 mph 110 mph 120 mph 130 mph 140 mph 150 mph
Peach 100 mph 110 mph 120 mph 130 mph 140 mph 150 mph 160 mph
Orange 110 mph 120 mph 130 mph 140 mph 155 mph 165 mph 175 mph
Red 115 mph 130 mph 140 mph 150 mph 165 mph 175 mph 190 mph
Pink 150 mph 165 mph 180 mph 190 mph 210 mph 225 mph 245 mph
* min value of 120 mph must be used in design
32.3.1.4 Fatigue Load AASHTO LTS

Section 11
An infinite life fatigue design approach shall be applied for overhead sign
structures, luminaire supports, and traffic signal structures.
32.4 BRIDGE MOUNTED STRUCTURES

AASHTO LTS
Bridge mounted sign panels, signal systems, and luminaires are not permitted Section 2
unless otherwise approved by CDOT Unit Leader.
If a bridge mounted sign, luminaire, or signal is approved by CDOT Unit

Leader, it shall be positioned such that the bottom of the component is located
a minimum of 2 in. above the bottom of the bridge girder to allow for sag and
construction tolerances. For aesthetics, it is preferred that the sign structure
not extend above the top of the bridge rail.

210 mph
165 mph
155 mph
Assumed data
demarcation line
140 mph
130 mph
120 mph
105* mph
Figure 32-1: Partial Special Wind Region Map (300 year MRI)
(* min value of 120 mph must be used in design)

Unless the Traffic Engineer directs otherwise, place bridge mounted sign
structures normal to an approaching vehicle’s line of sight. For horizontally
curved roadways below bridges, place bridge mounted sign structures normal
to a 500-ft.-long chord that extends from the intersection of the centerline of
travel lanes and the back face of the bridge barrier to a point on the centerline
of travel way (see Figure 32-2).
Figure 32-2: Sign Alignment for Curved Roadways
Expansion type concrete anchors are undesirable for attaching sign support
brackets to the supporting structure because of vibration and pullout concerns.
Instead, A307 or A325 bolts shall be used as through bolts or A307 all-thread
rod may be used to make drilled-in-place anchor bolts bonded to the supporting
concrete with an approved two-part epoxy system. If the anchor is in
continuous tension, the Designer shall use only an epoxy system if it is
approved for use in continual tension loading. Many epoxy systems are not
allowed if the anchor is in continuous tension. Refer to ACI 318 and ACI 355.4
for more information on using post-installed adhesive anchors. Through and
drilled-in-place anchor bolts can be used to resist direct tension and shear
loads. Unless a refined analysis permits shallower anchorage, a minimum
depth and diameter of drilled holes for bonded anchor bolts shall be 9 bolt
diameters plus 2 in. and one bolt diameter plus 1/8 in. respectively. Bonded
anchors bolts are 100 percent effective if the spacing and edge distance is
equal to or greater than 9 bolt diameters and are considered to be 50 percent
effective when the edge distance or spacing is reduced to 4.5 bolt diameters.
Edge distances and spacings less than 4.5 bolt diameters are not allowed.
Use cast-in-place A307 J-bolts for new concrete work.
When an approved proprietary bolting system is specified, add the following

note to the plans:
“The bolting system is to be installed using the manufacturer’s

recommendations.”
When an approved two-part epoxy system is specified, add the following note
to the plans:

“The two-part epoxy system shall be installed using the

manufacturer’s recommendations.”
For torque limits for all through bolts and tension limits due to permanent
service dead load for bonded anchor bolts, see Table 32-2. Use interpolation
for values not shown in the table.
Table 32-2: Torque and Tension Limits
Torque (ft-lbs) Tension Limit

Bolt Type Bolt Diameter
Dry Lubed (lbs)
0.50 25 20 1400
A307* 0.75 85 60 3300
1.00 200 150 6000
0.50 70 50 –
A325* 0.75 240 180 –
1.00 350 265 –
* A36 may be substituted for A307; A449 may be substituted for A325.

SECTION 33: PRESERVATION AND REHABILITATION OF STRUCTURES 33-1
SECTION 33
PRESERVATION AND REHABILITATION OF STRUCTURES
The provisions of this section apply to structure preservation and rehabilitation
projects, as defined herein.
33.1.1 Definitions of Preservation and Rehabilitation
Preservation and rehabilitation projects can be categorized into two primary
groups based on the general scope of the work performed and the cost of the
project relative to the cost of a replacement structure.
33.1.1.1 Bridge Preservation
The FHWA defines bridge preservation as “actions or strategies that prevent,
delay or reduce deterioration of bridges or bridge elements, restore the function
of existing bridges, keep bridges in good condition and extend their life” (2011).
Preservation includes bridge maintenance activities (both preventive and
reactive), as well as major preservation work.
Bridge maintenance projects are typically narrow in scope and restore the
structure to its original condition by addressing existing deficiencies. These
projects have minor costs and require minimal new design work. Example work
types are crack sealing, concrete patching, debris clearing, and joint repair.
Preservation involves the repair and protection of a bridge element against
future deterioration, thereby extending the service life of a bridge without
significantly increasing load-carrying capacity or improving geometrics.
Projects that cost less than 30 percent of the cost of a new replacement bridge
are considered preservation projects.
33.1.1.2 Bridge Rehabilitation
Bridge rehabilitation involves a significant investment in a bridge to improve its
condition, geometrics, or load-carrying capacity to a minimum standard. This
work is expected to provide a long-term benefit and reduce the need for
additional investments. Projects that cost more than 30 percent of the cost of
a new bridge are generally considered rehabilitation projects. Deck
replacements, bridge widenings and superstructure replacement projects are
considered rehabilitation projects regardless of estimated costs.
Bridge replacement should be considered if the cost of rehabilitation
approaches or exceeds 70 percent of the cost of a new replacement bridge.
The final determination on rehabilitation vs. replacement should be based on
many factors, as discussed in the following sections.
33.1.2 Rehabilitation vs. Replacement Selection Guidelines

The following factors should be considered when deciding between
rehabilitation and replacement for a structure. It should be noted that these are
not absolute criteria for investment decisions. Because each project is unique,
all circumstances and constraints should be considered during evaluation.

33.1.2.1 Cost
In conjunction with the CDOT Project Manager, the Designer shall coordinate
the development of an appropriate comparison of the total project cost
estimates for both rehabilitation and replacement options. Comparison of total
project costs (including any anticipated costs associated with phasing,
realignment, detours, environmental concerns, right-of-way acquisition, etc.) is
necessary to determine the most cost-effective alternative. Rehabilitation and
replacement costs should be estimated after all other factors have been
investigated because the other factors may affect or determine the scope of
the rehabilitation or replacement project.
As the estimated cost of the rehabilitation project approaches 70 percent of the

cost of the replacement project, replacement becomes the more cost-effective
choice in terms of life-cycle costs. This threshold is based on life-cycle cost
models of rehabilitation and replacement for various bridges and is consistent
with thresholds adopted by other state agencies.
As an alternative to using the above threshold, a refined life-cycle cost analysis

may be performed. In this case, estimated life-cycle costs for rehabilitation and
replacement options should be compared directly; applying the 70 percent
factor when dealing with life-cycle costs is not appropriate. For more
information about bridge life-cycle cost analysis, see NCHRP Report 483,
“Bridge Life-Cycle Cost Analysis.”
33.1.2.2 Safety
Accident history should be considered for the existing structure. Accident
potential should be considered for both existing and potential replacement
structures. If the accident history or potential of the existing structure is
determined to be unacceptable, the safety problem must be addressed either
through rehabilitation or replacement. Rehabilitation costs associated with
safety improvements shall be included in the rehabilitation estimate for
comparison to replacement cost.
33.1.2.3 Structure Type

Certain bridges will be inherently predisposed to either rehabilitation or
replacement based on their type and location. Structure types that are difficult
or costly to rehabilitate may be stronger candidates for replacement. Special
consideration should be given to the replacement of non-redundant bridges
because they present increased maintenance costs and risk.
Historical significance may be a factor in favor of rehabilitation. For historical

bridges that will be kept in the system, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for Rehabilitation shall be consulted and close coordination with the
Environmental group will be required throughout the project.
33.1.2.4 Bridge Standards

Existing vertical clearance, horizontal clearance, lane width, and shoulder
width should be considered. If the existing features are nonstandard,
consideration should be given to improving them through rehabilitation or

replacement. Substandard geometry that cannot be reasonably addressed

through rehabilitation is a factor in favor of replacement.
33.1.2.5 Hydraulic Performance

The hydraulic history of the bridge should also be reviewed. If the existing
features are nonstandard, consideration should be given to improving them
through rehabilitation or by replacing the bridge. Up and downstream impacts
should be considered because the hydraulic implications of rehabilitation or
replacement can push the decision in either direction.
Scour critical bridges for which there are no feasible countermeasures to
mitigate the scour problems are stronger candidates for replacement.
33.1.2.6 Traffic Control
In some cases, practical solutions for temporary traffic control may drive the
rehabilitation vs. replacement decision. For example, if project specifics
prohibit temporary traffic configurations that could accommodate bridge
replacement, rehabilitation may be the reasonable decision.
33.1.2.7 Environmental
Environmental impacts should be estimated for rehabilitation and replacement
options, and considered in the rehabilitation vs replacement decision.
33.1.3 Required Inspection and Testing
During the project scoping phase and before developing preliminary cost
estimates, the Designer should conduct a field visit after general drawings have
been developed to verify the deficiencies noted on the Structure Inspection and
Inventory Report (SIA) and to document any additional issues that should be
addressed or might require further testing and analysis. The Designer shall
review the recommended maintenance activities and expand on them, if
necessary. The Designer should verify and address the fundamental issue that
caused the structure to be targeted for rehabilitation or replacement.
Chloride testing is required during the scoping phase for any project with new
full-depth overlay replacements, deck widening or deck rehabilitation/repair. A
minimum of 5 cores, but not less than 1 per 3,000 square feet of bridge deck,
are required to be taken and tested. The cores shall be evenly distributed over
the travel lanes. At a minimum, the chloride content at the level of the top mat
of reinforcing must be determined. This requirement can be waived for bridge
decks less than 20 years old that have been continuously protected throughout
the life of the bridge deck by a thin bonded epoxy overlay, a polyester concrete
overlay, or a functioning waterproofing membrane and asphalt wearing
surface. This exception is granted under the assumption that these decks have
not been critically contaminated with chlorides.
On partial-depth resurfacing projects, the thickness of the existing asphalt mat
should be verified to prevent damage to the waterproofing membrane if
applicable and to prevent damage to the bridge deck from the milling
operations. One method of verifying the existing asphalt thickness is by drilling
or coring into the asphalt mat down to the deck surface and measuring the
asphalt thickness with a probe. The plan-view location of each measurement

and the asphalt thickness should be recorded in an organized format and

submitted to the Engineer prior to milling. Figure 33-1 shows an example
asphalt thickness verification detail prior to milling and after the resurfacing.
Figure 33-1: Asphalt Thickness Verification Detail
33.2 CODE AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

The following provisions apply to all preservation and rehabilitation projects.
33.2.1 Existing Structure Evaluation and Preservation Projects
This section defines the acceptable design methodologies, codes, and
minimum performance requirements to be used for both preservation projects
(as defined in Section 33.1.1.1) and when evaluating an existing structure to
determine if repair or rehabilitation measures are necessary. This includes
existing structures that are being evaluated for scour criticality or increased
dead load and structures with measured corrosion, section loss, or other
damage in superstructure or substructure elements. Permanent load increases
of 3 percent or less over what the bridge was originally designed for may not
require analysis or rating, at the Designer’s discretion.
33.2.1.1 Code Requirements
Structures designed per AASHTO LRFD shall be evaluated using AASHTO
LRFD.
Structures designed by LFD or ASD methods may be evaluated with either the
AASHTO Standard Specifications or AASHTO LRFD.
It is appropriate and acceptable to analyze older structures with the AASHTO
Standard Specifications. However, in some cases, an LRFD analysis may yield

more favorable results due to more refined methods of live load distribution or
structural capacity. The intent of this provision is to not preclude the use of
LRFD in these situations. A structure found to meet the minimum performance
criteria when checked with either code should be considered acceptable.
When projects in this category require the design of a new element or retrofit,
it is preferred to use AASHTO LRFD, when practical.
If existing caissons meet the current S-Standard requirements and the anchor
bolts are in good condition, i.e. minimal corrosion, no loss of capacity, they may
be reused for new sign structures.
33.2.1.2 Required Documentation and Minimum Performance Criteria
For existing structure evaluations, a rating summary sheet shall be completed
for the element(s) under investigation using the applicable design code. Super-
and substructure ratings shall be completed and documented in accordance
with the CDOT Bridge Rating Manual and the Technical Rating Memorandum
dated February 10, 2017. Additionally, for applicable substructure load
combinations beyond the standard rating equations, performance ratios shall
be reported separately.
Acceptable performance objectives for existing structure evaluations are as
follows:
• Operating rating factor ≥ 1.0
• White color code
• Performance ratios for other load combinations ≥ 1.0
If all the above criteria are met, generally, no action needs to be taken or scour
critical designation applied. When scour is involved, the operating rating
factors and performance ratios typically refer to substructure elements affected
by the scour, e.g. pile or caisson capacity.
If any of the above criteria are not met, it is not necessarily cause for action.
The ratings of the element(s) under investigation shall be compared to the
overall load rating of the bridge. In some cases, the overall bridge rating will
not be controlled by the elements that required special investigation. If the
overall rating is controlled by a substructure element, repairs are typically
desired before making posting decisions. In all cases, existing structure
evaluation results that do not meet the above criteria shall be discussed with
Staff Bridge to determine the appropriate course of action. If a substructure is
determined to be scour critical, refer to Section 33.13 for more information.
33.2.2 Rehabilitation Projects
This section defines the acceptable design methodologies, codes, and
minimum performance requirements to be used for rehabilitation projects, as
defined in Section 33.1.1.2. Because rehabilitation projects represent a
substantial investment in an existing structure, they are subject to more
stringent performance criteria to help ensure that they meet service life
extension goals commensurate with their level of investment.

33.2.2.1 Code Requirements

All structures for rehabilitation projects shall be evaluated and/or designed
using AASHTO LRFD regardless of original design code unless previous
documentation in the Structure Selection Report and approval by CDOT Unit
Leader (per Section 1.3 of this BDM).
33.2.2.2 Required Documentation

A Load and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR) summary sheet shall be
completed for the super- and substructure, as required. Super- and
substructure ratings shall be completed and documented in accordance with
the CDOT Bridge Rating Manual and the Technical Rating Memorandum dated
02/10/2017. For applicable substructure load combinations beyond the
standard rating equations, performance ratios shall be reported.
For rehabilitation projects where no additional load is transferred to the

substructure, and the substructure is otherwise performing adequately and has
an NBI rating of 6 or greater, no analysis or rating of the existing substructure
is required. Permanent load increases of 3 percent or less over what the
original bridge was designed for may not require analysis or rating, at the
Designer’s discretion.
Note that changes in superstructure continuity or boundary conditions can alter

the distribution of forces and impose additional load on some substructure
units. Such changes in load distribution shall be considered when determining
if a substructure rating is required for a rehabilitation project.
33.2.2.3 Minimum Performance Criteria – Excluding Deck Replacements

and Existing Portions of Bridge Widenings
For rehabilitation projects, excluding deck replacements, the inventory rating
factor and all performance ratios shall be 1.0 or greater.
33.2.2.4 Minimum Performance Criteria for Deck Replacements

For deck replacement projects, the inventory rating factor shall be 0.9 or
greater. The reduced minimum inventory rating accounts for the fact that some
of the service life of the structure has already been realized. The new deck
shall meet all AASHTO requirements.
For deck replacement projects where additional load is transferred to the

substructure, the inventory rating of the substructure shall be 0.9 or greater.
For load combinations not including live load, the performance ratio shall be
1.0 or greater.
33.2.2.5 Minimum Performance Criteria for Existing Portions of Bridge

Widenings
Acceptable performance objectives for the existing portion of a widened
structure are as follows:
• Operating rating factor ≥ 1.0
• No required posting

• White color code

• Performance ratios for other load combinations ≥ 1.0
• Superstructure, substructure, and deck condition ratings of 6 or greater
If the existing portion does not meet these performance objectives, the
structure should be evaluated for strengthening and/or repair to the same load-
carrying capacity as the widened portion. For the evaluation, the following
should be considered, as appropriate:
• Cost of strengthening or repairing the existing structure
• Physical condition, operating characteristics, and remaining service life of
the structure
• Other site-specific conditions
• Width of widening
• Traffic accommodation during construction
The final decision on whether the existing portion requires rehabilitation, and
what it should include, shall be coordinated with the Region and CDOT Unit
Leader.
33.3 REHABILITATION
33.3.1 General Requirements
The rehabilitated structure shall have a fair or good NBI condition rating after
rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation projects should seek to eliminate functional obsolescence if

reasonable. For example, if widening a bridge, the width should be increased
enough to accommodate standard roadway geometry, where feasible.
If a structure is functionally obsolete for reasons that cannot be easily

addressed through rehabilitation, structure replacement should be considered
rather than making further investments in a functionally obsolete structure
through a rehabilitation project. The ability to address functional obsolescence
during structural rehabilitation is highly project specific.
33.3.2 Added Service Life

The following are target service life extensions for various types of
rehabilitation and preservation:
• Estimated deck service life
▪ Terminal decks (condition rating 3 or less) with minor patching
and bituminous overlay: 2 to 5 years
▪ Deck to remain in place with protective measures: 20 years for
deck
• Membrane waterproofing and bituminous overlay. The life of the
bituminous overlay may be 10 to 12 years. The membrane may need to
be replaced each time the overlay is replaced if it has been damaged or
is otherwise performing poorly.

▪ Polyester concrete overlays, cathodic protection, and

rehabilitation of other deck types: 15 to 25 years depending on
traffic volume and prior condition of deck
▪ New concrete deck with epoxy-coated reinforcement: 50 years
• Expansion joint end dams
▪ Same as deck – periodic replacement of glands or trough
should be expected
• Beam end repairs and/or rehabilitation
▪ Minimum: Same as deck
▪ Desirable: 50 years
• Repair and/or rehabilitation of other superstructure types and their
elements
▪ Minimum: Same as deck
• Bearings
▪ Same as the existing girders
• New superstructure
▪ Minimum: 50 years
• Substructure rehabilitation
▪ Same as superstructure
• Retaining walls
• Culverts
• Bridge widening
• Sign structures
• Ground-mounted sound barriers
• Structure-mounted sound barriers

▪ Same as deck
• Temporary bridges
▪ 3 to 5 years
33.3.3 Acceptable Methods

Many systems and products can be effectively used for rehabilitation,
including, but not limited to, the following.
33.3.3.1 Micropiles
Micropiles are commonly used for a range of retrofit or rehabilitation purposes,
including:
• Arresting or preventing structure movement
• Increasing load-bearing capacity of existing foundations
• Repairing or replacing deteriorating or inadequate foundations
• Adding scour protection to existing structures
Micropiles are well suited to projects with the following constraints:

• Restrictions on footing enlargements
• Low overhead clearances
• Difficult access
33.3.3.2 External Post-tensioning

External post-tensioning (PT) may be considered for retrofit of all girder or other
structural elements, including concrete and steel. Active strengthening
systems, such as external PT, introduce external forces to the structural
elements that would offset part or all the effects of external loads. Active
systems are usually engaged in load sharing immediately after installation and
can provide increased strength and instantaneously improve the service
performance, such as reducing tensile stresses (or cracking) and deflections.
An advantage of external PT is that it needs to engage the structure only at

end anchorages and at points of tendon deviation. For this reason, external PT
can be added to existing structures with relative ease. Both steel and concrete
box girders can usually accommodate the necessary anchorages and tendon
deviations from inside the box. Monostrands require relatively small anchorage
forces on a per tendon basis, thereby allowing simplified anchorage and
deviation details on the retrofitted structure.
33.3.3.3 Carbon-fiber Reinforced Polymer

Passive strengthening systems, such as Carbon-fiber Reinforced Polymer
(CFRP), do not introduce forces to the structure or its components. Passive
systems contribute to load sharing and the overall resistance of the member
when it deforms under external loads. As such, the effectiveness and load
sharing of passive systems significantly affect their axial and bending stiffness.

CFRP features include a slim profile, high strength to weight ratio, chemical
resistance, and ease of application. These attributes can lead to long-lasting,
inexpensive, and rapid restorations that can be implemented in the field with
minimal disturbance to traffic flow. Lastly, the structure’s original configuration,
including vertical and horizontal clearances, is maintained.
ACI 440.2R-08, “Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded
FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures,” provides guidance for
the design and construction requirements of CFRP retrofits.
33.3.3.4 Ultra-high Performance Concrete

Ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) exhibits high early strength, develops
a strong bond to existing concrete surfaces, and has enhanced durability.
These characteristics make it an acceptable candidate for repair and
rehabilitation work such as concrete patching, closure pours, and toppings.
33.3.4 Timber Structures

Due to the difficulty of finding new girders, durability and challenges of crash
worthiness, widening of timber structures is generally not recommended.
33.3.5 Concrete for Repairs

Concrete Class DT shall be used only for complete toppings.
The current CDOT Project Special Provision – Revision of Section 601

Concrete Class DR – allows the use of either pre-packaged concrete patching
material (bagged mix) or plant batched mix, giving the Contractor the ability to
select the most economical and practical choice for the project. However, the
Designer should be aware that certain circumstances may necessitate the use
of a bagged mix only.
Patch repairs on bridge decks present logistical complications. Because of

traffic control implications, deck repairs are often performed at night when
batch plants are not operating. In this case, a bagged patching mix must be
used. Additionally, total patch volume is commonly much less than the smallest
volume able to be batched (2 cubic yards), resulting in waste.
Projects involving night-time lane closures may also benefit from the use of a
bagged patching mix because of the reduced cure time compared to Class DR.
A bagged mix can accommodate traffic loading in as little as 3 hours, where
Class DR requires 6 hours. This time constraint is especially restrictive when
replacing expansion devices and end dams because these projects require the
completion of time intensive tasks during the closure, thereby limiting the time
available for concrete curing. If a night-time closure cannot accommodate the
required cure time before reopening to traffic, temporary bridge decks must be
used. Temporary bridge decks may require the placement of extensive asphalt
ramps and have experienced other difficulties in the field. For these reasons,
a bagged mix is typically preferable for deck patching and placement of new
expansion joint end dams.
The current policy of allowing either a bagged mix or Class DR may be revised
in the future if either option proves to have superior durability.

33.4 BRIDGE WIDENING

Bridge widening represents a substantial investment in an existing structure
and presents many unique challenges and opportunities for improvement. See
Section 33.2.2 for required design code and performance objectives for the
new and existing portions of widened bridges.
33.4.1 General Widening Requirements

The new portion of a widened structure shall comply with the following
requirements:
• The bridge should be widened sufficiently to accommodate standard lane
and shoulder widths, where feasible.
• Longitudinal deck joints are not permitted due to durability concerns.
• Fatigue-prone details should not be perpetuated.
• Mixing steel and concrete girders in the same span should be avoided
due to thermal movement incompatibility.
33.4.2 Design Considerations

33.4.2.1 Differential Superstructure Stiffness
Live load distribution factors given in AASHTO 4.6.2.2 for beam-slab bridges
are conditional upon the beams having approximately the same stiffness.
Widening a bridge with a girder shape different from the existing girders may
require a more refined analysis to determine accurate live load distribution and
to verify the design loads for the deck between the new and existing girders.
Generally, the Designer should attempt to limit the amount of differential

deflection between the widened and original portions of the superstructure,
where feasible. The Designer shall account for additional forces and stresses
due to any differential deflection anticipated along the widening interface.

33.4.2.2 Differential Superstructure Creep and Shrinkage

Newly placed prestressed concrete will shorten due to long-term creep and
shrinkage. When connected to an existing concrete structure that has already
experienced most of its creep and shrinkage, the existing structure will restrain
the shortening of the new structure to some degree. This restraint causes
forces along the widening interface that shall be considered in design.
Similarly, differential strains of the superstructures can result in force effects at

the interface between the existing and new substructures. Isolating the existing
and new substructures is a potential strategy to mitigate this issue.
33.4.2.3 Differential Foundation Stiffness

When a structure widening includes widening the substructure and foundation
elements, the compatibility of the new and existing foundation systems should
be considered. If the new and existing foundations have substantially different
stiffness, a differential deflection or settlement can be expected. This effect
should be considered and minimized, particularly as it relates to imposed
deformation and stresses on the superstructure.
The effect of initial settlement of the new foundation elements relative to the
existing foundation should also be considered. This phenomenon can be
expected even where the widened foundation is of similar type and stiffness to
the existing foundation. Isolating the existing and new substructures is a
potential strategy to mitigate this issue.
33.4.2.4 Closure Pours

Closure pours shall be used between the existing and new portions of deck
when the dead load deflection due to deck placement is greater than 0.25 in.
The width of closure pours should be a function of the amount of differential

deflection expected and a minimum of 24 in. for conventional concrete. The
width of the closure pour may be less than 24 in. if UHPC is used in conjunction
with a wearing surface to smooth out any abrupt differences in elevation on
either side of the closure.
33.4.2.5 Galvanic Anodes

When a bridge widening includes exposing and lapping onto existing uncoated
reinforcing steel in the deck or any other element that may be contaminated
with chlorides, consideration shall be given to the use of galvanic anodes along
the widening interface.
If the concrete of the existing bridge deck is sufficiently contaminated with

chlorides and galvanic anodes are not used, corrosion along the existing-new
concrete boundary can initiate or accelerate. See Section 33.5.1 for more
information.

33.5 BRIDGE DECK REPAIR AND REHABILITATION

33.5.1 Chloride Induced Corrosion
Infiltration of chloride ions into concrete is the most common cause of corrosion
initiation in reinforcing steel. Bridge decks in Colorado are primarily exposed to
chloride ions through the application of deicing salts, such as magnesium
chloride.
Once the concentration of chloride ions at the level of reinforcing reaches a

critical threshold, the protective passive film surrounding the reinforcing breaks
down and corrosion initiates. While the subsequent rate of corrosion depends
on many parameters, including several environmental factors, some level of
corrosion will be observed until the concentration of chloride ions is reduced to
below the threshold through remedial measures.
Several options are available for repair and rehabilitation of chloride

contaminated concrete structures, including, but not limited to:
1. Do nothing.
2. Remove spalled and delaminated concrete and replace with patching

material.
3. Remove all chloride contaminated concrete and replace with patching

material (this includes sound but chloride contaminated concrete).
4. Use electrochemical chloride extraction (ECE) to remove chloride from

the surface of the reinforcing bars.
5. Install a barrier system.
6. Install cathodic protection to protect the steel from further corrosion.
Repair and rehabilitation options involving concrete patching introduce

additional complications. The process of patching unsound and/or chloride
contaminated areas of existing decks requires placing new chloride-free
concrete adjacent to existing concrete. If the existing concrete has a sufficiently
high chloride concentration level, the patching process will lead to the
formation of incipient anodes just outside the patched area. The difference in
electric potential between the steel in the chloride-free and chloride
contaminated sections drives corrosion at the incipient anodes, accelerating
deterioration of the adjacent concrete. Rapid deterioration of the concrete
surrounding the patch necessitates future repairs, creating a compounding
maintenance and service issue. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as
the halo effect.
Installing a barrier system (i.e., waterproofing membrane and wearing surface)

on a deck that is chloride contaminated but not yet showing signs of distress
may be ineffective. If the chloride concentration is at or near the threshold,
corrosion of reinforcing will continue, resulting in deck deterioration. The
damage occurring in the deck may become apparent only after significant
damage has occurred under the overlay. In this scenario, the expected service
life of the barrier system will likely not be realized.

For these reasons, projects that will include deck repair, patching, or
installation of new waterproofing membrane and overlay should first identify
the chloride contamination of the deck before determining viable rehabilitation
methods. See Section 33.1.3 for requirements on coring and chloride testing
of existing bridge decks.
33.5.2 Susceptibility Index

The first step in selecting a corrosion control system is to identify if local
systems will suffice. If not, appropriate global systems must be identified. To
determine the appropriateness of a local or global system, the distribution of
chloride ions needs to be determined. NCHRP Report 558, “Manual on Service
Life of Corrosion-Damaged Reinforced Concrete Bridge Superstructure
Elements,” proposed a quantitative method for determining viable corrosion
control alternatives that includes calculating a Susceptibility Index (SI) for the
structure.
Chloride testing results are required to calculate the SI of the structure.
The distribution of chloride ions at the steel depth should be used to quantify
both the susceptibility of the concrete element to corrosion in areas that are
not currently damaged and the future susceptibility to corrosion-induced
damage. If sufficient chloride ions are present to initiate corrosion, then
corrosion-induced damage in the near future is expected, and only aggressive
corrosion mitigation techniques, such as cathodic protection and
electrochemical chloride extraction, can be used to control the corrosion
process. However, if the chloride ion concentration distribution at the steel
depth is low and future corrosion is not expected to initiate, less expensive
corrosion control systems—such as sealers, membranes, and/or corrosion
inhibitors—can be used to either control or stop the rate of corrosion.
Therefore, an index that provides a good representation of the distribution of
chloride ions at the steel depth is useful in selecting a corrosion control system.
The SI shall be calculated as follows:

𝑛
𝑆𝐼 = [(∑(𝐶𝑙𝑡ℎ − 𝑋𝑖 ))⁄(𝑛 × 𝐶𝑙𝑡ℎ ) × 10]

1
Where
Clth = Chloride concentration threshold
Xi = Chloride concentration at the ith location at the depth of reinforcing
n = number of locations where measurements were made
The chloride concentration threshold depends on many factors but may be

assumed to be 1.2 lbs/CY of concrete (or 0.03 percent chloride by weight), for
uncoated reinforcing, if no better information is available.
The SI is a scaled ratio of the average moment from the threshold normalized
by the threshold. An SI of 10 means that no chloride ions exist at reinforcing

depth for any test location. The SI is 0 if the chloride concentration at every
location is equal to the threshold. A negative SI indicates that corrosion has
initiated at most tested locations and that deterioration of the deck, even in
currently sound areas, is expected.
33.5.3 Selection of Corrosion Control Alternatives

Once the SI of a structure has been calculated, corrosion control alternatives
can be evaluated and selected. A lower SI, which corresponds to higher levels
of chloride contamination, requires a more aggressive corrosion control
system.
Most corrosion control systems, including those described in the following

sections, are intended for use with uncoated (black) reinforcing. For concrete
elements with epoxy-coated reinforcing, the Designer shall select a compatible
corrosion control system. Any damage to the epoxy coating in the repair area
should be repaired. NCHRP Web Document 50, “Repair and Rehabilitation of
Bridge Components Containing Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement,” provides
guidance on the repair and rehabilitation of concrete with epoxy-coated
reinforcing.
Selection of corrosion control systems must also consider the desired service
life of the rehabilitated element to avoid unnecessary expenditures. For
example, structures programed for replacement within the next 10 years may
not be good candidates for a cathodic protection system that could be expected
to last up to 25 years.
Figure 33-2 shows the optimal corrosion control systems for a given SI. See
Section 33.5.3.1 through Section 33.5.3.7 for more information.
SI  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10
DO NOTHING
SEALERS
HMA + WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE
OVERLAYS
CORROSION INHIBITORS
CATHODIC PROTECTION, ELECTROCHEMICAL EXTRACTION
Figure 33-2: Optimal Corrosion Control Based on Susceptibility Index
The control systems shown in Figure 33-2 are intended to be used in

conjunction with the removal and patching of spalled and delaminated
concrete. Consideration should also be given to removing and patching all
chloride contaminated concrete, in addition to spalled and delaminated
concrete. There is a risk of corrosion initiating or continuing in the original
concrete if contaminated concrete is left in place. For example, if a polyester
concrete overlay is installed over sound but chloride contaminated concrete,
corrosion may still occur, resulting in deterioration of the original concrete. This
may compromise the newly placed overlay, resulting in a reduced effective
service life and necessitating future repairs.

33.5.3.1 Do Nothing
SI values greater than or equal to 8.0 indicate that a corrosion control system
is not necessary.
33.5.3.2 Sealers
For the purposes of Figure 33-2, a sealer is defined as any coating that is
“breathable,” that is, capable of limiting the flow of moisture into the concrete
but still allowing the flow of moisture out of the concrete. CDOT commonly uses
an alkyl-alkoxy silane sealer. Sealers are an acceptable form of corrosion
control for decks with SI values of 7.0 or greater.
33.5.3.3 Membranes
Membranes are differentiated from sealers in that they restrict the movement
of moisture in either direction and do not allow chloride intrusion. The
membrane category includes asphalt wearing surfaces over a waterproofing
membrane and thin-bonded epoxy overlays. As shown in Figure 33-2,
membrane type corrosion control systems can be used as the primary form of
protection when the SI is 5.0 or greater. For decks with an SI less than 5.0, a
membrane may be used in conjunction with more aggressive corrosion control
systems.
33.5.3.4 Overlays
Overlays include both cementitious and non-cementitious wearing surfaces
installed on the deck surface. Polyester concrete overlays fall into this
category. Asphalt wearing surfaces are not considered overlays (in terms of
corrosion protection) because they do not serve as barriers to moisture and
chloride ions. Overlays limit corrosion by reducing the rate of chloride and
water diffusion into the deck and by increasing the depth to which chlorides
must diffuse to reach the reinforcing. The result is an increased time to initiation
of corrosion. Overlays also serve as a wearing surface.
As shown in Figure 33-2, overlays can be considered the primary form of

corrosion protection when the SI is 4.0 or greater or can be used in conjunction
with more aggressive corrosion control systems for lower SI values.
33.5.3.5 Corrosion Inhibitors

Corrosion inhibitors include any material that chemically slows or stops the
corrosion process. Inhibitor systems can be surface applied or admixed with
repair concrete. Deck repairs on structures with an SI less than 4.0 should
include corrosion inhibitors or a more aggressive corrosion control system.
Corrosion inhibitors are not commonly used in Colorado.
33.5.3.6 Electrochemical Chloride Extraction

Electrochemical chloride extraction (ECE) is a short-term treatment of the
bridge deck that lowers the chloride levels in the bridge deck to an acceptable
level. Removing chloride ions increases the alkalinity at the surface of the
reinforcing, which re-passivates the reinforcing and prevents future corrosion
from initiating. ECE is not commonly used in Colorado.

33.5.3.7 Cathodic Protection

Cathodic protection systems include galvanic systems and impressed current
systems and can be used in conjunction with other corrosion control systems.
Cathodic protection is a rehabilitation technique that has been proven to stop

corrosion in chloride contaminated bridge decks (Sohanghpurwala, 2006).
However, it is appropriate for use only on structures with SI values less than
2.0 and is most cost-effective for structures where a service life extension of
greater than 15 years is desired.
One acceptable form of cathodic protection is the application of galvanic

anodes in the patch area. The galvanic anodes corrode sacrificially
themselves, reducing the corrosion in the reinforcing itself. The size and
spacing of anodes should be selected to provide the desired service life of the
repair. When no better information is available, CDOT has commonly specified
100 gram anodes at 18 in. to 24 in. spacing along the interface.
33.5.3.8 Complete Topping Replacement

Rehabilitation options that involve removing and replacing the top layer of
concrete in its entirety may be more cost-effective than patching each
damaged area individually. This type of repair can be performed using
hydrodemolition or standard methods of concrete removal. When the depth of
replacement is selected such that all chloride contaminated concrete is
removed, this type of repair also serves as a method of corrosion control. The
cause of the corrosion (chlorides) has been removed and, therefore, no other
corrosion control system is necessary. However, because of the relatively high
cost of this type of repair, it is discouraged for decks that require minimal
patching or have an SI of 5.0 or greater.
33.6 CONCRETE REHABILITATION – EXCLUDING BRIDGE DECKS

Other concrete elements besides bridge decks can be exposed to chlorides
throughout their service life. This includes abutments, piers, and walls within
the splash zone, as well as elements exposed to chlorides due to leaking
expansion joints.
Concrete repairs required on elements within the splash zone or due to

damage caused by leaking expansion joints should include galvanic anodes at
the patch interface to mitigate the halo effect and protect the surrounding
concrete from accelerated corrosion. Depending on the element and its risk to
continued exposure to chlorides, the addition of a membrane or sealer may
also be appropriate.
33.7 DECK REPLACEMENT

Deck replacement projects can be a cost-effective means of extending the
service life of a bridge when a deck has deteriorated beyond what can be
reasonably repaired but the remainder of the structure is otherwise performing
well and has no underlying deficiencies. They also present opportunities to
strengthen the superstructure, upgrade bridge rail, and move or eliminate
expansion joints. However, due to their cost, these projects should be
considered carefully to ensure that completed structures do not result in the

continuation of substandard conditions (such as insufficient clearances or

roadway geometry) that would need to be addressed during the anticipated life
of the new deck.
Deck replacement projects should implement the following improvements,

where feasible:
• Make the new deck composite with the girders to increase capacity.
• Eliminate any existing longitudinal deck joints.
• Provide a deck with 8 in. minimum thickness.
• Eliminate expansion joints at abutments and/or throughout the structure.
See Section 33.8 for more information on expansion joint removal.
If the weight of the proposed deck and attachments causes the load rating of
the girders or substructure to fall below the minimum acceptable rating as
defined in Section 33.2.2.4, the following measures may be considered to
reduce dead load:
• Specify a lighter wearing surface (either a ¾ in. minimum polyester

concrete or ⅜ in. thin-bonded epoxy overlay) in combination with waiving
the minimum rating requirement for a future 3 in. overlay.
• Use a lighter bridge rail (e.g., use a Type 10 MASH instead of Type 9).
• Use a voided sidewalk.
• Reduce deck thickness, with the approval of CDOT Unit Leader in
coordination with the State Bridge Engineer. CDOT allows a minimum
deck thickness of 7.0 in. Reducing the deck thickness should be
considered only after all other strategies for reducing weight have been
exhausted. Deck thickness should be reduced only by the minimum
amount needed to meet the minimum rating requirement.
33.8 EXPANSION JOINT ELIMINATION

Preservation and rehabilitation projects present opportunities to either
eliminate or relocate existing expansion joints. Removing existing expansion
joints reduces future inspection and maintenance needs, eliminates the
possibility of future joint failure, and can improve ride quality.
Expansion device elimination should be considered for all preservation and

rehabilitation projects. Changes in the structural behavior of the structure must
also be considered, which may result in necessary modifications to other
elements.
33.8.1 Expansion Joints at Abutments

For expansion joints at abutments, moving the joint to the end of the approach
slab should be considered. This solution may require modification or
replacement of the approach slab to resist the imposed forces and movements.
Figure 33-3 depicts one option for moving an expansion joint at a seat-type
abutment to the end of a new approach slab.

Figure 33-3: Expansion Joint Relocation
33.8.2 Expansion Joints at Piers

Eliminating an expansion joint at an interior pier requires that some degree of
continuity be established, either complete continuity of the deck and girders or
continuity of the deck only. Establishing continuity can alter the structural
behavior of the bridge, including thermal movement demands from a new
bridge center of stiffness location. External longitudinal force distribution may
also be affected. As a result, the bridge may require modification or
replacement of bearings to mitigate the behavior change. All structural
consequences related to the elimination of expansion joints at piers must be
carefully considered and resolved.
This type of joint replacement should be considered for existing multi-simple

span bridges. In some cases, it will be possible to eliminate some but not all
expansion joints. This is still considered an improvement over not eliminating
any joints.
CDOT has accomplished this type of joint removal successfully in the past.
Details for any proposed joint elimination shall be coordinated with Staff Bridge.
33.9 BEARING REPLACEMENT

Bearing replacements should address the root cause of the existing bearing
deficiency. Fixing the root cause of an issue may not be possible given the cost
of necessary modifications and funding constraints.

For neoprene pads, replacement bearings shall meet current design

standards, or as close to current standards as practical, without requiring
excessive modifications to bearing seats or other structural elements. Current
seismic connection force requirements should be met, where practical.
The contract plans shall show:

• Jacking locations and design forces
• Any structural modifications required prior to jacking
• Phasing or traffic restrictions
• Extents of required removals
• Details for the new bearing devices
• Other special requirements
33.9.1 Structure Jacking Requirements

The Designer is responsible for determining suitable jacking locations for the
structure. Structures are typically jacked from the diaphragms between girders
at supports or from the girders directly in front of the bearing device either from
the support seat or next to the support seat. See Section 14.5.6 of this BDM
for typical jack clearance requirements.
The Designer shall verify that the structure can be jacked to the necessary
height without overloading any structural components, including, but not limited
to, girders, diaphragms, deck, and substructure.
To avoid overloading structure components, modifications may be required

prior to jacking, such as adding bearing stiffeners to steel I-girders if jacking
under the girder in front of the bearing device.
For situations where a jacking height of ¼ in. or less is required and all girders AASHTO
at a support will be jacked simultaneously, 1.3 times the permanent load 3.4.3.1
reaction at the adjacent bearing may be assumed as the design jacking force.
Otherwise, a refined jacking analysis is required to determine the design
jacking force. The unfactored jacking force resulting from a refined analysis
shall be increased by a minimum load factor of 1.3 to obtain the design jacking
force.
Refined jacking analyses shall account for the stiffness contributions of the
deck, diaphragms, and other structural elements, as appropriate.
Overload traffic shall not be permitted on the structure during jacking

operations. Normal traffic shall not be permitted on the bridge during jacking
operations unless:
• Overnight closures are not permitted, and
• Prior approval is obtained from CDOT Unit Leader in coordination with
Fabrication/Construction Unit).

If traffic is permitted on the structure during jacking operations:

• Traffic should be shifted away from the jacking locations, where possible,
• Locking jacks should be used as a fail-safe in the event of jack failure,
and
• The jacking load shall include factored and service dead and live load
reactions, including impact, consistent with the permitted traffic
positioning during jacking operations.
33.10 BRIDGE RAIL REPLACEMENT
Substandard bridge rail and guardrail transitions should be replaced when
feasible with TL-4 MASH compliant rail and TL-3 transitions respectively. The
approximate test level of the existing bridge rail should be provided to the
Region for their safety and replacement considerations. Retrofit or
rehabilitation options should be provided as well. If overhang strength is a
concern, replacement with Type 9 bridge rail will spread out loads greater than
Type 10 MASH bridge rail. A 6” bridge deck with #4s at 6” was tested to
NCHRP 350 TL-3 levels with no damage.
See Sections 2.4.1 and 13 of this BDM for additional information.
33.11 FATIGUE
33.11.1 Load Induced Fatigue
For rehabilitation projects involving steel superstructures, all superstructure
components shall be checked for the remaining fatigue life. When feasible, the
remaining fatigue life shall be at least the desired service life of the type of
rehabilitation being considered.
33.11.2 Distortion Induced Fatigue

Unlike load induced fatigue, distortion induced fatigue is not equilibrium based
but instead arises from stiffness incompatibility and differential deflection of
adjacent members.
Distortion induced fatigue cracking is prevalent in steel bridges built before

1985. Bridges built during this period commonly did not connect diaphragm
connection plates to the girder flange out of perceived fatigue concerns. This
practice results in a length of unbraced web from the girder flange to the
termination of the connection plate, known as the web gap. When adjacent
girders undergo differential deflection due to live load, forces are induced in
the connecting diaphragms, producing distortion and potentially large stresses
in the web gap. Because these stresses are cyclical, fatigue cracking can
occur. Figure 33-4 and Figure 33-5 depict this behavior.

Figure 33-4: Differential Deflection
Figure 33-5: Web Gap Distortion
The magnitude of web gap distortion is proportional to the degree of differential

deflection between the adjacent girders. For this reason, bridges with skewed
supports and perpendicular diaphragms are particularly susceptible to
distortion induced fatigue cracking.
The length of the web gap has a significant impact on the magnitude of fatigue
stresses in the web gap. A longer web gap is more flexible and may be able to
distort without resulting in large stresses, while a shorter web gap may be
sufficiently rigid to reduce web gap distortion, which can also reduce fatigue
stress magnitudes. Web gaps of approximately 2 to 4 in. in length generally
produce the largest magnitude fatigue stresses.
Steel girder bridges built before 1985 and detailed with unstiffened web gaps
are considered high risk for development of fatigue cracks. This includes
bridges where girder connection plates attach to floor beams, diaphragms, or

crossframes. Any preservation or rehabilitation project on a high-risk bridge

shall determine if distortion induced fatigue cracking has occurred and develop
a repair and retrofit plan to address any discovered deficiencies.
Superstructures that exhibit distortion induced fatigue cracking should be

repaired and retrofitted according to the guidance in the FHWA Manual for
Repair and Retrofit of Fatigue Cracks in Steel Bridges. A stiffening type retrofit
is preferred because it produces similar behavior to that resulting from current
design and detail methodologies.
The complexities of distortion induced fatigue may require refined structural

models if accurate out-of-plane stress ranges in the web gap region need to
be determined.
33.12 CULVERTS
For roadway widening projects that require extending an existing box culvert,
consideration should be given to replacing the existing culvert in lieu of
extending it if the existing portion is in poor condition and/or would require
extensive repair during the predicted service life of the extended portion.
33.13 SCOUR CRITICAL STRUCTURES

33.13.1 Evaluation of Existing Structures for Criticality
Refer to Section 33.2.1 for code requirements and minimum performance
criteria when determining if a structure is scour critical.
33.13.2 Rehabilitation of Scour Critical Structures

Once a structure has been assessed as scour critical, the processes and
procedures outlined in FHWA Hydraulic Engineering Circular (HEC) numbers
18, 20, and 23 shall be followed, including development of a Plan of Action.
Depending on project specifics, the ideal corrective actions may be structural,

hydraulic, or biotechnical countermeasures, a monitoring program, or a
combination thereof. Acceptable scour countermeasures are shown in Table
2.1 of HEC 23. Scour countermeasures that are not acceptable for new
structures may be acceptable for existing structures.
33.13.3 Structural Countermeasure Requirements

Structural scour countermeasures shall be designed to meet all requirements
of AASHTO LRFD, where practical. Example structural scour
countermeasures include foundation and substructure strengthening and
independent structures that reduce or eliminate scour of the bridge.
33.14 PAINTING OF STEEL STRUCTURES

The corrosion of structural steel bridge members is an ongoing concern that
must be addressed to prolong service life. Not only does corrosion change
bridge aesthetics, it can seriously jeopardize the structural integrity of the entire
structure. Painting is an efficient and economical method to provide corrosion
protection to existing steel bridge members.

Maintenance painting is important for all bridges but is of particular concern for
bridges more than 100 ft. long. For smaller bridges (less than 100 ft.), the
proportionally higher cost of environmental controls for cleaning may outweigh
the benefits of painting. Packaging multiple bridges into one contract for
structures less than 100 ft. may be appropriate. For larger bridges (longer than
500 ft.) or complex bridges, paint preservation should be prioritized due to the
high replacement cost of the bridge.
Bridge painting is weather sensitive. The air temperature must be warm and
the humidity must be low. Therefore, work/letting needs to be scheduled when
there is low probability of unsuitable weather conditions. Typically, May through
September is the ideal time to accomplish bridge painting. If a painting project
occurs outside this range, a controlled environment is required.
When possible, painting projects should be coordinated with roadway projects.

The necessary time for a Professional Engineer to design and analyze a
containment system should be included in the project schedule between the
notice to proceed and the physical start of work. Also, consider the necessary
time required for the industrial hygienist/certified professional to
develop/review the lead safety plan and other submittals.
When repainting existing bridges over high ADT roadways where roadway
restrictions must be minimized, use of a rapid deployment strategy should be
considered. Rapid deployment is a viable option primarily designed for use on
highway overpasses where the structural steel is easily accessible from the
roadway below using a mobile work platform. This mobile work unit includes a
containment device, dust collector, and blast equipment. Rapid deployment
methodologies may be specified using Special Provisions. For field painting
activities, use a two-coat system with an organic primer.
33.14.1 Zinc Rich Paint Systems

For a properly shop-installed zinc rich paint system, Table 33-1 identifies
typical painting activities and frequencies to establish painting guidelines to
maintain and preserve the life of steel bridges. Widespread use of these zinc
rich paint systems began in the 1980s. Environmental factors (e.g., under a
leaking deck joint, within “splash zone”) will have a detrimental effect on the life
of the paint system, which will require an increased frequency of painting
activities.
Leaking deck joints and other bridge deficiencies that may affect paint system
performance should be corrected before completing any new painting
activities.
Consideration must also be given to bridges that are on a program to be

improved, rehabilitated, or replaced. Bridges on a program must be evaluated
to determine if a painting activity is still warranted. The high cost of containment
and mobilization require that a cost/feasibility estimate be completed to
determine the most economic work scope for any given structure. For example,
use of spot/zone painting vs. a full re-paint for any given structure or entire
component replacement must be evaluated. This work scope should include

aesthetic considerations for the visible portions of the bridge, such as fascia
beams.
While a study of preliminary costs will likely conclude that an overcoat system
is the most economical alternative, a life-cycle cost analysis will often show full
paint removal and application of a high durability coating system to be more
cost-effective than an overcoat option, particularly for bridges exposed to
significant deicing salt application.
Table 33-1: Maintenance Painting Frequencies
Painting Activity Frequency

Spot/Zone Painting 10–18 years
Full Re-paint 30–40 years
33.15 BRIDGE PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE

33.15.1 Program Objectives
Bridge Preventative Maintenance (BPM) seeks to extend the service life of
structures through targeted improvements. Structures in good condition are the
top priority of BPM funds because these bridges are near the top of their
deterioration curve, and, therefore, see the greatest extension in service life
per dollar spent. BPM projects typically cost less than 30 percent of the cost of
a new bridge.
See Section 33.2 for code requirements and minimum performance criteria
when design is required for a BPM project.
The primary BPM goals are to:
• Seal bare concrete decks.
• Add a waterproofing membrane to bridge decks that currently have an
asphalt overlay but no membrane.
• Replace membranes on bridges where the existing membrane is nearing
the end of its service life (approximately 30 years) or otherwise shows
signs of deterioration.
• Replace leaking or otherwise non-functioning expansion joints.
• Replace functioning expansion joints at the end of their predicted service
life, when convenient.
Examples of BPM actions include but are not limited to:

• Bridge rinsing
• Sealing deck joints
• Facilitating drainage
• Sealing concrete
• Painting steel

• Removing channel debris

• Protecting against scour
• Lubricating bearings
BPM projects also present an opportunity to perform other miscellaneous

repair activities, such as bridge rail and substructure repair. The Designer
should coordinate with CDOT to determine what additional activities to include
in the project.
33.15.2 Bridge Preventative Maintenance Resources

33.15.2.1 Staff Bridge Worksheets for BPM
As of this writing, CDOT is in the process of developing standard worksheets
for BPM work, including:
• General Information
• Summary of Quantities
• Deck Repair Details – HMA Overlay
• Deck Repair Details – Polyester Concrete Overlay
• Bridge Expansion Device (0–4 Inch) at Approach Slabs
• Taper Details for Polyester Overlay at Beginning/End of Structure and
Bridge Drains
These worksheets can be obtained from Staff Bridge upon request.
33.15.2.2 Expansion Joint Replacement

The preferred type of replacement expansion device depends on the type of
joint that is being replaced. A 0 to 4 in. joint is the preferred replacement joint
type, when feasible. Table 33-2, the BPM joint replacement matrix, shows
preferred and acceptable replacement types based on existing joint type.
Expansion joint elimination should be considered for all bridges requiring joint
replacements. See Section 33.8 for more information.

Table 33-2: BPM Joint Replacement Matrix

BPM Joint Replacement Matrix
Existing Joint Types
Replacement Item Number
Asphalt Over Non-expansion

Pre- compressed Foam Joint
Expansion Device (0-4 Inch)
Premolded Rubber Transflex

New Style Strip Seal/Bridge
Modular Expansion Device
Compression Joint Sealer
Roadway Pressure Relief

Sliding Plate/Finger Joint
Bridge Expansion Joint
Pourable Joint Seal at

Old Style Strip Seal
Abutment or Pier
(Asphaltic Plug)
Replacement Joint Type
Joint
Joint
Joint
Bridge Expansion Device (0-___ Inch) 518-010XX X
Bridge Expansion Device (0-4 Inch)1 518-01004 X6 X X X X X X X X
Bridge Expansion Device (Gland) (0-4 Inches)2 518-01060 X X
Bridge Expansion Joint (Asphaltic Plug)3 518-01001 X X X X
Bridge Compression Joint Sealer 518-00000 X X X
Joint Sealant4 408-01100 X
Sawing and Sealing Bridge Joint 518-03000 X X
Roadway Compression Joint Sealer5 518-00010 X
None X
These are general recommendations, final determination of replacement joint type shall be discussed with Staff Bridge unit leader.
X = Preferred joint type
X = Acceptable joint type
1
This is CDOT’s default joint. It has the longest service life and should be considered strongly for any location where there is
potential leaking onto pier caps or abutment seats.
2
The gland manufacturer must be the same as the manufacturer of the rails.
3
To be used for rotational movement only. Translational movement of joint should be limited to ½”. Proper seating of the bridging
plate is critical to ensure it doesn’t rock.
4
To be used for rotational movement only. Translational movement of joint should be limited to ½”.
5
Parallel saw-cuts are critical on both sides of joint for proper placement.
6
Some modular joints can be replaced with 0-4 Inch joints with an oversized gland.
33.15.2.3 Overlay and Wearing Surface Guidance

See Section 33.1.3 for bridge deck chloride testing requirements for projects
that include installation of a new overlay. Chloride testing results may impact
the selection of the wearing surface type or necessitate deck corrosion
mitigation measures before installing the new wearing surface. See
Section 33.5 for more information.
The following types of deck protection systems are permissible for use on
preservation and rehabilitation projects:
• 3 in. HMA/SMA wearing surface over a waterproofing membrane
• ¾ in. polyester concrete overlay
• ⅜ in. thin-bonded epoxy overlay
BPM projects with an asphalt approach roadway can be combined with

roadway surface treatment projects to realize a substantially lower unit cost for

asphalt. For this reason, the preferred deck protection system for these bridges
is a waterproofing membrane with a 3 in. asphalt wearing surface.
A ¾ in. polyester concrete overlay should be considered for BPM projects

where the approach roadway is concrete or where other factors prevent
reasonable inclusion in a surface treatment project. However, the additional
height of the overlay requires that a taper detail be implemented to avoid
modifying the existing expansion devices and end dams.
A ⅜ in thin-bonded epoxy overlay is not a preferred option for long-term

structure use (≥ 10 years) due to a high life cycle cost. However, if modification
of expansion devices and end dams cannot be avoided or if it is cost prohibitive
to do so, a ⅜ in. thin-bonded epoxy overlay should be considered. Thin-bonded
overlays are placed directly on the existing bridge deck without requiring
modification of expansion joints and end dams.
When changing asphalt thickness, the maximum permanent grade changes

shall be in accordance with the CDOT Roadway Design Manual.
33.15.3 Bridge Preventative Maintenance Project Delivery

33.15.3.1 Standalone Projects
Standalone BPM projects are maintenance projects that are independent of
any other project work and specifically scoped for preventative maintenance
work. Examples of these projects are Expansion Joint projects, Polymer
Concrete Overlay projects and critical culvert projects. They are generally run
by a regional RE or project engineer.
33.15.3.2 Overlay Projects
Bridge Maintenance work is often added on to CDOT overlay projects to take
advantage of project mobilization and lane closures. For any overlay project,
a letter shall be provided to the RE outlining all structures within the overlay
limits and any restrictions for milling work and limitations on overlay
thicknesses. Overhead limitations such as sign structures or bridges over the
highway are also good to list with their clearance limitations. Vertical
clearances should be verified after any overlay projects. The letter shall also
include a listing of any essential repairs on the structures and all funded
preventative maintenance work. Lastly, the letter shall include a listing of the
current bridge rail or guardrails associated with the structures along with their
assumed MASH compliance levels and recommendations for replacement or
rehabilitation. Bridge funding is typically not available for rail replacement
except for essential repair findings. This letter shall be delivered prior to FIR
and preferably at the Scoping meeting.
33.15.3.3 Maintenance Projects
A third type of project delivery for Bridge Maintenance work would be
maintenance projects going to advertisement similar to standalone projects or
work done directly by maintenance forces. Plan and specification
requirements would be similar to other project delivery methods.

33.15.3.4 Process Flow Charts

The process flow charts for rehabilitation and preservation projects are very
similar to new bridge projects but are usually simplified due to the removal of
some of the reports and survey requirements. Widening projects will be almost
identical to new structures. Structure selection reports are still required for
widenings but will be shorter. Rehabilitation work is simplified since survey,
hydraulics and other specialty information is generally not required. Overlay
recommendation/funded work letters are not required for standalone or M-
projects.

33.16 REFERENCES
The following references may be considered for further guidance:
ACI 222R-01: Protection of Metals in Concrete Against Corrosion.
ACI 440.2R-08: Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded
FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures.
Dexter, R.J. and J.M. Ocel. 2013. Manual for Repair and Retrofit of Fatigue
Cracks in Steel Bridges, Report No. FHWA-IF-13-020. March.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011. Bridge Preservation Guide.

FHWA Publication Number: FHWA-HIF-11042. August.
FHWA. 2009. Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures:

Experience, Selection, and Design Guidance-Third Edition. Hydraulic
Engineering Circular No. 23. FHWA Publication No. FHWA-NHI-09-111.
September.
FHWA. 2001. Long-Term Effectiveness of Cathodic Protection Systems on

Highway Structures. Publication No. FHWA-RD-01-096.
Hawk, H. 2003. Bridge Life-Cycle Cost Analysis. Washington, DC:

Transportation Research Board. National Research Council, NCHRP Report
483.
Sohanghpurwala, A.A. 2006. Manual on Service Life of Corrosion-Damaged

Reinforced Concrete Bridge Superstructure Elements. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board. NCHRP Report 558. doi:10.17226/13934
Sohanghpurwala, A.A., W.T. Scannell, and W.H. Hartt. 2002. Repair and
Rehabilitation of Bridge Components Containing Epoxy-Coated
Reinforcement. NCHRP Web Document 50.

SECTION 34: PLANS 34-1
SECTION 34
PLANS
The Designer shall refer to the latest Bridge Detail Manual for guidance in
structure plan preparation and generally accepted detailing notes, standards,
and procedures. The Designer is responsible for becoming knowledgeable
about the Bridge Detail Manual and subsequent updates to its contents.

SECTION 35: COST ESTIMATING AND QUANTITIES 35-1
SECTION 35
COST ESTIMATING AND QUANTITIES
Quantities of the various materials involved in project construction are essential
for determining the estimated project cost and for establishing a basis for the
Contractor’s bid and payment.
Prepare quantity calculations and project cost estimates at the conceptual, and
preliminary stages of project development. Square Foot (SF) cost may be used
at conceptual or planning stages. Cost estimate at preliminary stage is only
required for structure selection report. The best available cost data and project
information at the respective design stage shall be used.
Cost estimates at the FOR and Final will be completed by Engineering

Estimate and Market Analysis (EEMA). For local agency project requirements
see the Local Agency Manual.
35.2 BID ITEMS

Bid items shown in the Summary of Quantities Table located in the plans and
in the Structure Selection Report shall be listed sequentially according to the
most current CDOT Cost Data Book. The eight-digit cost code, item
description, and unit of payment shall be used in the tabulations.
A Project Special Provision shall be written if an accurate description of the

work and the method of measurement for each bid item is not adequately
described in the drawings or outlined in the Standard Specifications for Road
and Bridge Construction or in the Standard Special Provisions.
The Engineering Estimate and Market Analysis (EEMA) Unit tracks and
tabulates bid items and costs for all projects awarded for construction. Data
are published on CDOT’s website. The Item Code Book provides individual bid
items listed sequentially by eight-digit code, item description, and unit. If a new
item is required, the Engineer shall coordinate a request through EEMA.
CDOT’s Construction Cost Data Book provides unit costs for each awarded
project. The cost data summarize the final Engineer’s estimate (completed by
EEMA), the average project bid, and the awarded bid. Engineers and
technicians should use these resources when developing project cost
estimates.
35.3 PLANNING / CONCEPTUAL

During the early planning and conceptual phase of a project, estimated
quantities may be required to evaluate viable and economical structure
alternatives. If square foot costs for the structures cannot be determined, the
structure should be broken down into individual cost items. At this stage,
quantity accuracy between the design and check should be within 10 percent.
Unless determined otherwise, the cost estimate at this project stage should
include a 50 percent contingency.

35.4 SCOPING
The scoping phase follows the planning/conceptual phase. Scoping is the
phase of the project to determine the objectives and requirements necessary
to complete a project. Properly defining the scope allows the team to effectively
estimate cost and schedule.
35.5 PRELIMINARY / FIELD INSPECTION REVIEW (FIR)

For the FIR submittal, the Designer and Independent Checker shall calculate
estimated quantities and a preliminary cost estimate to include in the Structure
Selection Report. Quantities at this stage may be estimated using quantity per
cubic yard, per square yard, or as percentages of individual structure
components. For example, reinforcing steel quantities may be estimated using
average reinforcing weight per concrete volume (lb/cy). At this stage, quantity
accuracy between the design and check should be within 5 percent. If the
Region requests a comprehensive project estimate, these quantities and cost
items should be coordinated with the design team for submittal. Unless
determined otherwise, the cost estimate at this project stage should include a
15 percent contingency.
35.6 FINAL / FINAL OFFICE REVIEW (FOR)

For the FOR submittal final estimates will be completed by EEMA based on
the final quantities calculated and independently checked as outlined in
Section 35.7 of this BDM. FOR level quantities shall also be updated to address
any comments made during the FOR review and submitted with the Ad
document package. EEMA is responsible for the FOR and final Engineer’s
Project Cost Estimate.
35.7 QUANTITY CALCULATIONS

Use the available plan set to compute and check quantities independently at
each design stage. If sufficient information is not on the plan set to determine
the quantity, revise the plans to show the missing information. The Designer
and Checker shall separately summarize their calculated quantities, compare
their values, and resolve any differences in accordance with Section 35.8 of
this BDM. The record quantity set shall typically be the Designer’s, shown in
the Summary of Quantities Table, and included in the field package as
requested. Each set of quantity calculations shall include a summary showing
the percent differences.
Each set of calculations shall compare and meet the required percent
difference per Table 35-1 for each item in the element breakdowns as outlined
in the Bridge Detail Manual, i.e., Superstructure, Abutment 1, Pier 2, etc. For
example, the Designer’s values for excavation for Pier 2 and Pier 3 shall be
compared separately against the corresponding values determined by the
checker. The quality process shall follow the QA/QC procedure outlined in
Section 37 of this BDM.
Use logical breaks between the superstructure and substructure quantities for
the calculations. Such breaks may be construction joints, bearing seats,
expansion devices, abutment front face, abutment back face, or breaks
indicated on the plans. Except for precast prestressed and post tensioned

members, all bridge concrete shall be Class D. Class DF shall be used to

replace Class D in splash zones, see Section 5 for details.
The following recommended logical breaks for bridge quantities should be

followed on all plan sets:
• Include all concrete and rebar below the top of bearing seats at
abutments, wingwalls, and piers in the substructure quantities.
• Include all projecting rebar embedded into the concrete designated as
substructure in the substructure quantities.
• Include a column in the Summary of Quantities Table for approach slab.
Calculate approach slab from the back of approach notch. Include the
anchorage bar into the abutment in the superstructure quantities.
• Except as noted below, include all concrete and rebar above the top of
bearing seats at abutments, wingwalls, and piers in the superstructure
quantities.
• Precast girder members, bridge railings, and caissons have designated
pay items and do not require concrete and rebar quantities.
• Precast panel deck forms required by the plans will be paid for at the
contract unit price for the area shown on the plans. The quantities shall
be in the superstructure quantities.
The following will be included as roadway quantities only and will not be shown
on the bridge Summary of Quantities sheet:
• All revetment such as slope mattress or riprap and associated
excavation. When information for revetment is shown within bridge plan
set, the quantities should be shown. The quantities and checking are
the responsibility of the hydraulic designer.
• Excavation and backfill relating to revetment installation
• All excavation and embankment for spur dikes, channel improvements,
or bike paths
• Common backfill not associated with the construction of the structure or
not shown in the backfill quantities figure
• Unclassified excavation
35.8 ACCURACY AND FORMAT

Required quantity calculation accuracy between originator and checker for
each design phase shall be as shown in Table 35-1. The cost estimate
contingency shown is the preferred value of Staff Bridge but can be adjusted
on a project basis to match the other disciplines involved with the project. For
Information Only quantities shall be held to the same level of accuracy and
checking.

Table 35-1: Contingency and Quantity Accuracy Percentage
Design Phase Contingency Quantity Percent Difference

Planning/Conceptual 50% ± 10%
Scoping 40% ± 10%
Preliminary/FIR 15% ± 5%
Final/FOR/Ad 0% ± 1% (unless noted otherwise)
Design − Check
% Difference = %
Design
• Calculate the quantity percent difference for each structural element

(i.e., abutment, pier), not the final total.
• For all design phases, excavation and backfill quantities may be within
10 percent difference.
• For Final, use actual reinforcing bar lengths, including calculated lap
lengths, in calculating reinforcement weight.
• For Final, when calculating concrete haunch quantity, use the average
haunch as shown in BDM Section 5.5.2.1G.
• For all design phases, use a unit weight of 146.7 pcf or 110 lb/sy per
inch thickness when calculating quantities for Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)
and Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA).
• Do not use preliminary quantities based on volume (#/cy), area (lb/sf), or
percentages for final quantities.
• For all design phases, do not average quantities from the two
independent sets.
• For Final, include a summary showing percentage differences in the
calculations.
• Refer unresolved quantity differences to the Unit Leader or Project
Manager for resolution.
Use the Tabulation of Bridge spreadsheet to create and populate a Summary

of Quantities Table containing item codes and quantities for a bridge project.
Format the Summary of Quantities Table so that it can be embedded in or
linked to a MicroStation drawing file and included in the General Information
section of the project plan set. The spreadsheet is located on CDOT’s Bridge
Design Manual download page. Manual tabulations are allowed.
Round totals shown in the Summary of Quantities Table as shown in Table

35-2.

Table 35-2: Summary of Quantities Table Rounding
Item Rounding Criteria*

All, except as noted below 1
Concrete 0.1 ▲
* For exception items, e.g. timber, ton, etc, see Figure 100-19 in the
Construction Manual for rounding criteria
▲ For quantities, over 25 (based on the 2% specification error limit), round to
the nearest whole number
The project construction cost estimate should include a line item to cover
overhead and indirect costs such as Construction Engineering, Owner
Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) and Design Services During
Construction. The general percentage for construction overhead and indirects
is typically 26 percent but can vary from project to project and should be
coordinated with the Region Business Office.

SECTION 36: CONSTRUCTION 36-1
SECTION 36
CONSTRUCTION
The following section addresses the role of the Project Structural Engineer
during project advertisement and construction. The Project Structural Engineer
shall determine scope, hours, and fee for post-design services using items
defined in this section and through conversations with the Project Engineer.
For consultant designed projects, the CDOT Structural Reviewer shall also
designate hours for assistance as defined herein.
The Request for Proposal and other related Contract Documents define the
role of the Project Structural Engineer for projects contracted under the design-
build delivery method. Consideration of construction methods and tolerances
for specific design elements can be found in their respective sections within
this BDM.
36.2 CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT

The Project Structural Engineer shall be available to the construction Project
Engineer to assist in interpreting the structure plans and specifications and to
resolve structure-related construction issues. Refer to Section 101.103.8.2 of
the CDOT Construction Manual for additional information. Field personnel shall
alert the Project Structural Engineer of any changes or additions to the
structure as defined in the Contract Documents. For consultant designed
projects, the CDOT Structural Reviewer shall be available to resolve
construction-related problems requiring the decision of CDOT from the
Owner’s perspective.
The Bridge Fabrication and Construction Unit within Staff Bridge acts as a
liaison between the field and design engineers and provides fabrication
inspection for the Bridge Program. The Project Structural Engineer may consult
this unit for advice when responding to questions from the field or during girder
fabrication. It should not be assumed that this unit will handle all construction-
related inquiries independently.
36.3 INQUIRIES DURING ADVERTISEMENT

If the Project Engineer requests, the Project Structural Engineer shall attend
the pre-bid conference and assist with questions that arise during the
advertisement period. Such questions may result in structural plan or
specification revisions to provide clarification or correction.
During project advertisement, the Project Engineer shall respond to all inquiries
from contractors, suppliers, or the media regarding the structural plans and
specifications, unless the Project Engineer directs otherwise. This applies to
CDOT employees and participating design consultants. All questions and
responses will be archived and made available to all bidders during the
advertisement phase.

36.4 CONTRACTOR DRAWING SUBMITTALS

There are two types of Contractor drawing submittals: shop drawings and
working drawings. Subsection 105.02 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for
Road and Bridge Construction (Standard Specifications) provides guidance on
which type of drawing should be submitted for different structural works and
which drawings should be sealed by the Contractor’s Engineer). Structural
engineers should become familiar with this subsection and verify project
applicability. When project requirements differ from the Standard
Specifications, the Project Structural Engineer shall include a Project Special
Provision Revision of Section 105 to carefully specify the required submittal
and type.
The Project Structural Engineer, or assigned designee, shall review submitted

drawings for a given structure in accordance with Standard Specifications
Subsection 105.02, except as noted in this section. Electronic submittals are
acceptable. The preferred electronic format is Portable Document Format
(PDF).
36.4.1 Shop Drawings

The Project Engineer will transmit shop drawings to the Project Structural
Engineer for review. A high priority must be given to the review, keeping in
mind the time necessary for resubmittal and subsequent reviews. A guide for
reviewing structural shop drawings is offered below. For additional guidance
on the review of structural steel and prestressed components, see Standard
Specifications Subsections 509.15 and 618.04, respectively.
1. On the office copy, mark in red any errors or corrections; highlight in yellow
all verified information; and mark all other notations in pencil, blue pen, or
black pen. Note: Only red marks shall be transferred to the copies returned
to the Project Engineer and Contractor. The Project Structural Engineer
shall alert the Project Engineer if deviations from the Contract Plans are
allowed. The Contractor should clearly mark any proposed deviations on
the shop drawings as such. The Project Structural Engineer may suggest
a new or revised detail provided that the detail is clearly noted: “Suggested
Correction – Otherwise Revise and Resubmit.”
2. The Project Structural Engineer shall, in addition to Standard Specifications

Subsection 105.02(c), check the following items for compliance with
Contract Plans, Special Provisions, and Standard Specifications. Note:
Manufacturers’ details may deviate from Contract Plans but may still
conform to design requirements.
a. Material specifications
b. Size of member and fasteners
c. Dimensions when also shown in Contract Plans
d. Finish (surface finish, galvanizing, anodizing, painting, priming, etc.)
e. Weld size and type and welding procedure, if required
f. Fabrication – reaming, drilling, and assembly procedures
g. Adequacy of details
h. Erection procedure when required by Contract Plans or Specifications

For MSE walls, the bearing pressure, strap lengths and other design
elements shall be checked against the project worksheets. Values not
meeting worksheet requirements will required stamped calculations from
the Contractor. Values exceeding the values in the worksheet may not
be cause for Change Orders. The Contractor needs to be made aware
that quantity overruns from changes to the project worksheets will not be
paid for.
3. The following items need not be checked; however, they should be

corrected, if necessary, for consistency with other corrections:
a. Quantities in bill of materials

b. Dimensions not shown in Contract Plans
4. If issues arise causing delays in the checking process, the Project

Structural Engineer shall notify their supervisor and the Project Engineer.
In the case of consultant designed projects, the Project Structural Engineer
shall notify the CDOT Structural Reviewer and the Project Engineer.
5. When the review is complete, the Project Structural Engineer will sign,
date, and mark the shop drawings in accordance with Standard
Specifications Subsection 105.02(c). A shop drawing review stamp
indicating the review action is required on each sheet of the shop drawings.
6. The Project Structural Engineer shall retain, in addition to the office copy,
one set of reviewed and marked shop drawings, forward one set to the
CDOT Structural Reviewer (consultant designed projects only), and return
the remaining sets to the Project Engineer. For electronic submittals, the
Project Structural Engineer or the CDOT Structural Reviewer shall return a
copy of the reviewed and marked shops drawings to the Project Engineer
and place a copy on CDOT ProjectWise©. This process supersedes the
transmittal process outlined in the CDOT Construction Manual
Section 105.2.3.
36.4.2 Working Drawings

Typically, working drawings are not formally reviewed by the Project Structural
Engineer or returned to the Contractor. At the Project Engineer’s request, the
Project Structural Engineer may be asked to review certain working drawings
such as shoring or falsework or to assist with interpreting Contractor working
drawing submittals. If time and budget allow, a courtesy review for feasibility
and conformity to contract requirements may be conducted. Review of bridge
rail and expansion device drawings is suggested as time allows to avoid field
issues. A conversation between the Project Structural Engineer and the Project
Engineer is recommended before project advertisement to discuss
expectations of working drawing reviews, budget, and scope.
36.4.3 Demolition and Girder Erection

Structure demolition plans and girder erection plans shall be reviewed for
safety concerns and general feasibility. All safety issues must be addressed
before commencing work.

36.5 REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION (RFI)/REQUESTS FOR REVISION (RFR)

On projects using a delivery method other than design-build, Contractor RFIs
and RFRs shall first be administered through the Project Engineer. Requests
are often for plan or specification clarification or a change in details, design or
specification due to field conditions or variances. If a change is requested, the
Contractor shall provide the solution; it is not the Project Structural Engineer’s
responsibility. The Project Structural Engineer shall make recommendations to
the Project Engineer to allow, accept, delete, add, etc., the RFI/RFR. Direct
correspondence between the Project Structural Engineer and the Contractor
shall not occur, unless the Project Engineer directs otherwise. The Project
Engineer will consider effects to the schedule, impacts to other work activities,
costs, and contract requirements before final response is given to the
Contractor. The Project Structural Engineer or Project Engineer shall place a
copy of the RFI/RFR and response on Project Wise; coordination is required.
36.5.1 As-Constructed Plans

The Project Engineer is responsible for creating as-constructed plans based
on information provided by the Contractor. The Project Structural Engineer or
Project Engineer shall place a copy of the as-constructed plan set on Project
Wise©; coordination is required.
36.6 BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION REVIEWS, FINAL INSPECTION

Upon all structure construction completion, the Project Engineer should ask
the Project Structural Engineer to conduct a final walk-through inspection. This
supersedes Section 101.103.8.3 of the CDOT Construction Manual, which
calls for inspection of only major structures. If construction is complete with no
final inspection, the Project Engineer should be contacted to arrange one.
Typically, the Project Structural Engineer with the addition of a Staff Bridge
representative (for consultant designs) shall perform the inspection. It is
preferred for the Design Engineer to be involved during the inspection due to
their familiarity with the project.
Local Agency projects that involve FHWA/FEMA funds will also require a final
inspection of all structures before project acceptance. The CDOT Structural
Reviewer shall work with their Local Agency Coordinator during the design
phase of the project to inform local agencies of the requirement. The Local
Agency Project Manager shall coordinate the final inspection with the Local
Agency Project Engineer and invite the CDOT Local Agency Coordinator and
the Project Structural Engineer at a minimum. The CDOT Structural Reviewer
or Unit Leader should be invited as a courtesy but the primary responsibility is
on the Project Structural Engineer and the Local Agency for identifying
nonconformant work. Some regions may require a stamped memo from the
Local Agency’s licensed Engineer that the project is in conformance. Refer to
the current edition of the Local Agency Manual for additional requirements and
details.
The final inspection is considered a final walk through for observation and
structure acceptance, and shall be held to determine whether the work was
completed in reasonable conformance with the plans and specifications
including any authorized changes. The intent is to show good stewardship of

the funds provided on the project. Any nonconformance shall be documented

using the Owner Acceptance - Final Walkthrough Items Spreadsheet located
in the Forms & Form Letters section on the website and emailed to the Project
Engineer, the Region Unit Leader, the CDOT Structural Reviewer (if consultant
design) and the Staff Bridge Senior Design & Construction Engineer.
Supporting information such as photos, date of inspection, and attendees
should be included. This “punchlist” of nonconforming items shall be
addressed and resolved prior to acceptance of the project and signing off on
Form 1212.
The final walk through of structures also allows an opportunity to receive

feedback and input from the field on the effectiveness and constructability of
plan details and specification requirements. All lessons learned shall be
included in the Owner Acceptance - Final Walkthrough Items Spreadsheet.
36.7 ARCHIVING
All construction submittals that concern or relate to structures shall be archived
in ProjectWise including Working Drawings, Shop Drawings, RFIs, NCRs,
erection and demolition plans.

SECTION 37: QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL 37-1
SECTION 37
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL
All design construction documents, reports, studies, and any other documents
delivered to CDOT must comply with the minimum requirements of this BDM
and the documents referenced in the Policies and Procedures. Deliverables
are subject to both Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) as
described herein.
37.2 PURPOSE
All entities (CDOT and Consultants) producing deliverables for CDOT must use
a rigorous QA/QC program to accomplish the following objectives, which
include but are not limited to:
• Ensure safe structures for the traveling public
• Provide structures that are low maintenance for the life of the structure
• Prevent problems from occurring during construction
• Provide cost-effective solutions
• Prevent errors
• Provide consistency
• Promote ingenuity
The purpose of this section is not to supplant QA/QC programs and policy
already established internally within CDOT or with individual consulting firms but
rather it describes the minimum requirements that must be included in a QA/QC
program applied to a CDOT project. Unless otherwise described in this BDM,
specific methodologies for conducting and documenting QA/QC procedures are
the prerogative of the entity executing a project. For example, an independent
technical review, described in Section 37.3, is required, but the entity performing
the work is responsible for determining the exact procedure and forms necessary
to perform the review and to document that it has occurred.
This section defines the types of QA/QC reviews, discusses project planning,
and identifies the required QA/QC reviews for each design phase in the order
in which each design phase occurs.
37.3 DEFINITIONS
For definitions not included in this section, refer to the Policies and Procedures
Section of this BDM.
Quality Assurance (QA): The procedure that verifies and documents that
established QC procedures have been implemented during the execution of a
project. QA is performed through audits as defined below.
Quality Control (QC): A systematic procedure that checks the accuracy of
design calculations, construction plans, specifications, and other pertinent
documents to achieve the objectives noted in Section 37.2. When properly used,
QC procedures detect and correct errors and omissions before a project is
constructed. QC procedures include the independent design check, independent

technical review, constructability review, and CDOT structural review on

consultant projects as defined below.
Design: Design includes generation of the following:
• Structure Selection Report
• Structural design calculations that support structural elements
• Bridge geometry
• Detailing construction drawings
• Quantity calculations
• Estimates of probable costs for the Structure Selection Report (Note that
final design includes only quantity calculations, not cost estimates)
• Project Special Provisions
• Structure Load Rating (Refer to the CDOT Bridge Load Rating Manual for
QA/QC requirements)
• Design calculations and detailing drawings resulting from changes during
construction
The Project Structural Engineer is responsible for assigning these tasks to the
Structural Design Engineer(s).
Independent Design Check: The process that uses a person or party

separate from those who prepared the documents to verify the contract
documents. This key QC requirement involves the Independent Design
Engineer verifying all design work, drawings, specifications, quantities, reports
and any construction changes generated by the Structural Design Engineer to
ensure structural integrity, constructability, and satisfaction of all applicable
standards listed in this BDM. As such, the independent design check,
combined with the initial design, results in (1) two sets of complete design and
quantity calculations, both stamped by a Colorado Licensed Professional
Engineer and (2) a review set of the final plans where all discrepancies
between design and the independent check have been resolved. It is
recommended that the Independent Design Engineer have more experience
than the Structural Design Engineer. For some simple designs such as design
by observation based on M&S standards, a red/yellow check may suffice in
lieu of an independent design check. A red/yellow check is defined as a review
of the design calculations where all assumptions and calculations are yellowed
out if correct and redlined if modifications are necessary. The red/yellow check
shall also be stamped by a Colorado Licensed Professional Engineer.
Independent Technical Review: The independent technical review, also

known as an independent design review or a technical peer review, involves
reviewing all project deliverables, including the construction plans,
specifications, and estimate of probable cost. This QC review includes:
• Conformance with generally accepted best practices
• Conformance with CDOT bridge design practices
• Interdisciplinary design coordination: for example, roadway geometry
correctly reflected in the structure plans

• Constructability, biddability, and inspectability issues without solely

relying on the constructability review as defined below
The engineer assigned to the independent technical review (referred to as the

Independent Technical Reviewer) shall be experienced, knowledgeable, and
independent of the development of the project documents.
Constructability Review: The constructability review involves reviewing the

construction plans and specifications to minimize scope changes, reduce
design-related change orders, and ensure the structure and details are
buildable. This QC review includes the following:
• Constructability, which shall consider at a minimum, phasing, sequencing,
detailing, material availability, construction equipment access, and
appropriate inclusion and use of specifications.
• Biddability; for example, the construction plans and specifications are
consistent and contain sufficient information for a Contractor to bid on a
project.
• Inspectability and safety; for example, adequate access for an inspector
to determine the condition of structural elements that require inspection.
Inspectability shall include details such as ladder stops on slope paving,
ladder supports at inspection hatches, appropriately sized hatches,
diaphragm ports, and lock protectors.
Application of constructability reviews is based on the project complexity
(Category I, II, or III) as described below:
• Category I projects include bridges using standard construction

methods that are generally one or two spans, structures that use the
CDOT M&S Standards, and simple repairs such as expansion joint
replacement. The Project Structural Engineer or in rare cases an outside
consultant can conduct the review.
• Category II projects include bridges with specialty features, longer
bridge lengths than Category I projects, or a project team with insufficient
experience with the type of construction involved in the project.
Category II bridges may include cast-in-place post-tensioned concrete,
curved steel plate girders, etc. An experienced Project Structural
Engineer, a construction engineer, and possibly an outside consulting firm
may conduct the constructability review.
• Category III projects include critical or complex structures as defined by
superstructure and substructure type, geometry, construction methods,
height, length, or feature intersected. Category III bridges may include
concrete segmental construction, curved steel box girders, viaducts,
major river crossings, etc. A highly experienced Project Structural
Engineer, a highly experienced construction engineer, an outside
consulting firm, or possibly a contractor may conduct the constructability
review.
Quality Assurance (QA) Audit: A review of the contract documents to verify

that the project QC procedures have been implemented.

CDOT Structural Review: On Consultant projects, a CDOT Structural

Reviewer will be assigned to review the deliverables. This review generally
includes similar aspects as the independent technical review but from an
oversight perspective. Thorough reviews of the preliminary design submittals
(as a minimum, Structure Selection Reports and FIR plans) and final design
submittals are required.
37.4 QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

All CDOT projects should have a project-specific Quality Management Plan
(QMP) that identifies the scope of work, project objectives, schedule,
deliverables, and QA/QC procedures that will be used to achieve a successful
project. A QMP may already be a requirement of a Consultant QA/QC program,
which can also be used for a CDOT project.
As part of the QMP, the following meetings should be used to initiate the project
and to ensure that the project is on the right path throughout the design
process:
• Project Scoping Meeting: A project scoping meeting should be used to
discuss the project objectives, design criteria, critical issues, and
procedures used to mitigate risk. From a structural design point of view,
the Project Structural Engineer, CDOT Structural Reviewer, and key team
members should attend this meeting.
• Structure Status Meetings: On Consultant projects, the Project
Structural Engineer shall meet periodically with the CDOT Structural
Reviewer to discuss the design work. The frequency of meetings should
be established at the project scoping meeting. The frequency is based on
project complexity. Attendance by the Resident Engineer and, as
appropriate, other design team members (e.g., geotechnical, hydraulics,
roadway, and traffic) is encouraged. Holding structure status meetings for
CDOT designed projects is also encouraged.
37.5 QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES

Each submittal, including all portions of the submittal, is subject to the
independent design check, independent technical review, constructability
review, QA audit, and CDOT structural review. The following briefly describe
the reviews required in each design phase:
• Preliminary Design (FIR): A critical period in the life of a project where
the direction of a project is determined. Independent design checks of
elements that make up the FIR submittal are required, such as:
 Geometric layout
 Confirmation of structural elements that affect the recommended
structure type (e.g., span lengths, girder type, and foundation type)
 Quantities and the cost estimate
 Data and conclusions in the Structure Selection Report. Refer to the
Structure Selection Report Checklist in Section 2, Appendix 2A. The
Staff Bridge Unit Leader shall approve the Structure Selection Report.

In addition, the Structure Selection Report should undergo a technical edit

for grammar, spelling, and readability to both structural and
non-structural engineers.
The independent technical review, constructability review, and CDOT

structural review are also required to ensure that a project is on a
successful path. When critical issues are not addressed during the FIR
phase, they can have a significant impact on final design.
The CDOT Structural Reviewer, in consultation with the Staff Bridge

Engineer and the Resident Engineer, shall select the project category
(I, II, or III) during preliminary design. This will determine the appropriate
level of constructability review for the project.
• Final Design (FOR): The Project Structural Engineer is responsible for

originating or updating tasks defined in Section 37.3. During final design,
the Independent Design Engineer shall be provided a complete set of
FOR construction plans without any supporting calculations from the
Structural Design Engineer. Through the independent design check, a
second set of calculations is produced to support all appropriate design
information in the plans, including, but not limited to, the following:
 Design criteria
 Geometry
 All structural elements that support load
 Devices that accommodate structure movements
 Quantities
The exception to the independent design check process is situations

when Strut and Tie models are used. They must be shared with the design
checker to obtain concurrence on the models. To avoid late changes,
concurrence should be obtained for the models as they are developed,
rather than at the end of the design phase.
The independent design check also involves checking the FOR
specifications, which includes the following:
 Determine if the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
Construction adequately cover all aspects of construction in the plans.
 If the Standard Specifications are not adequate, determine if the
CDOT Standard Special Provisions selected for the project are
appropriate.
 If neither the Standard Specifications nor the Standard Special
Provisions are adequate, Project Special Provisions are required and
must be checked. CDOT provides Project Special Provisions and
Bridge Design Worksheets (BDW) that can be modified for a project.
 QC documents, independent technical review, constructability review,
and CDOT structural review are also required for the FOR documents.
When the plans are complete, the initial block on the left side of the
standard CDOT border shall be completed to identify the Designer

and checker for the structural design, detailing, and quantity

calculations.
• AD Plans &Specifications (P&S): After the FOR meeting, all comments
must be addressed and incorporated as appropriate. If items change the
structural design or involve new structural items, they are subject to the
previously described QA/QC procedures prior to final submittal. The AD
P&S submittal shall be accompanied by a Final Detail Letter (FDL)
certifying that the structural plans and specifications have been prepared
in accordance with standards set by CDOT.
• Documentation of Review Comments: All comments received from the
FIR and FOR meetings shall be tracked. The documentation should
include at a minimum: (1) reviewer comments, (2) reference to the
location in the reviewed document (e.g., sheet number, chapter, and
section) for each comment, (3) comment responses, and (4) confirmation
that each comment has been incorporated into the document as
appropriate.
• Review Comment Resolution: Comment resolution from independent
design checks, independent technical reviews, and constructability
reviews shall be documented. The Project Structural Engineer and/or
CDOT Structural Reviewer, as appropriate, are responsible for ensuring
all comments and discrepancies are resolved. He or she shall make the
final determination if comments and discrepancies are unable to be
resolved between the Structural Design Engineer and the Independent
Design Engineer or Independent Technical Reviewer.
• QA Audit: A person independent from the project team (not involved in
producing project-related documents) and intimately familiar with the
project QA/QC requirements is assigned to perform a QA audit. This
person can be someone from the organization producing the documents
or another organization contracted to provide QA audits. The QA audit
verifies that the QC procedures have been implemented. A QA audit
should occur before each deliverable is submitted.
Below are two examples of what an auditor may do to assure that a
required quality procedure has been completed correctly for a set of
construction plans:
1. The independent design check process includes creating a red-line
drawing that shows suggested corrections, agreement for what
corrections should be made, and demonstrates incorporation of the
corrections to a clean drawing. The auditor reviews the red-line
drawing to see evidence of a checking procedure and verifies that the
initials block identifies the Designer and checker for design, detailing,
and quantities. The auditor may also compare the red-line drawing to
the clean drawing, not for the purpose of determining if the change is
correct, but to verify changes have been incorporated.
2. An independent technical review of drawings/documents may be
conducted by filling out a comment resolution form that documents
the following:
a. Independent Technical Reviewer (reviewer) comments

b. Structural Design Engineer’s (originator) responses

c. Initial and final disposition of the comment, e.g., accept, delete,
clarify/discuss, incorporate in the next submittal
d. Reviewer initials placed on the form after verifying that agreed
upon dispositions are addressed as discussed
In this review, an auditor will verify that there is agreement
between the originator and reviewer, and that the reviewer signed
the form after verifying the disposition. The auditor may also verify
that the change was made to the drawing.

SECTION 38: ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY 38-1
SECTION 38
ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY
38.1.1 Delivery Method Evaluation
Currently, several types of project delivery systems are available for publicly
funded transportation projects. The most common systems are Design-Bid-
Build, Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC), and Design-Build.
No single project delivery method is appropriate for every project. Each project
must be examined individually to determine how it aligns with the attributes of
each available delivery method. CDOT has developed a Project Delivery
Selection Matrix to evaluate all methods for a project and ultimately to select
the delivery method.
The latest version of the Project Delivery Selection Matrix can be found at
https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/adp-db-cmgc/pdsm.
For CM/GC and Design-Build methods, the Designer is encouraged to review

the latest CDOT manuals for each method. Both manuals can be found here
at https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/adp-db-cmgc.
Public-Private Partnership is another alternative delivery method where

funding is provided through a partnership with a private entity. For the purposes
of bridge design, the Designer shall follow the same guidelines as set forth for
Design-Build.
38.2 DESIGN-BID-BUILD
CDOT most commonly uses the Design-Bid-Build delivery format to develop
plans and specifications. With this format, the design is completed with a
complete set of plans and specifications before project advertisement. The
plans and specifications are competitively bid on, and a Contractor is selected.
The Designer shall follow the Structures Process Diagram presented in
Policies and Procedures, Section E of this BDM when preparing designs,
plans, and specifications. The design plans and specifications for
advertisement/bid may name proprietary products but shall generally include
two to three product options to promote competition unless it is an innovative
application.
38.3 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/GENERAL CONTRACTOR

Construction Manager/General Contractor or CM/GC is a method of delivery
that allows CDOT to select a Contractor to provide feedback during the design
phase. When consultants are used for design, the design consultant and the
Contractor have independent contracts with CDOT. This method allows the
Contractor to work with the Designer and CDOT to identify, minimize, and
appropriately share risks; provide cost projections; and refine the project
schedule. Once design is complete, CDOT and the Contractor negotiate the
bid price and schedule of the construction contract. If CDOT agrees with the
Contractor’s bid and schedule, the contract is awarded and construction

begins. If CDOT and the Contractor cannot agree on the bid and schedule, the
project is put out to bid in a manner like that of a Design-Bid-Build project.
On CM/GC projects, the Designer’s role is similar to that on a Design-Bid-Build

project. As part of the project development process, the Designer shall vet and
incorporate Contractor comments and follow the Structures Process Diagram
presented in Policies and Procedures, Section E of this BDM when preparing
designs, plans, and specifications, except as noted herein. As part of the
structure selection process, the Contractor’s feedback may result in CDOT
electing to eliminate certain structure types or span configurations due to cost,
complexity, or risk. The Designer may incorporate Contractor preferred
construction methods in the plans if other local contractors have the means to
perform the work. The design plans and specifications for the Release for
Construction submittal may name proprietary products but shall generally
include 2 to 3 product options to promote competition unless it is an innovative
application.
38.4 DESIGN-BUILD AND STREAMLINED DESIGN-BUILD

CDOT uses two types of Design-Build delivery systems:
• Streamlined Design-Build – A streamlined design-build delivery is a single
step procurement. CDOT does not shortlist teams through a statement of
qualifications (SOQ) submittal but relies on pre-qualified Contractors and
Designers to bid and perform the work. The streamlined delivery system
is primarily used for smaller structural projects that may have various site
challenges, rapid schedules, or other complexities that allow innovative
design and construction.
• Standard Design-Build – A standard design-build project is typically a
large scope project with complexities like those of the streamlined design-
build but on a much larger scale. On these projects, CDOT will first
shortlist teams through a SOQ process. Then CDOT will select the
winning team using a best value approach. A best value approach ties
project goals to best value parameters, such as cost, time, scope,
technical design considerations, and construction operational
considerations. These parameters are evaluated using specific scoring
criteria and entered into an evaluation formula to identify the apparent
successful proposer.
• In either Design-Build delivery format, the Contractor is under contract
with CDOT, whereas the Engineer-of-Record Designer is under contract
with the Contractor.
• Designers may be called on for a variety of roles on a Design-Build
project. A Designer may work as part of the owner representation team,
which includes CDOT and consultant staff, or the Contractor’s team,
which includes the Contractor and consultant designers.

38.4.1 Owner Representation – Preliminary Design

Before advertisement of a Design-Build project, CDOT may require a Designer
to develop conceptual level plans and to draft the technical requirements. This
provides both a starting point for Design-Build teams in their pursuit of the
project and serves as the technical requirements that the Contractor’s team
must follow through the final design for CDOT to accept the design.
Concept plans shall include information on minimum structure requirements.

This is typically provided as a typical section and/or a general layout for each
major structure. A joint agreement between CDOT Region and Staff Bridge
shall determine the level of detail. Generally, design is progressed to a 10% to
20% level, depending on the complexity of the site and the project constraints.
The Designer preparing the technical requirements is encouraged to obtain

CDOT’s most recent Design-Build project’s final structural technical
requirements and to modify them to fit the current project. The Designer is
encouraged to work directly with Staff Bridge to vet draft versions of the
document before advertisement of the Draft Request for Proposals (RFP).
After the Draft RFP is advertised, the Designer will modify the technical
requirements as necessary until the Final RFP is published. When necessary,
Addendums to the Final RFP may be required to provide final technical
requirements to the Contractor team before receipt of proposals, proposal
evaluations, and announcement of the apparent successful proposer.
38.4.2 Owner Representation – Delivery

After the contract is awarded on a Design-Build project, the Designer may be
called on to review Contractor design submittals. This effort requires that the
Designer review the plans, specifications, and calculations for conformance to
the final technical requirements and associated design criteria. These design
criteria include, but are not limited to, the CDOT BDM, the latest edition of the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, and project aesthetic
requirements. The reviewer shall document all instances where the design
does not meet the technical requirements or design criteria and provide
comments to the CDOT Project Manager. Like other owner representation
tasks, the Designer is encouraged to maintain communication with Staff Bridge
and keep the unit informed of areas of concern.
38.4.3 Contractor’s Designer

The Contractor’s Designer shall provide designs, plans, and specifications as
directed by the contract outlined for the Design-Build project through the
Instructions to Proposers, Book 1 (where used), and Book 2 (Technical
Requirements). The Designer may specify specific and proprietary items on
the plans. These items should be selected from CDOT’s Approved Product
List, when applicable. The Contractor’s specific means and methods may be
incorporated into the design as long as the methodology of construction does
not conflict with the technical requirements or limit future maintenance.
Technical requirements will outline project deliverables.

38.5 ALTERNATIVE BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATION

CDOT has the option to include an Alternative Bridge Design Specification
project special provision for any bridge designed using the Design-Bid-Build
delivery method. This special provision allows the Contractors who bid on the
project to develop and price an alternative structure in lieu of bidding the default
structure in the advertised plans. Acceptable alternative structure types and
any other applicable design constraints for alternative structures will be
delineated in the special provision.
Should a Contractor become the successful bidder with an alternative structure

in the bid, the alternative structure will be designed and constructed using the
Design-Build format of delivery for just that portion of the project. The
alternative structure shall meet the design criteria and design deliverables as
outlined in the special provision. Designer specification of proprietary items
shall be as delineated for Design-Build projects. The Contractor’s specific
means and methods may be incorporated into the design as delineated for
Design-Build projects.

SECTION 39: ACCELERATED BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION 39-1
SECTION 39
ACCELERATED BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
39.1 GENERAL INFORMATION
This section provides general guidance for the use of accelerated bridge
construction (ABC) techniques.
A standard practice for project delivery, ABC evaluates innovative materials,

construction techniques, project planning, and design methods to safely and
efficiently reduce construction time and traffic impacts for new and rehabilitated
structures. CDOT is committed to using ABC as a tool to achieve the following
goals:
• Embrace FHWA’s Every Day Counts (EDC) initiatives
• Decrease and minimize maintenance of traffic (MOT) operations to
reduce user costs associated with delays
• Encourage innovation
• Improve motorist and worker safety
To further strengthen CDOT’s role as stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars and to

achieve the above goals, CDOT has developed tools and resource materials
for evaluating ABC techniques to determine their applicability toward a given
project. For Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) software downloads and specific
resource materials mentioned in this section, refer to Accelerated Bridge
Construction documents on CDOT’s website at
https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/abc-documents.
39.2 ABC EVALUATION OVERVIEW

39.2.1 Background
CDOT uses an ABC decision chart during project scoping to determine if ABC
is appropriate for the project and site constraints. This chart was based on the
FHWA manual entitled Decision-Making Framework for Prefabricated Bridge
Elements and Systems (PBES), May 2006. This process is based on a set of
questions about specific constraints of each project. If certain thresholds are
met, ABC was recommended.
Subsection 39.2.2 outlines the approach for the ABC decision-making process
and how it is used during project development. The ABC Evaluation and
Decision Matrix Workflow – Attachment A, shown in Figure 39-1, has been
developed to graphically assist project engineers and planners in implementing
the ABC process.
39.2.2 ABC Evaluation Process

The intent of the evaluation process is to apply some form of ABC on most
projects. To encourage the use of ABC, a two-step process is presented as
follows:

1. Complete the CDOT Prescoping ABC Rating, Attachment B, spreadsheet

(refer to Subsection 39.3.2 for additional information). The Design Team
completes this spreadsheet at the pre-scoping level based on a general
understanding of the project and its site constraints. If, according to the
supplemental flowchart, the resulting ABC rating indicates little to no benefit
in implementing ABC, the evaluation process is complete and is
documented as part of this first step. This spreadsheet should be included
in both simple and complex structure pre-scoping reports.
2. If the ABC rating indicates a benefit to implementing ABC, the Design Team
shall execute the FHWA AHP software. This process uses a structured
technique to organize and analyze only complex bridge construction
decisions. It also provides a more in-depth evaluation to select the most
appropriate ABC methods to meet the project goals and constraints. The
ABC Construction Matrix – Attachment C (Figure 39-2) provides examples
of construction methods with respect to project complexity. The second
step will take place after pre-scoping but before completion of FIR level
design efforts. This interactive process is completed with the CDOT
specialty groups and led by the Project Engineer and a CDOT subject
matter expert (SME). The Design Team shall capture and document for the
project files summaries of each step of the decision process.
This ABC methodology shall be evaluated for all projects that include bridges.
The final project submittal will include a justification letter written to the project
file explaining why an ABC technique is or is not used. The Design Team shall
also document the ABC decision process, including any supporting materials,
in the Structure Selection Report (refer to Section 2.10 of this BDM for
additional information) as part of FIR level design tasks.
Approval of ABC is at the discretion of each Resident Engineer/Region in

coordination with the CDOT Unit Leader and should be communicated and
approved at a level commensurate with the complexity of the ABC method and
project cost. For example, a self-propelled modular transporter (SPMT) bridge
move should receive the Regional Transportation Director’s , Chief Engineer’s
concurrence for a bridge over light rail tracks, whereas use of prefabricated
bridge elements may require approval from only the CDOT Unit Leader and
Resident Engineer.
The ABC Workshop PowerPoint presentation (dated March 6, 2013) offers

project-specific examples illustrating the use of the pre-scoping ABC rating and
AHP software, as well as ABC project case histories. It is also recommended
that the Design Team work with the designated SME for guidance and
information about the use of the ABC materials. Subsection 39.3 discusses
these resources in further detail.
39.3 ABC MATERIALS AND RESOURCE GUIDANCE

39.3.1 ABC Evaluation and Decision Matrix Workflow – Attachment A
Figure 39-1 graphically illustrates the two-phase approach for the ABC
decision-making process from project inception to FIR level design efforts.

Figure 39-1: ABC Decision Matrix Workflow

39.3.2 Pre-scoping ABC Rating – Attachment B

39.3.2.1 ABC Rating Procedure
The pre-scoping ABC rating spreadsheet is required during the bridge pre-
scoping level and calculates an ABC rating score that accounts for all the
project measures defined in Subsection 39.3.2.3, except environmental issues.
Weighting factors have been assigned to each measure to coincide with
FHWA’s EDC initiatives and CDOT’s goals. The Designer shall not modify the
weighting factors for individual projects.
The values assigned to each project decision measure are multiplied by the
corresponding weight factor. The ABC rating score is the ratio of the weighted
score to the maximum score shown as a percentage and is categorized into
three ranges: 0 to 20, 20 to 50, and over 50. The minimum score of 20 is
intended to capture any project receiving a score of 5 in any one of the four
most heavily weighted categories, while the higher threshold score of 50 is
intended to capture any project receiving an average score of 3.5 in the four
most heavily weighted categories. The range of scores is set to ensure that
accelerated construction is commonplace when the measured benefit is more
significant than the measured cost with respect to accomplishing FHWA EDC
initiatives and CDOT’s goals. Apply the ABC rating score to the flowchart to
work toward a conclusion.
39.3.2.2 ABC Decision Flowchart

The ABC Rating Procedure described in Subsection 39.3.2.1 is the first step in
determining if ABC is appropriate for a given project. The ABC Decision
Flowchart applies the ABC rating score and then addresses Yes/No factors
that are considered before making a final decision on the construction
approach. Factors include project schedule, environmental concerns, total
project cost, site conditions, and high-level indirect costs such as political
capital, safety, or impacts to stakeholders.
Together, the ABC Rating Procedure and ABC Decision Flowchart are used to
make a final determination of the appropriate construction methods for each
project. If ABC is deemed beneficial to the project at the pre-scoping level, the
Design Team should proceed to the second step in the evaluation process,
applying the AHP software and discussing with CDOT specialty groups such
as Staff Bridge, Utilities, Environmental, Traffic, and Hydraulics, to better
identify site constraints, project goals, and preferred ABC technologies and
delivery methods.
39.3.2.3 ABC Rating Procedure Measures

Using the Structure Inspection Assessment Report and Staff Bridge user costs
spreadsheet in conjunction with preliminary knowledge of the project
conditions, the Design Team determines the appropriate score for each ABC
measure. The nine ABC measures described herein are incorporated into the
Pre-Scoping ABC Rating procedure to help determine where the use of ABC
is appropriate and to output the ABC rating score.
• Average Daily Traffic (ADT) – This is a measure of the volume of traffic

traversing the bridge site. Use a value equal to the total number of

vehicles on and under the bridge, where applicable. This measure

accounts for the value of maintaining the interstate highway network by
assigning the maximum score for this situation. This measure also
addresses minimizing impacts to the traveling public during construction.
• Delay/Detour Time – This is a measure of the time required for vehicles
to pass through or circumvent a construction site because of a project. It
accounts for the time delays due to detours and construction induced
congestion. If delays are anticipated for the roadways both on and under
the bridge, enter the worst-case scenario. This measure addresses
minimizing impacts to the traveling public during construction.
• Bridge Importance – This measure assigns a value for bridges on or
over designated emergency evacuation routes or bridges that are
economically crucial to servicing local communities and businesses. This
measure addresses minimizing impacts to the traveling public by
accelerating construction on these important roadways.
• User Costs – This is a measure of the financial impact a construction
project has on the traveling public. While the contributing factors in
calculating user costs are traffic delays and ADT, the duration of the
impact to users is essential in measuring the burden to the traveling
public. CDOT has instituted standard methods for calculating user costs
using FHWA guidelines. The Design Team shall calculate user costs in
coordination with the Regional Traffic Engineer to determine the total
project cost for each construction option being evaluated, including, but
not limited to, SPMT methods, slide-in bridge construction, prefabricated
elements, or conventional construction. This measure addresses
minimizing impacts to the traveling public during construction, reducing
total project costs, and encouraging innovation.
• Economy of Scale – This measure accounts for repetition in structural
elements and construction processes; how they relate to the overall
project cost; and the potential savings to future projects. To account for
repetition of substructure and superstructure elements, the number of
spans for a proposed bridge is applied when quantifying economies of
scale. This measure addresses reducing total project costs.
• Safety – This is a measure of the safety provided to the traveling public
and contractor employees. A goal of implementing ABC methods is to
reduce the amount of time motorists and workers are exposed to
potentially hazardous construction environments. Project sites that
require complex MOT schemes for extended periods of time are
undesirable and impact the safety rating. This measure addresses
improving worker and motorist safety during construction.
• Railroad Impacts – This is a measure of the impact to railroad
operations. The quantity of railroad tracks and their importance to daily
train operations are considered when determining this impact. This
measure addresses total project cost, improving worker safety, and
minimizing impacts to commerce.
• Site Conditions – This is a measure of the physical site constraints
preventing the use of ABC methods. For example, vertical profile shifts

over 1 ft. greatly impact, if not inhibit, the ability to accelerate construction.
Additionally, time sensitive utilities may limit the time available for
construction, local soil stability may preclude the use of heavy
construction equipment, or adjacent ROW designations may limit staging
opportunities. This measure addresses physical fatal flaws to the ABC
delivery process.
• Environmental Concerns – The presence of endangered species or
annual spawning seasons may shorten the opportunity for construction.
In other cases, projects may have limitations due to wetlands, air quality,
extreme weather, historical designations, or noise ordinances. ABC may
be necessary to accomplish an acceptable level of impact on the
surrounding environment. This measure does not specifically address a
goal and is not a weighted factor in determining the ABC rating score;
rather, it is included in the ABC Decision Flowchart to evaluate if ABC can
provide appropriate mitigation to an environmental commitment or
requirement.
39.3.3 ABC Matrix – Attachment C

The ABC Matrix (Figure 39-2) provides suggestions for accelerated
construction techniques that may be applied depending on the complexity of
the project. This matrix offers preliminary guidance only; the Design Team is
encouraged to develop innovative solutions, especially if the chosen project
delivery method is Construction Manager General Contractor or Design-Build.
Conversely, the decision to execute ABC technologies may dictate the project
delivery method because fast-track contracting methods are often tailored to
Owner involvement and project goals. When using this matrix, it is important
that the Design Team acknowledges total construction cost is not the primary
consideration when determining suitable ABC methods where project
constraints, for instance, favor public safety and/or user cost benefits.
39.3.4 ABC AHP Decision Tool Software

Refer to CDOT’s website to download the AHP software and to access the
complete ABC Decision Making Software materials, including definitions, user
manual, and supplemental software development information.
39.4 OTHER RESOURCES

FHWA’s Accelerated Bridge Construction Manual provides detailed guidance
to educate engineers further in ABC technologies, prefabricated bridge
elements, construction techniques, and project planning and decision-making
tools. Refer to FHWA’s Accelerated Bridge Construction website
(www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/abc/) for the most recent manual publication,
webinars, case studies, and technical contacts.

Figure 39-2: ABC Matrix

Appendix A - Design Examples

APPENDIX A - DESIGN EXAMPLES
Appendix A contains the following examples:
• Example 1 - Elastomeric Leveling Pad Method A

• Example 2 - Type I Bearing (Steel Reinforced) Method A
• Example 3 - Type I Bearing (Steel Reinforced) Method B
• Example 4 - Type II Bearing (Reinforced Bearing with PTFE) Method B
• Example 5 - Expansion Device (Strip Seal) 0-4 Inch
• Example 6 - Deck Design, Including Type 10 MASH Rail Collision
• Example 6.1 - Deck Design
• Example 6.2 – Type 10 MASH Strength Design
• Example 6.3 - Barrier Type 9 Strength Design
• Example 6.4 - Overhang Design
• Example 7 - Girder Haunch and Camber
• Case 1: Bulb Tee Bridge
• Case 2: Side-by-Side Box Girder Bridge
• Example 8 - Cantilever Wingwall Design Loads
• Example 9 - Seismic Zone 1 Design Example
• Example 10 - Sign Structure Foundation Design
• Example 11 - Cast-in-Place Concrete Cantilever Retaining Wall
• Example 12 - Rail Anchor Slab Design
• Example 13 - Vehicle Collision on a Pier
Disclaimer: These examples, associated software to develop them, and other files are intended for use by Consultants working
for CDOT Staff Bridge in their development of projects for the Colorado Department of Transportation. Any other use is at the sole
discretion of the user. The Colorado Department of Transportation makes the examples, associated software, and other files
available "AS IS" and assumes no liability nor makes any warranty of any kind, including warranties of non-infringement, fitness or
merchant ability whether expressed or implied, to the accuracy or functionality of these files. By using, referencing, and/or
downloading any files, you are agreeing to this disclaimer. The examples provided are intended to provide common examples
associated with bridge and structure design. They do not provide the full design requirements for structure design or analysis and
the designer should finish all additional calculations and code checks to accomplish the full evaluation and analysis for the
structure.

APPENDIX A: EXAMPLE 1 - ELASTOMERIC LEVELING PAD (METHOD A) 1
=============================================================================================
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE 1 - ELASTOMERIC LEVELING PAD
METHOD A
GENERAL INFORMATION
Per CDOT Bridge Design Manual (BDM) Section 14.5.7, leveling pads are plain elastomeric pads (PEP) and are designed using
Method A procedures in accordance with AASHTO LRFD 7th Edition Section 14.7.6
Leveling pads are primarily used with integral substructures and will not experience shear displacements in that condition. In
addition, design for bearing rotation is implicit within Method A procedures (AASHTO C14.7.6.1). The Designer, however, shall
confirm that the thickness of the leveling pad is sufficient to prevent girder-to-support contact as a result of anticipated girder
rotations, girder skew, and roadway vertical geometry. Leveling pads used with integral substructures are designed for dead loads
only, up to and including the deck pour, per BDM Section 14.5.7.
MATERIAL AND SECTION PROPERTIES

Leveling Pad Dimensions
Leveling Pad Width W= 37.00 in AASHTO 14.7.5.1
Leveling Pad Length L= 10.00 in AASHTO 14.7.5.1
Leveling Pad Thickness hri = hrt = 0.75 in Typically between 1/2" and 1"
Leveling Pad Material Properties

Shore A Durometer Hardness
Duro = 60 (min) BDM 14.5.7
Shear Modulus
The least favorable value is assumed since the material is specified by its hardness value (AASHTO 14.7.6.2)
G = 0.13 ksi AASHTO T14.7.6.2-1

Check = 0.08 ksi < G < 0.25 ksi OK AASHTO 14.7.6.2
FIGURE 1 - LEVELING PAD DETAIL

=============================================================================================
BRIDGE GEOMETRY
Profile grade between supports %= -1.50 %
∁L bearing to FF Abutment Ad = 1.25 ft
BEARING ROTATIONS
Rotations include effects of girder camber. For all rotation values, positive indicates an upward rotation while negative indicates a
downward rotation.
Service I Limit State Loads
Net girder rotations (camber plus 𝜃 = 0.004 rad
dead loads)
Include a rotational allowance of 0.005 radians due to uncertainties in bearing fabrication and bearing seats. Per
BDM 14.5.4, the flatness tolerance for bearing seat uncertainties is accounted for in the rotational allowance.
Construction Tolerance 𝜃 = 0.005 rad AASHTO 14.4.2.1
BEARING LOADS
Loads acting on the leveling pad are dead load girder reactions, up to and including the deck pour, at the service limit state. Loads
are per bearing.
Service I Limit State

DL = 136.00 kip
SOLUTION
Shape Factor
Total thickness of interior layer, hri, is equal to total elastomer thickness, hrt (hri = hrt)
Rectangular, plain bearing shape factor without holes:
𝐿𝑊
𝑆𝑖 (10.00*37.00) / [2*0.75*(10.00+37.00)] = 5.25 AASHTO 14.7.5.1-1
2ℎ 𝐿 𝑊
Compressive Stress AASHTO 14.7.6.3.2

The compressive stress of the leveling pad shall satisfy the criteria below for a PEP.
𝜎 average compressive stress due to total load from applicable service load combinations
𝜎 1.00𝐺𝑆 1.00*0.13*5.25 = 0.68 ksi AASHTO 14.7.6.3.2-1

and
𝜎 0.80 𝑘𝑠𝑖 AASHTO 14.7.6.3.2-2
𝐷𝐿
𝜎 136.00 / (10.00*37.00) = 0.37 ksi
𝐿𝑊
Check 𝜎 1.00𝐺𝑆 0.37 ksi < 0.68 ksi OK
Check 𝜎 0.80 𝑘𝑠𝑖 0.37 ksi < 0.80 ksi OK

=============================================================================================
Compressive Deflection
Compressive deflection under initial dead load of a PEP shall meet the following criteria in AASHTO 14.7.6.3.3 and 14.7.5.3.6.
Total thickness of interior layer, hri, is equal to total elastomer thickness, hrt (hri = hrt). Note the graphs presented in Figure
C14.7.6.3.3-1 apply to laminated bearings; equation C14.7.5.3.6-1 will be used in lieu of these graphs to determine the strain in
the bearing pad under applicable stresses.
𝛿 .09ℎ 0.09*0.75 = 0.068 in. AASHTO 14.7.6.3.3
𝛿 ∑𝜀 ℎ AASHTO 14.7.5.3.6-2
𝜀 dead load compressive strain in elastomeric pad

𝜎
𝜀 AASHTO C14.7.5.3.6-1
4.8𝐺𝑆
𝐷𝐿
𝜎 0.37 ksi
𝐿𝑊
𝜎
𝜀 0.37 / (4.8*0.13*5.25^2) = 0.021
4.8𝐺𝑆
Check
𝛿 𝜀 ℎ 0.021*0.75 = 0.016 in < 0.068 in OK
Stability AASHTO 14.7.6.3.6

Total thickness of interior layer, hri, is equal to total elastomer thickness, hrt (hri = hrt).
Total bearing thickness shall not exceed the lesser of the following dimensions:
𝐿
10.00 / 3 = 3.33 in
3
and
𝑊
37.00 / 3 = 12.33 in
3
Check hrt = 0.75 in < 3.33 in OK
Geometry
Confirm that the thickness of the leveling pad is adequate to prevent girder-to-support contact under anticipated girder rotations
and roadway geometry. Assume rotations are about the centerline of bearing.
Maximum rotation, including compressive deflection effects, before bottom of girder comes in contact with the
top of support:
𝜃 tan -tan^-1[ (0.75-0.016) / (1.25*12) ] = -0.0489 rad
Rotation of girder due to profile grade of bridge between supports in question:

%
𝜃 tan tan^-1( -1.50/100) = -0.0150 rad
Total girder rotation, including camber, dead loads, allowances for construction and bearing fabrication uncertainties,
and roadway geometry.
𝜃 𝜃 𝜃 𝜃 0.0040-0.0050+-0.0150 = -0.0160 rad
Total rotations through the deck pour need to be less than the maximum rotation:
𝜃 𝜃 -0.0489 rad > -0.0160 rad OK

APPENDIX A: EXAMPLE 2 - TYPE I BEARING (REINFORCED) (METHOD A) 1
=============================================================================================
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE 2 - TYPE I BEARING (STEEL REINFORCED)
METHOD A
GENERAL INFORMATION
Per CDOT Bridge Design Manual (BDM) Section 14.5.8, reinforced bearing pads may be designed using Method A upon
approval by CDOT Unit Leader in coordination with the Bearing SMEs. This example is in accordance with AASHTO LRFD 7th
Edition Section 14.7.6.
This example assumes a concrete superstructure that can displace under the effects of temperature, creep, and shrinkage, and
assumes a rectangular bearing similar to that shown in Figure 1. The structure is assumed to move freely in the longitudinal
direction for the range of temperatures conforming to AASHTO 3.12.2.2 Procedure B. Design for rotation is implicit within Method
A procedures per AASHTO C14.7.6.1 and is not investigated. The Designer, however, shall confirm that the thickness of the
bearing pad is sufficient to prevent girder-to-support contact as a result of anticipated girder rotations, girder skew, and roadway
vertical geometry.

Bearing Dimensions
Bearing Width W= 25.00 in AASHTO 14.7.5.1
Bearing Length L= 12.00 in AASHTO 14.7.5.1
Bearing Pad Layers
Exterior Elastomeric Thickness hre = 0.125 in OK < 70% hri AASHTO 14.7.6.1
Interior Elastomeric Thickness hri = 0.500 in
Steel Plate Thickness hs = 0.125 in
No. of Steel Shim Plates nshims = 6
No. of Interior Elastomer Layers n= 5 AASHTO 14.7.6.1
Total Elastomer Thickness hrt = 2.750 in
Total Bearing Height t= 3.50 in OK 2" minimum height per BDM 14.5.8
Bearing Material Properties

Shore A Durometer Hardness
Duro = 50 (min) AASHTO 14.7.6.2
Shear Modulus
The least favorable value is assumed at each check since the material is specified by its hardness value (AASHTO 14.7.6.2).
The shear modulus of the elastomer is based on a temperature of 73°.
Gmax= 0.130 ksi AASHTO T14.7.6.2-1
Gmin= 0.095 ksi
Steel Shim Properties

Yield Strength of Steel Fy = 36.00 ksi AASHTO T6.4.1-1
Allowable Fatigue Threshold ΔFTH = 24.00 ksi AASHTO T6.6.1.2.3-1
FIGURE 1 - BEARING DETAIL
CDOT Bridge Design Manual Arpil 2021

=============================================================================================
FIGURE 2 - TYPE I - STEEL REINFORCED BEARING DETAIL - SECTION
BEARING LOADS
Loads acting on the bearing are dead and live load girder reactions at the service limit state. Per AASHTO 14.4.1, dynamic load
allowance is excluded from the live load influence. Loads are per bearing.

DL = 102.00 kip
LL= 43.00 kip
HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT
Shear deformations include movements from temperature, creep and shrinkage, prestressing effects, live loads, wind, braking,
earthquake, and construction tolerances from service load combinations per AASHTO C14.4.1.
Uniform Temperature Movement Range:
Maximum temperature 𝑇 100 ͦF AASHTO F3.12.2.2-1

Minimum temperature 𝑇 -20 ͦF AASHTO F3.12.2.2-2
Coeff. of thermal expansion 𝛼 6.0E-06 in/in/ ͦ F AASHTO 5.4.2.2
Expansion length 𝐿 75.00 ft = 900.00 in
Service I Load Factor, TU 𝛾 1.20 AASHTO T3.4.1-1
AASHTO Reduction Factor 𝛼 1.00 BDM 14.5.3
∆ 𝛼𝐿 𝑇 𝑇 6.0E-6*900.00*[100-(-20)] = 0.65 in AASHTO 3.12.2.3-1
Creep, Shrinkage, Elastic Shortening, Live Load, and Miscellaneous Movements:
Creep movement ΔCR = 0.21 in

Shrinkage movement ΔSH = 0.07 in
Elastic shortening ΔEL = 0.00 in
Live load movement ΔLL = 0.01 in
Miscellaneous movement ΔMISC = 0.00 in
∆ Maximum horizontal displacement of the superstructure

∆ Maximum shear deformation of the bearing modified to account for substructure stiffness

=============================================================================================
Assuming the substructure is stiff enough to prevent movement:
∆ ∆ 𝛼 𝛾 ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ AASHTO 14.7.5.3.2 &

BDM 14.5.3
1.00*1.20*0.65+0.21+0.07+0.00+0.01+0.00 = 1.07 in
SOLUTION
Shape Factor
Rectangular, steel reinforced bearing shape factor without holes:
𝐿𝑊
𝑆𝑖 (12.00*25.00) / [2*0.50*(12.00+25.00)] = 8.11 AASHTO 14.7.5.1-1
2ℎ 𝐿 𝑊
Confirm Method A is applicable for the design of the reinforced bearing pad per AASHTO 14.7.6.1
𝑆
Check 22 = (8.11^2) / 5 = 13.15 < 22 OK AASHTO 14.7.6.1
𝑛
Compressive Stress AASHTO 14.7.6.3.2

The compressive stress of the bearing shall satisfy the criteria below for a steel reinforced elastomeric bearing pad. Since shear
deformation is not prevented, a 10% increase in stress limits is not permitted (AASHTO 14.7.6.3.2).
𝜎 1.25𝐺 𝑆 1.25*0.095*8.11 = 0.96 ksi AASHTO 14.7.6.3.2-7

and
𝜎 1.25 𝑘𝑠𝑖 AASHTO 14.7.6.3.2-8
𝐷𝐿 𝐿𝐿
𝜎 (102.00+43.00) / (12.00*25.00) = 0.48 ksi
𝐿𝑊
Check 𝜎 1.25𝐺 𝑆 0.48 ksi < 0.96 ksi OK
Check 𝜎 1.25 𝑘𝑠𝑖 0.48 ksi < 1.25 ksi OK
Compressive Deflection
Compressive deflection under instantaneous live load and initial dead load shall meet the following criteria in AASHTO 14.7.6.3.3
(Method A) and 14.7.5.3.6 (Method B). Note the design aids presented in Figure C14.7.6.3.3-1 are used in determining the
compressive strain. For cases where the steel reinforced bearing pad material is specified by its shear modulus, equation
C14.7.5.3.6-1 is used in lieu of these graphs to determine the strain in the bearing pad under applicable stresses. Refer to
Example 3 accordingly.
Live Load Compressive Deflection

Minimizing deflection from instantaneous live loads is recommended when bridge joints are present. For jointless bridges, these
criteria may be omitted. Method A requirements per 14.7.6.3.3 refer to Method B deflection checks per 14.7.5.3.6.
𝛿 0.125" AASHTO C14.7.5.3.6
𝛿 ∑𝜀 ℎ 𝜀 ℎ compressive deflection due to live load AASHTO 14.7.5.3.6-1
𝜀 = instantaneous live load compressive strain in elastomeric pad determined

from Figure C14.7.6.3.3-1

=============================================================================================
𝜎 average compressive stress due to live load at the service limit state
𝐿𝐿
𝜎 43.00 / (12.00*25.00) = 0.14 ksi
𝐿𝑊
FIGURE 3 - AASHTO FIGURE C14.7.6.3.3-1
𝜀 0.005 AASHTO C14.7.6.3.3-1
𝛿 𝜀 ℎ 0.005*2.75 = 0.0138 in
Check 𝛿 0.125" 0.0138 in < 0.125 in OK
Dead Load Compressive Deflection

AASHTO does not have limitations on initial or long term dead load deflections. The following calculation is for demonstration
only. Engineering judgment shall be used in evaluating appropriate allowable deflections in the bearing. Method A requirements
per 14.7.6.3.3 refer to Method B deflection checks per 14.7.5.3.6.
Initial dead load deflection:
𝛿 ∑𝜀 ℎ AASHTO 14.7.5.3.6-2
𝜀 initial dead load compressive strain in elastomeric pad determined from

Figure C14.7.6.3.3-1
𝜎 average compressive stress due to dead load at the service limit state
𝐷𝐿
𝜎 102.00 / (12.00*25.00) = 0.34 ksi
𝐿𝑊
𝜀 0.0175 AASHTO C14.7.6.3.3-1
𝛿 𝜀 ℎ 0.0175*2.75 = 0.0481 in
Long term dead load deflection:
𝛿 𝛿 𝛼 𝛿 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.6-3
𝛼 0.25 AASHTO T14.7.6.2-1
𝛿 𝛿 𝛼 𝛿 0.0481+0.25*0.0481 = 0.060 in.

=============================================================================================
Combined Live Load and Dead Load Compressive Deflection
𝛿 .09ℎ = 0.09*0.50 = 0.045 in. AASHTO 14.7.6.3.3
𝛿 ∑𝜀 ℎ compressive deflection due to live load and dead load AASHTO 14.7.5.3.6-1
𝜀 instantaneous live and dead load compressive strain in elastomeric

pad determined from Figure C14.7.6.3.3-1
𝜎 average compressive stress due to total load from applicable

service load combinations
𝐷𝐿 𝐿𝐿
𝜎 0.48 ksi
𝐿𝑊
𝜀 0.026 AASHTO C14.7.6.3.3-1
𝛿 𝜀 ℎ 0.026*0.50 = 0.0130 in
Check 𝛿 .09ℎ 0.0130 in < 0.045 in OK
Shear Deformation
Total elastomer thickness = hrt
ℎ 2∆ 2*1.07 = 2.14 in AASHTO 14.7.6.3.4
Check ℎ 2.75 in > 2.14 in OK
Total bearing thickness, t, shall not exceed the lesser of the following dimensions:
𝐿
12.00 / 3 = 4.00 in
3
and
𝑊
25.00 / 3 = 8.33 in
3
Check t= 3.50 in < 4.00 in OK
Reinforcement AASHTO 14.7.5.3.5

Note that holes are not present in the bearing. The allowable thickness does not need to be increased per AASHTO 14.7.5.3.5
The minimum thickness of steel reinforcement shall satisfy the following:
ℎ .0625𝑖𝑛
and
(Service Limit State)
3ℎ 𝜎 3*0.500*0.48 = 0.020 in AASHTO 14.7.5.3.5-1

ℎ
𝐹 36
and
(Fatigue Limit State)
2ℎ 𝜎 2*0.500*0.14 = 0.006 in AASHTO 14.7.5.3.5-2

ℎ
∆𝐹 24.00

=============================================================================================
Check
ℎ 0.125 in > 0.0625 in OK
0.125 in > 0.020 in OK
0.125 in > 0.006 in OK
Anchorage (Bearing Pad Slip) AASHTO 14.8.3

The bearing pad must be secured against horizontal movement if the shear force sustained by the deformed pad exceeds the
minimum vertical force due to permanent loads modified for the concrete friction. Gmax is used since the pad is stiffer at colder
temperatures and will produce larger shear forces. Note the following example considers longitudinal deformations only; wind,
breaking, and seismic loads shall also be considered as appropriate, in the direction of consideration.
𝐻 𝜇𝑃 AASHTO 14.6.3.1-1
and
∆
𝐻 𝐺 𝐴 AASHTO 14.6.3.1-2
ℎ
Combining equations:
𝜇𝑃 ℎ
∆ , (0.20*102.00*2.75) / (0.13*300.00) = 1.438 in.
𝐺 𝐴
where
𝜇 0.20 Coefficient of friction AASHTO C14.8.3.1
𝑃 DL 102.00 kip
𝐴 𝐿𝑊 300.00 in2
ℎ 2.75 in
Check
∆ , 1.438 in > ∆ 1.068 in OK
In cases where Δs exceeds Δs,allow, anchor bolts shall be sized and designed in accordance with those Articles specified in
AASHTO 14.8.3
Geometry
The minimum unreinforced bearing pad thickness of 2 in. is assumed sufficient to prevent girder-to-support contact under the
applied girder rotations and compressive deflections. Under extreme skews, large girder loads or rotations, and/or steep profile
grades, the Designer shall confirm the bearing thickness. Refer to Example 1 - Elastomeric Leveling Pad.

APPENDIX A: EXAMPLE 3 - TYPE I BEARING (REINFORCED) (METHOD B) 1
=============================================================================================
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE 3 - TYPE I BEARING (STEEL REINFORCED)
METHOD B
GENERAL INFORMATION
Per CDOT Bridge Design Manual (BDM) Section 14.5.8, steel reinforced bearing pads shall be designed using
Method B. This example follows AASHTO LRFD 7th Edition Section 14.7.5.
This example assumes a steel superstructure that can displace under the effects of temperature and assumes a rectangular
bearing shown below in Figures 1 and 2. Externally bonded plates are not used. The structure is assumed to move freely in the
longitudinal direction only for the range of temperatures conforming to AASHTO 3.12.2.1 Procedure A.

Bearing Dimensions
Bearing Pad Layers
No. of Interior Elastomer Layers n= 9 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3

Elastomer Grade Grade = 3 (Zone C) BDM 14.5.8, & AASHTO Table &
Figure 14.7.5.2-1
Shear Modulus
Design drawings shall specify the shear modulus of the elastomer at 73°. With an acceptance variation of ± 15% of the specified
value, the shear modulus used in design will vary. The shear modulus shall be taken as the least favorable value within the
range to cause the more conservative outcome in the specific analysis being considered
(AASHTO 14.7.5.2). The plan shear modulus below assumes a Durometer Hardness of 60.
Gplan= 0.150 ksi AASHTO T14.7.6.2-1

Gmax= 0.173 ksi
Gmin= 0.128 ksi
Creep Deflection Factor 𝛼 0.35 AASHTO T14.7.6.2-1


=============================================================================================
FIGURE 1 - TYPE I - STEEL REINFORCED BEARING DETAIL - PLAN
FIGURE 2 - TYPE I - STEEL REINFORCED BEARING DETAIL - SECTION
BEARING LOADS
allowance is excluded from the live load influence. Loads are per bearing.

DL = 115.00 kip
LL= 85.00 kip

=============================================================================================
BEARING ROTATIONS
Rotations include effects of girder camber. For all rotation values, positive indicates a downward rotation while negative
indicates an upward rotation. Note this example does not account for profile grade differences between supports.
Service I Limit State Rotations
Dead Load Rotations 𝜃 -0.002 rad
Live Load Rotations 𝜃 0.001 rad
Include a construction tolerance of 0.005 radians to account for uncertainties in bearing fabrication and bearing seat
construction. Per BDM 14.5.4, the flatness tolerance for bearing seat uncertainties is accounted for in the construction tolerance.
Construction Tolerance 𝜃 0.005 rad AASHTO 14.4.2.1
HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT
Shear deformations include movements from temperature, creep and shrinkage, prestressing effects, and miscellaneous
movement from loads such as live and wind loads from service load combinations per AASHTO C14.4.1. Assume the bearings
are not adjusted after construction; therefore, the 65 percent reduction in thermal movement range per
AASHTO 14.7.5.3.2 is not included per BDM 14.5.3.
Maximum temperature 𝑇 120 ͦF AASHTO T3.12.2.1-1

Minimum temperature 𝑇 -30 ͦF AASHTO T3.12.2.1-1
Coeff. of thermal expansion 𝛼 6.5E-06 in/in/ ͦ F AASHTO 6.4.1
∆ 𝛼𝐿 𝑇 𝑇 6.5E-6*960.00*[120-(-30)] = 0.94 in AASHTO 3.12.2.3-1
Creep, Shrinkage, Elastic Shortening, Live Load, and Miscellaneous Movements:


∆ ∆ 𝛼 𝛾 ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ AASHTO 14.7.5.3.2 & BDM

14.5.3
1.00*1.20*0.94+0.00+0.00+0.00+0.04+0.50 = 1.66 in
SOLUTION
Shape Factor
𝐿𝑊
𝑆𝑖 (15.00*20.00) / [2*0.500*(15.00+20.00)] = 8.57 AASHTO 14.5.7.1-1
2ℎ𝑟𝑖 𝐿 𝑊

=============================================================================================
Computed Compressive Stresses
𝐷𝐿 𝐿𝐿
𝜎 (115.00+85.00) / (15.00*20.00) = 0.67 ksi
𝐿𝑊
𝐿𝐿
𝜎 85.00 / (15.00*20.00) = 0.28 ksi
𝐿𝑊
𝜎 average compressive stress due to live load at the service limit state (cyclic load)
𝐷𝐿
𝜎 115.00 / (15.00*20.00) = 0.38 ksi
𝐿𝑊
𝜎 average compressive stress due to dead load at the service limit state (static load)
Compressive Deflections AASHTO 14.7.5.3.6

criteria may be omitted.
𝛿 0.125" AASHTO C14.7.5.3.6
𝛿 ∑𝜀 ℎ 𝜀 ℎ AASHTO 14.7.5.3.6-1
𝜀 instantaneous live load compressive strain in elastomeric pad
𝜎 AASHTO C14.7.5.3.6-1
𝜀 0.28 / (4.8*0.13*8.57^2) = 0.006
4.8𝐺 𝑆
𝛿 𝜀 ℎ 0.006*4.750 = 0.030 in
Check 𝛿 0.125" 0.030 in < 0.125 in OK

AASHTO Method B does not have limitations on initial or long term dead load deflections. The following calculation is for
demonstration only. Engineering judgment shall be used in evaluating appropriate allowable deflections in the bearing.

𝛿 ∑𝜀 ℎ AASHTO 14.7.5.3.6-2
𝜀 initial dead load compressive strain in i th layer of elastomeric pad
𝜎 AASHTO C14.7.5.3.6-1
𝜀 0.38 / (4.8*0.13*8.57^2) = 0.009
4.8𝐺 𝑆
𝛿 𝜀 ℎ 0.009*4.750 = 0.040 in.
Long term dead load deflection: AASHTO 14.7.5.3.6-3
𝛿 𝛿 𝛼 𝛿 = 0.040+0.35*0.040 = 0.055 in. AASHTO T14.7.6.2-1

=============================================================================================
Shear Deformations
Total elastomer thickness = hrt
ℎ 2∆ 2*1.66 = 3.33 in AASHTO 14.7.5.3.2-1
Combined Compression, Rotation, and Shear AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3

For demonstration purposes, only rotation about the transverse direction is verified. The Designer shall evaluate the bearing
about both the longitudinal and transverse axis as appropriate, especially in cases where the structure contains a significant
skew (AASHTO C14.7.5.3.3). Cyclic loading shall consist of loads induced by traffic with all other loads considered static
(AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3).
𝛾 , 𝛾 , 𝛾 , 1.75 𝛾 , 𝛾 , 𝛾, 5.0 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-1

and
𝛾 , 3.0 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-2
Axial Load Shear Strain

𝜎,
Axial strain from static loads: 𝛾 , 𝐷 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-3
𝐺𝑆
𝜎,
Axial strain from cyclic loads: 𝛾 , 𝐷 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-3
𝐺𝑆
where:
Da = 1.40 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-4
𝜎, 𝜎 = Compressive stress due to total static load at service limit state

𝜎, 𝜎 = Compressive stress due to cyclic load at service limit state
𝜎, 1.40*0.38
𝛾 , 𝐷 = 0.491
𝐺 𝑆 0.13*8.57
𝜎, 1.40*0.28
𝛾 , 𝐷 = 0.363
𝐺 𝑆 0.13*8.57
Rotational Shear Strain

𝐿 𝜃 ,
Rotational strain from static loads: 𝛾 , 𝐷 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-6
ℎ 𝑛
𝐿 𝜃 ,
Rotational strain from cyclic loads: 𝛾 , 𝐷 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-6
ℎ 𝑛
where
Dr = 0.50 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-7
𝜃 , 𝜃 +𝜃 Maximum static service limit state design rotation
𝜃 , 𝜃 Maximum cyclic service limit state design rotation
𝐿 𝜃 ,
𝛾 , 𝐷 0.50 ( 15.00 / 0.500 ) ^2 *(-0.002+0.005) / 9 = 0.150
ℎ 𝑛
𝐿 𝜃 ,
𝛾 , 𝐷 0.50 ( 15.00 / 0.500 ) ^2 *(0.001) / 9 = 0.050
ℎ 𝑛

=============================================================================================
Shear Deformation Shear Strain

∆,
Shear strain from static loads: 𝛾 , AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-10
ℎ
∆,
Shear strain from cyclic loads: 𝛾, AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-10
ℎ
where
∆ , ∆ ∆ 1.663 in
∆ , ∆ 0.040 in
∆,
𝛾 , 1.663 / 4.750 = 0.350
ℎ
∆,
𝛾, 0.040 / 4.750 = 0.008
ℎ
Combined Shear Strains Checks
𝛾 , 𝛾 , 𝛾 , 1.75 𝛾 , 𝛾 , 𝛾, 5.0
= 0.491+0.150+0+ 1.75(0.363+0.050+0.008) = 1.73 < 5.00 OK
𝛾 , 3.0 𝛾 , 0.491 < 3.00 OK

If the following is satisfied, no further investigation of stability is required:
AASHTO 14.5.3.4-1
2𝐴 𝐵
where
ℎ
1.92 𝐿 1.92*(4.750 / 15.00) = 0.38 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.4-2
𝐴
2.0𝐿 SQRT [ 1 + (2*15.00) / 20.00]
1
𝑊
2.67 2.67 = 0.21 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.4-3
𝐵
𝐿 (8.57+2.0) * [1+15.00 / (4.0*20.00)]
𝑆 2.0 1
4.0𝑊
Note that if L is greater than W, stability shall be L= 15.00 in

investigated by interchanging L and W. W= 20.00 in
Check 2𝐴 2*0.38 = 0.77 > 0.21 =B FAILS
If the above criteria for stability are not satisfied, the following equations shall be investigated:

=============================================================================================
For a bridge deck that is free to translate horizontally:

For demonstration only. Designer shall determine movement capability of bridge on a case by case basis.
𝐺 𝑆 0.13*8.57 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.4-4

𝜎 = 1.96 ksi
2𝐴 𝐵 2*0.38 -0.21
Check 𝜎 0.67 ksi < 1.96 ksi OK Bearing is Stable
For a bridge deck that is fixed against horizontal translation:

𝐺 𝑆 0.13*8.57 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.4-5

𝜎 = 6.36 ksi
𝐴 𝐵 0.38 -0.21

Note that holes are not present in the bearing. The allowable thickness does not need to be increased per
AASHTO 14.7.5.3.5
ℎ .0625𝑖𝑛
and
3ℎ 𝜎 3*0.500*0.67 = 0.028 in AASHTO 14.7.5.3.5-1

ℎ
𝐹 36
and
2ℎ 𝜎 2*0.500*0.28 = 0.012 in AASHTO 14.7.5.3.5-2

ℎ
∆𝐹 24.00
Check
ℎ 0.125 in > 0.0625 in OK
0.125 in > 0.028 in OK
0.125 in > 0.012 in OK

=============================================================================================
Bearing Anchorage AASHTO 14.7.5.4

For bearings without externally bonded plates, a restraint system is required to secure the bearing against horizontal movement
if:
𝜃 3𝜀 AASHTO 14.7.5.4-1
𝑛 𝑆
where
𝜃 total of static and cyclic service limit state design rotation. Cyclic component is multiplied by 1.75
𝜀 total of static and cyclic average axial strain. Cyclic component is multiplied by 1.75
𝜃 𝜃 , 1.75𝜃 , 𝜃 +𝜃 1.75𝜃
= -0.002+0.005+1.75*0.001= 0.005 rad
𝜀 𝜀 1.75𝜀 𝜀 1.75𝜀 0.009+ 1.75*0.006= 0.020
Check
𝜃 3𝜀 0.005 3*0.020 Restraint

= 0.001 < = 0.007 FAILS
𝑛 𝑆 9 8.57 Required
If the Engineer elects to use externally bonded plates, limitations on hydrostatic pressure per AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-11 shall be
satisfied.

minimum vertical force due to permanent loads modified for the concrete friction. Gmax is used since the pad is stiffer at colder
temperatures and will produce larger shear forces. Note this example considers longitudinal deformations only; wind, braking,
and seismic loads shall also be considered as appropriate, in the direction of consideration.
and
∆
𝐻 𝐺 𝐴 AASHTO 14.6.3.1-2
ℎ
𝜇𝑃 ℎ
∆ , 0.20*115.00*4.75 / (0.17*300.00) = 2.11 in
𝐺 𝐴
where
𝑃 DL 115.00 kip
𝐴 𝐿𝑊 300.00 in2
ℎ 4.75 in
Check
∆ , 2.11 in > ∆ 1.66 in OK
In cases where Δs exceeds Δs,allow, anchor bolts shall be sized and designed in accordance with those Articles specified in
AASHTO 14.8.3

APPENDIX A: EXAMPLE 4 - TYPE II BEARING (REINFORCED PTFE) (METHOD B) 1
=============================================================================================
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE 4 - TYPE II BEARING (REINFORCED BEARING WITH PTFE)
METHOD B
GENERAL INFORMATION
Per CDOT Bridge Design Manual (BDM) Section 14.5.9, Type II bearings are Type I bearings with a PTFE sliding surface. Type II
bearings shall meet the same requirements as steel reinforced bearings, in addition to providing adequate slip on the sliding plane to
accommodate horizontal movements without causing excessive bearing pad deformation. The following example is in accordance
with Method B procedures per AASHTO LRFD 7th Edition Section 14.7.5.
This example assumes a concrete superstructure that can displace under the effects of temperature, creep, and shrinkage and
assumes a rectangular bearing shown below in Figures 1 and 2. The bearing is fixed in the transverse direction and free to move
longitudinally. Assume temperature movements conform to AASHTO 3.12.2.2 Procedure B. The PTFE surface is assumed unfilled
and lubricated and no externally bonded plates are present.
Bearing Dimensions
Bearing Pad Layers
No. of Interior Elastomer Layers n= 5 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3
PTFE
PTFE thickness hPTFE = 0.094 in OK AASHTO 14.7.2.3

Elastomer Grade Grade = 3 (Zone C) BDM 14.5.8, & AASHTO Table & Figure
14.7.5.2-1
Shear Modulus
Design drawings shall specify the shear modulus of the elastomer at 73°. With an acceptance variation of ± 15% of the specified
value, the shear modulus used in design will vary. The shear modulus shall be taken as the least favorable value within the range to
cause the more conservative outcome in the specific analysis being considered (AASHTO 14.7.5.2). The plan shear modulus below
assumes a Durometer Hardness of 60.
Gplan= 0.150 ksi AASHTO T14.7.6.2-1

Gmax= 0.173 ksi
Gmin= 0.128 ksi
Creep Deflection Factor 𝛼 0.35 AASHTO T14.7.6.2-1


=============================================================================================
FIGURE 1 - TYPE II - STEEL REINFORCED BEARING PAD WITH PTFE - PLAN
FIGURE 2 - TYPE II - STEEL REINFORCED BEARING PAD WITH PTFE - SECTION
BEARING LOADS
allowance is excluded from the live load influence.
DL = 200.00 kip
LL= 60.00 kip

=============================================================================================
BEARING ROTATIONS
Rotations include effects of girder camber. For all rotation values, positive indicates a downward rotation while negative indicates an
upward rotation. Note this example does not account for profile grade differences between supports.
Service I Limit State Rotations

Dead Load Rotations 𝜃 -0.001 rad
Live Load Rotations 𝜃 0.006 rad
Include a construction tolerance of 0.005 radians to account for uncertainties in bearing fabrication and bearing seat construction. Per
BDM 14.5.4, the flatness tolerance for bearing seat uncertainties is accounted for in the construction tolerance.
Construction Tolerance 𝜃 0.005 rad AASHTO 14.4.2.1
HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT
Shear deformations include movements from temperature, creep and shrinkage, prestressing effects, and miscellaneous movement
from loads such as live and wind loads from service load combinations per AASHTO C14.4.1. Assume the bearings are not adjusted
after construction; therefore, the 65 percent reduction in thermal movement range per AASHTO 14.7.5.3.2 is not included per BDM
14.5.3.
Maximum temperature 𝑇 110 ͦF AASHTO F3.12.2.2-1

Minimum temperature 𝑇 -10 ͦF AASHTO F3.12.2.2-2
Coeff. of thermal expansion 𝛼 6.0E-06 in/in/ ͦ F AASHTO 6.4.1
∆ 𝛼𝐿 𝑇 𝑇 6.0E-6*1800.00*[110-(-10)] = 1.30 in AASHTO 3.12.2.3-1
Creep, Shrinkage, Elastic Shortening, and Miscellaneous Movements:


∆ ∆ 𝛼 𝛾 ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ AASHTO 14.7.5.3.2 & BDM

Section 14.5.3
1.00*1.20*1.30+0.58+0.60+0.05+0.10+0.00 = 2.89 in
SOLUTION
Shape Factor
𝐿𝑊
𝑆𝑖 (10.00*24.00) / [2*0.500*(10.00+24.00)] = 7.06 AASHTO 14.5.7.1-1
2ℎ 𝐿 𝑊

=============================================================================================
Computed Stresses AASHTO 14.7.2.4

Average Contact Stresses
𝐷𝐿 𝐿𝐿
𝜎 (200.00+60.00) / (10.00*24.00) = 1.08 ksi
𝐿𝑊
𝐿𝐿
𝜎 60.00 / (10.00*24.00) = 0.25 ksi
𝐿𝑊
𝜎 average compressive stress due to live load at the service limit state (cyclic load)
𝐷𝐿
𝜎 200.00 / (10.00*24.00) = 0.83 ksi
𝐿𝑊
𝜎 average compressive stress due to dead load at the service limit state (static load)
Check AASHTO T14.7.2.4-1

𝜎 1.08 ksi < 𝜎 2.50 ksi OK
𝜎 0.83 ksi < 𝜎 1.50 ksi OK
Edge Contact Stresses AASHTO 14.7.2.4

The contact stress at the edge shall be determined by considering the maximum service moment transferred by the bearing,
assuming a linear distribution of stress across the PTFE. The moment is assumed to occur at the centerline of the bearing,
perpendicular to the direction of load.
𝜃
𝑀 0.5𝐸 𝐼 Service moment due to total load AASHTO 14.6.3.2-3
ℎ AASHTO C14.6.3.2
where
𝐸 4.8𝐺 𝑆 4.8*0.17*7.06^2 = 41.26 ksi AASHTO C14.6.3.2-1
𝑊𝐿
𝐼 24.00*10.00^3 /12 = 2000.00 in^4
12
𝜃 𝜃 +𝜃 𝜃 -0.001+0.005+0.006= 0.010 rad
𝜃
𝑀 0.5𝐸 𝐼 (0.5*41.26*2000.00)*(0.010/2.63) = 157.17 k-in
ℎ
𝑀
𝜎, 𝜎 1.08 + [157.17 / ((1/6)*24.00*10.00^2)] = 1.48 ksi
1/6𝑊𝐿
𝜃
𝑀 0.5𝐸 𝐼 Service moment due to dead load AASHTO 14.6.3.2-3
ℎ AASHTO C14.6.3.2
where
𝜃 𝜃 +𝜃 -0.001 + 0.005 = 0.004 rad
𝜃
𝑀 0.5𝐸 𝐼 (0.5*41.26*2000.00)*(0.004/2.63) = 62.87 k-in
ℎ
𝑀
𝜎 , 𝜎 0.83 + [62.87 / ((1/6)*24.00*10.00^2)] = 0.99 ksi
1/6𝑊𝐿
𝑀
where is derived from My/I, where y is L/2, and I is WL 3/12
1/6𝑊𝐿

=============================================================================================
Check AASHTO T14.7.2.4-1

𝜎, 1.48 ksi < 𝜎 3.00 ksi OK
𝜎 , 0.99 ksi < 𝜎 2.00 ksi OK
Coefficient of Friction of PTFE AASHTO 14.7.2.5

For the given minimum temperature and the average pressure at the service limit state, interpolate between values in AASHTO
T14.7.2.5-1. Assume a lubricated PTFE surface.
𝜎 1.083 ksi
Pressure (ksi)
Temp. ͦF
1.0 1.083 2.0 𝜇 0.044
68 0.030 0.0296 0.025
𝑇 -10 -10 0.044 0.0440 0.039
-13 0.045 0.0446 0.040
Shear Deformations
Since a low friction sliding surface is implemented, Δs need not be taken larger than the deformation corresponding to first slip
(AASHTO 14.7.5.3.2). The minimum pressure will create the largest coefficient of friction and the largest movement.
The minimum service shear force transferred by the sliding surface at the specified minimum temperature:
𝐻 𝜇 𝐷𝐿 0.044*(200.00) = 8.81 kip AASHTO 14.6.3.1-1
The deflection of the elastomeric bearing, before first slip of the sliding surface, is estimated as:
𝐻 ℎ 8.81*2.63 = 0.76 in AASHTO 14.6.3.1-2

∆ , 0.13*24.00*10.00
𝐺 𝑊𝐿
ℎ 2∆ , 2*0.76 = 1.51 in AASHTO 14.7.5.3.2-1
The remaining movement is accommodated by the movement of the PTFE surface:
∆ ∆ ∆ , 2.89 - 0.76 = 2.13 in
The Designer shall size the steel sliding surface, sole plate, anchor bolt holes, and edge distances accordingly to accommodate the
above movement.

=============================================================================================
Compressive Deflections AASHTO 14.7.5.3.6

criteria may be omitted.
𝛿 0.125" AASHTO C14.7.5.3.6
𝛿 ∑𝜀 ℎ 𝜀 ℎ AASHTO 14.7.5.3.6-1
𝜀 instantaneous live load compressive strain in elastomeric pad
𝜎 AASHTO C14.7.5.3.6-1
𝜀 0.25 / (4.8*0.128*7.06^2) = 0.008
4.8𝐺 𝑆
𝛿 𝜀 ℎ 0.008*2.625 = 0.022 in.
Check 𝛿 0.125" 0.022 in. < 0.125 in. OK

AASHTO Method B does not have limitations on initial or long term dead load deflections. The following calculation is for
demonstration only. Engineering judgment shall be used in evaluating appropriate allowable deflections in the bearing.

𝛿 ∑𝜀 ℎ 𝜀 ℎ AASHTO 14.7.5.3.6-2
𝜀 initial dead load compressive strain in i th layer of elastomeric pad

𝜎
𝜀 AASHTO C14.7.5.3.6-1
4.8𝐺 𝑆 0.83 / (4.8*0.13*7.06^2) = 0.027
𝛿 𝜀 ℎ 0.027*2.625 = 0.072 in.
Long term dead load deflection: AASHTO 14.7.5.3.6-3

𝛿 𝛿 𝛼 𝛿
= 0.072+0.35*0.072 = 0.097 in AASHTO T14.7.6.2-1

=============================================================================================
Combined Compression, Rotation, and Shear AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3

For demonstration purposes, only rotation about the transverse direction is verified. The Designer shall evaluate the bearing about
both the longitudinal and transverse axis as appropriate, especially in cases where the structure contains a significant skew
(AASHTO C14.7.5.3.3). Cyclic loading shall consist of loads induced by traffic with all other loads considered static (AASHTO
14.7.5.3.3).
𝛾 , 𝛾 , 𝛾 , 1.75 𝛾 , 𝛾 , 𝛾, 5.0 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-1

and
𝛾 , 3.0 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-2
Axial Load Shear Strain

𝜎,
Axial strain from static loads: 𝛾 , 𝐷 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-3
𝐺𝑆
𝜎,
Axial strain from cyclic loads: 𝛾 , 𝐷 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-3
𝐺𝑆
where:
Da = 1.40 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-4
𝜎, 𝜎 = Compressive stress due to total static load at service limit state
𝜎, 𝜎 = Compressive stress due to cyclic load at service limit state
𝜎, 1.40*0.83
𝛾 , 𝐷 = 1.296
𝐺 𝑆 0.13*7.06
𝜎, 1.40*0.25
𝛾 , 𝐷 = 0.389
𝐺 𝑆 0.13*7.06
Rotational Shear Strain

𝐿 𝜃 ,
Rotational strain from static loads: 𝛾 , 𝐷 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-6
ℎ 𝑛
𝐿 𝜃 ,
Rotational strain from cyclic loads: 𝛾 , 𝐷 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-6
ℎ 𝑛
where
Dr = 0.50 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-7
𝜃 , 𝜃 +𝜃 = Maximum static service limit state design rotation
𝜃 , 𝜃 = Maximum cyclic service limit state design rotation
𝐿 𝜃 ,
𝛾 , 𝐷 0.50 ( 10.00 / 0.500 ) ^2 *(-0.001 + 0.005) / 5 = 0.160
ℎ 𝑛
𝐿 𝜃 ,
𝛾 , 𝐷 0.50 ( 10.00 / 0.500 ) ^2 *(0.006) / 5 = 0.240
ℎ 𝑛

=============================================================================================
Shear Deformation Shear Strain

∆,
Shear strain from static loads: 𝛾 , AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-10
ℎ
∆,
Shear strain from cyclic loads: 𝛾, AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-10
ℎ
where
∆ , ∆ , 0.755 in.
∆ , ∆ 0.100 in.
∆,
𝛾 , 0.755 / 2.625 = 0.288
ℎ
∆,
𝛾, 0.100 / 2.625 = 0.038
ℎ
Combined Shear Strains Checks
𝛾 , 𝛾 , 𝛾 , 1.75 𝛾 , 𝛾 , 𝛾, 5.0
= 1.296+0.160+0+ 1.75(0.389+0.240+0.038) = 2.91 < 5.00 OK
𝛾 , 3.0 𝛾 , 1.296 < 3.00 OK

If the following is satisfied, no further investigation of stability is required:
2𝐴 𝐵 AASHTO 14.5.3.4-1
where
ℎ
1.92 𝐿 1.92*(2.625 / 10.00) = 0.37 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.4-2
𝐴
2.0𝐿 SQRT [ 1 + (2*10.00) / 24.00]
1
𝑊
2.67 2.67 = 0.27 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.4-3
𝐵
𝐿 (7.06+2.0) * [1+10.00 / (4.0*24.00)]
𝑆 2.0 1
4.0𝑊
Note that if L is greater than W, stability shall be L= 10.00 in

investigated by interchanging L and W. W= 24.00 in
Check 2𝐴 2*0.37 = 0.74 > 0.27 =B FAILS

=============================================================================================
For a bridge deck that is free to translate horizontally:

𝐺 𝑆 0.13*7.06 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.4-4

𝜎 = 1.88 ksi
2𝐴 𝐵 2*0.37 -0.27
For a bridge deck that is fixed against horizontal translation:

𝐺 𝑆 0.13*7.06 AASHTO 14.7.5.3.4-5

𝜎 = 8.55 ksi
𝐴 𝐵 0.37 -0.27

Note that holes are not present in the bearing. The allowable thickness does not need to be increased per
AASHTO 14.7.5.3.5.
ℎ 0.0625𝑖𝑛
and
3ℎ 𝜎 3*0.500*1.08 = 0.045 in AASHTO 14.7.5.3.5-1

ℎ
𝐹 36
and
2ℎ 𝜎 2*0.500*0.25 = 0.010 in AASHTO 14.7.5.3.5-2

ℎ
∆𝐹 24.00
Check
ℎ 0.125 in > 0.0625 in OK
0.125 in > 0.045 in OK
0.125 in > 0.010 in OK

=============================================================================================
Bearing Anchorage AASHTO 14.7.5.4

For bearings without externally bonded plates, a restraint system is required to secure the bearing against horizontal movement if:
𝜃 3𝜀
AASHTO 14.7.5.4-1
𝑛 𝑆
where
𝜃 total of static and cyclic service limit state design rotation. Cyclic component is multiplied by 1.75
𝜀 total of static and cyclic average axial strain. Cyclic component is multiplied by 1.75
𝜃 𝜃 , 1.75𝜃 , 𝜃 +𝜃 1.75𝜃
= -0.001+0.005 + 1.75*0.006= 0.015 rad
𝜀 𝜀 1.75𝜀 𝜀 1.75𝜀 0.027 + 1.75*0.008 = 0.042
Check
𝜃 3𝜀 0.015 3*0.042 Restraint

= 0.003 < = 0.018 FAILS
𝑛 𝑆 5 7.06 Required
If the Engineer elects to use externally bonded plates, limitations on hydrostatic pressure per AASHTO 14.7.5.3.3-11 shall be
satisfied.

minimum vertical force due to permanent loads modified for the concrete friction. The allowable slip of the pad is calculated and
compared to the pad deformation using both Gmax and Gmin to determine the controlling scenario. Note this example considers
longitudinal deformations only; wind, braking, and seismic loads shall also be considered as appropriate, in the direction of
consideration.
and
∆
𝐻 𝐺 𝐴 AASHTO 14.6.3.1-2
ℎ
𝜇𝑃 ℎ
∆ , 0.20*200.00*2.63 / (0.13*240.00) = 3.43 in
𝐺 𝐴
where
𝑃 DL 200.00 kip
𝐴 𝐿𝑊 240.00 in2
ℎ 2.63 in
Check
𝑈𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐺 : ∆ , 3.43 in. > ∆ , 0.76 in. OK
𝑈𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐺 : ∆ , 2.54 in. > ∆ , 0.56 in. OK
In cases where Δs,slip exceeds Δs,allow, anchor bolts shall be sized and designed in accordance with those Articles specified in
AASHTO 14.8.3

APPENDIX A: EXAMPLE 5 - EXPANSION DEVICE (0-4 INCH) 1
=============================================================================================
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE 5 - EXPANSION DEVICE (STRIP SEAL)
0 - 4 INCH
GENERAL INFORMATION
Assuming a 340-ft multi-span, precast, prestressed BT63 girder superstructure with a 20 deg. skew, determine the range of
movement for a 0-4 inch expansion device due to temperature, creep, and shrinkage. Specify the installation gap sizes for
temperatures ranging from -30 ͦF to 120 ͦF, at 10 degree increments, for placement in the expansion device construction
drawing. The following example is in accordance with AASHTO LRFD 7th Edition Section 14.5. Refer to CDOT Bridge Design
Manual (BDM) Section 14 for additional information and movement considerations. Assume temperature movements conform
to AASHTO 3.12.2.2 Procedure B. Stiffnesses in the supporting elements may affect thermal length contribution and may not
be symmetrical, this example assumes the stiffness in supporting elements are symmetrical. The 340-ft length includes the
approach slabs.
PROJECT VARIABLES
Bridge Properties
Superstructure Type Bridge Concrete
Expansion Length L= 170.00 ft
Skew Skew = 20 ° Measured from a line normal to bridge ∁L
Thermal Coefficient 𝛼 6.0E-06 in./in./°F AASHTO 5.4.2.2
Creep and Shrinkage

Total Creep and Shrinkage 𝜀 & 0.0002 in./in. AASHTO 5.4.2.3.2 &
Strain AASHTO 5.4.2.3.3
Temperature Range
Maximum Temperature 𝑇 110 ͦF AASHTO F3.12.2.2-1
Minimum Temperature 𝑇 -10 Fͦ AASHTO F3.12.2.2-2
Strength Load Factor, TU 𝛾 1.20 AASHTO 14.5.3.2 & T3.4.1-1
Expansion Device Dimensions

Cold Temperature Opening AC = 4.00 inch Maximum recommended gland opening
Hot Temperature Opening AH = 0.50 inch Minimum recommended gland opening
Minimum Installation Opening Ai = 1.50 inch Required for placement of gland
Rail Width (min.) E= 1.25 inch CDOT B-518-1
FIGURE 1 - BRIDGE EXPANSION DEVICE (0 - 4 INCH)

=============================================================================================
SOLUTION
For demonstration, the following solution assumes a structure temperature of 60 ͦF at the time of expansion device
installation. The Designer shall determine "A" and "W" for the additional installation temperatures accordingly as shown in the
completed table below.
𝑇 60 ͦF
The total horizontal joint movement shall not exceed the maximum manufacturer recommended joint opening:
𝐻𝑀 𝐿 𝛾 ∆𝑇𝛼 𝜀 cos 𝑆𝑘𝑒𝑤 (170.00)*(12)[1.20* (110.00-(-10.00))*6.0E-06+0.0002]cos(20.00)
𝐻𝑀 2.04 in. < 4.00 in OK
Maximum cold temperature fall if installed at Ti :
∆𝑇 𝑇 𝑇 60 - (-10 ) = 70 ͦF
Maximum hot temperature rise if installed at Ti :
∆𝑇 𝑇 𝑇 110 - (60 ) = 50 ͦF
Maximum superstructure contraction (joint expansion) caused by a fall in temperature from Ti :
𝐴 𝐿 𝛾 ∆𝑇 𝛼 𝜀 cos 𝑆𝑘𝑒𝑤 (170.00)*(12)[1.20*70.00*6.0E-06+0.0002]cos(20.00)
𝐴 1.35 in.
Maximum superstructure expansion (joint contraction) caused by a rise in temperature from Ti :
𝐴 𝐿 𝛾 ∆𝑇 𝛼 𝜀 cos 𝑆𝑘𝑒𝑤 (170.00)*(12)[1.20*50.00*6.0E-06-0.0002]cos(20.00)
𝐴 0.31 in.
Check that the factored cyclic joint movement does not exceed 3.50 in. per BDM 14.4.4
∆ 𝐴 𝐴 1.35 + 0.31 = 1.66 in. < 3.50 in. OK
Dimension "A" at the given installation temperature needs to accommodate the hot and cold temperature
movement ranges within the capabilities of the 0-4 in. joint.
The maximum opening the joint is allowed at the installation temperature is the
recommended maximum opening minus the maximum joint expansion under
cold temperatures.
𝐴 𝐴 𝐴 4.00 - 1.35 = 2.65 in.
The minimum opening the joint is allowed at the installation temperature is the
recommended minimum opening plus the maximum joint contraction under hot
temperatures.
𝐴 𝐴 𝐴 0.50 + 0.31 = 0.81 in.

=============================================================================================
The "A" dimension is determined as the value midway between Amax and Amin. The "A" value specified in
the plans should be at least the minimum gland opening required for installation. If the temperature is too
warm, causing a narrow joint opening, waiting for a drop in the air temperature is an option prior to gland
installation.
𝐴 𝐴 (2.65 + 0.81) / 2 = 1.73 in.

𝐴
2
𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘 𝐴 𝐴 1.73 in. > 1.50 in. OK
The "W" dimension specified in the plans shall be the total width of the expansion device, measured as the
gland opening "A" plus the two rails on either side, E
𝑊 2𝐸 𝐴 2*1.25 + 1.73 = 4.23 in.
Comprehensive Expansion Device Table
Air Temp.
∆𝑻𝑪 (°) ∆𝑻𝑯 (°) 𝑨𝒎𝒂𝒙 (in) 𝑨𝒎𝒊𝒏 (in) "A" "W"
T i (°)
-30 -20 140 3.89 2.05 2.97 5.47
-20 -10 130 3.75 1.91 2.83 5.33
-10 0 120 3.62 1.77 2.69 5.19
0 10 110 3.48 1.63 2.56 5.06
10 20 100 3.34 1.50 2.42 4.92
20 30 90 3.20 1.36 2.28 4.78
30 40 80 3.06 1.22 2.14 4.64
40 50 70 2.93 1.08 2.00 4.50
50 60 60 2.79 0.94 1.87 4.37
60 70 50 2.65 0.81 1.73 4.23
70 80 40 2.51 0.67 1.59 4.09 Note "A" dimension is
80 90 30 2.37 0.53 1.45 3.95 less than required for
90 100 20 2.24 0.39 1.31 3.81 installation. Wait for
100 110 10 2.10 0.25 1.18 3.68 drop in structure
110 120 0 1.96 0.12 1.04 3.54 temperature before
120 130 -10 1.82 Too Small 1.82 4.32 installing joint.
The "A" dimension values provided are based on a joint with a minimum opening of 0.5 in. and a maximum opening of 4 in.
The Contractor shall adjust the "A" dimension values for joints fabricated with different minimum and maximum opening
dimensions accordingly.

EXAMPLE 6.1 - DECK DESIGN 1
===============================================================================================
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE 6 - DECK DESIGN INCLUDING TYPE 10 MASH RAIL COLLISION
EXAMPLE 6.1 - DECK DESIGN
GENERAL INFORMATION
Based on AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 9.6.1, there are 3 methods of deck analysis:
1. Approximate Elastic Method, or "Equivalent Strip" Method (AASHTO 4.6.2.1)
2. Refined Methods (AASHTO 4.6.3.2)
3. Empirical Design Method (AASHTO 9.7.2)
This design example uses the Approximate Elastic Method (Equivalent Strip Method), in which the deck is divided into
transverse strips, assumed to be supported on rigid supports at the center of the girders.

Structure Type CIP Concrete Deck
Girder Spacing, maximum SGdr= 11.0 ft
Number of girders NGdr= 4 ea
Overall Deck width W deck= 43.0 ft
Deck slab thickness tdeck= 8 in
Overhang thickness (average) tOH= 9.67 in
Concrete top cover cTop= 2.0 in AASHTO T 5.10.1-1 & BDM 5.4.3
Concrete bottom cover cBot= 1.0 in AASHTO T 5.10.1-1
Wearing surface tWS= 3.0 in
Concrete strength f'c= 4.5 ksi (Concrete Class D or G compressive strength)

Reinforcement strength fy= 60.0 ksi (Minimum yield strength of grade 60 steel)
Concrete density W c= 0.150 kcf
Deck overlay density W WS= 0.147 kcf BDM 3.4.2
Allowance for future utilities W util= 0.005 ksf BDM 3.4.3
Resistance factors φSTR = 0.9 (strength limit state)
φEE = 1.0 (extreme event limit state)
Correction factor for source aggregate K1= 1
Modulus of elasticity of reinforcement Es= 29000.0 ksi AASHTO 5.4.3.2
Modulus of elasticity of concrete Ec= 4435.3 ksi AASHTO 5.4.2.4
𝐸𝑐 = 120,000𝐾1 𝑊𝑐2 𝑓′0.33
𝑐
Modular ratio n=Es/Ec= 6.54
Girder Type Box Girder
Girder web thickness web= 4.0 in
Girder top flange width flange= 48.0 in
===============================================================================================
===============================================================================================
Barrier Type Type 10MASH
CY of concrete for barrier section AB= 0.059 CY/ft
Barrier Weight W barrier= 0.289 kip/ft
(Refer to CDOT bridge Worksheet B-606-10MASH for more details)
UNFACTORED DEAD LOADS

Based on Table 3-22c, Continuous Beams Moment and Shear Coefficients - Equal Spans, Equally Loaded, in terms of wl2,
+M =0.080 and -M = 0.100 and will be used for this design
+Moment in terms of wl2 0.08

2
-Moment in terms of wl 0.10
W deck= 8.00 in /12 * 0.15 kcf = 0.1 klf

W WS= 3.00 in /12 * 0.147 kcf = 0.037 klf
Positive Moment
+Mdeck= 0.100 klf * (11.00 ft)^2 * 0.08 = 0.968 k-ft/ft
+MWS= 0.037 klf * (11.00 ft)^2 * 0.08 = 0.355 k-ft/ft
Negative Moment
-Mdeck= 0.100 klf * (11.00 ft)^2 * 0.10 = 1.21 k-ft/ft
-MWS= 0.037 klf * (11.00 ft)^2 * 0.10 = 0.444 k-ft/ft
UNFACTORED LIVE LOADS

Live load moment can be determined by using AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Appendix A4 T.A4-1. This table
lists positive and negative moments per unit width of the deck with various girder spacings and various distances from the
design section to the centerline of girders. This table is based on the equivalent strip method and interpolation is allowed
when needed.
Deck superstructure type b AASHTO T4.6.2.2.1-1

Design section = At the face of the supporting component 24.00 in AASHTO 4.6.2.1.6
Girder spacing, S= 11.0 ft

Maximum Live Loads per unit width:
Positive Moment from LL +MLL= 7.46 kip-ft/ft AASHTO T. A4-1
Negative Moment from LL -MLL= 4.52 kip-ft/ft AASHTO T. A4-1
FACTORED DESIGN LOADS

Concrete decks must be investigated for strength, service and extreme limit states. Fatigue and fracture limit states do not
need to be investigated (AASHTO 9.5).
Mu = η [γDCMDC + γDWMDW + m γLL(MLL+ IM)]

η = 1.0 load modifier
γ - load factors specified in AASHTO T.3.4.1-1, T.3.4.1-2
m - multiple presence factor, included in values from AASHTO T. A4-1
IM - dynamic load allowance, included in values from AASHTO T. A4-1
Load Factors Design Moments

Load Combination γDC_max γDW_max γLL +MLL -MLL
Strength I 1.25 1.5 1.75 14.80 -10.09
Service I 1 1 1 8.78 -6.17
Note - it is conservative to use minimum load factors for positive values of M 100 and M200 and negative values of M150.
Controlling positive factored moment +Mu = 14.80 kip-ft/ft

Controlling negative factored moment -Mu = -10.09 kip-ft/ft
===============================================================================================
===============================================================================================
DECK SLAB STRENGTH DESIGN
Design of deck reinforcement, including flexural resistance, limits of reinforcement, and control of cracking is based on
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 5.7.3 (typical rectangular beam design). The following design method can be
used for normal weight concrete with specified compressive strengths up to 15.0 ksi. Refer to Section 9, Deck and Deck
Systems, of this BDM for information about acceptable deck reinforcement sizes and spacing.
Width of the design section b= 12.0 in.

Resistance factor for tension-controlled section φSTR = 0.9 AASHTO 5.5.4.2
Positive Moment Capacity (bottom reinforcement)

Try Bar size # 5
Bar spacing s= 6.0 in.
Bar diameter db = 0.625 in.
Bar area Ab = 0.31 in.2
Area of steel per design strip

2
AS = b (Ab / s) = 12.0 in. * 0.310 in.2/ 6.0 in. = 0.62 in.
Effective depth of section
dS = tDeck - cBot - 1/2 db = 8.0 in. - 1.0 in. - 0.625 in. / 2 = 6.69 in.
Depth of equivalent stress block
𝐴𝑆 𝑓𝑦 2
𝑎= = 0.62 in. * 29000.0 ksi / (0.85 * 1.0 ksi * 12 in.) = 0.81 in.
0.85𝑓𝑐′ 𝑏
𝑎
Factored flexural resistance +𝜑𝑀𝑛 = 𝜑𝐴𝑆 𝑓𝑦 𝑑𝑆 − =
2
2
= 0.90 * 0.62 in. * 60.0 ksi * (6.69 in. - 0.81 in. / 2) / 12 in./ft. = 17.53 kip-ft.
𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘 + 𝜑𝑀𝑛 > +𝑀𝑢 : 17.53 > 14.80 OK
Negative Moment Capacity (top reinforcement)

Try Bar size # 5
Bar spacing s= 5.0 in.
Bar Diameter db = 0.625 in.
2
Bar Area Ab = 0.31 in.
Area of steel per 1.00 ft. design strip

2
AS = B (Ab / s) = 12 in. * 0.310 in. 2/ 5.00 in. = 0.74 in.
Effective depth of section
dS = tDeck - cTop - 1/2 db = 8.0 in. - 2.0 in. - 0.625 in. / 2 = 5.69 in.
𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑦 2
𝑎= = 0.74 in * 60.0 ksi / (0.85 * 4.5 ksi * 12 in.) = 0.97 in.
0.85𝑓𝑐′ 𝑏
𝑎
Factored flexural resistance −𝜑𝑀𝑛 = 𝜑𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑦 𝑑𝑠 − =
2
2
= 0.90 * 0.74in. * 60.0 ksi * (5.69 in. - 0.97 in. / 2) / 12 in./ft. = 17.41 kip-ft.
𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘 − 𝜑𝑀𝑛 > −𝑀𝑢 : 17.41 > 10.09 OK
Minimum Reinforcement AASHTO 5.6.3.3

Unless otherwise specified, the amount of prestressed and non-prestressed tensile reinforcement shall be adequate to
develop a factored flexural resistance, Mr = φMn, at least equal to the lesser of:
• 1.33 times the positive factored ultimate moment
• Cracking moment
𝑆𝑐
Cracking moment 𝑀𝑐𝑟 = 𝛾3 𝛾1 𝑓𝑟 + 𝛾2 𝑓𝑐𝑝𝑒 𝑆𝑐 − 𝑀𝑑𝑛𝑐 −1 AASHTO 5.6.3.3-1
𝑆𝑛𝑐
===============================================================================================
===============================================================================================
When simplified by removing all values applicable to prestressed and noncomposite sections, this equation becomes the
following: 𝑀𝑐𝑟 = 𝛾3 𝛾1 𝑓𝑟 𝑆𝑐
Where: AASHTO 5.6.3.3
Flexural cracking variability factor γ1 = 1.6 (non-segmental brg.)
Ratio of specified min. yield strength to ultimate tensile strength γ3 = 0.67 (A615 steel)
Concrete density modification factor λ= 1.0 AASHTO 5.4.2.8
Modulus of rupture 𝑓𝑟 = 0.24𝜆 𝑓𝑐′ = 0.509 ksi AASHTO 5.4.2.6

2
𝑏ℎ2 𝑏𝑡𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑘 2
Section modulus of design section 𝑆𝑐 = = = 12.0in. * (8.0 in.) / 6 = 128 in.3
6 6
Check Positive Moment reinforcement

1.33 (+Mu) = 1.33 * 14.80 kip-ft. = 19.68 kip-ft.
𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘 + 𝜑𝑀𝑛 ≥ 𝑚𝑖𝑛
Mcr = 0.67 * 1.60 * 0.51 ksi * 128.0 in.3/ 12 in./ft. = 5.82 kip-ft.
17.53 > 5.82 OK
Check Negative Moment reinforcement

1.33 (-Mu) = 1.33 * 10.09 kip-ft. = 13.42 kip-ft.
𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘 − 𝜑𝑀𝑛 ≥ 𝑚𝑖𝑛
Mcr = 0.67 * 1.60 * 0.51 ksi * 128.0 in.3/ 12 in./ft. = 5.82 kip-ft.
17.41 > 5.82 OK
CONTROL OF CRACKING AT SERVICE LIMIT STATE

Cracking is controlled by the spacing of mild steel reinforcement in the layer closest to the tension face, which shall satisfy the
following (need not be less than 5.00 in.):
700𝛾𝑒
𝑠≤ − 2𝑑𝑐 AASHTO 5.6.7-1
𝛽𝑠 𝑓𝑠𝑠
In which: γe = 1.00 - exposure factor (1.0 for Class 1 and 0.75 for Class 2) (assume waterproofing
membrane is used)
bs - ratio of flexural strain at the extreme tension face to the strain at the centroid of the reinforcement
layer nearest the tension face
fss - calculated tensile stress in mild steel reinforcement at the service limit state ( ≤ 0.60 fy ksi)
dc - thickness of concrete cover measured from extreme tension fiber to center of the flexural
reinforcement located closest thereto. For calculation purposes, d c need not be taken greater than 2
in. plus the bar radius
Check Cracking at the Bottom of Deck (spacing of Positive Moment reinforcement):

dc = cBot + 1/2 db = 1.00 in. + 0.625 in. / 2 = 1.31 in.
𝑑𝐶
𝛽𝑆 = 1 + = 1 + 1.31 in. / [0.7 (8.0 in. - 1.31 in.)] = 1.28
0.7(𝑡𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑘 − 𝑑𝐶 )
𝐴𝑆 2
Tension reinforcement ratio 𝜌= = 0.62 in. / (12 in. * 6.69 in.) = 0.008
𝑏𝑑𝑆
𝑘= 2𝑛𝜌 + 𝑛𝜌 2 − 𝑛𝜌 = 0.271
𝑗 = 1 − 𝑘/3 = 0.910
+𝑀𝑢_𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 2
8.78 kip-ft. * 12in./ft. / (0.62 in. * 0.91 * 6.69 in.) = 27.95 ksi
𝑓𝑠𝑠 = =
𝐴𝑆 𝑗𝑑𝑆
700𝛾𝑒
𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑥 = − 2𝑑𝐶 = 700 * 1.00 / (1.28 * 27.95 ksi) - 2 * 1.31in. = 16.94 in.
𝛽𝑆 𝑓𝑆𝑆
Spacing of positive moment reinforcement used in the design = 6.00 in.
𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 ≤ 𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑥 : 6.00 < 16.94 OK
===============================================================================================
===============================================================================================
Check Cracking at Top of Deck (spacing of Negative Moment reinforcement):
dc = cTop + 1/2 db = 2.0 in. + 0.625 in. / 2 = 2.31 in.
𝑑𝐶
𝛽𝑠 = 1 + = 1+ 2.31 in. / [0.7 * (8.0 in. - 2.31 in.)] = 1.58
0.7(𝑡𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑘 − 𝑑𝐶 )
Tension reinforcement ratio

𝐴𝑆 2
𝜌= = 0.74 in. / (12 in. * 5.69 in.) = 0.011
𝑏𝑑𝑆
Modular ratio n = ES / EC = 29000 ksi / 4435 ksi = 6.54
2 0.313
𝑘= 2𝑛𝜌 + 𝑛𝜌 − 𝑛𝜌 =
𝑗 = 1 − 𝑘/3 = 0.896
−𝑀𝑢_𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 2
𝑓𝑠𝑠 = = 6.17 kip-ft. * 12in./ft. / (0.74 in. * 0.90 * 5.69 in.) = 19.55 ksi
𝐴𝑆 𝑗𝑑𝑆
700𝛾𝑒
𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑥 = − 2𝑑𝐶 = 700 * 1.00 / (1.58 * 19.55 ksi) - 2 * 2.31 in. = 18.03 in.
𝛽𝑆 𝑓𝑆𝑆
Spacing of negative moment reinforcement used in the design = 5.00 in.
𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 ≤ 𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑥 : 5.00 < 18.03 OK
Check tensile stress at service limit state doesn't exceed 0.60fy

fss= 19.55 ksi
0.60 fy= 36 ksi = 0.60 * 60ksi
𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘 𝑓𝑠𝑠 0.60𝑓𝑦 OK
LONGITUDINAL REINFORCEMENT
Minimum reinforcement is required in all directions to accommodate shrinkage and temperature changes near the surface of
the slab. Longitudinal reinforcement on each face shall meet the following:
1.3𝑏 𝑡𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑘
𝐴𝑆 ≥ AASHTO 5.10.6-1
2(𝑏 + 𝑡𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑘 )𝑓𝑦
0.11 ≤ 𝐴𝑆 ≤ 0.60 AASHTO 5.10.6-2
2
As,min = 1.3 * 12.0 in.* 8.0 in. / [2 (12.0 in. + 8.0 in.) 60.0 ksi] = 0.052 in. /ft.
2
As,min = 0.11 in. /ft. - controls
Per Section 9.6 of the CDOT BDM, the minimum longitudinal reinforcing steel in the top of the concrete bridge deck shall be
#4 @ 6.00 in. Longitudinal reinforcement in the bottom of the deck slab can be distributed as a percentage of the primary
reinforcement for positive moment.
Top reinforcement try #4 @ 6.00 in on center: AS = 0.40 in.2/ft.

𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘 𝐴𝑆 ≥ 𝐴𝑆 𝑚𝑖𝑛 OK
Effective span length 𝑆 = 𝑆𝐺𝑑𝑟 − 𝑔𝑖𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ = 11.0 ft. - 48.0in. / 12in./ft. = 7 ft.
AASHTO 9.7.2.3
Amount of reinforcement required in secondary direction in the bottom of the slab
220 220
≤ 67% = 83% Use - 67% AASHTO 9.7.3.2
𝑆 𝑆
2
Area of primary reinforcement for positive moment = 0.62 in. /ft.
2 2
Required area of bottom longitudinal steel: AS_Req = 67% * 0.62 in./ft.= 0.42 in. /ft.
Bottom reinforcement try #5 @ 8.00 in. on center: AS = 0.465 in.2/ft.

𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘 𝐴𝑆 ≥ 𝐴𝑆 𝑚𝑖𝑛 OK
DECK SECTION SUMMARY 𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘 𝐴𝑆 ≥ 𝐴𝑆_𝑅𝑒𝑞 OK
Deck thickness 8.00 in.
Top Transverse Reinforcement #5 @ 5.00 in.
Bottom Transverse Reinforcement #5 @ 6.00 in.
Top Longitudinal Reinforcement #4 @ 6.00 in.
Bottom Longitudinal Reinforcement #5 @ 8.00 in.
===============================================================================================
EXAMPLE 6.2 - TYPE 10 MASH STRENGTH DESIGN 6
===============================================================================================
EXAMPLE 6.2 - TYPE 10 MASH STRENGTH DESIGN
GENERAL INFORMATION
CDOT Bridge Rail Type 10MASH consists of a concrete parapet and a metal rail. The resistance to transverse vehicular
impact loads shall be determined as specified in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications A13.3.3. End impact is not
considered. See CDOT Worksheet B-606-10MASH for barrier details.
The TL-4 maximum capacity of Type 10 MASH is shown for overhang example.
Overall barrier height HB = 43.0 in.
Concrete cover (For SS rebars) c= 1.5 in.
Resistance factors φEE = 1 (Extreme Event) AASHTO 1.3.2.1
φS = 0.8 (A325 bolts in shear) AASHTO 6.5.4.2
φT = 0.8 (A325 bolts in tension) AASHTO 6.5.4.2
Test level MASH TL-4 AASHTO T.A13.2-1
Transverse design force Ft = 80.0 kips See table below
Impact force distribution Lt = 5.0 ft. See table below
CONCRETE PARAPET
Height HW = 13.4375 in.
Width at base d= 18.0 in.
Concrete Compressive Strength f'c = 4.5 ksi
Reinforcing Steel fy = 75.0 ksi
RAIL POST
Type W6x20
Steel grade ASTM A-572, Grade 50
Post spacing L= 10 ft. (max)
Effective height HR = 32.5 in.
2
Area of post APost = 5.87 in.
Web depth D= 5.47 in.
Web thickness tW = 0.26 in.
Flange thickness tF = 0.37 in.
Flange width bf = 6.02
Depth of W beam db= 6.2
Fy (post) = 50 ksi AISC Table 1-1
3
Zx-x (post) = 14.9 in.
Mn=Mp=FyZ (F7-1 AISC Manual) Mpost= 62.08 kip-ft
RAIL TUBES AISC Table 1-12

Type HSS 6x6x1/4
Steel grade ASTM A-1085
2
Area of one tube ATube = 5.59 in.
Number of tubes nTubes = 2 ea.
Fy (tube) = 50.0 ksi
3
Z (tube) = 11.2 in.
Mn=Mp=FyZ (F7-1 AISC Manual) Mp= 93.33 kip-ft
BASE PLATE
Width of base plate Wb = 12.0 in.
Thickness of base plate tb = 0.6875 in.
Distance to bolts dbo = 10.0 in.
Bolt diameter Ø= 0.875 in.
Min tensile strength Fub = 120.0 ksi
Number of bolts nb = 2
===============================================================================================
===============================================================================================
CONCRETE PARAPET CAPACITY

1. Determine M W : flexural resistance of the parapet about its vertical axis. Positive and negative
moment strength must be evaluated but will be equal based on barrier longitudinal reinforcement.
Back face horizontal reinforcement Size = #4 Bar Diameter = 0.5 in.

2
Number of bars = 2 Bar Area = 0.2 in
Stirrup Dia. = 0.5 in.
Design strip, b = 13.0 in.
Area of steel per design strip AS = Bar Area * NO. of bars = 0.4 in.2/ft.
Effective depth of section dS = d - c - Stirrup Dia. - 1/2 Bar Dia. = 15.75 in.
𝐴𝑆 𝑓𝑦
𝑎= = 0.40 in. * 75.0 ksi / (0.85 * 4.50 ksi * 13.0 in.) = 0.603 in.
0.85𝑓𝑐′ 𝑏
𝑎
Flexural resistance 𝑀𝑊 = 𝜑𝐸𝐸 𝐴𝑆 𝑓𝑦 𝑑𝑆 − =
2
1.0 * 0.40 in. * 75.0 ksi * (15.75 in. - 0.60 in. / 2) / 12 in./ft. = 38.62 kip-ft.
2. Determine M C : flexural resistance of cantilevered parapet about an axis parallel to the longitudinal
axis of the bridge. Flexural moment resistance is based on the vertical reinforcement in the barrier.
Stirrup Size = #4 Bar Diameter = 0.5 in.
2
Stirrup spacing = 10.00 in. Avg Bar Area = 0.1635143 in
The straight bar development length is Bar Area = 0.2 in2

ldb = 23.00 in.
For a hooked # 4 bar, the basic development length lhb with modification factors is:
ldh= 11.20 in.
Therefore, the benefit derived from the hook is:

11.80 in
===============================================================================================
===============================================================================================
The bar is hooked with a vertical embedment: 7 in Then the development fraction is:
Development length factor = 0.82
2
Area of steel per design strip AS = Bar Area * b / Stirrup spacing = 0.20 in. /ft.
Effective depth of section dS = d - c - 1/2 Stirrup Dia. = 16.25 in.
𝐴𝑆 𝑓𝑦
Depth of equivalent stress block 𝑎= = 0.32 in.
0.85𝑓𝑐′ 𝑏
𝑎
Flexural moment resistance 𝑀𝑐 = 𝜑𝐸𝐸 𝐴𝑆 𝑓𝑦 𝑑𝑆 − = 19.73 kip-ft./ft.
2
2
𝐿𝑡 𝐿𝑡 8𝐻𝑊 𝑀𝑏 + 𝑀𝑊
Critical length of yield line failure pattern 𝐿𝐶 = + + = 7.38 ft.
2 2 𝑀𝐶
There is no additional resistance at the top of the parapet in addition to M W , Mb = 0 kip-ft.
3. Determine R W (nominal railing resistance to transverse load) within a wall segment.
2 𝑀𝐶 𝐿2𝐶
𝑅𝑊 = 8𝑀𝑏 + 8𝑀𝑊 + = 259.97 kip AASHTO A13.3.1-1
2𝐿𝐶 − 𝐿𝑡 𝐻𝑊
4. Calculate maximum post capacity P P .
a. Plastic moment capacity of the post

Yielding of post Mpost= 62.08 kip-ft
CG of impact force above curb HR - HW 19.06 in
Maximum shear force at base of the post, Pp to cause post failure
Mpost / (HR - HW) Pp1= 39.08 kip
b. Weld connection strength

Thickness of the weld tweld= 0.313 in
Effective thickness 0.77*tweld tweff= 0.22 in
Calculate fillet weld strength as a line (Design of Welded Structures by Blodgett)

2
𝑑⬚
𝑆𝑊 =(2*b*d + )*tweff SW = 19.32 in
3
3
Strength of the weld FEXX = 70.00 ksi
Maximum weld moment Mweld = 67.63 kip-ft (0.6 * FEXX * SW)
Maximum shear force at base Pp2= 42.58 kip
c. Bolt shear strength

Shear resistance 𝑅𝑛 = 0.45𝐴𝑏 𝐹𝑢𝑏 𝑁𝑠 AASHTO 6.13.2.7-2
Rn = 0.45 * (pi * 7/8 in ^2)/4 * 120.0 ksi * 2 Pp3= 64.94 kip
d. Concrete breakout shear strength

Spacing of bolts bspa = 9.00 in ACI 318 17.7.2
Since the spacing of the anchors is less than 3 times the bolt distance d b, the bolts must be treated as a group
2
Area resisting breakout AVC = 585 in (9.0 in + 3 * 10.0 in) * 1.5 * 10.0 in
2
Maximum area = nb * 4.5 dbo2 900 in AVCO = 450 in2
𝐴𝑉𝑐
𝑉𝑐𝑏 = 𝜓 𝜓 𝜓 𝜓 𝑉
𝐴𝑉𝑐𝑜 𝑒𝑐,𝑉 𝑒𝑑,𝑉 𝑐,𝑉 ℎ,𝑉 𝑏
===============================================================================================
===============================================================================================
There is no eccentricity in shear loading and so modification factor for eccentricity yec,V = 1.0 ACI 318 17.7.2.3
Edge distances (along the curb) > 1.5 x bolt distance and so modification factor for edge distance yed,V = 1.0 ACI 318 17.7.2.4
Analysis indicates no cracking at service loads and so modification factor for concrete yc,V = 1.4 ACI 318 17.7.2.5
Anchor embedment hef = 10.75 in
1.5 * dbo = 15.00 in
1.5𝑑𝑏 1.181 ACI 318 17.7.2.6

𝜓ℎ,𝑉 =
ℎ𝑒𝑓 0.2
𝑙𝑒
Basic shear strength is minimum of 𝑉𝑏1 = 7 𝜑 𝜆𝑎 𝑓′𝑐 (𝑑𝑏𝑜 )1.5 𝑉𝑏2 = 9𝜆𝑎 𝑓′𝑐 (𝑑𝑏𝑜 )1.5
𝜑
Vb1 = 21.05 kip Vb2 = 19.09 kip

Load bearing length in shear le = 7 in (Min of hef and 8f)
la = 1.0 for normal weight concrete
Basic shear strength Vb = 19.09 kip
Shear strength Pp4= 41.05 kip

e. Bolt tensile strength (Ignore self weight)
𝜋 0.9743 2
𝜙𝑁𝑠𝑎 = 𝜙𝐴𝑠𝑒,𝑁 𝑓𝑢𝑡𝑎 𝐴𝑠𝑒 = 𝑑𝑎 −
4 𝑛𝑡
Bolt tensile strength futa = 120.0 ksi Bolt outside diameter da = 0.895 in
f= 0.75 Number of threads/in. nt = 9 in
Ase = 0.486 in2
Nsa = 43.75 kip
Tensile strength of 2 bolts = Ns = 87.50 kip

Equating tension and compression, depth of compression c = Ns / (0.85 * f'c * W b) c= 1.91 in
Moment lever arm = 7" - c/2 6.05 in
Moment capacity based on bolt tensile capacity Mbolt = 44.09 kip-ft
Mbolt / (HR - HW) Pp5= 27.76 kip
Minimum strength of post in shear PP = 27.76 kip
4. Calculate collision tensile force in deck T and collision moment M CT.
The resistance of each component of a combination bridge rail shall be determined as specified in Article A13.3.1 and
A13.3.2 of the AASHTO code. The flexural strength of the rail shall be determined over one and two spans. The resistance
of the combination parapet and rail shall be taken as the lesser of the resistances determined for the two failure modes.
Impact at Midspan (3 spans) (Other odd spans didn't control and so not included)
Number of spans N= 3
Yielding of all rails Mp= 93.33 kip-ft

Impact force distribution Lt = 5.00 ft
post spacing L= 10.00 ft
AASHTO A13.3.2-1
16𝑀𝑝 + (𝑁 − 1)(𝑁 + 1)𝑃𝑝 𝐿 =(16 * 93.33 kip-ft + 0) / (2 * 3 ft * 10.00 ft - 5.00 ft)
𝑅𝑅 = RR=
2𝑁𝐿 − 𝐿𝑡 67.53 kip
𝑅ത = 𝑅𝑅 + 𝑅𝑤 =(67.53 kip +259.97 kip) = 327.50036 kip AASHTO A13.3.3-1
Designing deck overhang for strength > strength of rails and curb is conservative. Therefore, design only for maximum MASH
Ft loads. Assume the rails fail during impact and curb resists the remaining load.
===============================================================================================
===============================================================================================
Therefore Use RW= 12.47 kip (80.00 kip - 67.53 kip ) Single span 𝑅ത = 80.00 kip
AASHTO A13.3.3-2
𝑅𝑅 𝐻𝑅 + 𝑅𝑤 𝐻𝑤
𝑌ത = =(67.53 kip * 32.50 in. +12.47 kip * 13.44 in.) / 80.00 kip
𝑅ത Y= 29.53 in
𝑅𝑤 Tmid = 1.30 kip/ft

𝑇=
𝐿𝐶 + 2𝐻𝑤
𝑀𝐶𝑇 = 𝑇 ∗ 𝐻𝑤 MCTmid = 1.45 kip-ft/ft
Impact at Post (2 spans) (Other even spans didn't control and so not included)
Number of spans N= 2
Impact force distribution Lt = 5.00 ft

post spacing L= 10.00 ft
AASHTO A13.3.2-2
16𝑀𝑝 + 𝑁 2 𝑃𝑝 𝐿
𝑅′𝑅 = =(16 * 93.33 kip-ft + 2^2 * 27.76 * 10.00/ (2 * 2 * 10.00 ft - 5.00 ft)
2𝑁𝐿 − 𝐿𝑡
R'R= 74.39 kip
𝑅𝑤 𝐻𝑤 − 𝑃𝑝 𝐻𝑅 =(259.97 kip * 13.44 in. -27.76 kip * 32.50 in.) / 13.44 in AASHTO A13.3.3-5
𝑅′𝑤 = R'W= 192.84 kip
𝐻𝑤
𝑅ത = 𝑃𝑝 + 𝑅′𝑅 + 𝑅′𝑤 = 27.76 kip + 74.39 kip + 192.84 kip 294.99 kip AASHTO A13.3.3-3
Use 𝑅ത = 80 kip Ignore R'W and use reduced R'R = 52.24 kip (80.00 kip - 27.76 kip )
AASHTO A13.3.3-4
𝑃𝑝 𝐻𝑅 + 𝑅′𝑅 𝐻𝑅 + 𝑅′𝑤 𝐻𝑤 =(27.76 kip * 32.50 in. +52.24 kip * 32.50 in. + 0.00 kip * 13.44 in. ) / 80.00 kip
𝑌ത = Y= 32.5 in
𝑅ത
𝑃𝑝
𝑇= Tpost = 7.26 kip/ft
𝑊𝑏 + 𝑑𝑏 + 2𝐻𝑤
𝑀𝐶𝑇 = 𝑇 ∗ 𝑌ത MCTpost = 19.66 kip-ft/ft
Use greater of the two failure modes \ Mct = 19.66 kip-ft/ft T= 7.26 kip/ft
SUMMARY
Impact at post controls the design as the transfer width is narrower than the impact between posts
Use the following data for Deck overhang design at the front face of the curb (Test Level 4):
Controlling Axial Load Per Unit Length of the Deck TAxial = 7.26 kip/ft.
Deck Overhang Moment Mct = 19.66 kip-ft./ft.
===============================================================================================
EXAMPLE 6.3 - BARRIER TYPE 9 STRENGTH DESIGN 11
===============================================================================================
EXAMPLE 6.3 - BARRIER TYPE 9 STRENGTH DESIGN
GENERAL INFORMATION
The CDOT Bridge Rail Type 9 design follows the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications A13.3.1 design
procedure for concrete railings, using strength design for reinforced concrete. The following calculations show case
of impact within barrier segment, assuming that barrier will be extended past the limits of the bridge. For cases
concerning impact at end of the barrier, refer to AASHTO Appendix A13. The applied design force (F t) and the
longitudinal length of distribution of the impact force (Lt) in this example is from the research conducted under
NCHRP Project 22-20(2). The TL-4 maximum capacity of Type 9 is shown for overhang example.
Overall barrier height HB = 43.00 in.

Concrete strength f'c = 4.50 ksi
Reinforcement strength fy = 75.00 ksi
Concrete cover c= 1.50 in.
Resistance factor φ= 1.00 (Extreme Event) AASHTO 1.3.2.1
Test level TL-4 AASHTO T A13.2-1
Transverse design force Ft = 80.00 kips
Impact force distribution Lt = 5.00 ft.
BARRIER FLEXURAL CAPACITY

1. Determine M C : flexural resistance of cantilevered parapet about an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the
bridge at midspan.
Barrier Dimensions Sec. 1 Sec. 2 Sec. 3 Sec. 4

Section top width 11.125 8.00 8.00 17.63 in.
Section bottom width 12.56 8.00 17.63 18.00 in.
Section height 9.00 19.00 13.00 2.00 in.
AS - area of steel per design strip
h - section height
davg - average section width
dS - effective depth of design section
bc - width of design strip (taken as 1 ft per AASHTO Section 13)
a - depth of equivalent stress block
𝑎 𝑛
𝜑𝑀𝑛 = 𝜑𝐴𝑆 𝑓𝑦 𝑑𝑆 − 𝑀𝐶 = ෍ 𝜑𝑀𝑛 /bc
2 1
===============================================================================================
===============================================================================================
1st vertical rebar (Bar A) #4 @ 9 in. Bar Diameter = 0.500 in.
2
Bar Area = 0.20 in.
AS h davg dS bc a=ASfy/k φMn MC
2
k= .85f'Cb
(in. ) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (kip-ft.) (kip-ft./ft.)
Section 1 0.27 9.00 11.84 10.09 12.00 45.90 0.44 16.46 3.45
Section 2 0.27 19.00 8.00 6.25 12.00 45.90 0.44 10.05 4.44
Section 3 0.27 13.00 12.81 11.06 12.00 45.90 0.44 18.07 5.46
Section 4 0.27 2.00 17.81 16.06 12.00 45.90 0.44 26.41 1.23
Barrier MC (Bar A) = 14.58
2nd vertical rebar (Bar B) #4 @ 18 in.

k= .85f'Cb
(in.2) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (kip-ft.) (kip-ft./ft.)
Section 1 0.13 9.00 11.84 5.59 12.00 45.90 0.22 4.57 0.96
Section 2 0.00 19.00 8.00 1.75 12.00 45.90 0.00 0.00 0.00
Section 3 0.13 13.00 12.81 6.56 12.00 45.90 0.22 5.38 1.63
Section 4 0.13 2.00 17.81 11.56 12.00 45.90 0.22 9.54 0.44
Barrier MC (Bar B) = 3.03
3rd vertical rebar (Bar C) #4 @ 12 in.

2
k= .85f'Cb
(in. ) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (kip-ft.) (kip-ft./ft.)
Section 1 0.00 9.00 11.84 10.09 12.00 45.90 0.00 0.00 0.00
Section 2 0.00 19.00 8.00 6.25 12.00 45.90 0.00 0.00 0.00
Section 3 0.20 13.00 12.81 11.06 12.00 45.90 0.33 13.62 4.12
Section 4 0.20 2.00 17.81 16.06 12.00 45.90 0.33 19.87 0.92
Barrier MC (Bar C) = 5.04
Grand Total Barrier MC = 22.65
2. Determine M W : flexural resistance of the parapet about its vertical axis.
Back face horizontal reinforcement #4 Bar Diameter = 0.50 in.

Bar Area = 0.20 in2
No. of AS h davg dS b a=ASfy/k φMW
2
k= .85f'Ch
Bars (in. ) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (kip-ft.)
Section 1 2 0.40 9.00 11.84 9.59 9.00 34.43 0.87 22.90
Section 2 1 0.20 19.00 8.00 5.75 19.00 72.68 0.21 7.06
Section 3 1 0.20 13.00 9.63 7.38 13.00 49.73 0.30 9.03
Section 4 0 0.00 2.00 17.81 15.56 2.00 7.65 0.00 0.00
Barrier MW = 38.98
===============================================================================================
===============================================================================================
3. Rail resistance within a wall segment.
2 𝑀𝐶 𝐿2𝐶
𝑅𝑊 = 8𝑀𝑏 + 8𝑀𝑊 + AASHTO A13.3.1-1
2𝐿𝐶 − 𝐿𝑡 𝐻
2
𝐿𝑡 𝐿𝑡 8𝐻 𝑀𝑏 + 𝑀𝑊
𝐿𝐶 = + + AASHTO A13.3.1-2
2 2 𝑀𝐶
Additional flexural resistance at top of wall Mb = 0.00 kip-ft.

Critical length of yield line LC = 9.96 ft.
Nominal transverse load resistance RW = 125.86 kips
Capacity Check Check RW > Ft : 125.86 > 80.00 OK
BARRIER INTERFACE SHEAR CAPACITY AASHTO 5.7.4

Evaluate the shear capacity of the cold joint to transfer nominal resistance R W between the deck and railing.
Neglect effects of barrier Dead Load and assume that the surface of the deck is not roughened.
Interface width considered in shear transfer bV= 18.00 in.

Interface length considered in shear transfer LV = 12.00 in.
2
Shear contact area ACV = bV LV = 216.00 in.
Shear reinforcement at front face #4 @ 12 in. Bar Area = 0.2 in.2
Area of shear reinforcement AVF = 12 in. * 0.20 in. / 12 in. = 0.2 in.2/ft.
0.05𝐴𝑐𝑣
𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑘 𝐴𝑣𝑓 ≥ = 0.144 OK AASHTO 5.7.4.2-1
𝑓𝑦
Permanent compression force from barrier weight (neglected) Pc = 0.00 kip
For concrete placed against clean concrete surface, free of laitance, but not intentionally roughened
Cohesion factor c= 0.075 ksi AASHTO 5.7.4.4

Friction factor μ= 0.6
Shear factor 1 K1 = 0.2 (Fraction of concrete strength available to resist interface shear)
Shear factor 2 K2 = 0.8 ksi (Limiting interface shear resistance)
𝐾1 𝑓𝑐′ 𝐴𝐶𝑉 = 0.20 * 4.50 ksi * 216.0 in. = 194.4 kip AASHTO 5.7.4.3
Vn = min 𝐾2 𝐴𝐶𝑉 = 0.80 * 216.0 in. = 172.8 kip
𝑐𝐴𝐶𝑉 + 𝜇 𝐴𝑉𝐹 𝑓𝑦 + 𝑃𝐶 = 0.075 ksi*216in.+0.60(0.20 in.* 75 ksi+0kip) = 25.20 kip
Resistance factor φ= 1.00 (Extreme Event) AASHTO 1.3.2.1

Factored Shear Resistance φVn = 25.20 kip
𝑅𝑊
Shear force acting on the barrier per 1.00 ft. strip 𝑉𝑢 = = 12.64 kip/ft.
𝐿𝐶
Capacity Check Check φVn > Vu : 25.20 > 12.64 OK
===============================================================================================
===============================================================================================
OVERHANG DESIGN DATA
Barrier Type 9 satisfies all checks outlined in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Appendix 13. Use the
following data for Deck overhang design at the front face of the curb when Barrier Type 9 is used (Test Level 4):
TAxial = RW /(LC + 2HB) AASHTO A13.4.2-1
Axial Load Per Unit Length of the Deck TAxial = 7.35 kip/ft.
Moment Capacity of the Barrier Mc = 22.65 kip-ft./ft.
===============================================================================================
EXAMPLE 6.4 - OVERHANG DESIGN 15
===============================================================================================
EXAMPLE 6.4 - OVERHANG DESIGN
GENERAL INFORMATION
Bridge deck overhang shall be designed for three separate design cases: AASHTO A13.4.1
• Case 1 - Horizontal and longitudinal forces from vehicle collision load (Extreme Event II limit state)
• Case 2 - Vertical force from vehicle collision load (Extreme Event II limit state)
• Case 3 - Vertical Dead and Live Load at the overhang section (Strength I limit state)
The deck overhang region shall be designed to have resistance larger than the MASH impact forces. Therefore, analysis of
MASH barriers must be done. Refer to Example 6.2 for detailed strength calculations for Barrier Type 10 MASH.
Barrier type Type 10MASH

Width of barrier base WB = 18.0 in.
Barrier weight W Barrier = 0.289 kip/ft. (see Deck Design)
Deck overlay density W WS = 0.147 kcf Section 3.4.2
Concrete density WC = 0.15 kcf
Barrier center of gravity XC.G. = 12.63 in.
Axial load per unit length TAxial = 7.26 kip/ft. (refer to Type 10MASH Strength Design)
Deck Overhang Moment MC = 19.66 kip-ft./ft. (refer to Type 10MASH Strength Design)
Critical length of yield line LC = 7.38 ft. (refer to Type 10MASH Strength Design)
Overhang width SOH = 5.00 ft.
Edge of deck to edge of flange SGdr_Edge = 3.00 ft.
Overhang minimum depth tOH(min) = 8.00 in.
Overhang maximum depth tOH(max) = 10.00 in. (at exterior edge of flange)
Concrete top cover cTop = 2.00 in. AASHTO T.5.10.1-1
Concrete strength f'c = 4.5 ksi
Reinforcement strength fy = 60 ksi
Test Level TL-4
Transverse design force Ft = 80 kips
Impact force distribution Lt = 5 ft
Vertical Design Force FV = 22 kips
Longitudinal distribution of Vertical force LV = 18 ft
Controlling Load Load Factors

Combinations γDC γDW_max γCT γLL
Extreme Event II 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 AASHTO T3.4.1-1
Strength I 1.25 1.50 0.00 1.75
The deck overhang is designed to resist an axial tension force and moment from vehicular collision (CT) acting
simultaneously with the Dead Load (DC/DW) and Live Load (LL) moment. The critical section shall be taken at the face of
the box girder (AASHTO 4.6.2.1.6). In addition, Extreme Event II combination is also checked at the face of the curb. Loads
are be assumed to be distributed at a 45 degree angle starting from the base plate.
DESIGN CASE 1: Extreme Event II (Transverse Collision) at the face of the curb
Distance from edge of deck to design section K= 1.50 ft. AASHTO 4.6.2.1.6
Distance from barrier face to design section X= 0.00 ft.
Depth of the section under consideration hDesign = 9.00 in. (may add min haunch depth if needed,
conservative to use constant deck depth)
Bending moments from dead load of structural components and nonstructural attachments:
Barrier MDC-Barrier = W Barrier * (K - XC.G.) = 0.289 kip/ft. * (1.50 ft. - 12.63 in. / 12 in./ft.) = 0.129 kip-ft./ft.
Deck MDC-Deck = W C * tOH(min) * K2 / 2 = 0.150 kcf * 8 in. / 12 in./ft. * (1.50 ft.)² / 2 = 0.113 kip-ft./ft.
Additional overhang concrete MDC-Add = 0.5 W C * SGdr_Edge (TOH(max) - TOH(min)) * (K - 2/3 SGdr_Edge) =
= 0.5 * 0.150 kcf * 1.50 ft. * (10.0 in. - 8.0 in.) / 12 in./ft. * (1.50 ft. - 2/3 * 1.50 ft.) = 0.009 kip-ft./ft.
Total DC = MDC-Barrier + MDC-Deck + MDC-Add = 0.13 kip-ft.+0.11 kip-ft.+0.009 kip-ft. = 0.251 kip-ft./ft.
===============================================================================================
===============================================================================================
12.7"
Bending moments from wearing surfaces and utilities:

2
Deck overlay MDW-WS = W WS * 3 in. * X / 2 = 0.147 kcf * 3in. / 12 in./ft. * (0.00 ft.) / 2 = 0.000 kip-ft./ft.
Both design bending moment and design axial tension are calculated based on the properties of the barrier on the deck.
See Type 10MASH tab for information on strength design.
Bending moment from vehicular collision MCT = MC = 19.66 kip-ft./ft.
Design factored moment (Extreme Event II, Case I) AASHTO 3.4.1, A13.4.1
Mu1 = 1.0MDC + 1.0MDW + 1.0MCT = 0.251 kip-ft. + 0.000 kip-ft. + 19.66 kip-ft. = 19.92 kip-ft./ft.
DESIGN CASE 2: Extreme Event II (Vertical Collision) at the face of the curb
Vertical and Longitudinal collision cases will not control generally and so other critical sections are not included.
Lever arm for vertical collision la= 0.448 ft
Vertical Design Force FV = 22.00 kips
Longitudinal distribution of Vertical force LV = 18.00 ft
Bending moment on overhang due to vertical forces

MV-CT = FV * la / LV = 22 kip * 0.45 ft. / 18.00 ft. = 0.547 kip-ft./ft.
Dead Load moment

MDC = 0.25 kip-ft./ft.
Design factored moment (Extreme Event II, Case I) AASHTO 3.4.1, A13.4.1
Mu2 = 1.0MDC + 1.0MCT = 0.547 kip-ft./ft. + 0.251 kip-ft./ft. = 0.798 kip-ft./ft.
DESIGN CASE 3: STRENGTH I (At the face of the girder)

The overhang is designed to resist gravity forces from the Dead Load of structural components and attachments to the
cantilever, as well as a concentrated Live Load positioned 12.00 in. from the face of the barrier.
For decks with overhangs not exceeding 6.00 ft. measured from the centerline of the exterior girder to the face of a
structurally continuous concrete railing, the outside row of wheel loads may be replaced with a uniformly distributed line load
of 1.0 klf intensity per AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 3.6.1.3.4.
===============================================================================================
===============================================================================================
Distance from edge of deck to design section K= 3 ft.
Distance from barrier face to design section X= 1.5 ft.
Depth of the section under consideration hDesign = 10.00 in.
Distance from LL application to design section z = 0.5 ft.
Live Load multiple presence factor m= 1.00 AASHTO T.3.6.1.1.2-1
Dynamic load allowance IM = 0.33 AASHTO 3.6.2
Bending moment from Dead Loads (equal to the loads calculated for Design Case 1)
Barrier MDC-Barrier = 0.562 kip-ft./ft.
Deck MDC-Deck = 0.45 kip-ft./ft.
Add. overhang concrete MDC-Add = 0.038 kip-ft./ft.
Deck overlay MDW-WS = 0.041 kip-ft./ft.
AASHTO 3.6.1.3.4
Bending moment from live load MLL = 1.0 klf * 0.50 ft. = 0.5 kip-ft./ft.
Design factored moment (Strength I) Mu 3 = 1.25M DC +1.50M DW +1.75m(M LL+IM) =
= 1.25 * 1.05 kip-ft./ft + 1.50 * 0.041 kip-ft./ft + 1.75 * 1.00 * 1.33 * 0.50 kip-ft./ft = 2.54 kip-ft./ft.
Design Summary (By observation, other load cases will not control and are not included in this example)
Design Case 1 Mu1 = 19.916 kip-ft./ft.
Controlling Case = Mu1 = 19.916 kip-ft./ft. DESIGN CASE 1 CONTROLS
Design axial tensile load TAxial = 7.26 kip/ft.
Top transverse reinforcement: Bar size #5 (see Deck Design)

Bar spacing s = 5 in.
Bottom transverse reinforcement: Bar size #5 (see Deck Design)

Bar spacing s = 6 in.
2
Area of top steel per design strip ASt = b (Ab / s) = 12 in. * 0.31 in. / 5.0 in. = 0.744 in. /ft.
2
Area of bottom steel per design strip ASb = b (Ab / s) = 12 in. * 0.31 in. / 5.0 in. = 0.62 in. /ft.
Steel in each layer resisting tension Aten = Taxial * 0.5 / Fy = 7.26 kip * 0.5 / 60.0 ksi = 0.061 in.2/ft.
Area of top steel per design strip resisting moment Ast - Aten
0.74 sq. in. - 0.06 sq. in. = 0.683 in.2/ft.
Effective depth of section dS = hDesign - cTop - 1/2 db =

9 in. - 2 in. - 0.625 in./ 2 = 6.688 in.
𝐴𝑠 ∗ 𝑓𝑦
𝑎= = 0.68 sq. in. * 60.00 ksi / (0.85 * 4.50 ksi * 12 in.) = 0.893 in.
0.85𝑓𝑐′ 𝑏
𝑎
Factored flexural resistance 𝜑𝐸𝐸 𝑀𝑛 = 𝜑𝐸𝐸 𝐴𝑠 ∗ 𝑓𝑦 𝑑 − =
2
1.0 * 0.68 sq. in. * 60.00 ksi * ( 6.69 in. - 0.89 in / 2 ) = 21.328 kip-ft./ft.
21.328 > 19.916 OK
===============================================================================================
EXAMPLE 6 - BARRIER TYPE 10 MASH CG 18
===============================================================================================
BARRIER TYPE 10MASH CENTER OF GRAVITY (Steel Only)
Distance from Length

Description Unit wt lb/ft Number Weight lb Wx lb-in.
deck out (in.) (ft)
Tubes 6 x 6 x 1/4 19.02 13.50 10.00 2 380.40 5135.40
Post W6 x 20 20.00 7.4 2.339 1 46.78 346.17
Base Pl 10.5 x 12 x 3/4 26.80 8.25 0.75 1 20.10 165.81
Total 447.28 5647.38
CG from deck out = 12.63 in.
===============================================================================================
EXAMPLE 7 - GIRDER HAUNCH AND CAMBER 1
=================================================================================================
Case 1: Bulb Tee Bridge

PROBLEM STATEMENT
Case 1 illustrates how to set the haunch at supports for a BT girder bridge. Partial depth precast deck panels
will be allowed, thus a minimum haunch thickness of 1 in. will be maintained at all locations. At supports, an
additional 0.5 in. is provided for construction tolerance, giving a total min. haunch of 1.5 in. required at supports.
See Section 5.5.2.1 of this BDM for more information.
The profile grade of the bridge is a crest vertical curve, with the bridge alignment on a horizontal curve with a
constant cross-slope. The bridge is supported by chorded girders. The example shows how both the vertical and
horizontal deck geometrics affect the deck profile above the girders, and thereby affect the haunch depths.
For this example, the design f'c per BDM Section 5.3.1.2 was used for the given predicted girder cambers and
DL deflections, not the optional actual values permitted in BDM Section 5.5.2.1.D.
The dead load deflections given in this example do not contain an increase for long-term effects, permissible per
BDM Section 5.5.2.1.E of this BDM.
Positive values indicate upward camber or deflection.
Bridge Section View
Girder Elevation View
GIVENS
Girder span length, L = 100 ft.
Deck cross-slope, CS = 0.06 ft./ft.
Proposed haunch at CL brg. at CL girder, D1 = D3 = 3.00 in.
Assumed weighted average haunch for DL, Davg,DL = 5.81 in. (may require iteration)
Girder top flange width, Btf = 43 in.
Dead load deflection, ΔDL = -1.51 in. (includes superimposed DL)
Predicted girder camber at deck placement, Cdp = 3.43 in. (Cdp = P/S Camber - ΔGirder Self Weight)
=================================================================================================
=================================================================================================
GIVENS (Continued):
Vertical Curve Data:

Station at VPI = 5+00.00
Elevation at VPI = 5280
STA @ CL abut. 1, G1 = 4+50.00
STA @ CL abut. 2, G1 = 5+50.00
Curve length, Lc = 400 ft.
Grade in, g1 = 8.0 %
Grade out, g2 = -8.0 %
Horizontal Curve Data:

Radius at G1 CL brg, R = 1275 ft. (may not be equal to radius of HCL)
CALCULATIONS
Step 1: Profile effect due to vertical curve

r
ELEVx = ELEV g ∗x ∗x
2
g g
r= g in % and L in STA
L
g
ELEVVPC = ELEV ∗ STA STA
100
L
STAVPC = STA
2
r= -4.000 %/STA
STAVPC = 3+00.00
ELEVVPC = 5264.00
X (STA) g1*x r/2*x2 ELEV

CL Abut. 1 1.50 12.00 -4.50 5271.50 ELEVA
Midspan 2.00 16.00 -8.00 5272.00 ELEVB
CL Abut. 2 2.50 20.00 -12.50 5271.50 ELEVC
in.
Profile effect 1, δPE1 = ELEV ELEV ∗ 12 .
ft
ELEVD = 0.5 ∗ ELEV# ELEV
ELEVD = 5271.50
δPE1 = 6.00 in.
=================================================================================================
=================================================================================================
CALCULATIONS (Continued):
Step 2: Profile effect due to chorded girders

in.
Profile effect 2, δPE2 = M ∗ CS ∗ 12
ft.
L α
Chord offset, M = ∗ tan
2 4
360 ∗ L
Intersection angle of curve along chord, α =
2πR
o
α= 4.49
M= 0.98 ft.
δPE2 = -0.71 in.
Step 3: Combined profile effect
Profile effect, δPE = δ 3 δ 3
δPE = 5.29 in.
Step 4: Cross-slope effect

B56 ∗ CS
Cross-slope effect, δCS =
2
δCS = 1.29 in. (+/-)
Step 5: Check minimum estimated haunch at supports

Estimated haunch, D1,min = D δ 7
D1,min = 1.71 in.
OK, D1,min > minimum haunch thickness at supports of 1.50 in.
Step 6: Check estimated haunch at midspan
D D-
Estimated haunch at midspan, D2 = ∆ / C01 δ 3
2
D2 = 6.37 in. @ CL Girder
Step 7: Verify assumed weighted average haunch for DL

D 10 ∗ D D-
Actual average haunch for DL, Davg,DL = BDM Eq. 5-1
12
Davg,DL = 5.81 in.
OK, Davg,DL matches assumed average haunch used for dead loads
Note: D2 may be used as the haunch thickness at midspan for the following items:
• Calculating ΔDL reported on the girder sheet and used in setting deck elevations
• Calculating haunch concrete quantities
=================================================================================================
=================================================================================================
Step 8: Calculate camber tolerances per BDM 5.5.2.1.D

Over-camber tolerance, δover = 0.20 ∗ C01 = 1.0 in.
δover = 1.00 in.
Under-camber tolerance, δunder = -0.50 ∗ C01 > 1.0 in.

δunder = -1.72 in.
Step 9: Account for over-camber

Minimum haunch at midspan, D2,over = D δ?@;< δ 7
D2,over = 4.08 in. (at edge of flange)
OK, D2,over > minimum haunch thickness of 1.00 in. if girders over-camber by 20%
Step 10: Account for under-camber

Maximum haunch at midspan, D2,under = D δ9:0;<
D2,under = 8.08 in.
D 10 ∗ D ,9:0;< D-
Weighted average haunch for DL, Davg,DL,under = BDM Eq. 5-1
12
Davg,DL,under = 7.24 in.

DL defl. (revised using Davg,DL,under), ΔDL,under = -1.58 in. (from software)
Residual camber = C01 δ9:0;< ∆ /,9:0;<
Residual camber = 0.13 in.
OK, girder maintains positive camber if under-cambered by 50%
Note: Girder has been designed for all strength and service criteria using the following:
• D2,under as the haunch at midspan for composite section properties
• Davg,DL,under as the weighted average haunch thickness for dead load
• Girder design compressive strength, f'c per BDM Section 5.3.1.2
CONCLUSION
A proposed haunch of 3 in. at CL of girder at supports passed all required checks. The haunch at supports
was intentionally minimized to avoid an excessively thick haunch at midspan.
The example shows how a crest vertical curve adds to the haunch thickness at midspan and, in this case,
results in a thicker estimated haunch at midspan than at supports. The haunch thickness at midspan is
partially offset by the apparent sag effect of chording girders on a horizontally curved bridge deck.
Other geometric situations that will impact the haunch depth include flared girders and deck cross-slope
transitions.
=================================================================================================
==============================================================================================
Case 2: Side-by-Side Box Girder Bridge

PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Case 2 illustrates how to set the deck thickness at supports for a side-by-side box girder bridge. The deck
thickness at supports is set and verified with similar methodology used to set girder haunches, but without
the need to accommodate partial depth deck panels. Per Section 9.5 of this BDM, a minimum deck
thickness of 5 in. shall be maintained at all locations of side by side box girder bridges.
This example uses the option of specifying shims at the bearing seats in lieu of accounting for girder over-
camber when checking minimum deck thickness, permissible per Section 5.5.2.1.G of this BDM. Also, the
optional actual average values of girder strengths were used in determining the given values of predicted
camber and dead load deflection, permissible per BDM Section 5.5.2.1.D.
The dead load deflections given in this example do not include an increase for long-term effects, permissible
per BDM Section 5.5.2.1.E.
The bridge is on a vertical tangent with a constant deck cross-slope, and the girders are sloped to match.
Therefore, the deck geometry does not impact the variable deck thickness.
Positive values indicate upward camber or deflection.
Bridge Section View
Girder Elevation View
GIVENS:
Girder span length, L = 100 ft.
Proposed deck thickness at CL abut., D1 = D3 = 8.00 in.
Assumed weighted average deck thickness for DL, Davg,DL = 5.54 in. (may require iteration)
Dead load deflection, ΔDL = -1.68 in. (incl. superimposed DL)
Predicted girder camber at deck placement, Cdp = 4.63 in. (Cdp = P/S Camber - ΔGirder Self Weight)
==============================================================================================
==============================================================================================
CALCULATIONS:
Step 1: Check estimated deck thickness at midspan
D D-
Estimated deck thickness at midspan, D2 = ∆ / C01
2
D2 = 5.05 in.
OK, D2 > minimum deck thickness of 5 in.
Step 2: Verify assumed weighted average deck thickness for dead loads
D 10 ∗ D D-
Actual weighted avg thickness for DL, Davg,DL = BDM Eq. 5-1
12
Davg,DL = 5.54 in.
OK, Davg,DL matches assumed weighted average thickness for dead loads
Note: Use D2 as the deck thickness at midspan for the following items:
• Calculating ΔDL reported on the girder sheet and used in setting deck elevations
• Calculating deck concrete quantity
D 2∗D D-
Weighted avg thickness for quantities, Davg,QTY = BDM Eq. 5-2
4
Davg,QTY = 6.52 in.
Step 3: Calculate camber tolerances per BDM 5.6.1.4 (50% over & 50% under for box girders)
Over-camber tolerance, δover = 0.50 ∗ C01 = 1.0 in.
δover = 2.31 in.
Under-camber tolerance, δunder = -0.50 ∗ C01 > 1.0 in.

δunder = -2.31 in.
Step 4: Account for over-camber
Required Shim Height = δover

Required Shim Height = 2.31 in.
Provide 2 5/16 in. shim stack and lower abutment seat elevations by same amount
Note: Add a plan note requiring that shims be removed only as necessary to
maintain a 5 in. minimum deck thickness.
==============================================================================================
==============================================================================================
Step 5: Account for under-camber

Max. deck thickness at midspan, D2,under = D δ9:0;<
D2,under = 7.36 in.
D 10 ∗ D ,9:0;< D-
Weighted avg. thickness for DL, Davg,DL,under =
12
Davg,DL,under = 7.47 in.
Deflection (revised using Davg,DL,under), ΔDL,under = -2.06 in. (from software)
Residual camber = C01 δ9:0;< ∆ /,9:0;<

Residual camber = 0.25 in.
OK, girder maintains positive camber if under-cambered by 50%
Note: Girder has been designed for all strength and service criteria using the following:
• D2,under as the structural deck thickness at midspan
• Davg,DL,under as the weighted average deck thickness for dead load
• Girder design compressive strength, f'c per BDM Section 5.3.1.2
CONCLUSION
A proposed deck thickness of 8 in. at the supports was determined to be acceptable. Using shims at the bearing
seats as a strategy for addressing girder over-camber results in the following:
• Reduces specified deck thickness by 2.38 in

• Reduces dead load deflection by 0.57 in. for the girder sag check (under-camber case)
• Reduces deck concrete quantity by 32 cubic yards
Using the optional actual average girder strengths for camber and dead load deflections has the effect of
reducing the predicted camber and dead load deflection magnitudes. The corresponding camber tolerances also
decrease in magnitude as a result.
The combined strategies of using shims to account for over-camber and using the actual average girder
strengths for predicted camber and dead load deflections may be advantageous when designing slender side-by-
side box girders or slabs that would otherwise have difficulty meeting sag criteria.
==============================================================================================
Example 8: Cantilever Wingwall Design Loads 1
=============================================================================
EXAMPLE 8: CANTILEVER WINGWALL DESIGN LOADS
Problem Statement
Example 8 covers the design of a wingwall cantilevered off a standard CDOT integral abutment.
The example illustrates the following items:
• The 20 ft. length (measured as shown in Figures 1 & 2) used in Example 8 is the
maximum length permitted for cantilevered wingwalls per BDM Section 11.3.6.1.
• The example wingwall is skewed 30°, which is the maximum allowed for an integral
abutment per BDM Section 11.3.1.
• At-rest earth pressure is required for skewed wingwalls per BDM Section 11.3.6.2.
• Per BDM Section 11.3.6.2, a portion of the earth pressure acting on the buried part of the
wingwall may be neglected, as shown in Figure 1 below. Equations are provided to assist
in calculating the resultant wingwall force effects from the trapezoidal shape of earth
pressure.
• Force effects are summarized at the two design sections shown in Figure 2. Design
Section A is the critical design section for the wingwall. Design Section B summarizes the
force-effects transferred to the abutment .
Assumptions
• The backfill is assumed to be sufficiently drained so that hydrostatic pressure does not
develop.
• Example 8 assumes that no settlement of the backfill is anticipated. See BDM Section
11.3.6.1 for guidance when significant settlement is expected.
Figure 1 - Wingwall Elevation
Figure 2 - Partial Plan

=============================================================================
Givens
Wingwall Height, H = 10.00 ft.
Wall Thickness, t = 1.00 ft.
Live Load Surcharge Height, S = 2.00 ft. BDM 11.3.6.2
End Height, h = 3.00 ft.
Wingwall Length, L = 20.00 ft.
Abutment Width, A = 3.00 ft.
Skew Angle, θ = 30.00 degrees
Backfill Unit Weight, γ1 = 0.130 kcf (CDOT Class 1)
Angle of Internal Friction of Backfill, Φ1 = 34.0 degrees
Dead Load Factor, γDC = 1.25 AASHTO 3.4.1
Horizontal Earth Pressure Factor, γEH = 1.35 for at-rest pressure AASHTO 3.4.1
Live Load Surcharge Factor, γLS = 1.75 AASHTO 3.4.1
Unit Weight of Concrete, γc = 0.15 kcf
1
Provided by Geotechnical Engineer.
Figure 3 - Horizontal Load Geometry

=============================================================================
Calculations
Earth Pressure
Earth pressure moments are calculated about the A and C axes shown in Figure 3.
The total thrust, P, due to horizontal earth pressure and live load surcharge, is also
calculated and located. The following equations are adopted from a Caltrans design
aid; the derivations are not provided.
At-rest Lateral Earth Pressure AASHTO
Coefficient, k 0 1 sin Φ Eq. 3.11.5.2-1
= 0.441
Effective Fluid Weight, W 𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑘 ∗ 𝛾, 0.057 𝑘𝑐𝑓 BDM 11.3.6.2
= 0.057 kcf
Service Limit State:
𝑊𝐿
Service Moment, MS_AA 3ℎ 𝐻 4𝑆 𝐻 2ℎ
24
= 301 kft
𝑊𝐿
Service Moment, MS_CC 2𝑆ℎ𝐻 𝐻 ℎ 2𝑆 𝐻 ℎ
12
= 188 kft
𝑊𝐿
Service Thrust, PS 𝐻 ℎ 𝐻 ℎ 3𝑆
6
= 41.5 kip
𝑀_
𝑥̅
𝑃
= 7.26 ft., from back face of abutment
𝑀_
𝑦
𝑃
= 4.55 ft., from top of wall
Strength Limit State:
Nominal depth of live load surcharge is

𝛾
Effective Surcharge height, S' 𝑆 increased to account for the difference in
𝛾 load factors
= 2.59 ft.
Ultimate Moment, MU_AA 𝑊𝐿

𝛾 3ℎ 𝐻 4𝑆′ 𝐻 2ℎ
24
= 455 kft

=============================================================================
𝑊𝐿
Ultimate Moment, MU_CC 𝛾 2𝑆′ℎ𝐻 𝐻 ℎ 2𝑆′ 𝐻 ℎ
12
= 276 kft
𝑊𝐿
Ultimate Thrust, PU 𝛾 𝐻 ℎ 𝐻 ℎ 3𝑆′
6
= 61.9 kip
𝑀 _
𝑥̅
𝑃
= 7.35 ft., from back face of abutment
𝑀 _
𝑦
𝑃
= 4.45 ft., from top of wall
Self Weight:
Service Wall Weight, V S 𝐻𝐿𝑡 ∗ 𝛾
= 30.0 kip
Ultimate Wall Weight, V U 𝛾 𝑉
= 37.5 kip
𝐿
Service Moment at Design Section A, MS_wall 𝑉 ∗
2
= 300 kft
𝐿
Ultimate Moment at Design Section A, MU_wall 𝑉 ∗
2
= 375 kft

=============================================================================
Design Section A Summary
Primary Horizontal Reinforcement
MS_AA = 301 kft
MS_AA, per ft. 𝑀 _ ⁄𝐻
= 30.1 kft/ft
MU_AA = 455 kft
MU_AA, per ft. 𝑀 _ ⁄𝐻
= 45.5 kft/ft.
These moments are used to design the primary horizontal reinforcement along the inside face of
the wingwall for a 1 ft. wide section with a depth of t. For example calculations of reinforced
concrete design, see BDM Design Examples 6 and 11. Per calculations not shown, #8 bars at 6
in. spacing are selected as primary reinforcing. All wingwall reinforcement is required to be
corrosion resistant, in accordance with BDM Section 5.4.5.
Figure 4 - Primary Horizontal Reinforcement

Top Horizontal Reinforcement
MS_wall = 300 kft

MU_wall = 375 kft
These moments are used to design the required top reinforcing bars in the wingwall for a section
of width t and depth of H. Per calculations not shown, the primary horizontal reinforcing provided
above is sufficient to resist the imposed moment; no additional bars are needed.
Figure 5 - Top Horizontal Reinforcement

Wingwall Reinforcement Details
See Figures 11.6-1, 11.6-2, and 11.7-1 of the Bridge Detail Manual for additional wingwall
reinforcement details, including development of top and primary horizontal bars into the
abutment.

=============================================================================
Design Section B Summary
Earth pressure and dead loads are ultimately transferred to, and must be resisted by, the
abutment and its supporting foundation elements. This section resolves earth pressure and self-
weight forces into design forces and moments about centroidal axes of the abutment, and at
Design Section B (see Figure 2).
The abutment width along the skew, A' 𝐴⁄cos 𝜃

= 3.46 ft.
Figure 6 - Abutment Eccentricities
Service Limit State:

Tension, Ps = 41.5 kip
Shear, Vs = 30.0 kip
𝑒 𝐴′
_ 𝑥̅
2
= 8.99 ft.
𝐻
𝑒 _ 𝑦
2
= 0.454 ft.
My, Service 𝑃 ∗𝑒 _
= 373 kft
Mx, Service 𝑃 ∗𝑒 _
= 18.8 kft
𝐿 𝐴′
Tz, Service 𝑉
2
= 352 kft

=============================================================================
Strength Limit State:
Tension, Pu = 61.9 kip
Shear, Vu = 37.5 kip
𝐴′
𝑒 _ 𝑥̅
2
= 9.08 ft.
𝑒 𝐻
_ 𝑦
2
= 0.548 ft.
My, Ultimate 𝑃 ∗𝑒 _
= 562 kft
Mx, Ultimate 𝑃 ∗𝑒 _
= 34.0 kft
𝐿 𝐴′
Tz, Ultimate 𝑉
2
= 440 kft
The shear, tension, torsion, and bi-axial moments summarized above are concurrent and must
be resisted by the abutment. Careful detailing is required to provide adequate capacity and
sufficient reinforcement development at Design Section B. See Figure 11-13 of the BDM for
reinforcement details at the wingwall/abutment interface.
Conclusion
This design example shows the primary calculations needed to develop design forces for a
cantilever wingwall supported by an integral abutment. While all force effects were calculated for
completeness, it is noted that for this example the following force effects are negligible: self-
weight shear at sections A & B, self-weight moment M_wall at Section A, and earth pressure
moment Mx at Section B.
Other configurations, such as a cantilever wingwall attached to a semi-integral abutment cap,

need to resist the same loading as illustrated in this design example. However, in this case, the
structural section available to resist the wingwall forces is reduced because the wingwall is
supported only by the abutment cap. It is noted that the aforementioned force effects that are
typically inconsequential for an integral abutment are more critical for this configuration.

Example 9: Seismic Zone 1 Design 1
=====================================================================================
Example 9: Seismic Zone 1 Design Example
Problem Statement
Most bridges in Colorado fall into the Seismic Zone 1 category. Per AASHTO, no AASHTO
seismic analysis is required for structures in Zone 1. However, seismic criteria must be 4.7.4
addressed in this case. This example illustrates the seismic-specific code requirements
associated with bridges in Zone 1, including:
• Determination of seismic zone
• Horizontal connection forces
• Minimum support length requirements
• Substructure transverse reinforcement requirements
This example bridge is a skewed, 2-span, steel I-girder bridge supported by semi-
integral abutments and a multi-column pier, with a drop style pier cap and each column
supported by a single caisson (see Figures 1 and 2). The caisson reinforcing clear
cover allows the same reinforcing cage diameter to be used for both column and
caisson.
Fixed Type 1 bearings are used at the pier while expansion Type 1 bearings are used at
the abutments. Anchor bolts projecting through a sole plate are assumed as the restraint
mechanism at the bearings, with the holes in the sole plate slotted in the longitudinal
direction at the abutments. Note that integral abutments would typically be specified for a
bridge with this span arrangement, but expansion abutments are included for illustrative
purposes.
Figure 1 - Bridge Layout and Longitudinal Fixity
Figure 2 - Pier 2 Elevation

=====================================================================================
Givens
Total Bridge Length, L = 235.00 ft.
Pier 2 Column Height, H = 18.00 ft. See Figure 2
Bridge Skew, S = 5.00 degrees
Abutment Support Length = 36.00 in.
Extreme Event I LL Factor, γEQ = 0.00 AASHTO 3.4.1
Earthquake Load Factor, γ = 1.00 AASHTO 3.4.1
1 kip per Abutment
Permanent Vertical Reaction at Abut. 1, R 1 = 494
1
Permanent Vertical Reaction at Pier 2, R 2 = 1759 kip per Pier
1
Permanent Vertical Reaction at Abut. 3, R 3 = 561 kip per Abutment
Column Diameter, D = 42.0 in.
Column Clear Cover = 2.00 in.
Caisson Diameter, Dc = 48.0 in.
Caisson Clear Cover = 5.00 in.
Assumed Depth to Moment Fixity2 = 10.00 ft. See Figure 2
f'c, Column = 4.50 ksi
f'c, Caisson = 4.00 ksi
fy = 60.00 ksi
Seismic Design Parameters: 3
Site Class = D
PGA = 0.103 g AS = 0.165 g
SS = 0.212 g SDS = 0.338 g
S1 = 0.053 g SD1 = 0.127 g
1
These values are the unfactored total for the support.
2
Assumed for this example, Designers should determine analytically for each project.
3
Provided by Geotechnical Engineer for an event with a 7% probability of exceedance in
75 years.
Determination of Seismic Zone
Bridges are assigned to seismic zones based on the SD1 parameter and
Table 3.10.6-1 in AASHTO, re-created here:
Acceleration Coefficient, SD1 Seismic Zone

SD1 ≤ 0.15 1
0.15 < SD1 ≤ 0.30 2
0.30 < SD1 ≤ 0.50 3
0.50 < SD1 4
Since SD1 = 0.127 < 0.15, the bridge is located in Seismic Zone 1.

=====================================================================================
Horizontal Connection Force: AASHTO 3.10.9.2

For bridges in Zone 1, the horizontal design connection force is a function of the
acceleration coefficient, AS.
Since AS = 0.165 ≥ 0.05, the minimum horizontal design connection force is 0.25 times
the vertical reaction due to tributary permanent load and the tributary live loads assumed
to exist during an earthquake. For this example, the tributary live load is assumed to be
zero. See BDM Section 3.12 for guidance on the value of γEQ to use when performing a
seismic analysis for bridges in other seismic zones.
This calculation is performed for both longitudinal and transverse directions.

Longitudinal Direction
Since the abutment bearings allow expansion in the longitudinal direction, the
superstructure is restrained only by the 8 fixed bearings at Pier 2. Any passive soil
resistance that may develop behind the abutments is ignored. The design connection
force in the longitudinal direction at Pier 2 is 0.25 times the sum of the permanent
vertical reactions at all supports.
Tributary reaction at Pier 2 = R1 + R2 + R3

= 2814 kip
0.25 times reaction = 704 kip
The factored horizontal design connection force for each bearing:

=1.0*704/8 = 88.0 kip
Transverse Direction
The superstructure is restrained in the transverse direction at all three supports.
Therefore, the design connection forces in the transverse directions are a function of the
permanent vertical reactions at each support. Each support has 8 bearings.
Tributary reaction for Abutment 1, R1 = 494 kip
The factored horizontal design connection force for each bearing at Abutment 1:
=1.0*124/8 = 15.5 kip
Tributary reaction for Pier 2, R2 = 1759 kip

The factored horizontal design connection force for each bearing at Pier 2:
=1.0*440/8 = 55.0 kip
Tributary reaction for Abutment 3, R3 = 561 kip

The factored horizontal design connection force for each bearing at Abutment 3:
=1.0*140/8 = 17.5 kip

=====================================================================================
Resolution of Horizontal Connection Forces

Because the bearing devices provide horizontal restraint for the bridge, Designers
should verify the capacity of the following items with respect to the connection force: the
girder to sole plate connection, the sole plate to anchor bolt connection, the anchor bolt,
and anchor bolt anchorage into concrete.
The transverse and longitudinal connection forces determined above are simplified
approximations AASHTO allows for Zone 1, in lieu of performing a refined seismic
analyis using stiffness based force distribution. As such, the horizontal and longitudinal
connection forces need not be combined as described in AASHTO 3.10.8, the provisions
of which are predicated on a perpendicular seismic analyis.
Adequate resistance of the connection force shall be verified at any connection (not
necessarily just bearing devices) whose failure could cause loss of support or structure
instability, as described in AASHTO C3.10.9.2. Previous versions of AASHTO required
that the connection force be addressed from the point of application through the
substructure and into the foundation elements. However, the 2015 Interim Revisions to
AASHTO removed this requirement.
Minimum Support Length Requirements AASHTO 4.7.4.4

Because no longitudinal restraint is provided at Abutment 1 or 3, the support lengths
must meet the requirements of AASHTO 4.7.4.4. Note that bearings with anchors in
slotted holes are not considered restrained in the direction of the slots.
The minimum support length, N, measured normal to the centerline of bearing is:
AASHTO
N 8 0.02𝐿 0.08𝐻 1 0.000125 ∗ 𝑆
4.7.4.4-1
where:
L = Length of bridge deck to the adjacent expansion joint or to the end of
the bridge deck
H = Average height of columns supporting the bridge deck from the
abutment to the next expansion joint (definition for abutments only)
S = Skew of support measured from line normal to span (degrees)
N 8 0.02 ∗ 235 0.08 ∗ 18′ 1 0.000125 ∗ 5
N= 14.2 in.
The percentage of N required for a given seismic zone and AS is shown in AASHTO
Table 4.7.4.4-1. For Seismic Zone 1 and with AS = 0.165, 100% of N (14.2 inches) is
required. The support length provided is 36 in., thus the minimum support requirements
are satisfied.

=====================================================================================
Figure 3 - Abutment Support Length

Substructure Transverse Reinforcement Requirements AASHTO 5.11
In addition to connection force requirements, for bridges in the high end of Seismic Zone AASHTO
1 where the response acceleration coefficient SD1 is greater than 0.10, transverse 5.11.2
confinement reinforcement is required in the expected plastic hinge regions. AASHTO
5.11.2 assumes the plastic hinges zones to be located at the top and bottom of columns.
However, the actual locations of plastic hinges depend on support geometry and
boundary conditions and must be determined on a project-specific basis. Transverse
confinement reinforcement need only be provided in the expected plastic hinge regions.
Since SD1 = 0.127, confinement reinforcement as specified in AASHTO 5.11.4.1.4 and

5.11.4.1.5 must be provided.
AASHTO
Transverse Reinforcement for Confinement at Plastic Hinges 5.11.4.1.4
Seismic hoop or spiral transverse reinforcement is required in the expected plastic hinge
regions. Per BDM Section 5.4.9, CDOT prefers spirals for confinement reinforcement of
round elements.
For a circular member, the volumetric ratio, ρ s, of spiral reinforcement shall satisfy either
of the following:
4𝐴 𝐴 𝑓′
𝜌 0.45 ∗ 1 AASHTO 5.6.4.6-1
𝐷 𝑠 𝐴 𝑓
4𝐴 𝑓′
𝜌 0.12 AASHTO 5.11.4.1.4-1
𝐷 𝑠 𝑓
where:
f'c = specified 28-day compressive strength of concrete (ksi)
fy = minimum yield strength of reinforcing (ksi) ≤ 75.0 ksi
Ag = gross area of concrete section (in.2)
Ac = area of the core measured to the outside diameter of the spiral (in.2)
Asp = cross-sectional area of spiral or hoop (in.2)
Dcore = core diameter of column measured to the outside of spiral or hoop (in.)
s = pitch of spiral or vertical spacing of hoops (in.)

=====================================================================================
Recall that:
Column Diameter, D = 42.0 in.
Column Clear Height, H = 18.0 ft.
Column Clear Cover = 2.00 in.
Caisson Diameter, Dc = 48.0 in.
Caisson Clear Cover = 5.00 in.
Column Spiral:
Core diameter, Dcore = D - 2*(clear cover)
Dcore = 38.0 in.
𝐷
Ag 𝜋
2
Ag = 1385 in.2
𝐷
Ac 𝜋
2
Ac = 1134 in.2
The volumetric ratio of spiral reinforcement, ρ s, must satisfy either of the following:
1385 𝑖𝑛. 4.5 𝑘𝑠𝑖 AASHTO
ρs 0.45 ∗ 1
1134 𝑖𝑛. 60 𝑘𝑠𝑖 5.6.4.6-1
≥ 0.0075
4.5 𝑘𝑠𝑖 AASHTO
ρs 0.12
60 𝑘𝑠𝑖 5.11.4.1.4-1
≥ 0.0090
ρs, min = 0.0075
AASHTO 5.11.4.1.5 limits the spacing of confinement reinforcement to 1/4th the
member diameter, D, or 4.0 in. The 4.0 in. maximum spacing controls.
Try #5 spirals at pitch, s = 4.00 in.
#5 diameter = 0.625 in.
Spiral diameter, ds = Dcore - 0.625"
ds = 37.38 in
The required area of one leg of the spiral, Asp:

𝜌 , 𝑚𝑖𝑛 ∗ 𝑠 ∗ 𝐷 𝜌 ∗𝑠∗𝐷
Asp ≅
4∗𝑑 4
Asp = 0.29 in.2

=====================================================================================
As a #5 bar has a cross-sectional area of 0.31 in.2, using #5 spirals at a 4.0 in. pitch
satisfies the confinement requirements.
AASHTO
Lap splices of the confinement reinforcement in the hinge zone are not permitted; 5.11.4.1.4
rather, splices shall be made by full-welded splices or by full-mechanical connections.
AASHTO C5.11.4.1.4 also recommends spacing longitudinal bars a maximum of 8 in. to
help confinement (see Figure 4).
Figure 4 - Column Confinement Reinforcement

Caisson Spiral:
Core diameter, Dcore = Dc - 2*(clear cover)
Dcore = 38.0 in.
𝐷
Ag 𝜋
2
Ag = 1810 in.2
𝐷
Ac 𝜋
2
Ac = 1134 in.2
The volumetric ratio of spiral reinforcement, ρ s, must satisfy either of the following:
1810 𝑖𝑛. 4.0 𝑘𝑠𝑖 AASHTO
ρs 0.45 ∗ 1
1134 𝑖𝑛. 60 𝑘𝑠𝑖 5.6.4.6-1
≥ 0.0179
4.0 𝑘𝑠𝑖 AASHTO
ρs 0.12
60 𝑘𝑠𝑖 5.11.4.1.4-1
≥ 0.0080
ρs, min = 0.008
Try #5 spirals at pitch, s = 4.00 in.
#5 diameter = 0.625 in.
Spiral diameter, ds = Dcore - 0.625"
ds = 37.38 in.
The required area of one leg of the spiral, Asp:

𝜌 , 𝑚𝑖𝑛 ∗ 𝑠 ∗ 𝐷 𝜌 ∗𝑠∗𝐷
Asp ≅
4∗𝑑 4
Asp = 0.31 in2
A #5 spiral at a 4.0 in. pitch satisfies the confinement requirements (see Figure 5).

=====================================================================================
Figure 5 - Caisson Confinement Reinforcement

AASHTO
Spacing of Transverse Reinforcement for Confinement 5.11.4.1.5
AASHTO 5.11.4.1.5 gives guidance on the required lengths where confinement
reinforcement is required. As the example column and caisson have similar flexural
stiffnesses and capacities, their seismic behavior, including location of plastic hinges, is
expected to be similar to that of a pile bent. Therefore, the provisions of AASHTO
5.11.4.1.5 that pertain to pile bents are followed. Further, the column clear height
parameter is increased by the assumed depth to fixity to more accurately reflect the
bending height of the column/caisson element.
At the top of the column, confinement reinforcement must be provided over a length not
less than:
• the maximum cross-sectional column dimension,
Column Diameter, D = 3.50 ft.
• 1/6th of the bending height of the column/caisson,
1/6*(H+10') = 4.67 ft. < Controls
• or 18 in.
18.0 in. = 1.50 ft.
And extend into the adjoining pier cap for a distance not less than: AASHTO
• one-half the maximum column dimension 5.11.4.3
D/2 = 1.75 ft < Controls
• or 15 in.
15.0 in. = 1.25 ft
In accordance with the provisions for pile bents, confinement reinforcement must be
provided in the caisson over a length extending from 3.0 times the diameter below the
point of moment fixity in the caisson to a height of one diameter, but not less than 18 in.,
above the mud line.
Figure 6 shows the resulting hinge zones and reinforcement.

=====================================================================================
Figure 6 - Hinge Zone Reinforcement

=====================================================================================
Conclusion
Horizontal design connection forces and minimum seat lengths are typically critical for
bridges that use bearing devices, which the example bridge highlighted. Guidelines for
other common CDOT situations with respect to horizontal connection forces are as
follows:
• Standard CDOT integral abutments that are designed and detailed per BDM
Section 11.3.1 are considered restrained in all directions and may be
assumed to meet horizontal design connection force requirements by
inspection.
• The typical CDOT “pinned” piers where the girders are embedded in concrete
pier diaphragms that are connected to the pier cap with a single line of
dowels, require Designers to check the doweled connection to the diaphragm
for the horizontal connection force. Shear friction at the pier diaphragm to pier
cap interface should be used as the resistance.
The example also showed the transverse confinement reinforcement requirements

(applicable when 0.10 ≤ SD1 ≤ 0.15) for the common CDOT configuration of a single
caisson supporting each column of a multi-column pier, and where the caisson and
column are of similar size. The following guidelines are applicable to other common
CDOT substructure configurations, when 0.10 ≤ SD1 ≤ 0.15:
• Transverse confinement reinforcement for hinging need not be specified at

the tops of columns that exhibit cantilever behavior in both horizontal
directions, regardless of the SD1 magnitude. This is because a plastic hinge
cannot form where there is no significant moment development possible.
• For the situation where a significantly larger caisson is used under each
column and the column bars are embedded into the caisson, the lower hinge
during an earthquake is likely to occur at the bottom of column, not within the
caisson. In this case, the hinge zone for the column may use the actual clear
column height to establish the upper and lower column hinge zone limits. The
caisson is then considered an adjoining member, and the column’s
confinement reinforcement should be extended into the caisson as required in
AASHTO 5.11.4.3. The caisson’s transverse reinforcement need not meet
the special requirements for confinement at plastic hinges.
• For the situation where a caisson is significantly smaller than the column that
is used, and the caisson bars project into the column, the lower hinge during
an earthquake is likely to occur in the caisson. The “pile bent” criteria shown
in the example should be used to establish the top and bottom hinge zone
limits, except that confinement reinforcement need not be provided for the
bottom of column as no plastic hinge is expected there. The caisson
transverse confinement reinforcement should be extended into the column as
required in AASHTO 5.11.4.3 for adjoining members.
Example 9 followed AASHTO LRFD provisions for Seismic Zone 1. As an alternative,

Designers may follow the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge
Design. Note that the equivalent to AASHTO LRFD Seismic
Zone 1 is Seismic

EXAMPLE 10 - SIGN STRUCTURE FOUNDATION DESIGN 1
=====================================================================================
EXAMPLE 10 - SIGN STRUCTURE FOUNDATION DESIGN

GENERAL INFORMATION
Example Statement: Example 10 demonstrates a design procedure for a drilled shaft foundation for a
cantilever sign structure. The cantilever supports a sign panel attached to the horizontal support. The
example is only for the design of the shaft foundation. It does not discuss cover design of the members
and attachment.
The design follows the LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and
Traffic Signals, First Edition 2015, with 2017 updates (AASHTO LTS), with references to AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition (AASHTO). Example 10 was designed with a geotechnical
investigation performed on the soil. If one does not have geotechnical data, it is CDOT's preference to
use the Brom's method in Section 13 of the AASHTO LTS to determine shaft embedment.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Concrete: CDOT Concrete Class BZ
Concrete Compressive Strength f'c = 4 ksi
Concrete Unit Weight γc = 150 pcf
Steel: Reinforcing Steel

Grade 60 Reinforcing Steel fy = 60 ksi
Steel: Steel Members

Steel Density γsteel = 490 pcf
Aluminum: Sign Panels

Aluminum Density γaluminum = 175 pcf
SIGN STRUCTURE GEOMETRY INFORMATION (Refer to Figure 1)

Pole Length Lpole = 22.00 ft.
Pole Base Diameter (outside diameter, o.d.) øpole-B = 15.50 in.
Pole Top Diameter (o.d.) øpole-T = 12.50 in.
Pole Wall Thickness tpole = 0.1875 in.
Depth to Arm Darm = 1.50 ft.
Arm Length Larm = 16.00 ft.
Arm Base Diameter (o.d.) øarm-B = 10.00 in.
Arm End Diameter (o.d.) øarm-E = 6.25 in.
Arm Wall Thickness tarm = 0.1875 in.
Shaft Depth Dshaft = 13.00 ft.
Shaft Diameter øshaft = 36 in.
Number of Sign Panels 1

=====================================================================================
Larm = 16 ft
øpole-T = 12.5 in
esp = 11 ft
Darm = 1.5 ft Sign Hsp = 6 ft

Panel
Lsp = 8 ft
Lpole = 22 ft øarm-E = 6.25 in

øarm-B = 10 in
Y
øpole-B = 15.5 in X
Z
Existing Ground
Dshaft = 13 ft
øshaft = 36 in
Figure 1 - Sign Structure Geometry Information
SIGN PANEL GEOMETRY INFORMATION

Length Height esp Area
Sign Panel 1 8.00 ft. 6.00 ft. 11.00 ft. 48.00 ft.2
1. LOAD CALCULATION
Use the load combinations and factors from AASHTO LTS T3.4-1 for all loads acting on the sign
structure. Determine the loads at the top of the shaft foundation:
APPLIED LOADS AASHTO LTS 3

(Other loads not listed here may be applicable for different design cases.)
DC - dead load of structural components and nonstructural attachments
LL - live load is considered for designing members for walkways and service platforms
ICE - ice and wind on ice do not practically control and have been removed from the specifications
W - wind load is based on the pressure of the wind acting horizontally on all components

=====================================================================================
Dead Loads (DC) AASHTO LTS 3.5

*Weight is based on the typical weight of steel and aluminum
Pole Weight DC1 = 0.61 kip

Arm Weight DC2 = 0.25 kip
Sign Weight DC3 = 0.15 kip *Assumed 7/32" Sign Thickness
Misc. Weight (Anchors and Sign Support) DC4 = 0.08 kip *Assumed to be 50% of Sign Weight
Live Loads (LL) AASHTO LTS 3.6
Is LL applicable? no
Ice Loads (ICE) AASHTO LTS 3.7
Is ICE applicable? no
Wind Loads (W) AASHTO LTS 3.8
Mean Recurrence Interval MRI = 1700 BDM 32.3.1.3

Basic Wind Speed V = 120.00 mph BDM 32.3.1.3
Height and Exposure Factor for Signs and Arm Kz = 0.90 AASHTO LTS Eq. 3.8.4-1
Height and Exposure Factor for Pole Kz = 0.86 AASHTO LTS Eq. 3.8.4-1
Directionality Factor Kd = 0.85 AASHTO LTS 3.8.5
Gust Effect Factor G= 1.14 AASHTO LTS 3.8.6
Velocity Conversion Factor - Ext Event Cv-Ext = 0.80 AASHTO LTS 3.8.7
Cv V d = Cv V øpole-avg = 112.00
Velocity Conversion Factor Cv = 1.00 AASHTO LTS 3.8.7
Cv V d = Cv V øpole-avg = 140.00
Drag Coefficient for Members Cd-members = 0.45 AASHTO LTS 3.8.7
Drag Coefficient for Sign Panels Cd-sp = 1.19 *rounded up AASHTO LTS 3.8.7
Wind Pressure on Members
𝑃 0.00256 𝐾 𝐾 𝐺𝑉 𝐶 = 14.50 psf AASHTO LTS Eq. 3.8.1-1
Wind Pressure on Sign Panels
𝑃 0.00256 𝐾 𝐾 𝐺𝑉 𝐶 = 38.35 psf AASHTO LTS Eq. 3.8.1-1
2
Pole Surface Area (along x axis) A1x = 25.67 ft.
Pole Surface Area (along z axis) A1z = 25.67 ft.2
Arm Surface Area (along x axis) A2x = 10.83 ft.2
Sign Panels Surface Area (along x axis) A3x = 48.00 ft.2
Wind Load (x-direction) 𝑊 Σ𝐴 ∗ 𝑃 = W x = 0.37 kip = A1z * Pz-members
Wind Load on Signs (z-direction) W z-sign = 1.84 kip = A3x * Pz-sign panels
Wind Load on Arm (z-direction) W z-arm = 0.16 kip = A2x * Pz-members
Wind Load on Pole (z-direction) W z-pole = 0.37 kip = A1x * Pz-members

=====================================================================================
UNFACTORED LOADS AND MOMENTS AT TOP OF SHAFT

Moments taken about the centerline of the shaft
Moment at
Load Moment
Moment the Top of
Load Description Direction Load (kip) Direction
Arm (ft.) the Caisson
(x,y,z) (x,y,z)
(kip-ft.)
DC1 Pole Weight Y 0.61 0.00 Z 0.00
DC2 Arm Weight Y 0.25 4.31 Z 1.10
DC3 Sign Weight Y 0.15 11.00 Z 1.68
DC4 Misc. Weight Y 0.08 11.00 Z 0.84
LL Live Load Y 0.00 0.00 Z 0.00
W x-pole Wind on Pole X 0.37 6.73 Z 2.51
Wind on Signs
W z-sign/arm Z 2.00 20.50 X 40.95
& Arm
W z-sign Wind on Signs Z 1.84 11.00 Y 20.25
W z-arm Wind on Arm Z 0.16 4.31 Y 0.68
W z-pole Wind on Pole Z 0.37 11.00 X 4.09
LOAD COMBINATIONS AASHTO LTS T3.4-1
Load Combination γDC γLL γW Application

Strength I 1.25 1.60 - Gravity
Extreme Ia 1.10 - 1.00 Wind max
Extreme Ib 0.90 - 1.00 Wind min
Service I 1.00 - 1.00 Translation
SUMMARY OF FACTORED LOADS AND MOMENTS AT TOP OF SHAFT

Moments taken about the centerline of the shaft
𝑈 𝛾 𝐷𝐶 𝛾 𝐿𝐿 𝛾 𝑊
Load Axial Moment about Moment about Moment about Shear in the Shear in the
Combination (kip) x-axis (kip-ft.) y-axis* (kip-ft.) z-axis (kip-ft.) x-axis (kip) z-axis (kip)
Strength I 1.37 - - 4.53 - -
Extreme Ia 1.20 45.05 20.92 6.49 0.37 2.37
Extreme Ib 0.98 45.05 20.92 5.77 0.37 2.37
Service I 1.09 45.05 20.92 6.13 0.37 2.37
*My to be used for torsion calculation

=====================================================================================
2. SHAFT CAPACITY
Run static L-PILE analysis with parameters from geotechnical report and calculated factored loads.
L-PILE INPUT
Soil Properties
*From Geotechnical Report
Top of Boring Elevation Elboring top = 5297.00

Bottom of Boring Elevation Elboring bot = 5270.00
Top of Shaft Elevation Elcaisson top = 5297.50
Bottom of Shaft Elevation Elcaisson bot = 5284.50
Friction
Top of Unit Weight Cohesion
Soil Type Angle Ɛ50 k (pci)
Soil Elev. (pcf) (psf)
(degrees)
5297.00 Stiff Clay w/o free water using k 120.00 0.00 2000.00 0.006 500.00
5290.00 Stiff Clay w/o free water using k 130.00 0.00 2500.00 0.005 1000.00
Shaft Section Properties
Section Round Concrete Shaft

Length of Section Dshaft = 13.00 ft.
Length of Section in Bedrock Drock = 5.50 ft.
Section Diameter øshaft = 36 in.
Longitudinal Rebar Size # 8
Longitudinal Rebar Count 13
Concrete Cover to Inside Edge of Stirrup Bar 3.625 in. BDM 5.4.3
Stirrup Size # 5
Stirrup Spacing 12 in.
INPUT LOADS
L-Pile models in only one plane, therefore:
Shear in the X Direction is paired with Moment in the Z Direction
Shear in the Z Direction is paired with Moment in the X Direction
Pile-Head Loading Moment
Load Case Shear (lb) Axial (lb)
Condition (lb-in)
1 1 0 54,347 1,367
2 1 372 77,892 1,203
3 1 2,370 540,557 1,203
4 1 372 69,196 984
5 1 2,370 540,557 984
6 1 372 73,544 1,093
7 1 2,370 540,557 1,093

=====================================================================================
L-PILE OUTPUT
*Agg size assumed to be 0.75"
Reinforcement 13 #8
Clear Distance Between Bars 5.64 in.
Spacing Check for Min Spacing >
Min Clear Allowed, Max(1.5db, 1.5*Agg Size, 1.5") = 1.50 in. AASHTO 5.10.3.1.1
Min Clear Allowed, Max(5*Agg Size, 5") = 5.00 in. AASHTO 5.12.9.5.2
Area of Steel 10.27 in.2
Percentage of Steel 1.01%
>
0.80% AASHTO 5.12.9.5.2
Maximum Pile-Head Deflection 0.0043 in.

Maximum Shear Force 7,261 lbs
Maximum Bending Moment 567,170 lb-in
Axial Thrust at Max Moment Case 1,203 lbs
Lateral Pile Deflection (in.) vs

Depth (ft.)
The maximum deflection, at the
top of the caisson is 0.0043",
which is considered zero;
therefore, the shaft is deemed
stable for the length used per the
Engineer's judgment.

=====================================================================================
Bending Moment (in-kip) vs

Depth (ft.)
The maximum factored moment
is less than the maximum
resistance moment. The shaft is
considered stable per the
reinforcement and size.

=====================================================================================
Shear Force (kips) vs

Depth (ft.)

=====================================================================================
AXIAL RESISTANCE
Unit End Bearing Resistance qp = 18.00 ksf Geotechnical Report

Unit Side Resistance qs = 1.00 ksf Geotechnical Report
End Bearing Factor ɸqp = 0.40 Geotechnical Report
Side Resistance Factor ɸqs = 0.45 Geotechnical Report
2
Shaft End Bearing Area 𝐴 𝜋𝑑 /4 = Ashaft = 7.07 ft.
Shaft Perimeter 𝑃 𝜋𝑑 = Pshaft = 9.42 ft.
Depth in Bedrock Drock = 5.50 ft.
End Bearing Resistance ɸqpqpAshaft = ɸqpRp = 50.89 kip AASHTO Eq. 10.8.3.5-2
Side Shear Resistance ɸqsqsPshaftDrock = ɸqsRs = 23.33 kip AASHTO Eq. 10.8.3.5-3
Ultimate Shaft Resistance 𝑅 𝜑𝑅 𝜑 𝑅 𝜑 𝑅 74.22 kip AASHTO Eq. 10.8.3.5-1
Applied Vertical Load 15.15 kip Fy max plus DL of shaft

<
74.22 kip
OK!
BENDING RESISTANCE
L-Pile provides Nominal Moment Resistance for each axial value.
The maximum factored applied moment from each L-Pile case with varying axial is compared to the
nominal moment resistance provided by L-Pile.
𝜑𝑀 𝑀 𝑀
ɸ= 0.75 AASHTO 5.5.4.2
Nominal Moment Ultimate Moment Factored Applied

Load Case Axial (lb) Resistance, ɸ Resistance, Moment, Mapplied Check
Mn (kip-in.) Mu (kip-in.) (kip-in.)
5 984 8,472.87 0.75 6,354.65 540.56 OK!
7 1,093 8,474.12 0.75 6,355.59 540.56 OK!
3 1,203 8,475.37 0.75 6,356.53 540.56 OK!
1 1,367 8,477.25 0.75 6,357.94 54.35 OK!

=====================================================================================
SHEAR AND TORSION RESISTANCE

*The side shear resistance of soil for torsion effects is checked at the end of this example.
Shear Force Vu = 7.26 kip
Torsion My = T u = 20.92 k-ft.
Flexure Mu = 45.05 k-ft.
Tension Nu = 15.15 kip
Phi for Shear and Torsion ɸ = 0.90 AASHTO 5.5.4.2
Concrete Cover to Reinforcing & Bar Size:

Side Cover clr = 3.00 in.
Stirrup Bar Diameter dstirrup = 0.63 in.
Nominal Resistance Mn = 706.07 k-ft. L-Pile Output

Area of Flexural Reinforcement Af = 5.14 in.2 Half of the reinforcement in shaft
3
Dia of Circle Passing Through Long. Reinf Dr = 27.75 in.
Depth to Flexural Reinforcement ds = 26.83 in. = Dshaft/2 + Dr/π
Torsional Cracking Moment AASHTO 5.7.2.1

2
Area of Concrete Perimeter Acp = 1,018 in.
Concrete Perimeter pc = 113.10 in.
Compressive Stress at Centroid of Section fpc = 0.00 ksi
𝐴 AASHTO Eq.5.7.2.1-4
𝑇 0.126𝐾λ 𝑓
𝑝
𝑓
𝐾 1 2.0 AASHTO Eq.5.7.2.1-6
0.126λ 𝑓
K= 1.00
Torsional Cracking Moment Tcr = 2,308.54 k-in.
0.25φTcr = 519.42 k-in.
> AASHTO Eq. 5.7.2.1-3
Tu = 251.08 k-in.
Torsional effects can be neglected
Design Factored Shear Force Vu = 7.26 kip
Shear Stress on Concrete AASHTO 5.7.2.8

𝑀
𝐴 𝑓
Effective Shear Depth dv = max of
0.9 ∗ 𝑑
0.72 ∗ ℎ
Mn / Asfy = 27.50 in. Maximum
0.9*ds = 24.15 in.
0.72*h = 25.92 in.
dv = 27.50 in.

=====================================================================================
Shear Stress 𝑣 ɸ
= vu = 0.0081 ksi AASHTO Eq. 5.7.2.8-1
Transverse Reinforcement
Transverse Reinforcement is required where: Vu > 0.5φVc AASHTO Eq. 5.7.2.3-1
Vu = 7.26 kip
<
0.5φVc = 115.15 kip
Transverse reinforcement not necessary
𝑏 𝑠
Minimum Transverse Reinforcement Av, min ≥ 0.0316λ 𝑓′ AASHTO Eq. 5.7.2.5-1
𝑓
Av, min ≥ 0.46 in.2
<
Av, prov'd = 0.62 in.2
OK!
Maximum Spacing of Transverse Reinforcement AASHTO 5.7.2.6

vu = 0.008 ksi
<
0.125f'c = 0.500 ksi
If vu < 0.125f'c, then: 𝑠 0.8𝑑 24.0 AASHTO Eq. 5.7.2.6-1
If vu ≥ 0.125f'c, then: 𝑠 0.4𝑑 12.0 AASHTO Eq. 5.7.2.6-2
smax = 22.00 in.

>
sv, prov'd = 12.00 in.2
OK!
Maximum Nominal Shear Resistance AASHTO 5.7.3.3
Nominal Shear Resistance 0.25*f'c*bv*dv = Vn = 990.01 kip AASHTO Eq. 5.7.3.3-2

ɸVn = 891.01 kip
>
Vu = 7.26 kip
OK!
𝑀
0.5𝑁 𝑉
𝑑 AASHTO Eq. 5.7.3.4.2-4
𝜀
𝐸𝐴
Net Longitudinal Tensile Strain εs = 0.0002

=====================================================================================
For sections containing at least the minimum amount of transverse reinforcement specified in Art.
5.7.2.5, the value of β may be determined by the following equation:
4.8
𝛽
1 750𝜀 AASHTO Eq. 5.7.3.4.2-1
β= 4.09
θ= 29.81 AASHTO Eq. 5.7.3.4.2-3
Nominal Shear Resistance of Concrete 𝑉 0.0316𝛽λ 𝑓 𝑏 𝑑 AASHTO Eq. 5.7.3.3-3

Vc = 255.88 kip
>
Vu = 7.26 kip
OK!
Side Shear Resistance of Soil in Torsion

Per CDOT's experience, the soil torsion capacity may control the shaft length. If the drilled shaft sees
torsion, the following applicable checks should be completed. Refer to Report No. CDOT-DTD-R-
2004-8 for equations and procedure.
Cohesive Soil Resistance

It is CDOT's approach that the soil resistance to torsion in cohesive soils is based on the drilled shaft
embedment area into the soil, neglecting the top 1.5' of section length. Perform the following check if
the drilled shaft is in cohesive soil.
Torsion Tu = 20.92 k-ft.

Soil profile used for example cohesion, su = 2000 psf
Assumed Phi for Torsion, per SF = 1.25 ɸ = 0.80
Section Diameter øshaft = 36 in
𝜋·∅
Drilled shaft side resistance 𝑇 𝐷 1.5∅ ·𝑠 Tu
2
𝜋·∅
Drilled shaft toe resistance 𝑇 𝑠
12
1.5∅shaft
Ts = 240.33 k-ft.
Tt = 14.14 k-ft.
Nominal Total Torsion Resistance 𝑇 𝑇 𝑇 254.47 k-ft. Dshaft
ɸTn = 203.58 k-ft.
>
Tu = 20.92 k-ft.
OK!

=====================================================================================
Cohesionless Soil Resistance
It is CDOT's approach that the soil resistance to torsion in cohesionless soils is based on the drilled
shaft embedment into the soil. Perform the following check if the drilled shaft is in cohesionless soil.
Torsion Tu = 20.92 k-ft.

Soil profile used for example unit weight, ᵞ = 120 pcf
Soil profile used for example friction angle, φ = 30.00 degrees
Assumed Phi for Torsion, per SF = 1.25 ɸ = 0.80
Section Diameter øshaft = 36.00 in
Weight of Section W= 13.78 kip
𝜋·∅ Tu
Drilled shaft side resistance 𝑇 𝐷 ·𝑟
2
∅
Drilled shaft toe resistance 𝑇 𝑊 · 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑
3
2𝐷
Coefficient of lateral 𝐾 1 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑 1.44
earth pressure 3∅
𝐷
Unit shaft side resistance 𝑟 𝐾𝛾 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 0.65 ksf
2
Ts = 119.55 k-ft.
Tt = 7.96 k-ft. KγDshaft
Nominal Total Torsion Resistance 𝑇 𝑇 𝑇 127.51 k-ft.
ɸTn = 102.00 k-ft.
>
Tu = 20.92 k-ft.
OK!

EXAMPLE 11 - CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL 1
========================================================================================
EXAMPLE 11 - CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE CANTILEVER

RETAINING WALL
GENERAL INFORMATION
Example 11 demonstrates design procedures for cast-in-place cantilever retaining walls supported on
spread footing in conformance with AASHTO and Section 11.5 of this BDM. Horizontal earth pressure is
applied based on the Coulomb earth pressure theory.
Example Statement: The retaining wall supports 15'-0" of level roadway embankment measured from
top of wall to top of footing. The wall will be built adjacent to the roadway shoulder where traffic is 2 ft.
from the barrier face. The wall stem is 1'-6" wide to accommodate mounting a Type 7 Bridge Rail to the
top of wall. See Figure 3.
Starting Element Size Assumptions:

Total Footing Width = 70% to 75% of the design height
Footing Thickness = 10% of the design height
Toe Width = 10% of design height
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Soil: CDOT Class 1 Backfill-Drained
Footing bears on soil
Soil unit weight γs = 0.130 kcf
Angle of internal friction (backfill) ϕ= 34 deg
Wall-backfill friction angle δ = 2/3ϕ = 22.67 deg
Coefficient of active earth pressure Ka = 0.261 (Coulomb) AASHTO Eq. 3.11.5.3-1
Coefficient of passive earth pressure Kp = 7.60 AASHTO Fig. 3.11.5.4-1
Active equivalent fluid weight EFW (a) = Ka γs = 0.036 kcf (36 pcf min) BDM 11.5
Passive equivalent fluid weight EFW (p) = Kp γs = 0.988 kcf
Subgrade: for bearing and sliding

Nominal design values are typically provided in the project-specific geotechnical report.
Nominal soil bearing resistance qn = 7.50 ksf
Angle of internal friction (subgrade) ϕSub = 20 deg (for sliding)
Wall-subgrade friction angle δSub = 2/3ϕSub = 13.33 deg (for shear key design)
Nominal soil sliding coefficient μn = tan ϕSub = 0.36 AASHTO C.10.6.3.4
Concrete: CDOT Concrete Class D

Concrete compressive strength f'c = 4.50 ksi
Concrete unit weight γc = 0.150 kcf
Bridge Rail Type 7

Type 7 bridge rail weight wrail = 0.486 klf
Center of gravity from wall back face XC.G. = 6.84 in. (see Bridge Worksheet B-606-7A)
========================================================================================
========================================================================================
RESISTANCE FACTORS
When not provided in the project-specific geotechnical report, refer to the indicated AASHTO sections.
Bearing ɸb= 0.55 AASHTO T.11.5.7-1
Sliding (concrete on soil) ɸT= 1.00 AASHTO T.11.5.7-1
Sliding (soil on soil) ɸT s-s= 1.00 AASHTO T.11.5.7-1
Passive pressure ɸep= 0.50 AASHTO T.10.5.5.2.2-1
Extreme event ɸEE= 1.00 AASHTO 11.5.8
WALL GEOMETRY INFORMATION

See Figure 1.
Stem Height H= 15.00 ft.
Top of Wall Thickness TTop = 1.50 ft.
Bottom of Wall Thickness TBot = 1.75 ft.
Width of footing B= 10.00 ft.
Thickness of Footing TF = 1.25 ft.
Toe Distance S= 2.75 ft.
Height of fill over the toe HTF = 2.00 ft. BDM 11.5.1
Minimum Footing embedment ≥ 3 ft.. HTF + TF = 3.25 ft. OK BDM 11.5.1
Bridge Rail Type 7 Height HB = 2.92 ft.
Wall Backface to vertical surcharge R= 2.00 ft.
Live Load Surcharge height hSur = 2.00 ft. AASHTO Table 3.11.6.4-2
Vehicle Collision Load (TL-4) PCT = 54.00 kip AASHTO Table A13.2-1
Collision Load Distribution Lt = 3.50 ft. AASHTO Table A13.2-1
Top of wall to point of collision impact on rail hCT = 2.67 ft.
1. STABILITY CHECKS
Use the load combinations and factors from AASHTO 11.5.6 and BDM Section 11.5.1 for all loads acting
on the retaining wall. Evaluate the retaining wall for the following:
1. Eccentricity
2. Sliding
3. Bearing
Note: The Geotechnical Engineer is responsible for evaluating global stability with consideration for both
footing width and embedment.
APPLIED LOADS
Loads not listed here may be applicable for different design cases.
EH - horizontal earth pressure load
EV - vertical pressure from dead load of earth fill
CT - vehicular collision force
LS - live load surcharge
========================================================================================
========================================================================================
Bridge Rail
Type7 TTop
CT Roadway
Shoulder
HB R
DC4
XC.G. hCT LSV
EV2
Front DC1 EV1

Face
LSH
S DC2
Finished EH
Grade δ
CL Shear Key
HTF EV3 TBot (when required)
Toe DC3 Heel

TF
A
σV See Figure 2 for
B-2e B/3 Shear Key Information
Figure 1 - Typical Section
========================================================================================
========================================================================================
Summary of Unfactored Loads and Moments

Resolve moments about Point A (see Figure 1 - Typical Section)
Vertical Loads & Moments

V Moment MV
Load Type Description
(kip/ft.) Arm (ft.) (kip-ft.)/ft.
DC1 Stem dead load 3.38 3.50 11.83
DC2 Stem dead load 0.28 4.33 1.21
DC3 Footing dead load 1.88 5.00 9.40
DC4 Barrier dead load 0.49 3.32 1.63
EV1 Vertical pressure from dead load of fill on heel 10.73 7.25 77.79
EV3 Vertical pressure from dead load of fill on toe 0.72 1.38 0.99
EHV Vertical component of horizontal earth pressure 1.83 10.00 18.30
LSV Vertical component of live load surcharge 0.98 8.13 7.97
Horizontal Loads and Moments

H Moment MH
EHH Horizontal component of horizontal earth pressure 4.39 5.42 23.79
LSH Horizontal component of live load surcharge 1.17 8.13 9.51
CT Vehicular collision load 2.61 18.92 49.38
𝐸𝐻𝑉 = sin 𝛿 𝐸𝐻 = sin(𝛿) 0.5 𝐸𝐹𝑊(𝑎) 𝐻 + 𝑇𝐹 2
𝐸𝐻𝐻 = cos 𝛿 𝐸𝐻 = cos(𝛿) 0.5 𝐸𝐹𝑊(𝑎) 𝐻 + 𝑇𝐹 2
𝐿𝑆𝑉 = 𝛾𝑠 ℎ𝑆𝑢𝑟 (𝐵 − 𝑆 − 𝑇𝑇𝑜𝑝 − R)

𝐿𝑆𝐻 = 𝐸𝐹𝑊 𝑎 ℎ𝑆𝑢𝑟 (𝐻 + 𝑇𝐹 )
Note: The collision force (CT) is assumed to be distributed over a length of “Lt” ft. at the point of impact
and is also assumed to spread downward to the bottom of the footing at a 45° angle. Conservatively, CT
is assumed at the end of the wall where the force distribution occurs in one direction. See Figure 11-20 in
Section 11 of this BDM.
Reinforcement between the Bridge Rail Type 7 and the wall interface is assumed to be adequate to
transfer the collision load from the rail through the wall to the footing.
𝐶𝑇 = 𝑃𝐶𝑇 Τ 𝐿𝑡 /2 + ℎ𝐶𝑇 + 𝐻 + 𝑇𝐹
Load Combinations
The table that follows summarizes the load combinations used for the stability and bearing checks of the
wall. To check sliding and eccentricity, load combinations Strength Ia and Extreme Event IIa apply
minimum load factors to the vertical loads and maximum load factors to the horizontal loads. To check
bearing, load combinations Strength Ib, Strength IV, and Extreme Event IIb apply maximum load factors
for both vertical and horizontal loads.
========================================================================================
========================================================================================
CT load is considered with Extreme Event II limit state when checking eccentricity, sliding, and bearing.
Note: LSH, LSV, and EHH are not included in Extreme Event IIa or IIb. It is assumed that the horizontal
earth pressure is not activated due to the force of the collision deflecting the wall away from the soil mass
at the instant of collision.
LSV is not applied when analyzing sliding and overturning; rather, it is applied only for load combinations
that are used to analyze bearing (AASHTO 11.5.6, Figure C11.5.6-3a).
The service limit state is used for the crack control check and settlement.
Total factored force effect: 𝑄 = Σ 𝜂𝑖 𝛾𝑖 𝑄𝑖 AASHTO 3.4.1-1

where Q i = force effects from loads calculated above
Load Modifiers: Ductility ηD = 1.00 AASHTO 1.3.3-1.3.5
Redundancy ηr = 1.00
Operational Importance ηI = 1.00
Load Factors:
Load
γDC γEV γLS_V γLS_H γEH γCT Application
Combination
Sliding,
Strength Ia 0.90 1.00 - 1.75 1.50 -
Eccentricity
Bearing, Strength
Strength Ib 1.25 1.35 1.75 1.75 1.50 -
Design
Strength IV 1.50 1.35 - - 1.50 - Bearing
Sliding,
Extreme IIa 0.90 1.00 - - - 1.00
Eccentricity
Extreme IIb 1.25 1.35 - - - 1.00 Bearing
Wall Crack
Service I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -
Control
Summary of Load Groups:

Vertical Load & Moment Horizontal Load & Moment
Load
Combination V MV H MH
(kip/ft.) (kip-ft.)/ft. (kip/ft.) (kip-ft.)/ft.
Strength Ia 19.86 128.95 8.63 52.33
Strength Ib 27.78 179.27 8.63 52.33
Strength IV 27.57 171.34 6.59 35.69
Extreme IIa 17.12 101.50 2.61 49.38
Extreme IIb 23.32 137.87 2.61 49.38
Service I 20.53 130.18 5.56 33.30
========================================================================================
========================================================================================
Eccentricity (Overturning) Check

When a shear key is required to prevent sliding, the passive resistance shall be ignored.
Maximum eccentricity limit: emax = B/3 = 3.33 ft. AASHTO 10.6.3.3

𝐵 Σ𝑀𝑉 − Σ𝑀𝐻
𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 = −
2 Σ𝑉
Strength Ia: X= (Σ MV - Σ MH) / Σ V = (128.95 - 52.33) / 19.86 = 3.86 ft.
e= 10.0 / 2 - 3.86 = 1.14 ft. eactual < emax OK
Extreme IIa: X= (Σ MV - Σ MH) / Σ V = (101.50 - 49.38) / 17.12 = 3.04 ft.

e= 10.0 / 2 - 3.04 = 1.96 ft. eactual < emax OK
Bearing Resistance Check

When a shear key is required to prevent sliding, the passive resistance shall be ignored.
Σ𝑉
Vertical stress for wall supported on soil: 𝜎𝑣 = AASHTO 11.6.3.2-1
𝐵 − 2𝑒
Nominal soil bearing resistance qn = 7.50 ksf

Factored bearing resistance qR = ϕb qn = 4.13 ksf
qR_EE = ϕEE qn = 7.50 ksf Extreme event
Strength Ib: X= (Σ MV - Σ MH) / Σ V = (179.27 - 52.33) / 27.78 = 4.57 ft.

e= B/2-X= 10.0 / 2 - 4.57 = 0.43 ft.
σV = ΣV / (B-2e) = 27.78 / (10.0 - 2 (0.43)) = 3.04 ksf
σV < qR OK
Strength IV: X= (Σ MV - Σ MH) / Σ V = (171.34 - 35.69) / 27.57 = 4.92 ft.

e= B/2-X= 10.0 / 2 - 4.92 = 0.08 ft.
σV = ΣV / (B-2e) = 27.57 / (10.0 - 2 (0.08)) = 2.80 ksf
σV < qR OK
Extreme IIb: X= (Σ MV - Σ MH) / Σ V = (137.87 - 49.38) / 23.32 = 3.79 ft.

e= B/2-X= 10.0 / 2 - 3.79 = 1.21 ft.
σV = ΣV / (B-2e) = 23.32 / (10.0 - 2 (1.21)) = 3.08 ksf
σV < qR_EE OK
========================================================================================
========================================================================================
Sliding Check AASHTO 10.6.3.4

Per AASHTO 11.6.3.5, passive soil pressure shall be neglected.
Strength Ia and Extreme IIa:
Maximum total Horizontal force ΣH = 8.63 kip / ft.
Maximum total Vertical force ΣV = 19.86 kip / ft.
Nominal passive resistance Rep = 0.00 kip / ft. AASHTO 11.6.3.5
For concrete cast against soil C= 1.00 AASHTO EQ 10.6.3.4-2
Nominal soil sliding coefficient μn = tan ϕSub = 0.360
Nominal sliding resistance 𝑅𝜏 = 𝐶 Σ𝑉𝜇𝑛 = 1.0 (19.86) (0.360) = 7.15 kip / ft.
Factored resistance against failure by sliding
𝑅𝑅 = 𝜙𝑅𝑛 = 𝜙𝜏 𝑅𝜏 + 𝜙𝑒𝑝 𝑅𝑒𝑝 = 1.00 (7.15) + 0.50 (0.0) = 7.15 kip / ft.
RR < ΣH Shear Key is Required
Shear Key Design

1. Assume shear key dimensions.
2. Center line of the shear key is approximately B/3 from the heel edge of the footing; see BDM Section 11.5.1.
3. Passive soil pressure at the toe shall be neglected; only include passive pressure due to the inert
block (c) (see AASHTO 11.6.3.5).
4. Depth of inert block is taken to be the sum of the key depth and the effective wedge depth. This
example follows this methodology. Conservatively, effective wedge depth can be ignored, allowing
inert block to be equal to shear key depth.
5. Per BDM Section 11.5.1, the top 1 ft. of fill at the toe shall be ignored for all design cases.
6. The Designer may choose to add weight of the shear key for eccentricity and bearing analysis once
shear key dimensions are confirmed. For this example, weight of the key is ignored.
Shear key depth dKey = 1.00 ft.

Shear key width TKey = 1.50 ft.
Heel of footing to centerline shear key K= 3.50 ft.
Toe of footing to front face of shear key XKey = 5.75 ft.
Soil cover above the footing toe HTF = 2.00 ft.
Shear friction angle of subgrade dsub = 2/3jsub = 13.33 deg.
Inert block depth c = dKey + XKey tan(dsub) = 2.36 ft.
Top of fill to top of shear key y1 = 2.25 ft.
Top of fill to bottom of inert block y2 = 4.61 ft.
Passive equivalent pressure EFW (p) = 0.988 kcf

Nominal soil sliding coefficient μn = 0.360
Coefficients of friction (factored): μu = ϕT μn = 1.00 (0.360) = 0.360 (concrete-soil)
μu s-s = ϕT s-s μn = 1.00 (0.360) = 0.360 (soil-soil)
μu EE = ϕEE μn = 1.00 (0.360) = 0.360 (extreme event)
========================================================================================
========================================================================================
1'-0"
HTF K ≈ B/3
y1
XKey
y2
z Inert block μu dKey
c Rep
δSub
μu
μu s-s 𝑅1 = 𝜎𝑉 𝑋𝐾𝑒𝑦
T
𝑅2 = 𝜎𝑉 (𝐵 − 𝑋𝐾𝑒𝑦 )
σV
R1 R2
Figure 2 - Shear Key
Shear resistance between soil and foundation: 𝜙𝜏 𝑅𝜏 = 𝐶 𝑅1 𝜇𝑢 𝑠−𝑠 cos 𝛿𝑆𝑢𝑏 + 𝐶 𝑅2 𝜇𝑢 (Strength Ia)
𝜙𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝜏 = 𝐶 𝑅1 𝜇𝑢 𝐸𝐸 cos 𝛿𝑆𝑢𝑏 + 𝐶 𝑅2 𝜇𝑢 𝐸𝐸 (Extreme IIa)
𝐵 Σ𝑉
𝑋 = (Σ𝑀𝑉 − Σ𝑀𝐻 )/Σ𝑉 𝑒= −𝑋 𝜎𝑣 =
2 𝐵 − 2𝑒
Load ΣV Σ MV Σ MH X e σV R1 R2 ϕRτ
Combination (kip/ft.) (kip-ft./ft.) (kip-ft./ft.) (ft.) (ft.) (ksf) (kip/ft.) (kip/ft.) (kip/ft.)
Strength Ia 19.86 128.95 52.33 3.86 1.14 2.57 14.78 10.92 9.11
Extreme IIa 17.12 101.50 49.38 3.04 1.96 2.82 16.22 11.99 10.00
Passive resistance of soil available throughout the design life of structure:

𝑅𝑒𝑝 = 𝐸𝐹𝑊(𝑝)0.5 𝑦1 + 𝑦2 𝑐 = 0.988 * 0.5 (2.25 + 4.61) 2.36 = 8.00 kip
Factored resistance against failure by sliding: AASHTO 10.6.3.4

Strength Ia: Maximum total Horizontal force ΣH = 8.63 kip
𝑅𝑅 = 𝜑𝑅𝑛 = 𝜑𝜏 𝑅𝜏 + 𝜑𝑒𝑝 𝑅𝑒𝑝 = 9.11 + 0.50 (8.00) = 13.11 kip
RR > ΣH OK
Extreme IIa: Maximum total Horizontal force ΣH = 2.61 kip

𝑅𝑅 = 𝜑𝑅𝑛 = 𝜑𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝜏 + 𝜑𝑒𝑝 𝑅𝑒𝑝 = 10.00 + 0.50 (8.00) = 14.00 kip
RR > ΣH OK
========================================================================================
========================================================================================
2. STRENGTH DESIGN
Concrete compressive strength f'C = 4.50 ksi
Yield strength of the reinforcement fy = 60.00 ksi
Concrete unit weight γc = 0.150 kcf
Correction factor for source aggregate K1 = 1.00 AASHTO 5.4.2.4
Modulus of elasticity of reinforcement ES = 29000 ksi AASHTO 5.4.3.2
Modulus of elasticity of concrete 𝐸𝐶 = 120,000𝐾1 𝛾𝑐2 𝑓𝑐′0.33 = 4435.31 ksi AASHTO 5.4.2.4
Modular ratio n = ES / EC = 6.54 AASHTO 5.6.1
Compression zone factor 𝛽1 = 0.85 − 𝑓 ′𝑐 − 4.0 0.05 = 0.825 AASHTO 5.6.2.2
Resistance factor for flexural-tension control ϕf = 0.90 AASHTO 5.5.4.2
Resistance factor for shear-tension control ϕv = 0.90 AASHTO 5.5.4.2
Design width b= 12.00 in.
2.1 STEM WALL DESIGN

Summary of Unfactored Horizontal Loads and Moments at the Bottom of the Stem:
H Moment MH
EHH Soil 3.74 5.00 18.70
LSH Surcharge 1.08 7.50 8.10

Horizontal Load & Moment
Load
Combination Vu Mu
(kip/ft.) (kip-ft.)/ft.
Strength Ib 7.50 42.23
Service I 4.82 26.80
It has been assumed that the load combination Strength Ib generates the maximum moment at the
interface of the stem wall and footing. However, the Designer should check all possible load
combinations, including extreme event, and select the combination that produces the maximum load for
the design of the stem.
Note: The Designer/Engineer is encouraged to use engineering judgment to determine the moment and
required area of reinforcing steel at other points of the stem for tall walls (H ≥ 10.0') to reduce the amount
of steel required at higher elevations.
========================================================================================
========================================================================================
2.1.1 Flexure Design AASHTO 5.6.3.2

Design of vertical reinforcement bars at back face of stem
Assumed bar size Bar = #5

Factored applied moment Mu Str = 42.23 kip-ft. / ft.
Concrete clear cover r= 2.00 in.
Bar diameter db = 0.625 in.
Bar area Ab = 0.310 in2
Effective Depth de = TBot - r - db / 2 = 1.75' (12) - 2'' - 0.625'' / 2 = 18.69 in.
Try #5 @ 6.0" on center:
Design steel area AS = Ab b / spa = 0.310 (12) / 6 = 0.620 in2/ft.

Distance from compression 𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑦
𝐶𝑏 = = 0.620 (60) / (0.825*0.85*4.5*12) = 0.982 in.
fiber to neutral axis 𝛽1 0.85𝑓𝑐′ 𝑏
Equivalent Stress Block 𝑎 = 𝛽1 𝐶𝑏 = 0.825 (0.982) = 0.810 in.
𝑎
Nominal Flexural Resistance 𝑀𝑛 = 𝐴𝑆 𝑓𝑦 𝑑𝑒 − = 0.620 (60) (18.69 - 0.810 / 2) = 56.68 kip-ft.
2
Factored Flexural Resistance MR = ϕf Mn = 0.90 (56.68) = 51.01 kip-ft.
MR > Mu Str OK
Maximum Reinforcement: Provision deleted in 2005
Minimum Reinforcement: AASHTO 5.6.3.3

The amount of tensile reinforcement shall be adequate to develop a factored flexural resistance,
MR, at least equal to the lesser of 1.33Mu Str or Mcr
Member width b= 12.00 in.

Member depth d = TBot = 21.00 in.
Distance to Neutral Axis yt = TBot / 2 = 10.50
in.
Stem moment of inertia Ig = b d3 / 12 = 9261.0 in4
Section modulus Snc = Sc = Ig / yt = 882.0 in3
Concrete Modulus of Rupture 𝑓𝑟 = 0.24 𝑓𝑐′ = 0.509 ksi AASHTO 5.4.2.6
========================================================================================
========================================================================================
Cracking moment, 𝑀𝑐𝑟 = 𝑦3 𝑦1 𝑓𝑟 + 𝑦2 𝑓𝑐𝑝𝑒 𝑆𝑐 − 𝑀𝑑𝑛𝑐 (𝛾𝑐 Τ𝛾𝑛𝑐 − 1) : AASHTO 5.6.3.3-1

Flexural cracking variability factor y1 = 1.600
Prestress variable factor y2 = 0.000
Ratio of specified minimum yield strength to
y3 = 0.670 for A615, Grade 60 steel
ultimate tensile strength of the reinforcement
Compressive stress due to prestress force f cpe = 0.000 ksi
Total unfactored dead load moment Mdnc = 0.000 kip-in.
Cracking moment,
Mcr = 0.670 [ (1.60 * 0.509 + 0) * 882.0 - 0 ] / 12 = 40.11 kip-ft./ft. - controls
Factored applied moment *1.33 1.33 Mu Str = 56.17 kip-ft./ft.
Factored flexural resistance MR = 51.01 kip-ft./ft.
MR > min (Mcr, 1.33Mu Str) OK
Control of cracking by distribution of reinforcement: AASHTO 5.6.7

Exposure condition class 2 Use Class 2 for the stem, Class 1 for the footing and key
Exposure factor γe = 0.75
Thickness of concrete cover dc = 2" + db / 2 = 2'' + 0.625 / 2 = 2.31 in.
Reinforcement Ratio 𝜌 = 𝐴𝑆 Τ𝑏𝑑𝑒 = 0.620 / (12 * 18.69) = 0.003
Modular ratio n= 6.54
𝑘= 2𝑛𝜌 + 𝑛𝜌 2 − 𝑛𝜌 = 0.179
𝑗 = 1 − 𝑘 Τ3 = 0.940
Service applied moment Mu serv = 26.80 kip-ft.
Tensile stress in steel 𝑓𝑠𝑠 = 𝑀𝑢 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣 ∗ 12Τ 𝐴𝑆 𝑗𝑑𝑒 = 26.80(12) / (0.620*0.940*18.69) = 29.52 ksi
𝑑𝑐
𝛽𝑠 = 1 + = 1 + 2.31 / 0.7 (1.75*12 - 2.31) = 1.18
0.7(𝑇𝐵𝑜𝑡 − 𝑑𝑐 )
700𝛾𝑒
Maximum spacing 𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑥 = − 2𝑑𝑐 = 700 (0.75) / (1.18*29.52) - 2(2.31) = 10.45 in.
𝛽𝑠 𝑓𝑠𝑠
Spacing provided sprov = 6.00 in.
sprov < smax OK
========================================================================================
========================================================================================
2.1.2 Shear Design AASHTO 5.7.3.3
Shear typically does not govern the design of retaining walls. If shear becomes an issue, the thickness of
the stem should be increased. Ignore benefits of the shear key (if applicable) and axial compression.
Factored shear load Vu str = 7.50 kip/ft.

Effective Depth dV = max (de - Cb/2, 0.9 d e , 0.72 T Bot ) = 18.20 in (shear) AASHTO 5.7.2.8
Per AASHTO 5.7.3.4.1, this section does not qualify for simplified procedure for determining shear
resistance parameters. General procedure will be used (AASHTO 5.7.3.4.2).
𝑀𝑢
+ 0.5𝑁𝑢 + 𝑉𝑢 − 𝑉𝑝 − 𝐴𝑝𝑠 𝑓𝑝𝑜
𝑑𝑣
Longitudinal tensile strain in the section 𝜀𝑠 =
𝐸𝑠 𝐴𝑠 + 𝐸𝑝 𝐴𝑝𝑠
𝑀𝑢
Removing all prestress steel unknowns, + 0.5𝑁𝑢 + 𝑉𝑢
𝑑𝑣
the equation will be as follows: 𝜀𝑠 =
𝐸𝑠 𝐴𝑠
Where,
Factored moment Mu = max (Mu str , Vu str * dv) = 42.23 kip-ft./ft.
Factored axial force Nu = 1.25 (DC1+DC2+DC4) = -5.19 kip
Area of steel on the flexural tension side As = in2 / ft.
0.620
Modulus of elasticity of reinforcement Es = 29,000 ksi
Longitudinal tensile strain in the section εs = 0.00182 in / in
4.8 51
Parameter β for sections with no transverse reinforcement 𝛽=
(1 + 750𝜀𝑠 ) (39 + 𝑠𝑥𝑒 )
Where,
dv = 18.20 in
Crack spacing parameter (1) sx = min s= 12.00 in (see below - #4 @ 12")
if As_layer ≥ 0.003besx = 0.67 in2
sx = 18.20 in
1.38
Crack spacing parameter (2) 𝑠𝑥𝑒 = 𝑠𝑥 = 18.20 in (12.0 in ≤ sex ≤ 80.0 in)
𝑎𝑔 + 0.63
Where, max aggregate size ag = 0.75 in
4.8 51
Shear resistance parameter 𝛽= = 1.81 AASHTO 5.7.3.4.2
(1 + 750𝜀𝑠 ) (39 + 𝑠𝑥𝑒 )
Concrete density modification factor λ= 1.00 AASHTO 5.4.2.8
Nominal Shear Resistance 𝑉𝑐 = 0.0316𝛽𝜆 𝑓𝑐′ 𝑏𝑑𝑣 = 0.0316 (2)(1) 4.50 (12)(18.20) = 26.50 kip
Factored Shear Resistance VR = ϕvVc = 0.90 (26.50) = 23.85 kip
========================================================================================
========================================================================================
Retaining wall footings and stems are typically unreinforced for shear. Confirm
transverse reinforcement is not required by design, 0.5 VR > Vu str AASHTO 5.7.2.3
0.5 VR = 11.93 kip
0.5 VR > Vu str OK
2.1.3 Shrinkage and Temperature Reinforcement Design AASHTO 5.10.6

Horizontal reinforcement at each face of stem and vertical reinforcement at front face of stem
Try #4 @ 12.0" on center: Design steel area AS = 0.200 in2

1.30 𝑏 𝑇𝐵𝑜𝑡
Check 𝐴𝑠 ≥
2 𝑏 + 𝑇𝐵𝑜𝑡 𝑓𝑦
= 0.083 in2 OK
Check 0.11 ≤ 𝐴𝑠 ≤ 0.60 OK
2.2 FOOTING HEEL DESIGN
The critical section for shear and moment is at the back face of the stem wall (C5.13.3.6). The heel is
designed to carry its self weight and the soil block above it. Conservatively, it is common to ignore
upward soil reaction under the footing heel, thus Strength 1b is not checked. For shear in footings, the
provisions of 5.8.2.4 are not applicable, thus ϕVc ≥ Vu.
Summary of Unfactored Vertical Loads and Moments at the Back Face of the Stem:
V Moment M
DC Heel dead load 1.03 2.75 2.83

Vertical Load & Moment
Load
Combination Vu Mu
(kip/ft.) (kip-ft.)/ft.
Strength IV 16.03 44.08
Service I 11.76 32.34
By inspection, load combination Strength IV generates a maximum moment at the interface of the footing
heel and stem wall. However, the Designer should check all possible load combinations and select the
combination that produces the maximum load for the design of the footing.
For reinforcement design, follow the procedure outlined in Section 2.1. Exposure Class I can be used for
cracking check. Results of the design are as follows (also shown on Figure 3):
Transverse horizontal bar at top of footing - #6 @ 6.0"
Longitudinal reinforcement, top and bottom of footing - #4 @ 12.0"
========================================================================================
========================================================================================
2.3 FOOTING TOE DESIGN

The critical section for shear is dV from front face of wall stem and, for moment, is at the front face of wall
stem (C5.13.3.6). Section is designed to resist bearing stress acting on toe. This example conservatively
ignores the soil on top of the toe. For shear in footings, the provisions of 5.8.2.4 are not applicable, thus
ϕVc ≥ Vu.
Controlling loads:
Maximum bearing stress (factored) σV = 3.08 ksf (from bearing resistance check)
Factored shear Vu str = σV S = 8.47 kip/ft.
Factored bending moment Mu str = Vu S/2 = 11.65 kip-ft./ft.
Service loads:
X= (Σ MV - Σ MH) / Σ V = (130.18 - 33.30) / 20.53 = 4.72 ft.
e= B/2-X= 10.0 / 2 - 4.72 = 0.28 ft.
σV = ΣV / (B-2e) = 20.53 / (10.0 - 2 (0.28)) = 2.17 ksf
Factored shear Vu serv = σV S = 5.97 kip/ft.
Factored bending moment Mu serv = Vu S/2 = 8.21 kip-ft./ft.
For reinforcement design, follow the procedure outlined in Section 2.1. Results of the design are as
follows (also shown on Figure 3):
Transverse horizontal bar at bottom of toe - # 5 @ 6.0"
Note: Check that the toe length and footing depth can accommodate development length of the hooked
bar past the design plane.
2.4 SHEAR KEY DESIGN
The critical section for shear and moment is at the interface with the bottom of the footing. Shear key
reinforcing is designed to resist passive pressure determined in the sliding analysis. Passive pressure
load resultant is located at a distance "z" from the bottom of footing, if using inclined wedge (see Figure
2).
Passive pressure against inert block Rep = 8.00 kip

Moment arm 𝑧 = 0.5𝐾𝑝 𝛾𝑠 𝑦1 𝑐 2 + 0.333𝐾𝑝 𝛾𝑠 𝑐 3 ൗ𝑅𝑒𝑝 =
2 3
= [0.5 (7.60)(0.130)(2.25)(2.36) + 0.333 (7.60)(0.130)(2.36) ] / 8.00 = 1.31 ft.
Factored bending moment for key design Mu str = 10.48 kip-ft./ft.
For reinforcement design, follow the procedure outlined in Section 2.1. Results of the design are as
follows (also shown on Figure 3):
Vertical 'U' bars at front and back face of shear key - #4 @ 6.0"
Longitudinal reinforcement in shear key - #4 @ 12.0"
========================================================================================
========================================================================================
Figure 3 - Final Wall Section
========================================================================================
EXAMPE 12 - RAIL ANCHOR SLAB DESIGN 1
======================================================================================
EXAMPLE 12: RAIL ANCHOR SLAB DESIGN

General Information
Rail anchor slabs have been used with good performance under Allowable Strength Design (ASD) practices.
AASHTO LRFD has since become the design standard and uses impact loads significantly larger than those
in ASD. The LRFD impact loads result in a rail anchor slab that is much larger than what has proven
successful in the past. NCHRP Report 663 concluded that AASHTO LRFD dynamic impact loads result in an
overly conservative design for rail anchor slabs. New guidelines were established and validated through finite
element modeling and full scale testing. NCHRP Report 663 recommends that a static load equivalent (Ls) of
10 kip be used to design rail anchor slabs for overturning and sliding design in lieu of AASHTO LRFD impact
loads from Chapter 13. The static load equivalent of 10 kip is appropriate for designing rail anchor slabs for
TL-4 test levels.
Figure 1 - Rail Anchor Slab

Rail Anchor Slab Inputs
This example illustrates the design of a rail anchor slab based on recommendations from NCHRP Report
663. Dimensions for this example are taken from CDOT Standard Sheet B-504-V1. Refer to this standard for
additional details.
Concrete Unit Weight ɣconc. = 0.150 kcf CDOT BDM 3.4.4.1

Asphalt Unit Weight ɣasph. = 0.147 kcf CDOT BDM 3.4.2
Rail Anchor Slab Width wslab = 8 ft.
Rail Anchor Slab Thickness tslab = 12 in.
Rail Anchor Slab Length lrail = 30.0 ft. (Length between expansion joints)
Asphalt Overlay Thickness tasph. = 3 in.

======================================================================================
Bridge Rail Type 7 Width wrail = 18 in.

Coping Depth hcoping = 12 in.
Coping Width wcoping = 8 in.
Retaining Wall Thickness twall = 12 in.
Rail Anchor Slab Overturning

The overturning moment (M r) caused by the impact of the vehicle shall be less than the stabilizing moment
(Mn) created by the rail anchor slab dead weight. As show in Figure 1, the point of rotation, Point A, is
assumed to be at the top, back face of the retaining wall and the structural backfill. In this design example,
compressible joint material is placed on top of the wall to protect it, allowing the rail anchor slab to rotate
before coming into contact with the wall. The maximum length of rail anchor slab assumed to resist the
overturning moment is 60 ft. This limit is assumed to be the extents of rigid body behavior in rail anchor
slabs,and is often governed by the spacing of expansion joints perpendicular to the CL of the roadway.
Mn =  ∑(DL Moments) ≥ Mu = CTMr NCHRP Report 663 (7-3,7-4)

Mr = Ls Ha
Test Level TL‐4 CDOT BDM 13.3.3

Resistance Factor  0.9 NCHRP Report 663 A1.4.3
Collision Load Factor CT= 1.0 (Extreme Event II) AASHTO Table 3.4.1-1
Static Load Equivalent Ls = 10.0 kip NCHRP Report 663
Height of Impact Above Roadway He = 32 in. AASHTO A13.2-1
Dist. from B.F. Rail to 'Pt. A' la = 1.71 ft.
Dist. from C.G. to 'Pt. A' lb = See table below
Dist. from Impact Load to 'Pt. A' ha = 3.92 ft. (h a = H e + t asph. + t slab )
Factored Overturning Moment Mu = 39.2 k-ft.
To calculate Mn, the dead loads are tabulated and multiplied by the distance from their center of gravity to
Point A (lb). The distance between expansion joints in this example is 30 ft.
Tabulation of Dead Load Moments about Point A

Weight = Area * ɣ conc.
Moment = Weight * l b
Total DL Moment = Moment * l rail
Ref. B-606-7A for rail weight and C.G. from BDM Ex. 6
Total DL
Height Width Weight lb Moment Moment
(ft.) (ft.) (k/ft.) (ft.) (k-ft/ft.) (k-ft.)
Type 7 Bridge Rail 0.486 ‐1.14 -0.55 -16.6
Coping 1.00 0.67 0.10 -1.38 -0.14 -4.1
Slab 1.00 8.00 1.20 2.29 2.75 82.5
Asphalt 0.25 6.50 0.24 3.04 0.72 21.7
Mn = 83.5 k-ft.
Mu = 39.2 k-ft. <  Mn = 75.2 k-ft. OK

======================================================================================
Rail Anchor Slab Sliding

Check the rail anchor slab for resistance to sliding (Pn) along its base. The weight of the slab and rail resists
the impact load through friction between the concrete-soil interface. In the absence of project-specific soil
information, the coefficient of friction is taken from AASHTO Table 3.11.5.3-1. The soil is assumed to be a
silty or clayey fine to medium sand.
Pn = T WDL tanr ≥ Pu = CTLs NCHRP Report 663 (7-1,7-2)

wDL = ∑(Weight) lrail
Static Load Equivalent Ls = 10.0 kip NCHRP Report 663

Total Factored Horizontal Force Pu = 10.0 kip
Total Dead Load W DL = 60.7 kip
Coefficient of Friction tanr = 0.35 AASHTO Table 3.11.5.3-1
Sliding Resistance Pn = 21.3 kip
Sliding Resistance Factor  0.8 AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.2-1
Factored Sliding Resistance  Pn = 17.0 kip
Pu = 10.0 kip <  Pn = 17.0 kip OK
Rail Anchor Slab Reinforcing

The critical section of the rail anchor slab shall have sufficient flexural strength (Mn) to resist the impact load
and the overhanging dead load of the structural components past Point A. NCHRP Report 663 recommends
designing the slab to the appropriate impact loading from AASHTO Table 13.2-1. The structural integrity of
the components was not evaluated for use with the static equivalent loads.
ws.o. = tslab la ɣconc. es.o. = la / 2 Mslab = ws.o. es.o.

(weight due to asphalt is negligible)
Slab Overhang Weight ws.o. = 0.26 k / ft.
Slab Overhang Eccentricity es.o. = -0.85 ft.
Slab Overhang Moment Mslab = -0.22 k-ft/ ft.
The impact load is distributed over the length LC of the barrier rail. LC is the critical length of the yield line as
calculated in Example 6.3 of this BDM. The rail anchor slab reinforcing is placed in the top of the slab and is
designed in a 1 ft. strip.
Critical Yield Line Length LC = 10.74 ft. AASHTO A13.3.1-2, Ex. 6

Impact Load Ft = 54.0 kip AASHTO A13.2-1
Dead Load Factor DC = 1.25 AASHTO Table 3.4.1-2
Collision Factor CT = 1.00 AASHTO Table 3.4.1-1
Mu = DC (Mslab+Mrail+Mcoping) + CT Ft He / LC

(Moment for rail and coping calculated in table)
Factored Moment Mu = 14.54 k-ft./ ft.

======================================================================================
Design Section
Ф Mn = Ф As fs ( ds ‐ a/2 ) AASHTO 5.6.3.2.2
a = As fy / 0.85 f'c b
c = β1 / a AASHTO 5.6.3.2.2
β1 = 0.85 - 0.05 ( f'c - 4 ) ≥ 0.65, for f'c > 4 ksi AASHTO 5.6.2.2
d = h - CTOP - dbar / 2
εs = 0.003 ( d ‐ c ) / c AASHTO 5.6.2.1
Reinforcement Strength fy = 60 ksi

Concrete Strength f'c = 4.5 ksi Concrete Class D
Stress Block Factor β1 = 0.825
Strip Width b= 12 in.
Section Height h= 12 in. (thickness of the slab)
Top Reinforcing Cover CTOP = 2.5 in. (Ref. B-504-V1)
Resistance Factor Ф= 0.9 (assume tension controlled) AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1
Depth to Reinforcing d= 9.19 in. (assume #5 bar)
Try a Reinforcing Pattern Try #5 Bar @ 8 " C.C.

Diameter of Reinforcing dbar = 0.625 in.
2
Area of Steel per Strip As-prov. = 0.47 in
Net Tensile Strain εs = 0.034 > 0.005 OK
Mu = 14.54 k-ft/ ft. < Ф Mn = 18.59 k-ft/ ft. OK

USE #5 bars @ 8'' C.C. (Typically these bars are also placed in the bottom mat)
Check Minimum Reinforcement Requirement AASHTO 5.6.3.3

Flexural Cracking Variability Factor 1 = 1.6
Ratio fy/fu 3 = 0.67
0.5
Modulus of Rupture fr = 0.24 (f'c) = 0.51 ksi AASHTO 5.4.2.6
2 3
Section Modulus Sc = 1/6 b h = 288 in
Cracking Moment Mcr = 3 1 fr Sc = 13.1 k-ft./ ft. CONTROLS min reinf. & is < Ф Mn
1.33 * Factored Moment 1.33 Mu = 19.3 k-ft./ ft. OK
Note: Check Crack Control by Distribution of Reinforcement AASHTO 5.6.7

Note: Check Development Length of Flexural Bars AASHTO 5.10.8.2.4
Note: Check Temperature and Shrinkage Steel AASHTO 5.10.6

======================================================================================
Rail Anchor Slab Summary
Figure 2 - Design Summary

EXAMPLE 13 - VEHICLE COLLISION ON A PIER 1
===============================================================================
EXAMPLE 13 - VEHICLE COLLISION ON A PIER

GENERAL INFORMATION
Example 13 illustrates pier design to provide structural resistance to withstand the vehicular collision
using LEAP Bridge Substructure software. The only load case investigated in this example is Extreme
Event II. Other load cases are not discussed for this example but should be investigated in the complete
pier design.
References and Software Used:
AASHTO LRFD 8th edition

CDOT Bridge Structural Worksheets
LEAP Bridge Concrete CONNECT Edition, Version 16.02.00.01, Substructure Module
LEAP Bridge Concrete Model Description:

The pier under design is a middle support of a two-span, 60-ft.-wide (out to out) bridge. Pier cap is 60 ft.
long, 4.5 ft. wide, and 4 ft. deep, supported on three 20 ft. tall columns, spaced at 22 ft. The
superstructure consists of six BT54 girders spaced at 10.5 ft. with an 8 in. deck. Columns are round, 4 ft.
in diameter, supported on drilled shafts, 4.5 ft. in diameter. Refer to Figure 1 for details.
The following were also assumed in modeling the pier in the LEAP Bridge Substructure program:
→ The end of the column is fixed at the top of the drilled shaft
→ The drilled shaft point of fixity is located at 3x drilled shaft diameter = 13.5 ft.
→ Total drilled shaft length is 5x drilled shaft diameter = 23 ft.
The Designer should use the project geotechnical information and a suitable design tool to determine the
drilled shaft point of fixity and required drilled shaft total length and enter it in the LEAP Bridge
Substructure program.
Material properties used (refer to BDM Section 5.3):

Pier cap concrete strength f'c = 4500.00 psi
Column concrete strength f'c = 4500.00 psi
Drilled shaft concrete strength f'c = 4000.00 psi
Concrete density γc = 150.00 pcf
Steel yield strength fy = 60.00 ksi

===============================================================================
y
x
Figure 1 - Design Section
Applied Loads:
In this example, the only loads included in the analysis are collision loads and dead loads, due to the
improbable coincidence of other loads (BDM Section 3.5.2). Designer may choose to include live loads,
but in most cases shear from vehicle impact will control the design.

DW - dead load of wearing surfaces and utilities
CT - vehicular collision force
If the LEAP Bridge Superstructure model is available, DC and DW loads may be imported to pier model.
Otherwise, they can be autogenerated as shown below.
DC: 1. Slab and girder dead loads - autogenerated from superstructure input, γ = 150 pcf
2. Barrier dead loads - total load per foot = 486 plf (see Structural Worksheets B-606-7B)
DW: 1. Wearing surface total load per foot = 36.67 psf *(57 ft clear roadway width) = 2090.19 plf
(refer to BDM Section 3.4.2)

===============================================================================
CT: Equivalent static load = 600 kip, applied in a direction of 0 to 15 degrees, 5 ft. above the
ground (AASHTO 3.6.5.1)
In the case of a multi-column pier, the Designer must investigate the collision force CT acting
on each column separately and select the one with the maximum shear force. The Designer
should then check the shear capacity of the column. The Designer is responsible for
determining the most conservative load cases taking into account both directions of travel
under the bridge and the geometry of the bridge.
Note: The critical design section for a column is at the point of impact. The Designer should
add additional check points near the impact from the 'Structure Model' menu to get information
needed for design.
Column length in LEAP Bridge Substructure model (includes drilled shaft length to fixity)
L = 1/2 x 4 ft. cap depth + 20 ft. + 13.5 ft. = 35.50 ft.
Point of application of CT from drilled shaft point of fixity
y1 = 5 ft. + 2 ft. drilled shaft cover + 13.5 ft. = 20.50 ft.
Case Magnitude Location

Case Number Col. No. ϕ
Name X Z y1 / L
Case No. 1 CT1 1 0 600.00 0.00 0.58
Case No. 2 CT2 1 15 579.56 155.29 0.58
Case No. 3 CT3 2 15 579.56 155.29 0.58
Case No. 4 CT4 3 15 579.56 155.29 0.58
Summary of CT Load Cases
FX =579.56 kip
FZ = 155.29 kip
Figure 2 - CT Load Application

===============================================================================
Analysis of the columns is performed using the P-delta method. See below for the following outputs from
LEAP Bridge Substructure:
→ Summary of load combinations used in the design
→ Controlling column design results
→ Detailed shear design calculation for controlling column
Summary of Design:
Column reinforcement - main rebar 22 #10 bars, equally spaced
shear reinforcement #4 ties @ 6"
Design of a drilled shaft in the Extreme Event collision case is similar to the design of a drilled shaft in
the Strength cases and will not be shown for this example. The Designer must account for the collision
load in the drilled shaft design by applying Extreme Event loads from the bottom of the column to the top
of the caisson. It is recommended that the Designer use a suitable design tool to analyze shaft-soil
interaction to determine stability and strength requirements.

Cdot Bridge Design Manual 2023 02

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cdot Bridge Design Manual 2023 02

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Cdot Bridge Design Manual 2023 02

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TABLE OF CONTENTS i

CDOT Bridge Design Manual February 2023

SECTION 2 GENERAL DESIGN AND LOCATION FEATURES

CDOT Bridge Design Manual February 2023

2.9 FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION 2-17

SECTION 3 LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS

CDOT Bridge Design Manual February 2023

3.5 COLLISION LOAD 3-2

SECTION 4 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

SECTION 5 CONCRETE STRUCTURES

CDOT Bridge Design Manual February 2023

Relative Humidity 5-2

CDOT Bridge Design Manual February 2023

Consideration of Future Deck Replacement 5-24

SECTION 6 STEEL STRUCTURES

CDOT Bridge Design Manual February 2023

6.7.3 Cross-Section Proportion Limits 6-8

SECTION 7 ALUMINUM STRUCTURES

DECK AND DECK SYSTEMS

CDOT Bridge Design Manual February 2023

9.10 WATERPROOFING 9-13

CDOT Bridge Design Manual February 2023

10.5.3 Top of Pile Fixity 10-6

SECTION 11 ABUTMENT, PIERS, AND RETAINING WALLS

CDOT Bridge Design Manual February 2023

11.5.6 Soil Nail Walls 11-33

SECTION 12 BURIED STRUCTURES AND TUNNEL LINERS

CDOT Bridge Design Manual February 2023

13.3.1 Type 3 (Retired) 13-4

SECTION 14 JOINTS AND BEARINGS

CDOT Bridge Design Manual February 2023

14.5.5 Design Coefficient of Friction Requirements 14-9

SECTION 15 DESIGN OF SOUND BARRIERS

SECTION 31 PEDESTRIAN STRUCTURES

CDOT Bridge Design Manual February 2023

31.9 DECK 31-3

SECTION 32 SIGNS, LUMINAIRES, AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS

SECTION 33 PRESERVATION AND REHABILITATION OF STRUCTURES

CDOT Bridge Design Manual February 2023

33.9 BEARING REPLACEMENT 33-19

SECTION 35 COST ESTIMATING AND QUANTITIES

CDOT Bridge Design Manual February 2023

36.4.1 Shop Drawings 36-2

SECTION 37 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

SECTION 38 ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY

SECTION 39 ACCELERATED BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

CDOT Bridge Design Manual February 2023

SECTION 3 LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS

Table 3-1: Fence Loads 3-8

SECTION 5 CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Table 5-1: Common Concrete Classes and Strengths 5-1

SECTION 9 DECK AND DECK SYSTEMS

Table 10-1: Calculated Embedments 10-7

SECTION 11 ABUTMENTS, PIERS, AND RETAINING WALLS

Table 11-1: Limiting Structure Lengths for Integral Abutments 11-2

CDOT Bridge Design Manual February 2023

SECTION 32 SIGNS, LUMINAIRES, AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS

SECTION 33 PRESERVATION AND REHABILITATION OF STRUCTURES

Table 33-1: Maintenance Painting Frequencies 33-25

SECTION 35 COST ESTIMATING AND QUANTITIES