Prioritization of a Bridge Inventory for Historic Preservation: A Case Study for Tarrant County,Texas

Abstract

Funding is currently limited for transportation projects in general and even more so for historic bridge preservation. Because of this limitation on resources, it is important that bridge-owning agencies use proper planning and management strategies to make the best use of available funding. One important element of bridge inventory management is the prioritization of bridges for historic preservation. This article presents a framework that begins with a selection matrix for a first-level review of a bridge inventory. The selection matrix considers both the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) historical significance rating and sufficiency rating. Further refinements are necessary to prioritize a number of bridges for historic preservation, and so a quantitative rating system is proposed to reflect the characteristics of the Tarrant County, Texas, bridge inventory considered in this study. The developed methodology is applied to the bridge inventory in Tarrant County, and two notable bridges are described.

Keywords

historic bridges preservation prioritization infrastructure: planning framework

Introduction

Older bridge structures can possess historic, artistic, or engineering significance. Over time, these structures deteriorate and must be maintained and rehabilitated so that they can be kept in service. Ideally, all potentially significant bridges would be properly preserved and continue to beautify and bring character to their surroundings for years to come. However, funding is currently limited for transportation projects in general, and even more so for historic bridge preservation, which some may consider less critical in comparison with other transportation needs. Because of this limitation on resources, it is important that bridge-owning agencies use proper planning and management strategies to make the best use of available funding. An important step in properly managing and preserving a bridge inventory is the prioritization of bridges for historic preservation.

In 2011, the bridge carrying the West 7th Street over the West Fork of the Trinity River in Fort Worth, Texas, was designated for replacement due to severe deterioration. Built in 1913, this bridge possessed a great deal of historic significance and an open-spandrel concrete arch superstructure gave it a unique appearance. The decision to replace the bridge was met with concern from local historic groups and the general public. To help prevent similar losses of historic bridges in the future, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Fort Worth District office sponsored a research project to develop a framework for the preservation of historic bridges in Tarrant County. This research was aimed toward developing a historic bridge preservation framework to be used within a county bridge inventory as guidance toward efficiently using available funding to preserve historic bridges. The framework developed in the project was devised specifically for TxDOT for use in Tarrant County, Texas, but can be used by other agencies with some modifications to fit the inventory under evaluation. This article presents the developed methodology to prioritize the historic bridges of Tarrant County and discusses the characteristics of the final list of 37 prioritized bridges. Hueste et al. (2013) have documented the complete study.

Overview of Prioritization Process

The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the official list of historic places in the United States that are deemed worthy of preservation, and provides criteria for determining historic, artistic, and engineering significance. This list of historic buildings, structures, and sites is managed by the National Park Service. Although only one bridge in Tarrant County is listed on the NRHP, there are a number of older bridge structures that are potential candidate bridges for preservation efforts. Therefore, a prioritization process was developed to narrow down the entire inventory of bridges in Tarrant County to a final ranked list of bridges to be considered for preservation. A series of steps reduced the entire Tarrant County bridge inventory from 2,860 bridges to just 37 bridges for further consideration. Figure 1 depicts the prioritization process. Maps of the Tarrant County bridge inventory and the final 37 bridges may be found in the report by Hueste et al. (2013).

Figure 1.

Flowchart depicting the prioritization process.

The TxDOT National Bridge Inventory (NBI) database of all Tarrant County bridges from 2012 was used to describe the inventory. The NBI is a database compiled by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and includes information for all bridges and tunnels in the United States with roads passing above or below. Bridges built later than 1971 were eliminated, resulting in a list of all bridges at least 40 years old. According to the NRHP, a bridge must be at least 50 years old to be considered historic; however, bridges between 40 and 50 years old were also included to ensure that this prioritization would remain valid for 10 years. Culverts were not considered due to a general failure to exhibit any engineering or historic significance. Railroad bridges in Tarrant County were also removed because they are owned by railroad companies rather than the state, county, or city; therefore, they were beyond the scope of the study. Also, bridges with no reported historical significance rating or sufficiency rating in the NBI were eliminated. These initial filters reduced the inventory from 2,860 bridges to 433. The remaining bridges were then placed in a selection matrix based on the historical significance and sufficiency ratings. This step eliminated several more bridges, reducing the remaining inventory to 34 bridges. Further review revealed that five of these bridges had already been designated for removal, reducing the list to 29 bridges. To ensure thorough consideration of older bridges in the inventory, all bridges built before 1940 that were previously eliminated by the selection matrix were put under further review, and eight previously eliminated bridges were returned to consideration. The final bridges (37 total) were ranked using a quantitative rating system.

Stakeholder Input

In the prioritization process, lists of recommended bridges from both TxDOT and Historic Fort Worth, Inc. (HFW), a historic interest group in Tarrant County, were considered. TxDOT personnel in the Fort Worth District Office formulated a list of 24 bridges that they anticipated would be included in the prioritization. Three of these bridges were railroad bridges and were later excluded, and one bridge had already been designated for removal. The remaining 20 bridges from the TxDOT list were included in the final 37 bridges. HFW provided a list of the 10 highest priority bridges in Fort Worth for preservation and maintenance, nine of which were included in the final rankings. The only bridge from the HFW list that was not included in the final inventory had previously been abandoned and is no longer listed in the NBI database.

Selection Matrix

In 2006, the Indiana DOT used a matrix based on condition score and eligibility score, measures intended to quantify functionality and historic significance, respectively, to prioritize its historic bridges (Rathke, et al., 2010). A selection matrix was also created for this study but directly using the NBI historical significance and sufficiency ratings as updated by TxDOT inspection records (Texas Department of Transportation, 2012). This matrix was used as a tool for initial sorting of the bridge inventory.

Historical Significance Rating

In the NBI database, each bridge is issued a historical significance rating, ranging from 1 to 5, depending on the NRHP eligibility status (Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1995). Only one bridge in Tarrant County is listed on the NRHP.

The NBI numerical historical significance ratings indicate the following:

The structure is listed on the NRHP.

The structure is eligible for listing on the NRHP.

The structure may be eligible for listing on the NRHP or is on a state or local historic register.

The eligibility of the bridge is not determinable at the time.

The structure is not eligible for listing on the NRHP.

It is important to note that the numerical historical significance ratings listed in the NBI may include errors for various reasons including lack of current information or historical study, or even changes to the rating system used by a specific state. For instance, TxDOT has used a modified rating system in the past that does not completely follow the standard NBI system listed above. In their system, a rating of 3 signifies that the structure has been evaluated and is not eligible for the NRHP, and a rating of 5 indicates that the structure has not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility. In this study, the original NBI descriptions of historical significance ratings were used in the prioritization process to demonstrate the potential advantages and limitations of the developed approach.

Sufficiency Rating

Each bridge is issued a sufficiency rating by the Federal Highway Association (FHWA) intended to indicate the sufficiency of a structure to remain in service (Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1995). The rating ranges from 1 to 100 and consists of a maximum of 55 points for structural adequacy and safety, 30 points for serviceability and functional obsolescence, and 15 points for essentiality for public use. A maximum of 13 points can be deducted based on NBI items 19 (detour length), 36 (traffic safety features), and 43 (main structure type). According to FHWA guidelines, a sufficiency rating above 80 indicates that a bridge is in acceptable condition. Ratings between 50 and 80 warrant rehabilitation, and ratings below 50 make a bridge eligible for replacement. A full description of the calculation of the sufficiency rating can be found in the FHWA Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges (Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1995). Table 1 lists the NBI items that are considered in each component of the sufficiency rating.

Table 1.

FHWA Sufficiency Rating.

Rating component	Percentage of rating	NBI items considered	NBI item number
Structural adequacy and safety	55	Superstructure condition	59
		Substructure condition	60
		Culvert condition	62
		Inventory rating	66
Serviceability and functional obsolescence	30	Lanes on structure	28
		Average daily traffic	29
		Approach roadway width	32
		Main structure type	43
		Bridge roadway width	51
		Vertical clearance over deck	53
		Deck condition	58
		Structural evaluation	67
		Deck geometry	68
		Under clearances	69
		Waterway adequacy	71
		Approach roadway alignment	72
		STRAHNET highway designation	100
Essentiality for public use	15	Detour length	19
		Average daily traffic	29
		STRAHNET highway designation	100

Source. Adapted from Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (1995).

Note. FHWA = Federal Highway Association; NBI = National Bridge Inventory; STRAHNET = Strategic Highway Corridor Network.

Arrangement of Matrix

A selection matrix was created for this study using historical significance and sufficiency ratings. Historical significance ratings are divided into the five levels already used in the NBI. Similarly, five ranges of sufficiency ratings were formulated. Rather than creating five equal ranges of 20, the ranges were set according to FHWA guidelines regarding sufficiency ratings. The highest sufficiency level ranges from 80 to 100, representing bridges in good condition according to these guidelines. The next two levels range from 65 to 79.9 and 50 to 64.9, covering the ratings that make bridges eligible for rehabilitation. The lowest two levels range from 25 to 49.9 and 0 to 24.9, representing bridges that are eligible for replacement according to FHWA recommendations.

It should be noted that in this step, seven bridges were considered by TxDOT to have historical significance ratings higher than the ratings listed in the NBI. Three of these bridges were included on the TxDOT List of National Register-Eligible Bridges from a statewide inventory of bridges built from 1945 to 1965 (Mead & Hunt, 2010) and were thus considered to have historical significance ratings of “2.” The other four bridges were deemed worthy of the same rating because they possessed artistic qualities, engineering design, or historic value that warrant eligibility for the NRHP.

Figure 2 shows the selection matrix, with numbers in each box representing the number of bridges from the remaining inventory of 433 falling in each rating region. The recommended increased historical significance ratings, noted above, are reflected by these numbers. The matrix is divided into dark gray, medium gray, and light gray regions to reflect the level of priority. The dark gray region represents the highest priority bridges, due to high historical significance ratings and relatively high sufficiency ratings. The medium gray region represents the next level of priority, with high historical significance ratings but lower sufficiency ratings. The light gray region represents the lowest priority bridges due to low historical significance ratings. Bridges falling in this region were eliminated except seven structures that were returned to consideration after further review, and one that was recommended by a local historic interest group. Adding these eight structures to the 29 from the Priority 1 and Priority 2 regions made a final list of 37 bridges. Reviewing the previously eliminated bridges ensured that discrepancies in the historical significance rating did not exclude any bridges worthy of preservation.

Figure 2.

Selection matrix based on historical significance and sufficiency ratings.

Although the matrix provided an effective approach to sorting bridges that may be of interest for future preservation efforts, it did not provide a clear ranking of the bridges, particularly because the NBI values for the historical significance rating were not always up to date. The final 37 bridges were then ranked using a more detailed quantitative rating system.

Quantitative Rating System

From 1997 to 1999, TxDOT conducted a project seeking to identify and evaluate the eligibility of a large group of bridge structures for inclusion on the NRHP (TxDOT, 1999). Using the rating system formulated for that project as an example, a quantitative rating system was developed for ranking bridges of all types and ages found in the Tarrant County inventory. The system used the same criteria as the TxDOT system, with changes being made where necessary to accommodate more bridge types and ages. Each bridge can receive a maximum possible rating of 112, with points distributed among criteria as shown in Table 2. Each criterion is discussed in the following subsections.

Table 2.

Overview of Quantitative Rating System.

Criterion	Maximum possible points
Year built	40
Main span length	20
Overall length	4
Rail type	14
Special design	10
Structural integrity	8
Site integrity	8
Sufficiency rating	8
Total	112

Year Built

Due to its importance in determining the historic and engineering significance of a bridge, year of construction was given the most weight, with 40 of 112 possible points. The point distribution for this criterion was modified to accommodate a greater range of years than that used in the earlier TxDOT project. Points were assigned as shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Points Assigned for Year Built.

Year built	Points
1900-1909	40
1910-1919	35
1920-1929	30
1930-1939	25
1940-1949	20
1950-1959	15
Post-1959	10

Main Span Length and Overall Length

Main span length and overall length are often used to gauge the level of engineering technology used in the construction of a bridge, hence their inclusion as criteria in this rating system. For concrete girder, concrete slab, and steel I-beam bridges, the TxDOT rating system was used (TxDOT, 1999). This system assigns a maximum number of points to bridges in the top 5% of main span lengths of its particular bridge type within the state, and a lower number of points for structures in the top 10%. Because the TxDOT report only gave a rating system for these three bridge types, a system for rating concrete arch, concrete rigid frame, steel truss, and steel plate girder bridges was developed using a similar approach. Points for length were assigned as shown in Table 4. Examples of each bridge type are shown in the report by Hueste et al. (2013).

Table 4.

Points Assigned for Main Span Length and Overall Length.

Bridge type	Main span length (ft)	Points	Overall length (ft)	Points
Concrete girder	>45	20	>420	4
	40-45	10	100-420	2
	<40	0	<100	0
Concrete slab	>30	20	>300	4
	25-30	10	200-300	2
	<25	0	<200	0
Steel I-beam	>65	20	>520	4
	50-65	10	340-520	2
	<50	0	<340	0
Concrete arches (closed spandrel)	>40	20	>200	4
	30-40	10	80-200	2
	<30	0	<80	0
Concrete arch (open spandrel)	>120	20	>750	4
	90-120	10	500-750	2
	<90	0	<500	0
Concrete rigid frame	>50	20	>200	4
	40-50	10	100-200	2
	<40	0	<100	0
Steel truss	>100	20	>1000	4
	80-100	10	300-1000	2
	<80	0	<300	0
Steel plate girder	>80	20	>500	4
	50-80	10	200-500	2
	<50	0	<200	0

Rail Type

Rails can add a decorative element to a bridge; therefore, bridges were assigned a maximum of 14 points for the type of rail used. For bridges built in 1945 or earlier, the rating system used in the TxDOT evaluation was followed. Because the previous TxDOT project did not include bridges built after 1945, esthetic judgment was used in assigning points to railings of bridges built after this date. For pre-1940 bridges, points were assigned as shown in Table 5. Examples of Types H and K and specially designed rails are shown in the report by Hueste et al. (2013).

Table 5.

Points Assigned for Select Parameters.

Parameter	Description	Points
Rail type	A-J	14
	Special design	12
	K, L	10
	M	8
	P, Q	6
	R-8, R-10	4
	Other post-1940 standard rail	2
Special design	Decorative elements	10
	Engineering response	8
	Superstructure/substructure	6
	Superstructure	4
	Substructure	2
Structural integrity	Excellent	8
	Good	6
	Fair	4
Site integrity	Excellent	8
	Good	6
	Fair	4
Sufficiency rating	80-100	8
	50-79.9	6
	0-50	4

In some cases, replacement of the bridge rail is necessary for safety reasons. Although the use of a replacement rail that mimics the architectural features of the original rail is desirable, the new rail does not provide the same historic value. When the bridge rail has been replaced, this change to the original structure could be reflected by reducing the number of points assigned for the rail type. However, for this study, no adjustment was made.

Special Design

Using the TxDOT rating system with no modifications necessary, bridges were assigned points based on the level of special design used in their construction. The maximum score was assigned to bridges possessing decorative elements, while bridges employing commendable engineering response received the second highest score. Lower scores were assigned for special design displayed in superstructures and substructures. Points were assigned as shown in Table 5. Hueste et al. (2013) provided several examples of special design and how specific bridges in Tarrant County were scored.

Structural Integrity

Structural integrity is a measure of how the original features, workmanship, and materials of a bridge are retained. Damage or alteration to any of these resulted in a reduced score. Points were assigned according to the TxDOT rating system for this criterion with no modification necessary, as shown in Table 5. The structural integrity of a bridge is considered “excellent” if the original design, workmanship, and materials are unaltered (TxDOT, 1999). “Good” structural integrity implies some damage to the original features, whereas “fair” implies replacement of key features.

Site Integrity

Site integrity is a measure of the condition of the surroundings of a bridge. It is preferred that the area near a historic bridge remains unaltered, but this is not always possible. Using the rating system from TxDOT with no modifications, points were assigned according to Table 5. “Excellent” site integrity assumes that the surroundings of a bridge are unaltered, “good” implies minor alterations, and “fair” implies significant changes (TxDOT, 1999).

Sufficiency Rating

As discussed previously, sufficiency rating is a measure of the sufficiency of a bridge to remain in service. Bridges with sufficiency ratings above 80 are considered to be in good condition. Sufficiency ratings between 50 and 80 may warrant rehabilitation, while ratings below 50 can be grounds for replacement (TxDOT, 1999). Using these ranges and following the TxDOT model, points were assigned as shown in Table 5.

Final Bridge Inventory

A total of 37 bridges from the Tarrant County bridge inventory were retained on the final list, with 15 coming from the first priority region of the matrix, 14 from the second priority region, and eight from the third priority region. Table 6 shows the final rankings using the quantitative rating system, as well as placement on the lists provided by HFW and TxDOT. Table 7 summarizes the bridges by year built, bridge type, and owner. Most of the bridges were built in the 1930s (20 bridges) with only four bridges built prior to that decade. The most common bridge type uses concrete T-beams (14 bridges). The primary bridge owners are TxDOT and the City of Fort Worth. The following section contains an overview of two of the bridges included in the final inventory.

Table 6.

Final Bridge Rankings.

Rank/matrix region	Facility carried	Feature crossed	Total points (maximum 112)	HFW rank	On TxDOT list
1	BU 287P (N. Main St.)	Clr. Fork Trinity River	104	1	Yes
2	Samuels Ave.	W. Fork Trinity River	101		No
3	W. Lancaster Ave	Clr. Fork Trinity River	95	2	Yes
4	SH 180 WB	Sycamore Creek	94		No
5	E. Exchange Ave.	Marine Creek	93		Yes
5	E. Vickery Blvd.	Sycamore Creek	93		Yes
5	SH 199 (Henderson)	Clr. Fork Trinity River	93	4	Yes
8	SH 199 (Henderson)	W. Fork Trinity River	91	7	Yes
8	SH 180 EB	Sycamore Creek	91		No
10	US 377 (Belknap)	Trinity River	87	6	Yes
10	E. Rosedale	Sycamore Creek	87		Yes
10	S. University Drive SB	Clr. Fork Trinity River	87	3	Yes
10	Riverside Drive SB	W. Fork Trinity River	87	8	Yes
10	South Main St.	BN & SF Railroad	87		Yes
15	East 1st St.	W. Fork Trinity River	85		Yes
16	SH 180 WB	Conner Ave.	84		No
17	Old Denton Rd.	Henrietta Creek	83		Yes
17	W. Lancaster Ave.	Foch St.	83		No
19	East 4th St.	W. Fork Trinity River	77	10	No
19	Jennings Ave. (MH 48)	Vickery Blvd.	77		Yes
21	SH 180 EB	Conner Ave.	69		No
21	S. University Drive NB	Clr. Fork Trinity River	69	3	Yes
21	White Settlement Rd.	Spur 341	69		Yes
24	SH 183	Marine Creek	68		Yes
25	BUS 287/LP 496	Sycamore Creek	65		No
26	SH 183 WB	Pumphrey Drive	63		Yes
26	W. Vickery Blvd.	Henderson St.	63	5	Yes
28	SH 183 EB	Pumphrey Drive	61		Yes
29	IH 35W NB	US 377/SH 121 WB	60		No
30	SH 360 NB Ftg./Watson	IH-30	59		No
31	NW 30th St.	Marine Creek	56		No
32	Bedford Rd.	Trib. to Mtn. Creek	55		No
33	Burleson-Retta	Village Creek	53		No
34	Jackson Drive	Little Bear Creek	52		No
34	Marlene Drive	Trib. to W. Fork Trinity	52		No
36	Mayfield Rd.	Kee Branch	50		No
37	Burney Rd.	Trib. to Trinity River	40		No

Note. HFW = Historic Fort Worth; TxDOT = Texas Department of Transportation; EB = Eastbound; NB = Northbound; SB = Soutbound; WB = Westbound; Dark Gray = Priority 1; Medium Gray = Priority 2; Light Gray = Priority 3 based on the selection matrix in Figure 2.

Table 7.

Summary of Top 37 Bridges.

Parameter	Description	Number of bridges
Years	1910-1919	2
	1920-1929	2
	1930-1939	20
	1940-1949	4
	1950-1959	6
	Post-1959	3
Type	Concrete Tee beam	14
	Concrete slab	6
	Steel plate girder	4
	Concrete rigid frame	4
	Steel truss	3
	Concrete arch (open spandrel)	2
	Concrete arch (closed spandrel)	2
	Steel I-beam	2
Owner	TxDOT	15
	City of Fort Worth	16
	City of Arlington	2
	City of Colleyville	2
	Tarrant County	1
	City of Euless	1

Selected Bridges

BU 287P (North Main Street) Over Clear Fork Trinity River

The bridge carrying North Main Street over the Clear Fork of the Trinity River, depicted in Figure 3, is the only bridge in Tarrant County listed on the NRHP. Also known as the Paddock Viaduct, the bridge was built in 1914 and was rehabilitated in 2010. It is a concrete open-spandrel arch bridge, a member type of great historic significance. The structure is 1,319 ft long with a maximum span length of 225 ft and a total of 16 spans. The bridge experiences an annual average daily traffic of 13,500 vehicles. A sufficiency rating of 33.5 (as of 2012) and a historical significance rating of “1” place the bridge in the portion of the matrix considered first priority. The bridge was included on the list of 24 bridges recommended by TxDOT and ranked as the highest priority bridge in Tarrant County for maintenance and preservation by HFW. It also received a score of 104 using the quantitative rating system, the highest in the final Tarrant County inventory.

Figure 3.

BU 287P (N. Main Street) over Clear Fork Trinity River.

West Lancaster Avenue Over Clear Fork Trinity River

The bridge carrying West Lancaster Avenue over the Clear Fork of the Trinity River, depicted in Figure 4, was built in 1938. It has a continuous steel truss superstructure and specially designed rails, which add to the historic significance. The structure is 2,976 ft long with a maximum span length of 133 ft and a total of 46 spans. Rehabilitative actions were performed on the bearings and several steel truss members in 2009. The bridge has an annual average daily traffic of 12,850 vehicles, a sufficiency rating of 80.2, and a historical significance rating of “2,” as listed in the NBI. These parameters place it in the first priority portion of the matrix. The structure was included on the list of 24 bridges recommended by TxDOT and ranked as the second highest priority bridge in Tarrant County by HFW. With a score of 95 using the quantitative rating system, the bridge ranked third in the final Tarrant County inventory.

Figure 4.

W. Lancaster Avenue over Clear Fork Trinity River/Forest Park.

Summary and Conclusion

This article presents the framework developed and used to prioritize the bridge inventory for historic preservation in Tarrant County, Texas. After preliminary reductions to focus the inventory on potentially historic bridges, the selection matrix was used to further filter the inventory, and final rankings were produced using a quantitative rating system. Conclusions drawn from the development and application of the framework for historic bridge prioritization include the following:

The NBI historical significance rating is useful as a representation of the NRHP eligibility status of a bridge, but not as a measure of engineering and historic importance. In some cases, bridges in an inventory may need to be reevaluated for NRHP eligibility, and the historical significance rating should be updated accordingly. Owner and community input are also critical to identifying important historic bridges in the inventory.

The NBI historical significance and sufficiency ratings are not adequate parameters for an accurate prioritization of bridges for historic preservation. In this study, several bridges possessing commendable features would have been eliminated had these been used strictly as the only criteria. These parameters may be used for initial guidance, but a more specific methodology such as the quantitative rating system is recommended.

Historic bridge preservation efforts made in the past can be useful models, but may need to be adapted to a specific inventory. In the case of this study, a selection matrix and quantitative rating system used in previous projects were adapted using engineering and esthetic judgment to better reflect the characteristics of the bridge inventory for this study.

Further review of several eliminated bridges in the considered inventory showed that additional professional input may be necessary when numerical parameters are relied upon.

The methodology used in this article can be applied in a similar way to other bridge inventories of which the owning agency possesses the appropriate background and expertise to make judgments for unique or borderline cases.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This project was conducted in cooperation with the Fort Worth District of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). The authors appreciate the support and guidance of all TxDOT personnel involved, particularly Maribel Chavez, Fred Valles, and Renee Benn. The authors also wish to thank Jason Crawford, Laura Ortiz, and Katlyn McCoy with the Texas A&M Transportation Institute for their efforts in assisting with this study. Finally, the input of the community through Historic Fort Worth is greatly appreciated.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Eric Puls is a structural engineer with WorleyParsons in Houston, Texas. He completed his master of science in Civil Engineering at Texas A&M University in 2013.

Mary Beth D. Hueste is a professor in the Zachry Department of Civil Engineering at Texas A&M University, where she has been a faculty member since 1998. Her research focuses on earthquake resistant design of concrete structures, design and evaluation of bridge structures, and assessment of aging and historic infrastructure.

Stefan Hurlebaus, is a professor in the Zachry Department of Civil Engineering at Texas A&M University and a research scientist at Texas A&M Transportation Institute. His research interests are in historic preservation, nondestructive testing, smart structures, sensors, and large scale testing.

Ivan Damnjanovic is an associate professor in the Zachry Department of Civil Engineering at Texas A&M University. He joined the department in 2006 as a faculty member in the area of construction engineering and management. His research interests include transportation infrastructure management, risk analysis, and project finance.

References

Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. (1995). Recording and coding guide for the structure inventory and appraisal of the nation’s bridges (FHWA-PD-96-001). Washington, DC.

Hueste

M. D.

Puls

Hurlebaus

Damnjanovic

McCoy

Ortiz

Crawford

(2013). A framework for historic bridge preservation in Tarrant County (Research Report No. TX-13/409139-1). Texas A&M Transportation Institute and Texas Department of Transportation. College Station, TX.

Mead & Hunt. (2010). Final evaluation methodology, Texas historic bridge inventory, evaluation of 1945-1965 bridges (Work Authorization No. 578 11 SH003). Texas Department of Transportation. Austin, TX.

Rathke

Squitieri

Long

Rearick

(2010). Balancing engineering criteria and historic significance to preserve select bridges. Transportation Research Board Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2202, 127-136.

Texas Department of Transportation. (1999). Texas historic bridge inventory survey of non-truss structures. Environmental Affairs Division.

Texas Department of Transportation. (2012). Bridge inspection files. Fort Worth District Office.