IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 0: 1

Preface
The author of the Bridge Design Manual (BDM) is the Methods Unit of the Bridges and Structures Bureau
(BSB).

The BDM shall be used with other Iowa DOT documents and standards including the latest editions of the
Bridges and Structures Bureau Standards, the Construction and Materials Bureau Instructional
Memoranda, and Standard Specifications for Highway and Bridge Construction. It also shall be used with
the 2017 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition except as noted. The BDM also
references the 2002 AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition with current
errata changes. A list of reference documents and standards along with abbreviations is given in the
Introduction section. An additional list is given with each major article or section.

Bridges and Structures Bureau documents are available on the Bureau web site:

https://iowadot.gov/bridge/

Other Iowa DOT documents are available in the Electronic Reference Library:

https://iowadot.gov/erl/index.html

Exceptions with respect to the use of LRFD are as follows:

• Repairs shall continue to follow guidelines in the repair section.
• BDM Article 10.2, Sign Support Structures, is a dual ASD/LRFD article. The Iowa DOT currently
is transitioning from allowable stress design (ASD) standards based on the 2013 AASHTO
Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic
Signals, 6th Edition to load and resistance factor design (LRFD) standards based on the 2015
AASHTO LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic
Signals, 1st Edition.
• Starting with the July 2023 release and all releases up to and including the January 2024 release
of the Iowa DOT working standards included rebar development and lap length updates based on
the 2017 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition. These working standards
shall be incorporated into project details starting with the October 2024 letting. The signed
standard plans have rebar development and lap lengths based on the 2014 AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications, 7th Edition and will be updated to the 8th edition by BSB as time
permits. The signed standard plans should be used “as is” until they are updated by BSB.
• Starting with the July 2023 release and all releases up to and including the January 2024 release
of the Iowa DOT working standards included the following changes to the deck on beam details:
o Interior deck thickness increases from 8 inches to 8.5 inches.
o Thickness of the deck overhang tapers increases from a permissible range of 9.00 to
10.25 inches at the exterior beam top flange edge to a permissible range of 10.25 to 11
inches. Thickness of deck overhang tapers increases from 8.75 inches for PPCBs and 9
inches for steel beams at edge of deck to 10 inches for both.
o Top of deck built-in (sacrificial) wearing surface increases from 0.50 inches to 0.75
inches.
o Concrete cover increases from 2.5 inches to 2.75 inches for topmost layer of deck
reinforcement and from 1 inch to 1.5 inches for bottommost layer of deck reinforcement.
o Top of deck transverse reinforcement in the deck overhang changes from straight bars to
hooked bars.
These working standards shall be incorporated into project details starting with the October 2024
letting. The signed standard plans do not include these updates and should be used “as is” until
they are updated by BSB. This item does not involve an LRFD exception but is included here
since it involves a significant change in practice.
• Starting with the July 2023 release and all releases up to and including the January 2024 release
of the Iowa DOT working standards includes phasing out of the 34-inch tall TL-4 and 44-inch tall

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 0: 2

TL-5 NCHRP 350 F-shape barrier rails to be replaced with the 38-inch tall TL-4 and 44-inch tall
TL-5 MASH single slope barrier rails. These working standards shall be incorporated into project
details starting with the October 2024 letting. The signed standard plans do not include the
updates and should be used “as is” until they are updated by BSB.
• Chapter 5 “Concrete Structures” of the 2017 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
requires D-regions (disturbed or discontinuity) to be designed using the strut-and-tie method
(STM) for the strength and extreme event limit states with some exceptions provided for legacy
methods [AASHTO-LRFD 5.5.1.2.3]. Historically, the Iowa DOT has used sectional models, which
is a B-region method, in some areas which are classified as D-regions (e.g., typical pier caps).
Iowa will continue designing based on its current historical practices until STM is incorporated into
the BDM.

In general, the BDM is intended to define Bureau practice for typical Iowa bridges without restricting
innovation for unusual site and design conditions. The words “shall”, “required”, “Bureau policy”, and
similar terms indicate mandatory specifications that need to be followed unless exceptions are approved
by the supervising Unit Leader. Other terms such as “should”, “prefer”, and “recommended” indicate
general guidance subject to engineering judgment of the designer. Interpretations of the supervising Unit
Leader, the Chief Structural Engineer, the Bridge Project Development Engineer, and the Bridge
Engineer supersede policies in this manual.

The entire manual is generally scheduled to be updated twice a year on January 1 and July 1 however
these release dates can change, and interim releases may also occur on occasion. Only changes to the
previous release will be shown.

Standard CADD notes are provided in Section 13 at the end of the manual.

Users are invited to bring errors and omissions to the attention of the Methods Unit of the Bridges and
Structures Bureau.

• Technical and editorial issues: Michael Nop, 515-239-1233, [email protected]

• Bridge support software issues: James Denny, 515-239-7935, [email protected]
• Aesthetic issues: Kimball Olson, 515-233-7722, [email protected]
• CADD issues: Brett Kloss, 515-233-7924, [email protected]

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL COMMENTARY ~ C0: 1

C0 Preface

1 January 2009 ~ Policy for LRFD Design

FHWA LRFD Policy Memorandum and Attached Letter (Memorandum)

MEMORANDUM

Subject: INFORMATION: Clarification of LRFD Date: January 22, 2007

Policy Memorandum

From: /s/ Original Signed by Reply to

M. Myint Lwin, P.E., S.E. Attn of:
Director, Office of Bridge Technology HIBT-10
To: Directors of Field Services
Resource Center Director
Division Administrators
Federal Lands Highway Division Engineers

On June 28, 2000, FHWA issued a Policy Memorandum announcing its decision regarding a transition time frame
for the use of Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for the design of new bridges on Federal-aid funded
projects. According to the memo, all new bridges on which States initiate preliminary engineering after October 1,
2007, shall be designed by the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification. States unable to meet this date shall
provide justification and a schedule, acceptable to the FHWA, to complete the transition.

The purpose of the memorandum herein is to provide FHWA Division Offices, States, and local governments with
clarifications regarding FHWA's LRFD Policy Memorandum.

• The term "preliminary engineering" as stated in the LRFD Policy Memorandum shall be interpreted as the
initiation of the studies or design activities related to identification of the type, size, and/or location of
bridges. The term "initiate" means the date when Federal-aid funds are obligated for preliminary
engineering. In cases where Federal-aid funds are not used in preliminary engineering, but are used in
construction or other phases of the project, the term "initiate" means the date when the State obligates or
expends their own funds for preliminary engineering.
• Superstructure, substructure, and foundation bridge elements shall be designed by LRFD.
• For modifications to existing structures, States have the option of using the LRFD Specifications or the
specifications which were used for the original design.
• Shelved bridge projects designed and packaged for construction prior to October 1, 2007, are not subject to
the LRFD Policy Memorandum, unless a redesign is required by the State after October 1, 2007.
• The term "new bridges" as stated in the LRFD Policy Memorandum shall be interpreted to include both
new and total replacement bridges.
• Finally, the policy applies to all States-initiated Federal-aid funded projects, not just those funded with
Highway Bridge Program funds, including on system and off-system projects.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Dr. Firas Sheikh Ibrahim at 202-366-4598, or
[email protected].

Attachment: LRFD Policy Memorandum (See below.)

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL COMMENTARY ~ C0: 2

U.S. Department of
Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Federal Highway Washington, D.C. 20590
Administration

June 28, 2000

Refer to: HIBT

David H. Pope, P.E.

Chairman, Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures
Wyoming Department of Transportation
5300 Bishop Boulevard
Cheyenne, WY 82009-3340

Dear Mr. Pope:

Thank you for the letter of June 20, 2000. We appreciate receiving the advice and recommendation of the AASHTO
Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures and its member State bridge engineers on the time frame goals
for the use of Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for the design of bridges. We concur in recommended
time frames and would be pleased to work in partnership with the States to attain the listed four goals which, to
repeat, are:

1. All new bridges on which States initiate preliminary engineering after October 1, 2007, shall be designed
by the LRFD Specifications.
2. All new culverts, retaining walls, and other standard structures on which States initiate preliminary
engineering after October 1, 2010, shall be designed by LRFD Specifications, with the assumption that the
specifications and software for these structures are "mature" at this time.
3. States unable to meet these dates will provide justification and a schedule for completing the transition to
LRFD.
4. For modifications to existing structures, States would have the option of using LRFD Specifications or the
specifications which were used for the original design.

A copy of this letter and yours are being provided to the State bridge engineers and our FHWA field offices so that
they are aware of FHWA's decision on this matter.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ original signed by

David H. Densmore
Director of Bridge Technology

Enclosure

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL COMMENTARY ~ C0: 3

2011 ~ Increase Class C Concrete Strength to 4.0 ksi

In recent years the typical concrete strengths achieved by Class C concrete have been greater than the 3500 psi used
for design. For structural components a higher strength concrete would be advantageous, and for a few of the longer
prestressed concrete beams 4.0 ksi concrete is required for the bridge deck. After checking with state and district
materials engineers it was decided to increase the design strength for Class C concrete to 4.0 ksi for design, except
when a higher strength is required. The increase in design strength also requires an increase in minimum flexural
strength to 575 psi for form removal. The change from psi to ksi units for design strength is consistent with the
transition to AASHTO LRFD Specifications.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS ~ GENERAL DESIGN

1 General Design
1.1 Overview
1.2 Definitions
1.3 Abbreviations and notation
1.4 References
1.4.1 Direct
1.4.2 Indirect
1.5 Americans with Disabilities Act
1.5.1 Sidewalks, trails, and shared use paths
1.5.2 Pedestrian overpasses
1.5.3 Other bridge-related facilities
1.6 Buy America Provisions
1.7 Bridge layout
1.7.1 Profile grade line
1.7.2 Slope
1.7.3 Spiral curve
1.8 Bridge plan preparation
1.8.1 Title sheet
1.8.1.1 Engineers seals
1.8.1.2 Traffic data
1.8.2 First sheet
1.8.2.1 Bid items and quantities
1.8.2.2 General notes
1.8.3 Situation plan
1.8.4 Staking coordinates and staking diagram
1.8.5 Substructure general
1.8.6 Pier details
1.8.7 Abutment details
1.8.8 Superstructure general
1.8.8.1 CWPG
1.8.8.2 PPCB
1.8.9 Repair/overlay details
1.8.10 Miscellaneous details
1.8.10.1 Barrier rails
1.8.10.2 Expansion devices
1.8.10.3 Subdrains
1.8.10.4 Slope protection
1.8.10.5 Lighting
1.8.10.6 Approach sidewalk
1.8.10.7 Other
1.8.11 Aesthetics
1.8.12 Soils sheets
1.8.13 Roadway plans
1.8.14 Signed standard plans
1.9 Culvert plan preparation
1.9.1 Title sheet
1.9.2 First sheet
1.9.3 Situation plan
1.9.4 Repair/extension project details
1.9.5 Reinforced concrete
1.9.6 Roadway plans
1.9.7 Signed standard plans
1.10 Sign support structure plan preparation
1.11 Quality Control/Quality Assurance Plan

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 2

1.11.1 Design team

1.11.2 Plan preparation tools
1.11.3 Quality control
1.11.3.1 Designer
1.11.3.2 Design technician
1.11.3.3 Checker
1.11.4 Project documentation
1.11.5 Quality assurance
1.11.6 Post-letting involvement
1.12 Cost estimates
1.13 Software
1.14 Plan turn-in
1.14.1 E-file submittals
1.14.2 Plan coordination
1.14.3 Prior to plan turn-in
1.14.4 PPMS bid items for plan turn-in
1.15 Plan changes after plan turn-in
1.15.1 Plan changes prior to advertising
1.15.2 Plan changes after advertising - Addendum
1.16 Plan revisions
1.17 Working drawing and calculation submittals
1.18 Local systems review

1 General Design

1.1 Overview
The Bridges and Structures Bureau (BSB) follows established Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa
DOT) practices, and on design and repair projects the Bureau works closely with the Design Bureau and
Contracts and Specifications Bureau, as well as other bureaus. Bridges, culverts, sign structures, and
other transportation structures are designed either by the Bureau or by engineering consultants, which
are reviewed by the Bureau. To accommodate both groups of designers, many of the Bureau practices
and resources have been placed on the Bureau web site (https://iowadot.gov/bridge/). Other resources
for designers in the Bureau are available on the Iowa DOT W-drive. Complete details of the resources will
not be repeated in this manual section.

Bridge and culvert designs generally progress from concept to preliminary design to final (or detail)
design to contract. Generally, projects are packaged for contract letting as road, bridge, or separate. For
a road project the Design Bureau has the lead and incorporates plan sheets from the Bridges and
Structures Bureau and other bureaus into its plans. For a bridge project the reverse is true. For a
separate project both the Design Bureau and the Bridges and Structures Bureau develop separate design
plans. Even when projects are developed separately, however, the Contracts and Specifications Bureau
may tie them together in a single contract.

Project plans at the Iowa DOT are produced in MicroStation software by design technicians as well as
engineers. Plan production is aided by seed files for typical plan sheets, working standard drawings, and
signed standard plans for several bridge, culvert, and sign support structure types, all of which are
available on the Bureau’s web site. Both preliminary and final design software developed by the Bureau
also is available on the web site and on the W-drive. Specific design and detail policies are covered either
in this Bridge Design Manual or in Culvert and Bridge Checklists on the web site.

The Bureau has had a long-standing policy of checking in-house new bridge designs, and that policy now
has been broadened and formalized in the Quality Control/Quality Assurance Plan [BDM 1.11]. A similar

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 3

plan for bridge engineering consultants has been written into “Conducting Business with the Iowa DOT
Bridges and Structures Bureau” [BDM 1.4].

It is expected that most projects will be completed without need for revision. However, necessary
revisions can be accommodated during the contract letting process.

1.2 Definitions
Article refers to any numbered subdivision within a section of a direct reference such as AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications, Bridge Design Manual, or Standard Specifications for Highway and Bridge
Construction. All of the following are articles: 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.1.1, and 1.1.1.1.1.

Average span length (ASL) is the average length of the two spans adjacent to a pier. See Figure 1.2-1.

Bridge length (BL) for structural design is the length from centerline of abutment bearing to centerline of
abutment bearing. See Figure 1.2-1. In some situations bridge length may be taken as the length from
expansion joint to expansion joint.

Figure notes:
• E indicates an expansion support.
• F indicates a fixed support.

Figure 1.2-1. Length definitions

Built-in (sacrificial) wearing surface (BWS) is taken as the top 0.75 inches of the original bridge deck.
Weight of the built-in wearing surface is considered part of DC1, non-composite dead load of structural
components and nonstructural attachments, [AASHTO-LRFD 3.3.2], but the wearing surface is not
considered to contribute to the strength or stiffness of any part of the superstructure.

Bureau refers to the Bridges and Structures Bureau, Iowa Department of Transportation.

File includes electronic information in the project directory. Up to about the year 2022 the term file
referred primarily to hard copy information placed in a physical yellow manila paper file envelope.
References to file in this section of the Bridge Design Manual will be refined in the future.

Future wearing surface (FWS) is a concrete or hot mix asphalt overlay applied to the original bridge
deck. Bureau practice is to consider the future wearing surface part of DW under the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications at 0.020 ksf but to neglect any potential contribution of the overlay to strength or stiffness
of the superstructure.

H-series is a set of standard plans for pretensioned prestressed concrete beam (PPCB) bridges of
specified roadway width.

J-series is a set of standard plans for continuous concrete slab (CCS) bridges of specified roadway
width.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 4

Longitudinal is the direction associated with the roadway centerline of construction and main girders.
See Figure 1.2-2.

Figure 1.2-2. Longitudinal and transverse direction definitions

National Highway System (NHS) is composed of the following subsystems:

• Interstate,
• Other Principal Arterials,
• Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET),
• Major Strategic Highway Network Connectors, and
• Intermodal Connectors.

Iowa state and city NHS maps are available from the NHS web site at the following URL.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/

Natural ground elevation is the average natural ground elevation along the longitudinal centerline of the
foundation.

Primary Highway System: "Primary roads" or "primary road system" means those roads and streets
both inside and outside the boundaries of municipalities which are under department (defined as state
department of transportation) jurisdiction [Iowa Code 306.3.6].

Quality Assurance is an overall review performed and documented by the Transportation Engineer
Manager (typically the supervising Unit Leader) during a bridge design.

Quality Control is the process of checking accuracy of computations, plans, and other design documents
to ensure that a bridge design is free of errors and omissions. Quality control is the responsibility of the
designer, design technician, and checker.

RS-series is a set of standard plans for rolled steel beam (RSB) bridges of specified roadway width.

Section refers to a chapter or division of a direct reference such as AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications, Bridge Design Manual, or AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway and Bridge
Construction. The following are examples of sections: 1. 2. and 3.

Substructure is any construction below the bearing seats or, in the absence of bearings, below the soffit
of the superstructure.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 5

Transverse is the direction normal to the roadway centerline of construction and main girders. See
Figure 1.2-2.

Unit Leader is the supervisor of the Bridges and Structures Bureau Preliminary Design Unit, Final Design
Unit, or Consultant Coordination Unit.

1.3 Abbreviations and notation

A&A, authentication and authorization
ASL, average span length
BARS, Bridge Analysis and Rating System
BL, bridge length
BRIS, Bridge Information System
BSB, Bridges and Structures Bureau (formerly OBS, Office of Bridges and Structures)
BWS, built-in wearing surface
CCS, continuous concrete slab
CWPG, continuous welded plate girder
D, dead load, including DC1, DC2, and DW
DC1, non-composite dead load of structural components and nonstructural attachments such as beams,
deck, haunches, and diaphragms [AASHTO-LRFD 3.3.2].
DC2, composite dead load of structural components and nonstructural attachments such as barrier rails,
sidewalks, curbs, and medians that are not part of the initial deck pour [AASHTO-LRFD 3.3.2].
DGN or dgn, file type for MicroStation files
DW, dead load of wearing surfaces and utilities [AASHTO-LRFD 3.3.2].
EOR, engineer of record
ERMS, Electronic Records Management System
FHWA, Federal Highway Administration
Form 220008, Bridge Inventory Report Form (formerly Form 107)
FWS, future wearing surface
I, live load impact [AASHTO-I 3.8]
IM, dynamic load allowance [AASHTO-LRFD 3.6.2]
L, live load, HS20 truck load or lane load, whichever has greater effect; military load, if applicable
[AASHTO-I 3.7]
LARS, Load Analysis and Rating System
LL, live load, HL-93 [AASHTO-LRFD 3.6.1]
LRFD, load and resistance factor design
MB, Maintenance Bridge. MB projects include bridge deck patching, bridge approach work, and
miscellaneous bridge repairs.
N or N-value, standard penetration test number of blows per foot. N also may be given as SPT NO, the
Standard Penetration Number, in the soils information chart reference.
NHS, National Highway System
PIN, program improvement number
POI, point of intersection of pavement surface cross slopes that defines the profile grade location
PPCB, pretensioned prestressed concrete beam
PPMS, Program and Project Management System (Masterworks)
PSS, Project Scheduling System
QA, quality assurance
QC, quality control
QM-A, Quality Management - Asphalt
RAMS, Road Asset Management System
RCBC, reinforced concrete box culvert
RSB, rolled steel beam
SIIMS, Structure Inventory and Inspection Management System
TEM, Transportation Engineer Manager (usually the supervising Unit Leader)
TS&L, type, size, and location

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 6

URL, Uniform Resource Locator

1.4 References

1.4.1 Direct
Throughout the Bridge Design Manual there are frequent, direct references to specific portions of
standards and publications. Direct references are included in brackets [ ] using the abbreviations given
below. Applicable references to the AASHTO LRFD Specifications and, in a few cases, to the Standard
Specifications are given with each article heading.

Although the latest editions are listed below there are some circumstances in which documents
referenced in this manual have been prepared on the basis of previous editions.

[AASHTO-division article, table, or figure] refers to AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges, 17th Edition (2002) with current errata changes - design, seismic design, or construction division
with article, table, or figure number.

[AASHTO-LRFD article, table, or figure] refers to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th
Edition (2017) with article, table, or figure number.

[AASHTO-LRFD-2020 article, table, or figure] refers to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th
Edition (2020) with article, table, or figure number.

[AASHTO-Temp article, table, or figure] refers to AASHTO Guide Design Specification for Bridge
Temporary Works, 1st Edition (1995) with 2008 Interim Revisions with article, table, or figure number.
[See also 2nd Edition (2017).]

[AASHTO-LTS-6 article, table, or figure] refers to AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural
Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, 6th Edition (2013) with article, table, or
figure number.

[AASHTO-LRFDLTS-1 article, table, or figure] refers to AASHTO LRFD Specifications for Structural
Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, 1st Edition (2015) with article, table, or
figure number.

[BDM article, table, figure, or note] refers to the Iowa DOT Bridges and Structures Bureau LRFD Bridge
Design Manual with article, table, figure, or plan note number. (Available on the Internet
at:https://iowadot.gov/bridge/Design-Policies/LRFDdesignmanual )

[IDOT DS-number] refers to an Iowa DOT developmental specification, which is a hybrid of a

supplemental specification and special provision.

[IDOT PPM policy number] refers to a policy in the Iowa DOT Policies and Procedures Manual.

[IDOT SS article] refers to Iowa DOT Standard Specifications for Highway and Bridge Construction,
Series 2009 with article number. (Available on the Internet at:
https://iowadot.gov/erl/current/GS/Navigation/nav.htm)

[BSB SS sheet number] refers to a Bridges and Structures Bureau, Highway Administration “Standard
Sheet” with sheet number. (Available on the Internet at: https://iowadot.gov/bridge/Bridge-and-Culvert-
Standards/Bridge-Standards)

[DB DM article, table, or figure] refers to the Design Bureau, Highway Administration Design Manual with
article, table, or figure number. (Available on the Internet at: https://iowadot.gov/design/Design-manual)

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 7

[DB RDD sheet number] refers to the Design Bureau, Highway Administration “Road Design Details” with
sheet number. Formerly the detail manual was referred to as the “green book.” (Available on the Internet
at: https://iowadot.gov/design/Road-design-details)

[DB SRP sheet number] refers to a Design Bureau, Highway Administration “Standard Road Plan” with
sheet number. Formerly the plan manual was referred to as the “red book.” (Available on the Internet at:
https://iowadot.gov/design/Standard-road-plans)

[CMB IM number] refers to Construction and Materials Bureau, Iowa DOT Instructional Memorandum
number. (Available on the Internet at: https://iowadot.gov/erl/current/IM/navigation/nav.htm)

1.4.2 Indirect
Indirect references are general and infrequent sources of information for Bridge Design Manual that
usually are not linked with specific article or section numbers. The list below is not complete; see major
articles for applicable complete lists.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Manual for Bridge
Evaluation, 3rd Edition. Washington: AASHTO, 2018.

American Concrete Institute (ACI). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and
Commentary (ACI 318R-19). Farmington Hills: ACI, 2019.

American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Steel Construction Manual, 15th Edition. Chicago: AISC,
2017.

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA). Manual for Railway
Engineering, 2019 Edition. Landover: AREMA, 2019.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2022 Annual Book of ASTM Standards. West
Conshohocken: ASTM, 2022.

American Welding Society (AWS). Bridge Welding Code, AWS D1.5-2020. Miami: AWS, 2020.

Dirks, Kermit and Patrick Kam. Foundation Soils Information Chart, Pile Foundation. Ames: Iowa
Department of Transportation, Office of Road Design, January 1989/September 1994.

Greimann, L.F., R.E. Abendroth, D.E. Johnson, and P.B. Ebner. Final Report, Pile Design and Tests for
Integral Abutment Bridges, HR-273, and Addendum. Ames: Iowa Department of Transportation and
College of Engineering, Iowa State University, 1987.

Lundquist, William A. Iowa DOT Bridge Design Office Metric Handbook. Ames: Office of Bridges and
Structures, 1994 updated through 1996.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Steel Bridge Design Handbook. FHWA-HIF-16-002.

Washington, DC: FHWA, 2015.

Bridges and Structures Bureau. Conducting Business with the Iowa DOT Bridges and Structures Bureau.
Ames: Bridges and Structures Bureau, April 2021. (Available on the Internet at:
https://iowadot.gov/bridge/policy/ConductingBusinessWithIADOT.pdf)

Bridges and Structures Bureau, Bridge and Culvert Plan Checklists. (Available on the Internet at:
https:/iowadot.gov/bridge//design-policies/Bridge-and-Culvert-Plan-Checklist)

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 8

Construction and Materials Bureau. Construction Manual. Ames: Construction and Materials Bureau,
Iowa Department of Transportation, 2006. (Available on the Internet at:
https://iowadot.gov/erl/current/CM/Navigation/nav.htm)

Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI). Bridge Design Manual. 3rd Edition, 2nd Release. Chicago:
PCI, 2014. (Available on the Internet at: https://www.pci.org/ItemDetail?iProductCode=MNL-133-11)

Sunday, Wayne and Kyle Frame. New Bridge Construction Handbook. Ames: Construction and Materials
Bureau, Iowa Department of Transportation, 2000. (Available on the Internet at:
https://iowadot.gov/construction_materials/structures_foundations/bridge_construction_handbook.pdf )

1.5 Americans with Disabilities Act

The Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) intends to comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), and the Design Bureau has developed specific guidelines based on “Proposed Guidelines for
Public Rights of Way” (PROWAG) of 2011 and “Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines”
(ADAAG) of 2010. The Design Bureau guidelines are in Chapter 12 of the Design Manual [DB DM 12A,
12B, and 12C], and more may be added in the future. The guidelines affect all new transportation
facilities, and the Iowa DOT is developing a transition plan for existing facilities on state rights-of-way.

Because of the law and enforcement, the guidelines are absolute and not subject to engineering
judgment. Construction tolerances must be accommodated on the high side of a minimum and on the low
side of a maximum. For example, the Design Bureau has chosen to specify a target sidewalk cross slope
of 1.5 percent to accommodate construction tolerances on the low side of the PROWAG 2 percent
maximum.

For alteration of existing facilities there may be allowance for practicality when it is impossible to meet all
guidelines. The designer shall discuss all exceptions with the Methods Unit of the Design Bureau.

At this timeCurrently the Design Bureau requires bridges with “pedestrian access” to have ADA compliant
facilities [DB DM 12C-1]. “Pedestrian access” includes sidewalks, trails, and shared use paths. Although it
is clear that ADAADA affects the design of new bridges, the Design Bureau also recommends ADA
upgrades outside project limits [DB DM 12C-1]. In some cases, this could involve a bridge near road
repairs when the bridge otherwise would not be included in the project.

Generally, it appears that complying with ADA in design of bridges with pedestrian facilities will involve
maintaining minimum width, providing a slip-resistant walking surface, providing a surface with a
maximum cross slope of 2 percent, bridging all joints that may be wider than 1/2 inch, beveling all vertical
surface discontinuities more than 1/4 inch, and limiting all vertical surface discontinuities to 1/2 inch. For
unusual situations on or under bridges requiring curb ramps, detectable warning surfaces, and other
special accommodations the designer shall consult with the Methods Unit of the Design Bureau.

1.5.1 Sidewalks, trails, and shared use paths

At this timeCurrently the Design Bureau has prepared guidelines for sidewalks and shared use paths [DB
DM 12A-2, 12B-2]. Trails generally are defined as recreational facilities rather than transportation
facilities, and the usual standards for trails may not meet the ADA [DB DM 12B-1]. The bridge designer
shall consult with the Methods Unit in the Design Bureau for the latest standards for trails.

The following guidelines apply to a sidewalk on a bridge and, in a few cases, are slightly different from the
Design Bureau’s guidelines for a sidewalk beyond a bridge deck.

• Minimum width for a sidewalk shall be 5 feet. This width shall be clear of all obstructions at all
elevations less than 6.7 feet above the sidewalk surface. Although the PROWAG guidelines state
a minimum width of 4 feet, at a width of less than 5 feet passing zones are required, which would
require a wider bridge deck at the zones. It is simpler for bridge design to provide a constant 5-
foot width. Exceptions need to be discussed with the Methods Unit in the Design Bureau.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 9

• Maximum cross slope shall be 2 percent. Although tThe Design Bureau uses a target 1.5 percent
slope. The BSB will also typically target 1.5 percent slope on the bridge., bBridge sidewalks
generally are constructed more accurately than sidewalks on grade so if . Ddrainage and ponding
areis a concern, consideration can be given to using a 2 percent cross slope on the bridge.and
the designer should be alert to situations that would cause ponding of water. The plan note needs
to be worded carefully so that the contractor provides adequate drainage slope but does not
exceed a 2 percent cross slope.

• Because a bridge sidewalk will be contained within the highway right-of-way, sidewalk grade in
the direction of travel may follow but not exceed the roadway grade.

• The sidewalk surface shall be firm, stable, and slip resistant. Generally, the Iowa DOT standard
specifications for a burlap drag or broom texture on concrete sidewalks should meet this
requirement [IDOT SS 2511.03, C, 3]. In cases where steel plates are used to bridge deck joints
the designer shall specify galvanized floor plate with raised figures (ASTM A786/A786M), also
known as checker or diamond plate.

• Galvanized steel floor plate shall be used to bridge all joints greater than 1/2 inch wide in the
direction of travel. For movable joints the plate shall be attached to one side with recessed anchor
screws flush with the riding surface of the plate.

• Elevation discontinuities, such as floor plate, shall be limited to 1/2 inch. Elevation discontinuities
between 1/4 inch and 1/2 inch shall be beveled with a slope not steeper than 1:2, vertical to
horizontal, and the bevel shall be applied to the entire vertical discontinuity.

• If a sidewalk is provided at the elevation of the bridge deck, the sidewalk shall be separated from
the roadway with a separation barrier [BDM 5.8.1.2.4]. If a sidewalk is elevated from the bridge
deck with a curb no sidewalk edge protection at the curb is required.

1.5.2 Pedestrian overpasses

A bridge designed for pedestrian access only shall meet the guidelines stated above [BDM 1.5.1] and, in
addition, shall have a maximum grade of 5 percent. See also the Preliminary section in this manual for
guidelines specific to pedestrian overpasses [BDM 3.2.5]. Because the connecting facilities need to fit the
overpass, the designer shall consult with the Methods Unit of the Design Bureau.

1.5.3 Other bridge-related facilities

Pedestrian underpasses and other bridge-related facilities shall meet the guidelines stated above [BDM
1.5.1] and, in addition, shall have a maximum grade of 5%. See also the Preliminary section in this
manual for guidelines specific to pedestrian underpasses [BDM 3.5]. Because the connecting facilities
need to fit the underpass or other facility, the designer shall consult with the Methods Unit of the Design
Bureau.

The elevation guidelines for sidewalks listed above, when applied to box culvert underpasses, will require
that the culvert floor be flat, without frost trough [7.2.4.11.4]. Because floor joints between precast box
culvert sections are likely to exceed 1/2 inch in the direction of travel, precast culvert floors shall include a
PC overlay [7.3.4.2.4]

1.6 Buy America Provisions

In general all manufactured products of iron, steel, or which have a coating of steel must be of domestic
origin and shall be melted and manufactured in the U.S. For the specific requirements of the Buy America
Provisions, see IDOT SS 1107.06, B and CMB IM 107.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 10

Two of projects in 2014 included components manufactured from channel sizes of up to 10 inches.
Smaller size channels are not always readily available in the U.S. For these smaller size channels, the
designer should specify equivalent bent plates.

1.7 Bridge layout

1.7.1 Profile grade line

When the profile grade line is defined at the centerline of approach roadway it is necessary to consider
the transition between the template of the approach roadway and the crown template of the bridge deck.
The Design Bureau defines the profile grade to be the point of intersection (POI) between the pavement
surface cross slopes as shown in Figure 1.7.1. The deck elevation at the bridge deck crown will be below
the POI to account for the rounding of the bridge deck with a parabolic template.

The rounding of the approach roadway surface is not as well defined as the parabolic template
established for the bridge deck crown, however some rounding of the roadway surface at the cross slope
intercepts is typical during pavement placement and will match reasonably close to the template shown
for the bridge deck crown.

The designer shall establish bridge deck elevations using Figure 1.7.1 and the appropriate ‘X’ value from
Table 1.7.1. Typically, the crown template with the appropriate inserted ‘X’ and slope values should be
shown on the Top of Slab Elevations sheet.

Figure 1.7.1. Crown template with profile grade

Table 1.7.1. Recommended values for ‘X’ in Figure 1.7.1

Slope, % ‘X’, feet

2.0 0.03
2.5 0.04
3.0 0.05

Using this method will ensure the approach roadway surface in the travelled lanes and the outside edge
of pavement will match the bridge deck elevations. Elevations shown on the longitudinal section of the
situation plan sheet (or TS&L) will reflect the top of bridge deck crown elevations along the centerline of

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 11

approach roadway to the nearest hundredth of a foot. These elevations shall be noted on the situation
plan sheet with the correct ‘X’ value inserted as follows:

TOP OF BRIDGE DECK CROWN 'X’ FEET BELOW PROFILE GRADE.

1.7.2 Slope
Bridges on steeper grades require additional consideration from designers:
• Horizontal versus along grade dimensioning with respect to span and beam lengths.
• The effect of deck and end beam slope on the detailing of expansion joints.
• Clearance between the bottom flange of beams and the edge of abutment footings or pier caps.
• Bearing details for tapered and curved sole plates.

Designers also need to consider the tendency of bridges with steeper downward slope over the entire
length of the bridge to creep downhill over time. In order to prevent this movement, consideration should
be given to fixing multiple piers and using integral or semi-integral abutments at least on the low end of
the bridge.

When the difference between the horizontal length and the profile grade length for any span within a
PPCB bridge is greater than 1/2 inch follow the guidelines below.

Bridge stationing shall be measured along the horizontal from centerline to centerline of bearings
(vertical), but individual spans and bridge length are to be measured along the grade from the centerline
to centerline of bearings (normal to grade) based on standard beam lengths as indicated in Figure 1.7.2-
1.

Figure 1.7.2-1. Dimensioning of stationing and span lengths

The situation plan should dimension the horizontal lengths of the bridge, centerline to centerline of
abutment bearings and centerline to centerline of spans, and the corresponding stations. The plan should
also include the dimension lengths from centerline to centerline of abutment bearings and face to face of
paving notches for the lengths along the profile grade. Label these lengths "Horizontal" and "Along
Grade". All other applicable plan lengths should be labeled accordingly. Although the span lengths based
on profile grade chords will be known approximately during preliminary design, the final designer may
need to adjust the lengths slightly depending on camber.

Include in the plans a partial longitudinal section showing centerline of abutment bearing vertical and
centerline of bearing normal to grade as shown in Figure 1.7.2-2.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 12

Figure 1.7.2-2. Partial longitudinal section along centerline of roadway at abutments, with
grade variations

If there is an expansion joint at a pier, include a partial longitudinal section at the pier, showing centerline
of beam bearings vertical and normal to grade as in Figure 1.7.2-3.

Figure 1.7.2-3. Partial longitudinal section along centerline of roadway at pier, with grade
variations

If the change in elevation from the front of the backwall to the centerline of abutment bearing (vertical) or
front to back of backwall is greater than 1/8 inch show the dimension as in Figure 1.7.2-4.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 13

Figure 1.7.2-4. Partial section through abutment

1.7.3 Spiral curve

In order to minimize complicated bridge geometry, the Design Bureau will avoid using spiral curves on
bridges [BDM 3.2.6.3.1]. For the unusual case in which the designer needs spiral curve information, it is
given in Figure 1.7.3.

Figure 1.7.3. Spiral curve information

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 14

1.8 Bridge plan preparation

Although plans for a bridge are prepared by the Bridges and Structures Bureau or consultants to the
Bureau, the plans must be coordinated with other bureaus associated with the project. The bridge will be
part of a highway project and thus the bridge plans must fit with plans prepared by the Design Bureau or
consultants to that bureau. The flow chart from concept to contract letting for a typical bridge replacement
project is given in Section 1D-1 of the Design Bureau’s Design Manual
(https://iowadot.gov/design/dmanual/01D-01.pdf). When complete, the bridge plans are turned-in to the
Contracts and Specifications Bureau and must meet its requirements.

Bridge plans follow standard formats established with the usage of the Bureau’s CADD seed files.
Guidance for using the seed files is available at:
https://iowadot.gov/bridge/tools/CONNECT%20Seed%20Files.pdf Additional resources covering topics
such as models, fonts, levels, and features are also available on the CONNECT Applications webpage.

Also, the CONNECT Applications webpage includes instructions for various workflow topics such as:
• Project folder structure in ProjectWise document management software,
• Consultant project folder structure in ProjectWise,
• Using V8i Standards in CONNECT,
• OpenBridge Designer Version Maintenance,
• OpenBridge Designer Analysis Workflow, and
• OpenBridge Designer Starting Model,

Many of the detailed items on bridge plans, such as title block and location map, are covered in
documents on the Bridge and Culvert Plan Checklist page (https://iowadot.gov/bridge/Design-
Policies/Bridge-and-Culvert-Plan-Checklist).

Generally bridge plans are organized in the sequence indicated in the sub-articles that follow.

1.8.1 Title sheet

See also Plan Review Checklist: 2. Title Sheet – All Projects.

1.8.1.1 Engineers seals

An index of seals is required on the title sheet for each project plan set. For each design type included in
the project, such as structural, hydraulic, geotechnical, and roadway, the sheet number containing the
seal and designer are listed in the index. When the project is prepared by the Bridges and Structures
Bureau, the title sheet shall contain the seal-certification-signature blocks for the responsible structural
and hydraulic designers. The responsible designers are defined in Table 1.8.1.1.

Table 1.8.1.1. Designers responsible for sealing structural and hydraulic designs

Design type Seals to be placed on title sheet

Designer licensed as Designer not licensed
Professional Engineer
Structural Designer’s seal Supervising Final Design
Unit Leader’s seal
Hydraulic Designer’s seal Preliminary Design Unit
Leader’s seal

For projects that include signed standard plans (J-series, H-series, RS series, single RCBC, twin RCBC,
triple RCBC, flume box culvert, overhead sign truss, and roadside dynamic message sign support
standards), the index of seals additionally shall include the Bridge Engineer’s name for structural design
of the standards. The index line should read “Bridge (or Culvert or Sign Support) Standards, James S.
Nelson or Norman L. McDonald (as appropriate), and Structural Design.” The line is included in the index

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 15

of seals on the seed file for a bridge title sheet, and the designer will need to delete the line if it is
inappropriate.

1.8.1.2 Traffic data

Traffic data shall be given on a situation plan sheet, and the data or a note regarding the data shall be
given on the title sheet. If there is a single bridge design in a project, the traffic data is to be given on the
title sheet but, if there are multiple designs, a note is to be given that refers to the individual situation plan
sheets for the traffic information.

The traffic information on the bridge title sheet is labeled as “Design Data Rural” or “Design Data Urban”,
which matches the way the Design Bureau labels its traffic information. On the situation plan sheet the
traffic information is labeled as “Traffic Estimate” and contains the same traffic information as shown on
the title sheet.

Both the traffic information blocks and the traffic note referring to individual situation plan sheets are given
on the seed title sheet, and the designer should delete the inappropriate items.

1.8.2 First sheet

See also Bridge Plan Review Checklist: 3. First Sheet of Design – All Projects.

1.8.2.1 Bid items and quantities

Bid items and quantities in the table of Estimated Bridge Quantities are determined by the designer, with
consideration of the guidelines below, and entered into PPMS when designed by the Bridges and
Structures Bureau. The bid items are added to the first sheet with the BidItems application available in
MicroStation. The Contracts and Specifications Bureau automatically receives the bid items to prepare
the proposal.

The non-structural bid items listed below are added to the Estimate of Quantities in accordance with the
following guidelines, which may involve the Bureaus of Design, Contracts, Local Systems, and
Construction.

• Flaggers: The Design Bureau will add this item when a Standard Road Plan or a Design Bureau
detail is referenced requiring it. Design Bureau will input a quantity of one. The Contracts and
Specifications Bureau will then determine the contract period and change the quantity
accordingly.

• Pilot Cars: The Design Bureau will add this item when a Standard Road Plan or a Design Bureau
detail is referenced requiring it. Design Bureau will input a quantity of one. The Contracts and
Specifications Bureau will then determine the contract period and change the quantity
accordingly.

• Mobilization: The designer shall include this item in all projects. If the Design Bureau and Bridges
and Structures Bureau have a combined project, the bureau creating the title sheet will add this
item.

• Field Lab: The Contracts and Specifications Bureau will send the Design Bureau and Local
Systems a copy of its criteria for determining when a field lab is required on a project. The Design
Bureau will add this item when it is required.

• Field Office: This item will be determined at the field exam. The Design Bureau will add this item if
it is necessary.

• Trainees: This item will only be included on state projects. The Contracts and Specifications
Bureau will notify the designer 12 weeks before letting (2 weeks before turn-in) of the quantity if it

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 16

is required. If the Design Bureau and Bridges and Structures Bureau have a combined project,
the bureau creating the title sheet will add this item.

• Clearing and Grubbing: The field will send the quantity for this item directly to the designer. This
includes area and/or count quantities. This information may be sent any time after field exam and
prior to 12 weeks before letting.

• Construction Survey: The field should notify the designer when this item is required. The field
must notify the designer prior to 12 weeks before letting. This item should always be added to
incentive/disincentive projects. The field must send a copy of the request to the Construction and
Materials Bureau. This item shall be included for all projects involving new and replacement
structures (culvert and bridge), deck replacements, and widenings. This item is typically not
included for deck overlay projects or other project types, however, there may be exceptions in
special circumstances.

• Quality Management - Asphalt (QM-A): The Construction and Materials Bureau will notify the
designer when this item is required.

• Railroad Liability Insurance: Upon review of the project concept, the Rail Transportation Bureau
will update PPMS indicating if there will be railroad involvement. If a railroad is involved the lead
Bureau will add this item.

The Excavation Classification Line elevation, which is used for calculating structural excavation quantities
and sets the limits between Class 20 Excavation and Class 21 Excavation, shall be determined as
follows.
(1) On the bridge TS&L sheet prepared by the Preliminary Bridge Design Unit the designer should
find the average low water elevation and average design streambed elevation.
(2) Determine the elevation of the Excavation Classification Line as the higher of (a) the average low
water elevation and (b) the average design stream bed elevation plus one foot.

The method of measurement for structural excavation quantities may be found in IDOT SS 2402.04. The
vertical plane boundary dimensions for Class 21 Excavation are not explicitly defined in the
Specifications, but are to be indicated in the contract documents per IDOT SS 2402.04, A, 3. Designers
shall ordinarily determine quantities for Class 21 Excavation based on the same vertical plane boundary
dimensions used for Class 20 Excavation [e.g. IDOT SS 2402.04, B, 2]. The boundaries assumed for
Class 21 Excavation shall be indicated in the contract documents, preferably by note in the Bid Item
Estimate Reference Information.

1.8.2.2 General notes

Reserved.

1.8.3 Situation plan

See the information provided for preliminary designers in the Preliminary section [BDM 3.2.9] and see
Bridge Plan Review Checklist: 4. Situation Plan.

See the information provided for preliminary and final designers in BDM C3.3.4 with respect to additional
situation plan requirements for overpass projects involving the BNSF and UP railroads.

BDM 3.7.3.3 and 3.7.3.4 describes the requirements for the development of the berm slope location table
(BSLT) and the recoverable berm location table (RBLT) as prepared by the Preliminary Design Unit. The
bench at the top of the berm slope is typically set at 3 feet wide and 2 feet above the bottom of the
abutment footings. The location and elevation of the abutment footing may vary somewhat between
preliminary and final design as the bridge design is refined. The berm terrain model developed by
Preliminary Design does not typically need to be updated by Final Design if the elevation of the abutment
footing is only adjusted by ±6 inches or, alternatively, if the abutment centerline station changes by ±18”.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 17

The designer should consult with the supervising Unit Leader to determine whether an adjustment to the
berm terrain is desirable if these limits are exceeded. If an adjustment to the berm terrain model is
deemed appropriate the Final Design Unit shall make the adjustments to the Situation Plan and the
corresponding tables.

1.8.4 Staking coordinates and staking diagram

Substructure staking coordinates shall be provided in an E-file (BDM 1.14.1) and in a table in the plan set
for all new and replacement bridges. Typically, the Iowa Regional Coordinate System (IaRCS) zone in
which the structure resides will be the substructure staking coordinate system used. The survey
documentation file should list the coordinate system assigned to each project. Substructure staking
coordinates are formatted as X (Easting) and Y (Northing). Three sets of coordinates shall be provided for
each substructure unit. The coordinates shall be taken along the centerline of a substructure unit at the
centerline of approach roadway and each edge of the deck. Instructions for producing substructure
staking coordinates can be found at
https://iowadot.gov/bridge/tools/Bridge%20Staking%20Data%20Instructions.pdf.

The designer shall provide a staking diagram for the following types of bridge projects:
• Dual bridges on interstate or other four-lane primary roads,
• Bridges with special widths for climbing lanes, sidewalks, or shared use paths,
• Tapered bridges,
• Other straight bridges for which “centerline of approach roadway” does not coincide with
centerline of bridge roadway, and
• Bridges along curved alignments.

For straight bridges the “centerline of approach roadway” is the primary staking control. To avoid
confusion, the centerline of bridge roadway shall not be shown on the staking plan. The designer should
designate the bridge centerline as “centerline of bridge” and dimension the offset from “centerline of
approach roadway”. The designer may show the “centerline of profile grade” but shall not reference it to
“centerline of approach roadway”.

For horizontally curved bridges the primary control line is a chord baseline defined at each end by the
intersection of the centerline of the abutment and centerline of approach roadway or approach baseline.

The staking diagram should show dimensions from “centerline survey” or “centerline approach roadway”
to the following:
• Centerline of abutment footings and pier footings,
• Outside limits of abutment footings,
• Gutterline location at abutments, and
• Centerline of P10L pier locations.

The designer also shall show non-zero skew angles of abutments and piers.

See also Bridge Plan Review Checklist: 5. Staking Diagram – New Construction.

1.8.5 Substructure general

See Bridge Plan Review Checklist: 6. Substructure – General – New Construction.

1.8.6 Pier details

See the detailing information provided for final designers in the Piers section [BDM 6.6.4] and see Bridge
Plan Review Checklist: 7. Pier Details – New Construction.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 18

1.8.7 Abutment details

See the detailing information provided for final designers in the Abutments section [BDM 6.5.4] and see
Bridge Plan Review Checklist: 8. Abutment Details – New Construction.

1.8.8 Superstructure general

See Bridge Plan Review Checklist: 9. Superstructure Details – General – New Construction.

1.8.8.1 CWPG
See the detailing information provided for final designers in the Steel Girders and Beams section [BDM
5.5.1.4.2] and see Bridge Plan Review Checklist: 10. Superstructure Details – CWPG – New
Construction.

1.8.8.2 PPCB
See the detailing information provided for final designers in the Pretensioned Prestressed Concrete
Beams section [BDM 5.4.1.4.2] and see Bridge Plan Review Checklist: 11. Superstructure Details –
PPCB – New Construction.

1.8.9 Repair/overlay details

See the information provided for final designers in the Bridge and Culvert Repair section [BDM 12.1.9.1]
and see Bridge Plan Review Checklist: 12. Details – Repair/Overlay Projects.

1.8.10 Miscellaneous details

Reserved.

1.8.10.1 Barrier rails

See the information provided for final designers in the Railings section [BDM 5.8.1] and see Bridge Plan
Review Checklist: 13. Barrier Rail.

1.8.10.2 Expansion devices

See the information provided for final designers in the Expansion Joints section [BDM 5.8.3] and see
Bridge Plan Review Checklist: 14. Expansion Device.

1.8.10.3 Subdrains
See Bridge Plan Review Checklist: 15 Subdrain/Slope Protection Details.

1.8.10.4 Slope protection

See Bridge Plan Review Checklist: 15 Subdrain/Slope Protection Details.

1.8.10.5 Lighting
See Bridge Plan Review Checklist: 16. Lighting Details.

1.8.10.6 Approach sidewalk

See Bridge Plan Review Checklist: 18. Approach Sidewalk.

1.8.10.7 Other
Reserved.

1.8.11 Aesthetics
See Bridge Plan Review Checklist: 17. Aesthetics.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 19

1.8.12 Soils sheets

For bridge and culvert projects one or more soil profile sheets will be provided by the Soils Design Unit of
the Design Bureau, and any additional sheets should be placed in the plan set after the last structural
design sheet.

1.8.13 Roadway plans

For a typical bridge or culvert project one or more roadway sheets will be provided by the Design Bureau.
If needed the roadway sheets will include the traffic control plan. The first roadway sheet will have an
engineer’s seal-certification-signature block for the roadway design, and the sheet and any additional
sheets should be placed in the plan set after the last geotechnical design sheet.

See also Bridge Plan Review Checklist: 19. Roadway Plans.

1.8.14 Signed standard plans

Projects that include signed standard plans (J-series, H-series, RS-series, single RCBC, twin RCBC,
triple RCBC, flume box culvert, overhead sign truss, and roadside dynamic message sign support
standards), shall include the signed sheets, referenced on the Title Sheet in the English Standard Bridge
Plans table, in a multi-page PDF file to a subfolder in the Contracts plan turn-in folder.

1.9 Culvert plan preparation

Although plans for a culvert are prepared by the Bridges and Structures Bureau or consultants to the
Bureau, the plans must be coordinated with other bureaus associated with the project. The culvert will be
part of a highway project and thus the culvert plans must fit with plans prepared by the Design Bureau or
consultants to that bureau. When complete the culvert plans are turned-in to the Contracts and
Specifications Bureau and must meet its requirements.

Culvert plans follow standard formats, and the design technician is required to start with the Bureau’s
CADD seed files at: https://iowadot.gov/bridge/tools/CONNECT%20Seed%20Files.pdf. Additional
resources covering topics such as models, fonts, levels, and features are available on the CONNECT
Applications webpage.

Also, the CONNECT Applications webpage includes instructions for various workflow topics such as:
• RCB Culvert Design Workflow,
• Project folder structure in ProjectWise,
• Consultant project folder structure in ProjectWise, and
• Using V8i Standards in CONNECT.

Many of the detailed items on culvert plans, such as title block and location map, are covered in the
Culvert Plan Review Checklist on the Bridge and Culvert Plan Checklist page
(https://iowadot.gov/bridge/Design-Policies/Bridge-and-Culvert-Plan-Checklist). For general plan items
see Culvert Plan Review Checklist: 1. General – All Projects.

Generally, culvert plans are organized in the sequence indicated in the sub-articles that follow.

1.9.1 Title sheet

See the discussions of engineers’ seals and traffic data for bridge projects [BDM 1.8.1.1 and 1.8.1.2] and
Culvert Plan Review Checklist: 2. Title Sheet – All Projects.

1.9.2 First sheet

See the discussion of quantities [BDM 1.8.2.1] and Culvert Plan Review Checklist: 3. First Sheet of
Design – All Projects.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 20

1.9.3 Situation plan

See Culvert Plan Review Checklist: 4. Situation Plan.

1.9.4 Repair/extension project details

See Culvert Plan Review Checklist: 5. Details – Repair/Extension Projects.

1.9.5 Reinforced concrete

See Culvert Plan Review Checklist: 6. RCB Culverts.

1.9.6 Roadway plans

See Culvert Plan Review Checklist: 7. Roadway Plans.

1.9.7 Signed standard plans

Projects that include signed standard plans (J-series, H-series, RS-series, single RCBC, twin RCBC,
triple RCBC, flume box culvert, overhead sign truss, and roadside dynamic message sign support
standards), shall include the signed sheets, referenced on the Title Sheet in the English Standard Culvert
Plans table, in a multi-page PDF file to a subfolder in the Contracts plan turn-in folder.

1.10 Sign support structure plan preparation

Projects that include overhead bridge-type sign truss standard (SOST-11) sheets, overhead cantilever-
type sign truss standard (SCST-17) sheets, and roadside dynamic message sign support standard
(RDMS-13) sheets typically reference the applicable signed standard sheets in a tabulation on plans
developed by the Traffic and Safety Bureau. Review of standard sign support structure designs by the
Bridges and Structures Bureau for specific Traffic and Safety Bureau projects is required if any of the
design parameters (e.g., maximum sign height, maximum total sign area, horizontal and vertical sign
offset) exceeds the allowable values shown on the signed standard sheets.

When design plans for custom sign support structures are prepared by the Bridges and Structures
Bureau or consultants to the Bureau, the plans must be coordinated with the Traffic and Safety Bureau.
The sign support structures will be part of a traffic signing project and thus the sign support structure
plans must fit with plans prepared by the Traffic and Safety Bureau or consultants to that bureau. When
complete, the sign support structure plans are turned-in to the Contracts and Specifications Bureau and
must meet its requirements.

1.11 Quality Control/Quality Assurance Plan

The Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC/QA) Plan describes the methodology and procedures by
which the Iowa DOT ensures in-house produced new bridge designs are in accordance with nationally
recognized design policies, are independently checked, and are reviewed. The QC/QA Plan will
document the checking and review process and produce a verifiable record [BDM 1.11.5, C1.11.5] to
show that the QC/QA process was followed during the project. The QC/QA process enhances plan quality
by doing the following:
• Providing uniformity and consistency in the development of plans,
• Ensuring compliance with Iowa DOT policies, procedures, and standards,
• Minimizing plan errors and discrepancies,
• Ensuring proper coordination between other partners in the design process,
• Minimizing plan changes after project is turned-in to the Contracts and Specifications Bureau, and
• Improving project constructability and bid ability.

1.11.1 Design team

The Design Team typically consists of a designer, design technician, checker, and Transportation
Engineer Manager (TEM). The engineer of record (EOR) will be a licensed Professional Engineer in the

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 21

State of Iowa and will sign the design plan documents. The preference would be to have the designer as
the EOR; however, the EOR could be the designer, checker, or TEM depending on the makeup and
qualifications of the team members. The Design Team makeup is at the discretion of the TEM based on
project complexity, design elements, and use of pre-engineered standards. This discretion relates directly
to the risk involved in errors associated with various aspects of the design plan.

1.11.2 Plan preparation tools

Design plans shall be developed in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
and the Iowa DOT Bridge Design Manual (BDM). The BDM consists of standard design practices
approved by the bridge engineering staff for use in design plan preparation. The BDM is maintained by
the Methods Unit and Policy Group who meet periodically to discuss design issues and document Bureau
policy for use by in-house staff and consultants. In addition the BDM provides a listing of notes, along with
commentary, which can be incorporated into the final design plans.

Other items available to the designer and design technician to aid in the plan development are Standard
Plan Sheets, Signed Standard Plans, and plan development check lists [BDM 1.8]. The designer must
also be aware of the requirements documented in the Iowa DOT Standard Specifications for Highway and
Bridge Construction, Developmental Specifications, Special Provisions, checklists, Design Manual
developed by the Design Bureau, Construction Manual developed by the Construction and Materials
Bureau, and the Instructional Memorandums (IM) developed by the Construction and Materials Bureau.

The Bureau maintains locally developed spreadsheets for use in design [BDM 1.13] as well as libraries
and automation tools for use with MicroStation [BDM 1.8]. The Bureau also maintains licenses for
commercial bridge design software packages [BDM 1.13].

1.11.3 Quality control

Quality control is the responsibility of the designer, design technician, and checker. These project team
members shall use the tools noted above to develop a project design plan. Responsibility of each team
member is listed below. Team members shall work independently to perform their roles and then
communicate/discuss issues based on their understanding of the Bureau policy in order to arrive at a
mutually acceptable design. Discussions may involve the Bridge Engineer, Bridge Project Development
Engineer, Chief Structural Engineer, Methods Engineer, Transportation Engineer Manager, or other key
staff in the Bridges and Structures Bureau. Resolution of design issues should be documented in the
engineer’s design calculations and checklists.

1.11.3.1 Designer
The designer will be responsible for development and assembly of the structure plans. This includes
listening to the concerns of the design technician and checker involving perceived problems with the
plans and making decisions as to the appropriateness of the concerns. If the designer is not the EOR, or
the QA review identifies issues for resolution, the final decision could be made by others associated with
the project. Steps in the project development process include:
• Verify the type, size, location, grade, and geometrics of the proposed structure in order to confirm
correct clearances, span arrangements, and proposed structure type.
• Identify Standard Plan details and appropriate Signed Design Standards to be used in the design
plan.
• Review the BDM and all related specifications pertaining to the type of structure being built.
• Design all structural components, or use appropriate standards and provide information
concerning special details needed for the structure to adequately relay the conceived design to
the detailer. Documentation of all computations including computer generated data shall be
available for the file.
• Specify all components by size and material.
• Review all sheets submitted by other bureaus for inclusion into the final project plans.
• Finalize plans by verifying details and notes.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 22

Optional information to be provided by the designer:

• Calculate all quantities. Documentation of all computations including computer generated data
shall be available for the file.
• Provide sketches and notes needed for the proposed structure.
• Fill in all missing data on applicable Standard Plan sheets.

1.11.3.2 Design technician

The design technician will be responsible for verifying the application of proposed components of the
plan. This includes bringing perceived errors and omissions to the attention of the designer and the
following:
• Review the type, size, location, grade and geometrics of the proposed structure to understand the
aspects of the project.
• Compile all necessary notes, Standard Design sheets, and additional special details needed to
assemble a set of design plans.
• Detail the proposed structure by typing or importing any nonstandard notes, attaching the related
standard notes, completing the Standard Design sheets, and adding additional special detail
sheets as the project requires [BDM 1.8].
• Calculate or verify elevations. Calculate the rebar number, weights/mass, and lengths based on
given splices or development lengths.

Optional information to be provided by the design technician:

• Develop the notes and special details needed to complete a set of design plans based on verbal
communication from the designer.
• Calculate bid item quantities. Documentation will be available for the file.

1.11.3.3 Checker
The checker will be responsible for adequacy of all structural components and overall plan intent. This
includes making the designer and design technician aware of perceived problems in the design plans and
the following:
• Review the design plans for completeness, consistency, and constructability according to
standard design, detailing, and construction practice.
• Review the BDM and all related specifications pertaining to the type of structure being built.
• Analyze all structural components to verify the proposed structure is properly designed. Analysis
shall be performed independently of any design calculations prepared during the initial design.
Original design assumptions can be supplied by the designer however the checker will make an
independent decision concerning the validity of the design assumptions. Documentation of all
computations including computer generated data shall be available for the file.
• Verify all components by size and material.
• Verify all notes and specifications.

Optional information to be provided by the checker:

• Calculate all bid item quantities. Documentation shall be available for the file.

1.11.4 Project documentation

The Bridges and Structures Bureau is moving to an entirely electronic (i.e. paperless) system with respect
to all project documentation. The older system which involved storing material in yellow manila paper file
envelopes is no longer being supported. Additional information about electronic storage locations and
Asset ID generation is found in BDM C1.11.4.

Projects in the Bridges and Structures Bureau typically are identified with a project file number, design
number, program improvement number (PIN), and a project number. These numbers are assigned during
the preliminary engineering process.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 23

All projects involve assets such as bridges, bridge-size culverts, culverts, sign trusses, noise walls, etc.
Every asset will be assigned an Asset ID in the Road Asset Management System (RAMS) when a project
is initiated if an Asset ID does not already exist. FHWA numbers are used as Asset IDs for bridges and
bridge-size culverts. Other structure types utilize Asset IDs as described in supplementary documentation
which is currently under development. All Asset IDs generated in RAMS will be available in the Structure
Inventory and Inspection Management System (SIIMS). All assets in SIIMS will be linked to an Asset ID
subfolder in the ProjectWise document management system. (There is no need to place duplicate files in
SIIMS if they are already contained under the Asset ID subfolder in ProjectWise since the information will
be linked to SIIMS.) An Asset ID subfolder will be created in ProjectWise when a project is initiated if an
Asset ID subfolder does not already exist. Each new project for an asset will have a phase number
subfolder under the Asset ID subfolder for that asset. Each phase number subfolder will have additional
subfolders for various project documentation such as design plans, as-built plans, file envelope
correspondence, load rating information, pile logs, shop drawings, falsework plans, erection plans, etc. All
the information in these subfolders will be automatically transferred for storage in the Electronic Records
Management System (ERMS) at project completion.

The File Envelope Correspondence subfolder in ProjectWise should contain the following information
(previously placed in the yellow manila paper file envelopes), as applicable:
• Project concept
• Structure type, size, and location (TS&L)
• Preliminary project cost
• Design Criteria sheet
• Design calculations
• Environmental documentation
• FHWA clearances
• Project correspondence

The following checklists are provided for review of bridge and culvert designs prepared by consulting
engineers and by Bureau staff (available on the Internet at https://iowadot.gov/bridge/Design-
Policies/Bridge-and-Culvert-Plan-Checklist):
• Bridge Plan Review Checklist
• Culvert Plan Review Checklist
• CADD Review Checklist

The EOR will be responsible for maintaining and submitting a complete project design file upon
completion of the design process. This information along with the contract design plans and specifications
will be submitted to the TEM for final review and submittal to the Contracts and Specifications Bureau for
letting.

The EOR shall place their entire final set of design calculations in the appropriate subfolder in
ProjectWise. The design calculations shall, at a minimum, include all structural calculations which may
involve software input files, software output files, spreadsheets, and hand calculations. Designers may,
but are not required to, include non-structural calculations such as quantity calculations and elevation
calculations. In general, designers should avoid placing intermediate or iterative sets of design
calculations in this subfolder in order to avoid clutter. Designers shall include a title page document which
describes the files being stored in the subfolder. The title page also shall include the information shown in
BDM C1.11.5. Files generally shall be stored with descriptive file names. Projects which do not involve
structural design calculations need not include any calculations in the subfolder.

1.11.5 Quality assurance

Upon project assignment to the TEM for final design, the manager shall select a Design Team to prepare
the final contract documentation for letting. The Design Team members will be assigned based on
complexity of the project, member experience, and available staffing. The TEM will be responsible for
mediating and resolving issues presented by team members for resolution. The TEM shall be made

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 24

aware of and concur with all instances where the design deviates from approved Bureau standards and
policies.

Upon completion of the project and presentation to the TEM for submittal to the Contracts and
Specifications Bureau for letting, the TEM shall review the file documentation for completeness and
review the plans for overall conformance to Bureau policy. The project plans will then be distributed to
other Iowa DOT bureaus, the appropriate district, and the FHWA (when required) for comment. Any
comments received shall be reviewed with the EOR for necessary changes to the plan.

The TEM will review the Quality Control/Quality Assurance Record [BDM C1.11.5] stored by the EOR as
a title page document as described in BDM 1.11.4. This record shall include the basic project information
along with the signatures of the project designer, design technician, checker, and TEM.

The TEM shall then submit the final plans and specifications to the Contracts and Specifications Bureau.

1.11.6 Post-letting involvement

After letting, a member of the Design Team will be responsible for the review on any working drawings
required for the project [BDM 1.17]. In addition, any structural design issues will be directed to the Design
Team by the Construction and Materials Bureau for resolution.

On occasion, the Design Team members will conduct field reviews for observation and discussion of
specific design/construction issues. Information gathered during these reviews that highlights
inconsistencies with current bridge design policy will be documented and shared with the Bridge Methods
Engineer for resolution of policy issues.

If revisions to the design plans are required after the letting due to a change in site conditions assumed in
the design preparation or an error found in the original design plans, the Design Team will develop a
formal revision to the design plans. Documentation of the revision shall be in accordance with current
policy for issuing plan revisions. The EOR (if available) will be responsible for the revision documentation
and placing it in ProjectWise. The TEM and EOR will be responsible for noting these revisions on the
Quality Control/Quality Assurance Record. In addition, revision documentation will be sent to the FHWA
when applicable.

1.12 Cost estimates

Final designers in the Bureau and consulting designers shall prepare construction cost estimates as
follows.
(1) Verification of preliminary bridge costs (B01 preliminary design cost estimate) based on concept
information. For a project with a consultant engineer this verification is performed by the BSB
Consultant Coordination Unit.
(2) Concept (B00) Estimate - Cost estimate for projects where Final Design writes the project
concept (e.g. overlays, MB and bridge repair projects).
(3) 50 Percent Plans Estimate - Update bridge and large project ($500,000 or more) construction
costs based on rough bid item quantities after completion of design and before final detailing and
checking is complete.
(4) B03 or B04 Estimate - Update of design costs based on final bid item quantities prior to final plan
turn-in.
(5) Annual Estimate - Upon request from the supervising Unit Leader, perform a cost estimate if the
existing cost estimate is greater than 6 months old for project programming review purposes.

B00 and B01 cost estimates are typically parametric costs estimates based on the design parameters
(e.g. unit cost per square foot of deck area for a particular bridge type). 50 percent plans, B03 and B04
cost estimates are bid-item based estimates.

Currently the Iowa DOT is operating both in PPMS and in iPDWeb. The highway program is being
managed using PPMS. Because of this the following approach for cost estimating is required:

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 25

• Estimate construction cost in iPDWeb (present day dollars). Account for all anticipated costs with
one or more of the following: bid items, parametric items, and percent based bid items.
Instructions for accessing and using the iPD software are available at
https://iowadot.gov/bridge/programs/iPDWeb%20Project%20Cost%20Estimating%20for%20OBS
.pdf. Consult BDM 3.8 and 4.5.11 for additional guidance on B00 and B01 cost estimates for
bridges and culverts, respectively.
• Enter the cost developed from iPDWeb into PPMS. The Consultant Coordination Unit will enter
iPDWeb costs into PPMS for consultants. Choose the programmed fiscal year for the project in
PPMS. PPMS will automatically apply a 4.5 percent inflation rate per year. Enter contingency into
PPMS per the rubric in BDM 3.8 and 4.5.11.

The designer shall report the cost estimates to the supervising Unit Leader, who will compare each
estimate with previous estimates in PPMS.

1.13 Software
Some of the software used by the Iowa DOT to design bridges and culverts and to prepare plans is
available through the Automation Tools section of the Bridges and Structures Bureau web site
(https://iowadot.gov/bridge). The Bridge Information System (BRIS) application, which can only be
accessed by Iowa DOT employees, is available on the Iowa DOT website at
(https://secure.iowadot.gov/bris/). Commercial software also is installed separately on workstations or is
available through a network shortcut under license agreements. Engineering consultants are responsible
for downloading Iowa DOT software and obtaining licenses for commercial software as needed.

The Iowa DOT requires that all plans be prepared with MicroStation software. Additionally, the Highway
Administration has agreed-upon CADD standards (fonts, seed files, level attributes, libraries, and other
standards) for use of the software. The Bridges and Structures Bureau rules for applying these standards
are given in the files hyperlinked on the Bureau’s web site CONNECT Applications documentation page
(https://iowadot.gov/bridge/Automation-Tools/CONNECT-Applications). The designer and design
technician should consult the page for all information regarding the use of MicroStation.

For projects that involve repair, extending, widening, demolition, or other work involving existing
structures, the designer needs access to inspection reports and other information about the structures.
This information is available through SIIMS, for which the user needs an Enterprise A&A (“A&A” =
“Authentication and Authorization”) account. Bureau personnel automatically have an account, but
engineering consultants must obtain an account through the instructions given on the main page of the
application (https://siims.iowadot.gov/default.aspx).

Hydraulic design programs developed by the Bureau are available from the Preliminary Design software
web page (https://iowadot.gov/bridge/Automation-Tools/Preliminary-Design-Software).

BRIS is an Oracle database program with a web-based user input interface, which houses an inventory of
bridge project work that can be queried. The primary benefit of BRIS for many designers and detailers is
the ability to search for previously designed bridges, culverts, and other highway structures so that
standard Bureau practices are followed and details are reutilized effectively. The designer is required to
enter the BRIS data for a project with an assigned design number when design is completed. Data
collection information is given in the BRIS Manual accessible from the start-up page for the program.

Final design software developed by the Bureau is available from the Final Design software web page
(https://iowadot.gov/bridge/Automation-Tools/Final-Design-Software).

BIAS 2000 is software for consultant use developed by the Iowa DOT for contracting state and local
projects.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 26

1.14 Plan turn-in

A list of critical dates associated with each contract letting other than dates for the FHWA review submittal
and D04 event is maintained by the Contracts and Specifications Bureau
(https://iowadot.gov/contracts/lettings/CRITDATE.pdf?ver=2018-01-25-141506-297). The plan turn-in
date for a specific project is established in the Bureau by the Bridge Project Development Engineer and
by design contract with engineering consultants. On or before that date the following are to be submitted
to the Contracts and Specifications Bureau.
• Completed project plan set (pdf),
• Standard Plans (pdf) when applicable,
• Non-contract E-files when applicable
• Completed bid item list in PPMS and
• Final cost estimates for both Bridge and Roadway items in PDF format from iPDWeb. At plan
turn-in or the B04 event, the BSB Final Design Unit or Consultant Coordination Unit reviewer shall
copy the file to the appropriate letting subfolder at this location
W:\Highway\Contracts\CostEstimates. The file naming convention is “Contract ID_DesignEvent
Cost Estimate.pdf” (e.g., 50-0144-067_B03 Cost Estimate.pdf).

Plans for FHWA oversight projects are to be sent to the Iowa office of the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) for review. Final or 100 percent unapproved plans for review should be sent to FHWA 3 to 6
weeks before the Contracts and Specifications Bureau’s turn-in date. The 3 to 6-week period allows
FHWA personnel to return comments to be addressed before turn-in.

The project plan set may include both grayscale and color multi-page PDF files, as well as a multi-page
cross section PDF file. The Design Bureau Design Manual gives the latest detailed instructions for
preparing the project plan set [DB DM 1H-1 and 21E-4].

Any Special Provisions (.doc or .docx) required by the plan set are to be submitted to the Specifications
Section. All applicable Developmental Specifications and Special Provisions for the project shall be
applied in PPMS prior to plan turn-in.

Consultants are required to submit the items listed above to the Bridges and Structures Bureau for review
2 weeks before plan turn-in as discussed in Conducting Business with the Iowa DOT Bridges and
Structures Bureau [BDM 1.4].

The Contracts and Specifications Bureau reviews the proposed contract documents and may ask for
revised plan sheets. After the review and any changes, the Bridges and Structures Bureau updates the
final MicroStation CADD file and PDF plan set.

The supervising Unit Leader or appointed Consultant Reviewer is responsible for the following at or
before plan turn-in:
• Turning in the final BSB combined multi-page PDF plan set to the Contracts and Specifications
Bureau.
• Verifying that the final BSB combined multi-page PDF plan set contains the appropriate PDF files
from the Design Bureau including the Soils Design Unit.
• Copying the combined multi-page PDF plan set to the Contracts plan turn-in folder.
• Copying a separate multi-page PDF file containing any signed sheets or standard plans
referenced on the design plan set title sheet into a subfolder in the Contracts plan turn-in folder.
• Marking the Cost Estimate complete in iPDWeb.
• Copying the final cost estimates for Bridge and Design into the Contracts cost estimate folder.
• Requesting in PPMS the use of applicable Developmental Specifications and Special Provisions.
• Inputting the B03 or B04 date, project coordinates, and cost estimates into PPMS.

The sub-articles below describe the items that shall be completed by the designer in the weeks leading
up to plan turn-in. The Design Team is responsible for the completion of all items in the sub-articles.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 27

1.14.1 E-file submittals

The following E-file submittals are required when appropriate:
• Bridge and culvert repairs
o Existing plans
o Signed standards
• RCB culverts
o Existing culvert plans
o Signed culvert standards
• CCS bridges
o Existing bridge plans
o Signed bridge standards
o Top-of-slab elevations spreadsheet
o Substructure staking coordinates
• PPCB bridges
o Existing bridge plans
o Signed bridge standards
o Top-of-deck elevations spreadsheet
o Bridge deck grade adjustment spreadsheet
o PPC beam data spreadsheet
o Substructure staking coordinates
• Steel girder bridges
o Existing bridge plans
o Signed bridge standards
o Top-of-deck elevations spreadsheet
o Bridge deck grade adjustment spreadsheet
o Substructure staking coordinates

The file naming convention for Microstation V8 E-files can be found at

https://iowadot.gov/bridge/automation-tools/microstation-documentation in the “Folder Structure” and
“Consultant Folder Structure” documents. The file naming convention for MicroStation CONNECT E-files
can be found at https://iowadot.gov/bridge/Automation-Tools/CONNECT-Applications in the “Folder
Structure” and “Consultant Folder Structure” documents.

Substructure staking coordinates and the instructions for producing them are discussed more fully in BDM
1.8.4 and at https://iowadot.gov/bridge/tools/Bridge%20Staking%20Data%20Instructions.pdf.

1.14.2 Plan coordination

For bridge replacement projects the Design Bureau has prepared a flow chart for its work that includes
the defined events in the design process and plan turn-in [DB DM 1D-1]. The flow chart and its associated
task lists indicate what the bridge designer can expect from the Design Bureau when the Bridges and
Structures Bureau has the lead for a project.

When the Bridges and Structures Bureau does not have the lead, plans provided to another bureau, such
as retrofit rails for Design Bureau projects, need to be submitted by the scheduled B04 event date. When
the Bridges and Structures Bureau does have the lead it also can expect that plans from other bureaus,
such as the geotechnical design sheets and roadway design sheets, are available by the scheduled event
date (S04 and D04).

When receiving plan sheets from another bureau the Design Team shall, at a minimum, verify the
following:
• Every sheet has the project number and file number printed on it.
• The information on the plans is consistent with the BSB design plans.
• For plans that include approach pavement, the appropriate abutment designation (M for movable
and F for fixed) is indicated. Integral abutments and semi-integral abutments are considered

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 28

moveable because they will move against and away from the approach pavement when the
bridge expands and contracts. Stub abutments are considered fixed because the stub abutment
backwall does not move with respect to the expansion and contraction of the bridge.

For projects that are tied in the Contract letting process, the Design Team should work carefully with the
Design Bureau to coordinate the plan sets. Work items such as longitudinal grooving, guardrail, bridge
berm grading, culvert backfill, and the Prevention Pollution Plan are often located in a separate plan set
associated with the Project Contract and need to be tied with a plan note referencing the project number
of the other project.

1.14.3 Prior to plan turn-in

The Design Team is responsible for completing the following items a minimum of three weeks before plan
turn-in:
• Obtain the final D04 road sheets and S04 soil sheets for BSB led projects.
• For both review (i.e., 100 percent unapproved) and final plan sets, combine the PDF file(s) from
the Design Bureau (including the Soils Design Unit) with the BSB PDF file and place the
combined multi-page PDF file in the appropriate design event subfolder (e.g., B03, B04) under
the Design Events subfolder under the Bridge subfolder in the appropriate ProjectWise project
directory (e.g., pw:\\NTPwint1.dot.int.lan:PWMain\Documents\Projects\ProjectDirectory\Bridge\
Design Events\DesignEvent). Also place applicable standard plans and E-files in the appropriate
subfolders under the design event subfolder. The Unit Leader will route the review plans and final
plans to the appropriate bureau and district personnel.
• Complete the electronic BRIS form that is accessible at https://secure.iowadot.gov/bris/. This form
is initiated automatically at the B03 or B04 event date; therefore, the design engineer or
technician will wait until after plan turn-in to complete the BRIS form.
• Verify the Design Criteria sheet is complete for all new and replacement bridges. Place a copy in
the Final Design subfolder under the appropriate phase (i.e., project) subfolder under the
appropriate Asset ID subfolder in ProjectWise (e.g.,
pw:\\NTPwint1.dot.int.lan:PWMain\Documents\Highway\Bridge\Assets\Bridges and
Culverts\AssetID\Phase\File Envelope Correspondence\Final Design).
• Verify that PPMS bid items are complete [BDM 1.14.4].
• Verify that the Bridge 2000 documentation is completed for new and replacement bridges and
bridge-sized culverts.
• Create a Load Analysis and Rating System (LARS) input file for new and replacement bridges.
Place both the .txt and .xls versions of the LARS input file in the Load Rating subfolder under the
appropriate phase (i.e., project) subfolder under the appropriate Asset ID subfolder in
ProjectWise (e.g., pw:\\NTPwint1.dot.int.lan:PWMain\Documents\Highway\Bridge\Assets\Bridges
and Culverts\AssetID\Phase\Load Rating). Input file creation may be postponed if necessary, but
must be completed before the construction work is finished.
• For minor bridge repairs or rehabilitation projects (e.g., retrofit rails, deck overlays, and deck
replacements), email a link of the plan set to the Bridge Rating Engineer, to be used for
modification of the LARS file.
• For bridge repairs that modify the superstructure design (e.g., beam replacements or other major
bridge rehabilitation projects), create a new LARS input file and follow the procedure above
corresponding to new bridges.
• Complete the B03 or B04 cost estimate in iPDWeb and place a PDF report in the Cost Estimate
subfolder under the Contract ID subfolder under the design event subfolder under the Design
Events subfolder under the Bridge subfolder in the appropriate ProjectWise project directory (e.g.,
pw:\\NTPwint1.dot.int.lan:PWMain\Documents\Projects\ProjectDirectory\Bridge\Design Events\
DesignEvent\Contract ID\Cost Estimate).
• Fill out the Bridge Plan Review Checklist for bridges, the Culvert Plan Review Checklist for
culverts, and the CADD Review Checklist.
• Place all applicable E-files in the ContractID_eFiles_(Bridge) subfolder under the design event
subfolder under the Design Events subfolder under the Bridge subfolder in the appropriate

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 29

ProjectWise project directory (e.g., pw:\\NTPwint1.dot.int.lan:PWMain\Documents\Projects\

ProjectDirectory\Bridge\Design Events\DesignEvent\ContractID_eFiles_(Bridge)).
• If time permits, the design technician should complete maintenance sketches for new and
replacement bridges/bridge size culverts for review by the Assistant Maintenance Engineer.

1.14.4 PPMS bid items for plan turn-in

The BSB Design Team or appointed Consultant Reviewer are responsible for inputting the correct bid
items shown in the BSB project plans under the correct bid divisions. BSB staff can enter bid items into
PPMS. Where BSB is the lead bureau (B03 plans), bid items for sheets submitted to BSB by other
bureaus (Design Bureau or Districts) are to be input by those bureaus under separate division(s) after the
BSB bid division. For B04 plans, BSB should enter all bid items for the project under the BSB bid division
after the other divisions.

The Contracts and Specifications Bureau will use the PPMS bid items and quantities for the proposal;
therefore, it is critical that the bid divisions in PPMS are accurate. The lead bureau turning in the project
plans is responsible for ensuring all the bid item divisions are in the correct order by the day of plan turn-
in to the Contracts and Specifications Bureau.

1.15 Plan changes after plan turn-in

Although it is expected that most plan sets will be in final condition at turn-in, there are provisions for
changes. These procedures for making plan changes are listed and maintained by the Contracts and
Specifications Bureau in the document “Plan Changes and Addendums”.
(https:/iowadot.gov/contracts/electronicplanspecs/Plan_Changes_and_Addendums_Contracts.pdf )

1.15.1 Plan changes prior to advertising

The Contracts and Specifications Bureau accepts plan changes, without an addendum, just prior to the
time the project is advertised. This is typically two weeks after turn-in or an agreed upon timeframe. The
lead Bureau (Contracts Plan Submitter) that was responsible for plan turn-in shall also be responsible for
communicating the intent of the plan changes and submitting the plan changes to the Contracts and
Specifications Bureau.

1.15.2 Plan Changes after advertising - Addendum

After plans have been advertised, corrections to the plans require an addendum so that all project bidders
are informed of the changes. For an addendum, a request to issue an addendum must be sent to the
Contracts and Specifications Bureau proposal engineer. The Contracts and Specifications Bureau
decides whether the change or error correction warrants an addendum or a revision. Addendum requests
may also be originated by the Contracts and Specifications Bureau if an error correction or change is
required to let the project. If the designer of BSB is not the Contracts Plan Submitter, the designer who
submitted the plans must be notified and copied on the Addendum.

For addenda to plan sheets, add the BSB Microstation “BrgFinal” library “ADDENDUM” cell to the lower
right edge of the sheets that are affected by the change as shown below in the example.

1.16 Plan revisions

Following the project letting, plan revisions can be issued. Plan revision sheets shall show deletions
crossed-through and encircled by clouds. Changes and additions also shall be encircled by clouds, so
that the revisions are easy to see. Plan revisions should be coordinated with the Resident Construction
Engineer so the appropriate contract modification can be written if necessary.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 1: 30

Instructions for creating revision sheets in MicroStation are given on the V8 bridge documentation page
on the BSB web site (http://www.iowadot.gov/bridge/v8docs.htm).

1.17 Working drawing and calculation submittals

The Bureau reviews working drawing and calculation submittals to ensure that the structural adequacy of
the design is maintained as detailed on the original design drawings. For typical projects IDOT SS
1105.03 lists the required working drawing submittals. Recommended submittals for calculations are
listed in BDM Chapter 13 under CADD Note E65. CADD Note E65 also includes recommendations for
when certification by an Iowa P.E. should be required. The review of working drawings submitted by a
contractor covers only requirements for strength and arrangement of component parts and does not cover
bills of material. The extent of the working drawing and calculation review will vary with each design.
Review of calculations generally should be cursory in nature and only occasionally involve a more
detailed look at a particular item of interest. For complex designs the reviewer shall discuss in advance
the extent of the working drawing and calculation review with the supervising Unit Leader.

When reviewing shop drawings, the reviewer shall place a small red check mark next to all items verified
to be correct on the drawing and make any additions or corrections to the drawing in red. Scanned copies
of checked drawings shall be legible. To ensure legibility of the scanned copies, the reviewer shall not
use highlighters to check shop drawings.

Shop drawings for bridges with steel superstructures shall be reviewed according to the guidelines in the
Steel Girders and Beams section of this manual [BDM 5.5.1.4.3]. Steel girder erection submittals are
covered in more detail in BDM 5.5.1.4.4.

The Bureau also reviews shoring plans when such plans are required. In general a shoring plan review
follows the guidelines for shop drawing review.

1.18 Local systems review

Local Public Agency (LPA) structures shall be reviewed by the Bridges and Structures Bureau if the
structures are either on the National Highway System (NHS) or federally funded using non-standard
designs. LPA structures designated for review will need to go through either a cursory review or an in-
depth review. If the structure is on the NHS, then an in-depth review will be required. All other structures
will only require cursory reviews. In-depth reviews will generally be assigned to the Consultant
Coordination Unit. In rare cases, the Final Design Units may be assigned in-depth reviews. In-depth
reviews shall use the Bridge Checklist. Cursory reviews will be assigned to the Final Design Units and
checked using the LPA Cursory Review Items for Bridge and Culvert Plans as listed in the commentary of
this section.

The review engineer is responsible for completing the review in conformance with the Instructional
Memorandum for LPA Bridge or Culvert Plans, I.M. 3.500. The review engineer shall return the cursory
review comments or in-depth check plans to the LPA in accordance with the memorandum.

Links to NHS:
http://www.iowadot.gov/systems_planning/pdf/nhs_map.pdf
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system

Link to Bridge Plan Review Checklist, Culvert Plan Review Checklist, and CADD Review Checklist:
https://iowadot.gov/bridge/Design-Policies/Bridge-and-Culvert-Plan-Checklist

Link to Instructional Memorandum for LPA Check and Final Bridge or Culvert Plans, I.M. 3.500:
https://www.iowadot.gov/local_systems/publications/im/3500.pdf

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL COMMENTARY ~ C1: 1

C1 General Design

C1.11.4 Project documentation

The following outlines in more detail the electronic storage location for project documentation.

ProjectWise folder structure:

• ProjectWise Explorer Datasources\PWMain\Documents\Highway\Bridge\Assets
• Under the Assets subfolder are the Bridge-mounted Sign Support Structures, Bridges
and Culverts, Highmast Lighting Towers, Mast Arm Structures, Overhead Sign Support
Structures and Tunnels subfolders. The electronic file envelope information will be
stored under the Asset ID subfolder by the Phase Number as shown below. Future
projects will be stored under the same Asset ID subfolder with a new Phase Number.

ERMS will copy out of ProjectWise the contents of the File Envelope Correspondence subfolder
under these three categories: Preliminary Design, Final Design and Post Letting.

The Preliminary Design Unit shall place project correspondence and concepts in the
ProjectWise Preliminary Design subfolder.
The Final Design Units and Consultant Coordination Unit shall place email correspondence,
project plans for letting (including addenda, special provisions, and standards), shop drawings,
plan revisions, design calculations, and documentation related to the design decisions into the
ProjectWise Final Design subfolder. Staking e-files and other construction e-files are not
required in the Asset ID subfolder.
• Project plans with multiple design numbers for different Assets IDs shall have plan
sheets split apart to file for the corresponding assets. Geotechnical (soils design) sheets
must be included if part of the letting plan set.
• Roadway sheets, roadside sheets, and cross sections shall be included with the project
plans if total plan sheets are less than 100 sheets. If total plan sheets are over 100
sheets, include only the main road and roadside sheets and exclude the cross-section
sheets (X, W, etc.)

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL COMMENTARY ~ C1: 2

• For design calculations, the files shall be organized and labeled appropriately to reflect
the component designed and software application used (e.g. LRFD Footing Design_Pier
3_Column 1.xlsb). PDF output files should be included for structural design results from
commercial software when designing for strength or service limit states (e.g. RC-Pier
output files). Excel and Mathcad files are acceptable files to be stored.
• Plan revisions are documents that occur post letting but shall be included in the Final
Design subfolder.
The ProjectWise Post Letting subfolder will hold correspondence received after the letting
associated with design inquiries and construction issues. Final Design Units and the Consultant
Coordination Unit place all documentation in the Post Letting subfolder in addition to the Final
Design subfolder.
Requesting an Asset ID subfolder in ProjectWise

For new or replacement structures or revetment projects, the Preliminary Design Unit Leader or
designated designer shall submit a request to the Automation Engineer for the Asset ID
subfolder be created in ProjectWise if it does not exist.

For repair and rehabilitation projects, the assigned Final Design Unit Leader or Consultant
Coordination Unit reviewer shall submit a request to the Automation Engineer for the Asset ID
subfolder be created in ProjectWise if it does not exist.

Printing from Outlook into Windows File Explorer (recommended)

The items saved in the electronic subfolders are the same items that in the past would have
been printed and saved in a yellow manila paper file envelope. Create a folder structure to print
digital copies of correspondence. A sample folder structure is shown below but you can use any
structure that works for you. For a project, a copy of the file envelope documents will need to be
saved for each asset.

There are several ways to print PDF digital copies of Outlook emails. One method is shown in
the following figure. After creating a subfolder to store the PDF files, open the first email to be
saved and digitally print to a PDF as shown in the first image. You will be asked to save the file
after clicking the ”Print” button. Use a file name that will identify the project and asset. Consider
using the Asset ID in the file name.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL COMMENTARY ~ C1: 3

After you digitally print the first PDF file, you can use a feature to append additional
correspondence. Right click on a displayed email message and a drop-down menu will give you
the option to “Append to Adobe PDF”. Once you select “Append to Adobe PDF”, you will
navigate to the original PDF to add the new correspondence. After you click the ”Open” button,
the email will be converted into a PDF and become attached to the end of the existing PDF
digital print.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL COMMENTARY ~ C1: 4

For emails with attachments, save the attachment files in File Explorer. Combine the files by
selecting the ones in File Explorer that you want to combine, right click, and then select
“Combine files in Acrobat”. Click on the blue ”Combine” button and the files will open as a
combined PDF file with a generic name (e.g. “Binder-1”).

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL COMMENTARY ~ C1: 5

After the PDF opens and you have verified that the original files have been combined, save the
combined PDF file with an appropriate name (e.g. the name of one of the original attachment
files).

After saving the combined PDF containing the converted attachment files and appending the
combined PDF to the PDF digital print of email correspondence, you can delete the attachments
from File Explorer.

C1.11.5 Quality assurance

The following information shall be included with the calculation title page document to be stored
in the appropriate ProjectWise subfolder:

Quality Control/Quality Assurance Record

Project Description:

Project Number:

Design Number:

File Number:

Design Team

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL COMMENTARY ~ C1: 6

Transportation Engineer Manager (TEM):

Designer:

Technician:

Checker:

Engineer of Record (EOR): [EOR shall include electronic signature and PE number.]

Hydraulic Design Engineer:

Design Parameters

Alignment: Straight ____ Curved _____

Superstructure: CCS (std) ____ CCS (dsn) ____ PPCB (std) ____ PPCB (dsn) ____

RSS (std) ____ RSS (dsn) ____ CWPG _____

RCB (std) ____ RCB (dsn) ____ MISC (std) _____ MISC (dsn) ____

Substructure: Integral Abutment ____ Stub Abutment ____

Pile Bent Pier ____ Frame Pier ___ T-Pier ____ Wall Pier ____

C1.18 Local systems review

LPA CURSORY REVIEW ITEMS FOR BRIDGE OR CULVERT PLANS

The following bulleted items are some of the general issues/concerns to address for cursory structural
reviews. Since each structure is different, not all of these items pertain to each cursory review.
Furthermore, the extent of the review shall not be limited to the items below. The review engineer
shall make a sound judgment on what the critical issues are for the structure.
• Verify the design code and specifications are correct.
• Verify that the plan has typical bridge or culvert design makeup: bridge, geotechnical, and
road sheets. Notify the engineer of record if any items might be missing.
• Verify that all disciplines have a PE seal in the plans.
• Briefly verify that the type of structure is appropriate for the location based on the Situation
Plan sheet. For bridges and culverts, the structure should meet the general policies
established in the BDM. [BDM 7.1.1(culverts) and BDM 3.6, 3.7, 5.1.1, 6.1.1, 6.5.1.1, 6.6.1.1
(bridges)]
• For bridges, verify horizontal and vertical clearances are acceptable or piers are adequately
protected. [BDM 3.2.2.4 (waterway), BDM 3.3.1, 3.7.4 (highway), and BDM 3.4.1.1 to 3.4.1.4
and 3.4.2.1 to 3.2.4.2.4 (railroad)]
• For bridges over waterways, briefly review the hydraulic information for conformance to the
BSB preliminary design policies. Some example items to review are given below:
1. Pier type is adequately chosen for the drainage area listed or for the potential of
debris flowing in the channel. [BDM 3.7.4]
2. Stream velocities and scour depths may indicate a need for stream bank protection.
[BDM 3.2.2.6]

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL COMMENTARY ~ C1: 7

3. “Design” and “Check” scour elevations and high water elevation for stage flows
should be listed.
• For bridges over railroads, briefly review the proper safety and protection accommodations
are in the plan set. (BNSF and UP railroads have additional requirements).
1. Vertical and horizontal clearance given on the Situation Plan sheet.
2. Piers within 25' of centerline track shall meet heavy construction as defined in
AREMA. [BDM 3.4.1.3, 3.4.2.3, 6.6.2.6]
3. Bridge berms preferably have macadam stone slope protection.
4. Proper 44" TL-5 barrier rails or fencing is used based on type of traffic on bridge
(vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian) [BDM 3.4.1.6, 3.4.2.6, 5.8.1.2]
• If standard bridge or culvert sheets appear applicable, encourage the designer to use them:
1. Bridge wing armoring
2. Subdrains
3. Slope protection
4. Abutment backfill procedures
5. Other standard sheets (as appropriate)
• For bridges, briefly review the soil borings to obtain an idea of the foundation bearing
conditions. For pile foundations, generally assess the Structural Resistance Level (SRL-1,
SRL-2, etc.) of the pile foundation and the adequacy for the soil conditions.
• Look for future maintenance headaches (e.g. type of bearings or lack of bridge deck
drainage).
• Look for structural adequacy problems. Member sizes should visually be reasonable and all
necessary structural components should be included (e.g. intermediate diaphragms).
• Look for constructability problems (e.g. steel reinforcing congestion in concrete).
• Encourage serviceability improvements to the structure (e.g. deck drains).

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 2: 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS ~ SUSTAINABLE BRIDGE DESIGN

2 Sustainability
2.1 Overview
2.1.1 Definition
2.1.2 Sustainability goals
2.1.3 Sustainability assessment tools
2.1.4 Water use and quality
2.1.5 Materials and resources
2.1.6 Potential benefits
2.2 Context sensitive design
2.2.1 Core principles of context sensitive solutions
2.3 Visualization
2.3.1 Uses and benefits of visualization
2.3.2 Visualization case studies
2.4 Bridge preservation
2.4.1 Introduction

2 Sustainability

2.1 Overview
The Bridges and Structures Bureau (BSB) follows established Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa
DOT) guidelines, in providing, promoting and using sustainable practices. The Iowa DOT has always
been at the forefront of sustainable design and maintenance practices.

The use of these materials is intended as a policy guide for projects developed for the Iowa Department
of Transportation, Bridges and Structures Bureau.

2.1.1 Definition
The United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in its 1987 report Our
Common Future defined sustainable development as: "Development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which is actively promoting sustainability through their
Invest – Sustainable Highways Initiative (www.sustainablehighways.org), has the following mission
statement:

“The Sustainable Highways Initiative supports programs and activities conducted across the
Federal Highway Administration to facilitate balanced decision making among environmental,
economic, and social values — the triple bottom line of sustainability.”

Essentially, sustainability means balancing economic, environmental and community well-being in

a manner that protects the needs of current and future generations. A sustainable transportation
system provides people with vibrant transportation choices, while addressing environmental and
community needs.

Sustainability is a concept that takes into account the long view of projects, considering costs and
benefits over lifetimes rather than concentrating on a one or two year cost life cycle. Incorporating
sustainability into decision-making can have positive effects for stakeholder relations, for the bottom line,
and for the natural resources of the state.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 2: 2

Figure 2.1.1 Sustainable values

Sustainable bridge design is concerned with questions, such as:

• Does the site employ available best practices in sedimentation and erosion control?
• Does the bridge connect two well-established existing developments, or is it a bridge to
"nowhere"?
• Does the proposed structure add to the economic and social value of the two bodies it connects?
• Does the bridge disturb a greenfield, wetland or farmland?
• Will the bridge be constructed in such a fashion as to minimize delays to the general public?
• Does the bridge replace or improve an existing structure or is it a new structure?
• Are footings and piers required, and how does their placement impact the surrounding
environment?
• Can a bridge in one location replace several smaller, possibly less functional bridges in disparate
locations?

Additional State DOT Resources:

• Washington State Department of Transportation – Sustainable Transportation
• Minnesota Department of Transportation – Sustainability
• Oregon Department of transportation – Sustainability program
• Ohio Department of Transportation – Sustainable Initiatives
• New York State Department of Transportation - GreenLITES
• Colorado Department of Transportation – Sustainability
• Virginia Department of Transportation – Sustainable Building Practices
• North Carolina Department of transportation – Statewide Transportation Plan
• Iowa Department of Transportation - Sustainability & Resiliency

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 2: 3

2.1.2 Sustainability goals

The goals of providing sustainable features in the design and construction of bridge projects are to:
• Minimize impacts to environmental resources
• Minimize consumption of material resources
• Minimize energy consumption
• Preserve or enhance the historic, scenic and aesthetic context of a bridge project
• Integrate bridge projects into the community in a way that helps to preserve and enhance
community life
• Encourage community involvement in the transportation planning process
• Encourage integration of non-motorized means of transportation into a highway project

Sustainable bridge design should strive to find a balance between what is important:
• to the transportation function of the facility
• to the community
• to the natural environment, and is economically sound

While encouraging the use of new and innovative approaches in achieving these goals.

2.1.3 Sustainability assessment tools

Sustainable infrastructure is one of the keys to maintaining a thriving economic base in communities
throughout the state.

Sustainable bridge design is concerned with new bridges but it is also about rehabilitation, reuse or the
optimization of existing bridges.

This includes an economic analysis, the protection of existing bridges from environmental degradation,
use of sustainable materials, minimizing waste and developing new strategies to improve the bridge
design/construction process.

The main sustainability assessment tools for bridges are:

• Economic – cost/benefit analysis, modelling, regressions, scenarios
• Environmental – life-cycle analysis, material flows, resource accounting
• Social – sustainable livelihoods, human and social capital measurement, participatory processes

Infrastructure Rating Systems

Currently a number of programs, similar to the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
rating system for building have been developed for infrastructure.

The Federal Highway Administration, has developed the INVEST rating system.

“INVEST includes a collection of sustainability best practices, called criteria, intended to help
transportation practitioners evaluate programs and projects in the area of sustainability. The goals of
INVEST include identifying these criteria, assisting agencies in researching and applying the criteria,
and establishing an evaluation method to measure the progress toward more sustainable highway
projects.” (https://www.sustainablehighways.org)

The Illinois Department of Transportation has developed the I-LAST - Livable and Sustainable
Transportation Rating System and Guide
(https://idot.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/idot/documents/transportation-system/reports/desenv/i-
last-v-2-02.pdf)

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 2: 4

From I-LAST:

The purpose of this guide is threefold:

• Provide a list of practices that have the potential to bring sustainable results to highway
projects.
• Develop a simple and efficient method of evaluating transportation projects with respect to
livability, sustainability, and effect on the natural environment.
• Record and recognize the use of sustainable practices in the transportation industry.

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has developed a new rating system, similar to LEED, for
infrastructure, Called ENVISION. (http://www.sustainableinfrastructure.org)

“Envision™ provides a holistic framework for evaluating and rating the community, environmental,
and economic benefits of all types and sizes of infrastructure projects. It evaluates, grades, and gives
recognition to infrastructure projects that use transformational, collaborative approaches to assess
the sustainability indicators over the course of the project's life cycle.”

2.1.4 Water use and quality

The quality and quantity of water used in construction and that which runs off the structure after its
installation should be considered:
• For water crossings, how does the proposed hydraulic opening impact the flood performance
upstream and downstream?
• Was non-potable water used during the construction process? How much?
• What systems are in place to ensure that runoff from the bridge is minimized (grass swales along
the curb, etc.)?
• What systems are in place to ensure runoff from the structure is of high quality?
• Where is the runoff from the bridge discharged?

(Sustainable Structures for the Bridge Engineer – Daniel Whittemore, P.E., LEED AP)

2.1.5 Materials and resources

Thinking about materials and resources ensures that the choice in bridge materials is appropriate for the
site and the future maintenance and recycling of the structure.

Sustainable Material and Resource questions include:

• Are recycled materials used in the structure?
• Can the materials used in the structure be recycled?
• If rehabilitated, are the materials from the old structure reused in the new?
• If rehabilitated, how much of the original structure is utilized in the new design (abutment stems,
piers, etc)?
• Are materials regionally available or brought in from long distances?
• Are new materials or processes utilized that reduce the overall quantity demands for the
structure?
• Are otherwise landfilled materials used in the bridge construction (i.e. - fly ash or slag in concrete
mixes)?
• Is the bridge designed with a complete Life Cycle Analysis in place?

(Sustainable Structures for the Bridge Engineer – Daniel Whittemore, P.E., LEED AP)

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 2: 5

2.1.6 Potential benefits

After sustainable bridges have been suitably defined and quantified, the inevitable question then
becomes: what are the tangible benefits for investing the extra layer of effort and resources into such a
project?

Hard evidence for the benefits of this type of bridge design is an area that requires more real world
examples, and both academic and field studies as have been done previously for buildings. However,
from the above metrics, a list of proposed benefits for this type of design could include the following:
• Bridges that utilize fewer raw materials on the jobsite
• Bridges that utilize less time and energy to construct
• Bridges that funnel materials away from overcrowded landfills.
• Bridges that help deal with the coming needs of 21st century travel of faster and more efficient
transportation
• Bridges that encourage alternate modes of transportation
• Further funneling of federal research dollars into leading edge bridge design and materials
• Bridges that produce fewer upstream and downstream negative impacts to both the natural and
developed communities
• Bridges that due to their certification could streamline the permitting process
• Bridges that are able to monitor their own health and alert owners to critical conditions
• Bridges that better enhance the social and economic communities and tie established
neighborhoods together
• Bridges that are better planned and thought out with engineering judgment that can ultimately
better serve the public

(Sustainable Structures for the Bridge Engineer – Daniel Whittemore, P.E., LEED AP)

2.2 Context sensitive design

The context sensitive solutions (CSS) approach is to combine the work of interdisciplinary teams with
public and agency stakeholders to tailor solutions to the setting; preserve scenic, aesthetic, historic, and
environmental resources; and maintain safety and mobility.

(https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/css/index.cfm)

The goal of FHWA’s CSS program is to deliver a program of transportation projects that is responsive to
the unique character of the communities it serves.

In short, CSS supports livable communities and sustainable transportation.

2.2.1 Core principles of context sensitive solutions

These core CSS principles apply to transportation processes, outcomes, and decision-making.

1. Strive towards a shared stakeholder vision to provide a basis for decisions.

2. Demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of contexts.
3. Foster continuing communication and collaboration to achieve consensus.
4. Exercise flexibility and creativity to shape effective transportation solutions, while preserving and
enhancing community and natural environments.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 2: 6

- Results of Joint AASHTO/FHWA Context Sensitive Solutions Strategic Planning Process Summary
Report, March 2007
Context sensitive solutions is guided by a process which:

• Establishes an interdisciplinary team early, including a full range of stakeholders, with skills based
on the needs of the transportation activity.
• Seeks to understand the landscape, the community, valued resources, and the role of all
appropriate modes of transportation in each unique context before developing engineering
solutions.
• Communicates early and continuously with all stakeholders in an open, honest, and respectful
manner, and tailors public involvement to the context and phase.
• Utilizes a clearly defined decision-making process.
• Tracks and honors commitments through the life cycle of projects.
• Involves a full range of stakeholders (including transportation officials) in all phases of a
transportation program.
• Clearly defines the purpose and seeks consensus on the shared stakeholder vision and scope of
projects and activities, while incorporating transportation, community, and environmental
elements.
• Secures commitments to the process from local leaders.
• Tailors the transportation development process to the circumstances and uses a process that
examines multiple alternatives, including all appropriate modes of transportation, and results in
consensus.
• Encourages agency and stakeholder participants to jointly monitor how well the agreed-upon
process is working, to improve it as needed, and when completed, to identify any lessons
learned.
• Encourages mutually supportive and coordinated multimodal transportation and land-use
decisions.
• Draws upon a full range of communication and visualization tools to better inform stakeholders,
encourage dialogue, and increase credibility of the process.

- Results of Joint AASHTO/FHWA Context Sensitive Solutions Strategic Planning Process Summary
Report, March 2007

2.3 Visualization
The Visualization techniques provide valuable insights into design options which typically lead to better
context sensitive solutions. Techniques from hand drawings to 3D animations are useful in explaining
project requirements, location challenges, staging procedures and help the public understand the intent
and impact of a construction project.

Resources:
Federal High Administration – Visualization in Planning
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials - Visualization in Transportation
Washington State Department of Transportation – Visual Engineering Resource Group

2.3.1 Uses and benefits of visualization

Visualization has a large number of uses, such as:
• Concept visualization which gives end users a realistic overview of the project parameters.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 2: 7

• Conflict visualization can show designers where complex project systems interact and help
reduce construction errors in the office and the field.
• Building Information Modeling (BIM) or Bridge Information Modeling (BRIM) allows users to
coordinate, simulate and communicate projects between designers in 3D.

Benefits (From AASHTO – Visualization in Transportation)

With such a wide range of capabilities and techniques possible, visualization provides the design
team (i.e., transportation staff, advisory groups, community leaders, and environmental resource
agencies) with a valuable resource. The design team can review the visualization to ensure that
they are in consensus with the improvement as planned. This is a valuable check in determining
if the proposed improvement the design team anticipated is what is being provided.

Once consensus has been reached, the information can be shared with the public to convey, in an
understandable way, what the improvement alternative entails. A typical public involvement
workshop is shown in Figure 11. Consensus for the project can be sought and obtained, and the
proposed improvement can proceed through design to construction. Visualization can
contribute to significant time savings throughout this process.

Visualizations that are accepted by project stakeholders, the public, and those living and working
adjacent to the project can also be effective in conveying the design intent to potential bidders as
well as to the construction contractor. These individuals often do not participate in the project
development process.
- AASHTO - Visualization in Transportation

2.3.2 Visualization case studies

Iowa Falls bridge replacement

The US65 (Oak Street) bridge is one of a trio of open spandrel concrete arch bridges located within a
stretch of the Iowa River as it meanders its way through the middle of scenic Iowa Falls. Built in 1928 and
listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the existing bridge has served its purpose for over 80
years but has recently been showing its age and is in need of replacement.

The Iowa DOT sought input from the community during the planning stages of project development. The
result was a local preference for the concrete arch bridge to be replaced with another arch structure, thus
keeping the river free of supporting piers and maintaining the aesthetic appeal of the arch bridge theme
prevalent at the two other nearby river crossings in town. An above-deck, steel through-arch bridge type
was chosen as the final concept. The new bridge will feature a 42-foot roadway, a sidewalk and a bicycle
trail.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 2: 8

Figure 2.3.1-1 Original Concrete Arch Bridge Figure 2.3.1-2 Replacement Steel Arch Bridge

Massena lateral bridge slide project

The Massena Lateral Bridge Slide project consists of replacing the existing 40’ x 30’ steel I-beam bridge
(FHWA #017840) that was constructed in 1930 and is currently classified as structurally deficient with a
sufficiency rating of 38. The proposed bridge replacement is intended to increase the structural capacity
of the bridge, improve roadway conditions, and enhance safety by providing a wider roadway.

Construction zone safety will be greatly improved due to the introduction of innovative accelerated bridge
construction (ABC) methods (limit traffic interference to a period of nine days or less). Furthermore, by
minimizing the need for future maintenance that interferes with traffic flow, congestion and crashes will be
reduced.

A video showing the construction process was developed to aid contractors and is located here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA-nhOMEn8s

Figure 4.3.1-3 Massena replacement bridge

2.4 Bridge preservation

2.4.1 Introduction
State departments of transportation and other bridge owners are faced with significant challenges in
addressing the Nation’s highway bridge preservation and replacement needs.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 2: 9

More than 25 percent of the Nation’s 600,000 bridges are rated as structurally deficient or functionally
1
obsolete. More than 30 percent of existing bridges have exceeded their 50-year theoretical design life
and are in need of various levels of repairs, rehabilitation, or replacement. This issue is exacerbated by
increasing travel demands, limited funding, and increasing costs of labor and materials. These
circumstances have caused most bridge owners to become more reactive than proactive in their
approach to managing and addressing their bridge program needs.

Bridge stewards and owners need to become, inevitably, more strategic by adopting and implementing
systematic processes for bridge preservation as an integral component of their overall management of
bridge assets.

A successful bridge program seeks a balanced approach to preservation and replacement. Focusing only
on replacing deficient bridges while ignoring preservation needs will be inefficient and cost-prohibitive in
the long term. Adopting a “worst first” approach to managing bridge assets may also yield ineffective
results that allows bridges in good condition to deteriorate into the deficient category which generally is
associated with higher costs and other challenges.

The objective of a good bridge preservation program is to employ cost effective strategies and actions to
maximize the useful life of bridges. Applying the appropriate bridge preservation treatments and activities
at the appropriate time can extend bridge useful life at lower lifetime cost.

Preservation activities often cost much less than major reconstruction or replacement activities. Delaying
or forgoing warranted preservation treatments will result in worsening condition and can escalate the
feasible treatment or activity from preservation to replacement. The latter will result in extensive work and
higher cost. A viable alternative is timely and effective bridge preservation of sound bridges to assure
their structural integrity and extend their useful life before they require replacement.

Source: FHWA Publication Number: FHWA-HIF-11042

Bridge preservation - definition

Bridge preservation is defined 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. Preservation actions may be preventive or condition-driven.

Source: FHWA Bridge Preservation Expert Task Group.3

Bridge preservation - commentary

Effective bridge preservation actions are intended to delay the need for costly reconstruction or
replacement actions by applying preservation strategies and actions on bridges while they are still in good
or fair condition and before the onset of serious deterioration. Bridge preservation encompasses
preventive maintenance and rehabilitation activities (refer to figure 1).
An effective bridge preservation program:
1. Employs long-term strategies and practices at the network level to preserve the condition of
bridges and to extend their useful life;
2. Has sustained and adequate resources and funding sources; and
3. Has adequate tools and processes to ensure that the appropriate cost effective treatments are
applied at the appropriate time.

Preventative maintenance - definition

Preventive maintenance is a planned strategy of cost-effective treatments to an existing roadway system
and its appurtenances that preserves the system, retards future deterioration, and maintains or improves
the functional condition of the system (without substantially increasing structural capacity). Source:

AASHTO Subcommittee on Maintenance.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS ~ PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF BRIDGES

3 Preliminary
3.1 General
3.1.1 Policy overview
3.1.2 Design information
3.1.3 Definitions
3.1.4 Abbreviations and notation
3.1.5 References
3.1.5.1 Direct
3.1.5.2 Indirect
3.2 Bridges
3.2.1 Identification numbers
3.2.2 Stream and river crossings
3.2.2.1 Hydrology
3.2.2.2 Hydraulics
3.2.2.3 Backwater
3.2.2.4 Freeboard
3.2.2.5 Road grade overflow
3.2.2.6 Streambank protection
3.2.2.7 Scour
3.2.2.7.1 Types
3.2.2.7.2 Design conditions
3.2.2.7.3 Evaluating existing structures
3.2.2.7.4 Depth estimates
3.2.2.7.5 Countermeasures
3.2.2.7.5.1 Riprap at abutments
3.2.2.7.5.2 Riprap at piers
3.2.2.7.5.3 Wing dikes
3.2.2.7.6 Coding
3.2.2.8 Riverine Infrastructure Database
3.2.2.9 Datum Correlation
3.2.2.10 Stream Stability
3.2.2.10.1 Hydraulic Grade Line and Streambed Profile Determination
3.2.2.10.2 Grade Control Structures
3.2.2.11 State Water Trail and Paddling Routes
3.3 Highway crossings
3.3.1 Clearances
3.3.2 Ditch drainage
3.4 Railroad crossings
3.4.1 BNSF, UP, CN, and CP overhead structures
3.4.1.1 Vertical clearance
3.4.1.2 Horizontal clearance
3.4.1.3 Piers
3.4.1.4 Bridge berms
3.4.1.5 Drainage
3.4.1.6 Barrier rails and fencing
3.4.2 Non-BNSF, UP, CN and CP overhead structures
3.4.2.1 Vertical clearance
3.4.2.2 Horizontal clearance
3.4.2.3 Piers
3.4.2.4 Bridge berms
3.4.2.5 Drainage
3.4.2.6 Barrier rails and fencing
3.4.3 Underpass structures
3.4.4 Submittals

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 2

3.5 Pedestrian and shared use path crossings

3.6 Superstructures
3.6.1 Type and span
3.6.1.1 CCS J-series
3.6.1.2 Single-span PPCB HSI-series
3.6.1.3 Two-span BT-series
3.6.1.4 Three-span PPCB H-series
3.6.1.5 Three-span RSB-series
3.6.1.6 PPCB
3.6.1.7 CWPG [AASHTO-LRFD 2.5.2.6.3]
3.6.1.8 Cable/Arch/Truss
3.6.2 Width
3.6.2.1 Highway
3.6.2.2 Sidewalk, shared use path, and bicycle lane
3.6.3 Horizontal curve
3.6.3.1 Spiral curve
3.6.4 Alignment and profile grade
3.6.5 Bridge Deck Cross Slopes
3.6.6 Deck drainage
3.6.7 Bridge inspection/maintenance accessibility
3.6.8 Railings [AASHTO-LRFD 13.7.2]
3.6.8.1 Barrier Rail End Treatments
3.6.8.2 Separation Rail
3.6.9 Staging
3.7 Substructures
3.7.1 Skew
3.7.2 Abutments
3.7.3 Berms
3.7.3.1 Slope
3.7.3.2 Toe offset
3.7.3.3 Berm slope location table
3.7.3.4 Recoverable berm location table
3.7.3.5 Slope protection
3.7.3.6 Grading control points
3.7.3.7 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls adjacent to abutments
3.7.4 Piers and pier footings [AASHTO-LRFD-2020 3.6.5]
3.7.5 Wing walls
3.7.6 Foundation Conflicts
3.8 Cost estimates
3.9 Type, Size & Location Plans (TS&Ls)
3.10 Permits and Approvals
3.10.1 Waterway
3.10.2 Railroad
3.10.3 Highway
3.11 Forms
3.12 Noise Walls
3.13 Submittals
3.14 Zone of Intrusion
3.15 Temporary Bridges
3.16 Resiliency/Climate Change

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 3

3 Preliminary

3.1 General
The following series of articles provides a set of guidelines for development of type, size, and location
(TS&L) plans for bridges, walls, and culverts that require final design. The TS&L plans will include a
Preliminary Situation Plan and may additionally include Site Plan or Miscellaneous Detail sheets. Within
the guidelines and throughout the development of TS&L plans it is important that the designer apply
sound engineering judgment, including technical and economic analysis. For additional information on
culvert design, see BDM Section 4.

Additional information regarding preliminary design is also contained within BDM Section 1.

3.1.1 Policy overview

Within the Bridges and Structures Bureau, the Preliminary Bridge Design Unit develops the concepts and
the preliminary layouts for highway structures. For bridges, walls, culverts, and miscellaneous structures
that require final design, the Unit assembles information and develops TS&L sheets so that a designer in
one of the Final Design Units can perform the structural design and develop final plans for a contract
letting.

The preliminary design process for new or replacement structures begins with a concept statement
developed by the Preliminary Road Design Unit within the Design Bureau. The Preliminary Bridge Design
Unit contributes to the concept statement by providing the type and size of the proposed structure along
with its estimated construction cost.

The development of all preliminary structure plans includes a number of tasks such as:
• Analyzing hydrology and hydraulics;
• Analyzing road geometrics;
• Determining the type, size, and location of structures;
• Developing a layout in the CADD system;
• Attending field reviews;
• Coordinating with other Iowa DOT Bureaus, public entities, and outside agencies;
• Estimating cost alternatives;
• Obtaining flood plain permit approvals;
• Coordinating with other regulatory agencies; and
• Consideration of accelerated bridge construction (ABC).

3.1.2 Design information

The designer will need to access information from several sources to perform preliminary design,
including the following:
• Plans for existing structures, including as-built plans, from Electronic Records Management
System (ERMS) or SIIMS;
• Bridge maintenance reports from ERMS and SIIMS;
• LiDAR ground surfaces (2020 is available from USGS)
• A new site survey from the Design Bureau;
• Soil boring information from the Design Bureau;
• Aerial photographs from the Design Bureau and/or web sites;
• Aerial agricultural photographs (drainage maps) from the Photogrammetry/Preliminary
Survey Unit in the Design Bureau;
• Topographic maps from the Bridges and Structures Bureau, the Design Bureau and/or web
sites; and
• Field exams.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 4

Plans for existing structures will give a good indication of the site when an existing structure was built,
widened, and/or extended, and comparison with a new survey will indicate any site changes that have
occurred since previous construction.

The designer should make appropriate use of CADD to integrate support programs such as Open Bridge
Designer and Open Road Designer when developing type, size, and location (TS&L) plans. For more
information on CONNECT Applications, refer to our web site under Automation Tools.

Guidance for concept development can be found on the Iowa DOT website.

Concept Development

3.1.3 Definitions
Annual Exceedance Probability Discharge (AEPD) is an estimate of the flood discharge for the annual
flood frequency recurrence intervals as determined by a regional regression analysis method described in
USGS SIR 2013-5086.

Average low water is the water level expected during a normal season and may be defined by the
vegetation line along a stream bank or by typical low flow. The average low water can generally be
represented by the water surface elevation at time of survey or can be defined as one foot above the
average design stream bed.

Backwater is caused by the encroachment of the road embankment onto the floodplain which constricts
flood flows through the bridge opening. Backwater is the difference between the modeled water surface
elevations for topography being evaluated and the base topographic condition. Backwater for the purpose
of the hydraulic data block is determined at the modeled upstream location with the maximum difference
between proposed and pre-development water surface elevations.

Base Flood is the flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.
This is the regulatory standard also referred to as the “100-year flood.” The base flood is the national
standard used by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and all Federal agencies for the purposes
of requiring the purchase of flood insurance and regulating new development.

Base Flood Elevation (BFE) is the computed elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to rise during
the base flood. BFEs are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) and on the flood profiles. The
BFE is the regulatory requirement for the elevation or flood-proofing of structures. The relationship
between the BFE and a structure’s elevation determines the flood insurance premium.

Berm slope location table (BSLT) gives toe and top of berm information to aid the contractor in
construction of the berm.

Bicycle lane or bike lane is a portion of a roadway which has been designated by striping, signing, and
pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists.

Bridge chord is defined as the straight line between intersection points of the centerline approach
roadway (or alignment baseline) at the centerline of bridge abutments.

Censored gage record includes discharges (low and high outliers) and historical flood discharges that
the USGS may adjust or integrate for use in peak flow analysis. There are two types of censored data (1)
annual peak discharges collected at gage sites for which the discharge is only known to be less than the
minimum recordable discharge threshold, or (2) in the case of historical periods, annual peak discharges
that are only known not to have exceeded a recorded historical flood discharge.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 5

Channel Low Beam / Freeboard is the bottom of the lowest low beam spanning the surveyed or
anticipated extent of the channel within the bridge waterway. It may be located on the upstream or
downstream side. It is utilized to determine the available space the design provides for passage of ice
and debris.

Check scour is based on the occurrence of a 500-year or lesser flood used to ensure pile capacity and
stability will not fail at the extreme scour event.

Detailed Flood Insurance Study (FIS) analysis of a community’s flood prone areas which determines
the 100-year flood elevation and floodway for certain streams.

Design scour is based on the occurrence of a 200-year or lesser flood used to evaluate pile capacity and
stability.

Design streambed elevation is the theoretical thalweg elevation at a proposed structure. Based on the
streambed profile where the profile has been developed by extrapolation of up and downstream thalweg
elevations that are beyond the influence of existing structures (local scour).

Drainage Districts in Iowa provide a legally organized means to construct and maintain adequate
drainage outlets and levees. In most cases, the Board of Supervisors in the county in which the district is
located becomes the board of trustees (managing board) for that district. When designing a replacement
structure that crosses a Drainage District, coordination is required. Design features such as flowline,
channel slope, cross section, etc. may be dictated by the Drainage District requirements.

Drainage Easement (a.k.a. Permanent Easement for Drainage Purposes) – A Drainage Easement is a
legal document that describes the right to increase flow upon a property owner as a result of impacts
associated with a project. Typically, the area identified as a Drainage Easement is a draw or drainage
way. Another application would be when areas are inundated that otherwise would not be impacted by a
project (e.g., lowering of a private levee to meet bridge backwater requirements). The property owners
are provided compensation by acquiring the easement and the document is filed with the County
Recorder. The designer shall show the limits of the drainage easement along the draw/drainage way for
acquisition as part of the B1/B2 submittal. An elevation is typically not provided for a drainage easement.

Electronic Reference Library (ERL) contains plans, specifications, and manuals and is available on the
Iowa Department of Transportation’s web site.

Electronic Records Management System (ERMS) has been developed to enable electronic use and
management of documents within the Iowa Department of Transportation. ERMS includes aerial
photographs, existing bridge plans, bridge inspection records, and other documents useful for preliminary
bridge design.

EMA/MGB is the method used in Scientific Investigations Report 2013-5086 to compute log-Pearson
Type III exceedance probability analysis for stream gages evaluated for use in the development of the
Iowa regional regression equations. The method allows for the integration of censored (low and high
outliers) and historical peak-discharge data in the analysis. This is the method used in the updated
Bulletin 17C “Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency”.

Existing condition reflects the current (at time of study) topography for hydraulic modeling, including the
existing development being evaluated.

Expected moments algorithm (EMA) is an annual exceedance-probability analysis method used for
continuous-record stream gages. EMA analysis method needs a consistent statistical test (MGB) to
identify potentially influential low flows in an annual peak-discharge series to properly reduce the effect of
low outliers.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 6

Extreme highwater is the highest water level recorded for a particular location. Information can be
obtained from USGS or Corps flood reports, when available.

Flowage Easement – A Flowage Easement is a legal document that describes the right to create a flood
elevation upon a property. Typically, the area identified for a flowage easement does not meet regulatory
backwater criteria for a project that requires a flood plain permit. The flowage easement is required by the
DNR to mitigate the impacts of a project not meeting their backwater criteria. The property owners are
provided compensation by acquiring the easement and the document is filed with the County Recorder.
The designer shall include the areas that do not meet backwater criteria and the associated 100-year
stage elevation as part of the B1 submittal.

Floodway is the portion of the floodplain that must be left unobstructed for the conveyance of the 100-
year flood.

Flood Risk Reduction Project (FRRP) is typically defined as a Corps of Engineers designed flood
protection levee system.

Freeboard is the vertical clearance measured between the channel or operational low beam, and the
stage for the given discharge with the proposed bridge in place.

Grading surface is the finished earthwork surface within the limits of project grading and the existing
ground surface outside the limits of project grading. At locations where the finished earthwork surface
represents non-earthen materials (rock revetment, concrete block mats, pavement etc.) plan details will
define the grading surface relative to these materials. Earthwork quantities are calculated relative to the
grading surface. Key bridge berm grading surface points shall be defined in the Berm Slope Location
Table [BDM 3.7.3.3].

Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) is used to derive the design slope for use in the hydraulic design of the
structure. HGL is the top of water, and the slope of the HGL at the point of interest is assumed as
representative of the slope of the Energy Grade Line (So) used in hydraulic design.

Inundation of beams occurs when the flood stage reaches the bottom of the lowest beam anywhere
along the entire bridge (operational low beam).

Mean highwater (MHW) is a term used in the AASHTO Guide Specification for Vessel Collision Design
of Highway Bridges and is defined by the Coast Guard as the average of the height of the diurnal (each
day) high waters at a particular location measured over a period of 19 years.

Multiple Grubbs-Beck (MGB) test is a statistical method to identify low gage data outliers that depart
substantially from the trend of the rest of the annual peak discharge data. Annual peak discharges
identified as low outliers by the method are excluded from the dataset. EMA/MGB exceedance-probability
analysis computed for the Scientific Investigations Report 2013-5086 used the MGB test for the
development of the skew analysis and the Iowa regional regression equations.

Multi-region basin is a site drainage area that drains more than one hydrologic region (crosses a
hydrologic region boundary) as defined by a given USGS methodology for calculating annual exceedance
probability discharges.

National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) This program requires inspection of all publicly owned
highway bridges longer than 20 feet defined at intervals not to exceed 24 months, or as otherwise
approved for a specific situation.

Natural Stage/Normal Stage is the stage in the bridge waterway related to pre-development conditions.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 7

Operational low beam / Freeboard is the bottom of the lowest low beam along the entire bridge for use
in identifying the stage in which beam inundation will begin to occur. It may be located on the upstream or
downstream side.

Ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and
indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes
in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other
appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas [Code of the Federal
Register 33 CFR Part 328.3].

Ponding Easement – A Ponding Easement is a legal document that typically describes the right to
increase a ponding elevation upon a property owner as a result of impacts associated with a
project. Typically, this has been used when a roadway project fills in a low area or prairie pothole. The
reduction in storage volume is compensated via a Ponding Easement for a potential increase in
inundation area as a result of the roadway fill. The property owner is provided compensation by acquiring
the easement and the document is filed with the County Recorder. The designer shall include the
boundaries of the ponding easement and an elevation for acquisition of the easement as part of the B2
submittal. The elevation should be the maximum elevation that could occur before water is able to convey
out of the depression/prairie pothole.

Pre-Development condition is a topographic assumption for hydraulic modeling with the development
being evaluated removed (e.g. existing roadway embankment with associated structures). Adjacent
topography is included in the Pre-Development condition if it is not a part of the development being
evaluated. Pre-Development condition is analogous to natural condition referenced in Iowa DNR
floodplain development regulations.

Proposed condition reflects the current (at time of study) topography for hydraulic modeling including
the proposed development being evaluated.

Q50 is a flood that has a 2% statistical probability (chance) of being equaled or exceeded in any year.

Q100 is a flood that has a 1% statistical probability (chance) of being equaled or exceeded in any year.

Revetment is a relatively general term for a facing that supports an embankment. Riprap is a more
specific term for the layer of various sized rocks or broken concrete used to protect a streambank from
erosion. With respect to streambank protection the terms revetment and riprap usually are
interchangeable. Revetment Stone is the quarry industry’s product that may be used for streambank
erosion protection.

Riverine Infrastructure Database is a database of Iowa Department of Transportation facilities in the

riverine environment. The database consists of location data in addition to hydrologic and hydraulic data
so impacts to facilities during a flood event can be rapidly evaluated.

Section 408 Approval is required from the Corps of Engineers for any project within 300 feet riverward or
500 feet landward of a Corps Flood Risk Reduction Project (FRRP).

Shallow bedrock at a pier may be conservatively defined as rock, regardless of type (e.g. shale,
limestone, etc.) and quality (e.g. solid, hard, broken, weathered, highly weathered, etc.), that is 30 feet or
less from the lowest of the ground line, stream bed, or design scour elevation.

Shared use path is a bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or
a barrier and either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way. Shared use
paths may also be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers, and other non-motorized
users. See the current edition of AASHTO’s Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities [BDM
3.1.5.2].

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 8

Span chord is defined as the straight line between intersection points of the centerline approach roadway
(or alignment baseline) at the centerline of each substructure unit.

Stage is the water surface elevation for a given discharge and site conditions being evaluated. Stage for
the purpose of the hydraulic data block is the engineer’s best estimate of the PROPOSED water surface
elevation within the bridge waterway. The stage determination depends on the hydraulic analysis model
type, as described in the policy guidance.

Streambed Profile (SP) is a profile based on design streambed elevation (thalweg) up and downstream
of the proposed structure.

Structure Inventory and Inspection Management System (SIIMS) is the single source location for
entering and reviewing condition information on all Iowa bridges, both local and state owned. The system
provides a data base of bridge sized structures and inspection information. Preliminary engineers can find
site photos, As-Built plans, and ground profile (cross section) under the bridge.

Thalweg is a line extending down a channel that follows the lowest elevation of the stream bed.

Uncensored gage record includes peak discharge data at given gage site, exclusive of censored record.
Uncensored data represents actual observed values, whereas censored data reflects historical or
otherwise estimated data values. Statistics developed using only uncensored data will generally be
presented as ‘period-of-record’ whereas statistics that include censored data generally be presented as
‘historical period’.

Unit Leader is the supervisor of the Bridges and Structures Bureau Preliminary Bridge Unit, Final Design
Unit, or Consultant Coordination Unit.

Weighted Independent Estimate (WIE) is a method for weighting two independent estimates inversely
proportional to their associated variances. Annual exceedance-probability discharges (AEPD) by the log-
Pearson Type III estimate (EMA/MGB) and the regional regression equations are assumed to be
independent and can be weighted by this method and the variance of the weighted estimate will be less
than the variance of either of the independent estimates.

3.1.4 Abbreviations and notation

3R, Resurfacing, Restoration, Rehabilitation; a series of terms that refers to a Federal Highway
Administration highway project funding program
ADT, average daily traffic
AEPD, annual exceedance-probability discharge
AREMA, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association
B0, event code for Bridges and Structures Bureau concept
B1, event code for Bridges and Structures Bureau layout
B2, event code for structural/hydraulic design plans to Design Bureau
BFE, base flood elevation
BTB, BTC, BTD, BTE, standard cross sections for pretensioned prestressed concrete bulb tee beams
BNSF, Burlington Northern Santa-Fe Railway
BSLT, berm slope location table
CCS, continuous concrete slab
CFR, Code of Federal Regulations
CLOMR, Conditional Letter of Map Revision issued by FEMA
CMP, corrugated metal pipe
CWPG, continuous welded plate girder
D50, median revetment stone diameter
D0, event code for predesign concept
D2, event code for design field exam

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 9

DA, drainage area

EMA, expected moments algorithm annual exceedance-probability analysis
ERL, Electronic Reference Library
ERMS, Electronic Records Management System
FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA, Federal Highway Administration
FIS, Flood Insurance Study
HDPE, high density polyethylene
HEC-2, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center hydraulic analysis software
HEC-RAS, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center – River Analysis System
hydraulic analysis software
HGL, Hydraulic Grade Line
IAC, Iowa Administrative Code
IFC, Iowa Flood Center
IFIS, Iowa Flood Information System
IFI, intermediate foundation improvement
IHRB, Iowa Highway Research Board
Iowa DNR, Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Iowa DOT, Iowa Department of Transportation
LOMR, Letter of Map Revision issued by FEMA
LP3, log-Pearson Type III
LT, left
M, distance between chord and arc at midpoint of horizontally curved bridge [BDM 3.6.3]
MCS, main-channel slope, a variable in USGS WRIR 03-4120
MGB, Multiple Grubbs-Beck low-outlier test
MSE, mechanically stabilized earth, generally associated with retaining walls
N or N-value, standard penetration test number of blows per foot. N also may be given as SPT NO, the
Standard Penetration Test Number in the soils information chart.
n-coefficient, Manning’s Coefficient [BDM 3.2.2.3]
NBIS, National Bridge Inspection Standards
NFIP, National Flood Insurance Program
NHS, National Highway System
NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRCS, Natural Resources Conservation Service
PE, preliminary engineering
PEP, polyethylene pipe
POT, point on tangent
PPCB, pretensioned prestressed concrete beam
Q2, Q50, Q100, Q200, Q500, estimated channel discharge at 2-, 50-, 100-, 200- or 500-year design flood
frequency
RBLT, recoverable berm location table
RCB, reinforced concrete box, a type of culvert
RCP, reinforced concrete pipe
RIDB, Riverine Infrastructure Database
ROW, right of way
RRE, regional regression equation
RSB, rolled steel beam
RSS, reinforced steepened slope
RT, right
SI&A, Structure Inventory and Appraisal
SIIMS, Structure Inventory and Inspection Management System
SIR, scientific investigations report
SP, streambed profile
SUDAS, (Iowa) Statewide Urban Design and Specifications
TS&L, type, size, and location
TSS, Texas single slope

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 10

UP or UPRR, Union Pacific Railroad

USGS, United States Geological Survey
WIE, weighted independent estimates
WRIR, water-resources investigation report
WSPRO, water surface profile software developed by the U.S. Geological Survey

3.1.5 References

3.1.5.1 Direct
[IDOT PPM policy number] refers to a policy in the Iowa Department of Transportation Policies and
Procedures Manual.

[IDOT SS article] refers to Iowa Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Highway and
Bridge Construction, Series 2015 with article number. (Available on the Internet at:
https://iowadot.gov/erl/index.htmlhttp://www.iowadot.gov/erl/current/GS/Navigation/nav.htm)

[DB DM article, table, or figure] refers to the Design Bureau, Highway Division Design Manual with article,
table, or figure number. (Available on the Internet at: https://iowadot.gov/design/Design-manual)

[DB RDD sheet number] refers to the Design Bureau, Highway Division “Road Design Details” with sheet
number. Formerly the detail manual was referred to as the “green book.” (Available on the Internet at:
https://iowadot.gov/design/Road-design-details)

[DB SRP sheet number] refers to an Design Bureau, Highway Division “Standard Road Plan” with sheet
number. Formerly the plan manual was referred to as the “red book.” (Available on the Internet at:
https://iowadot.gov/design/Standard-road-plans)

3.1.5.2 Indirect

American Association for State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). A Policy on Design
Standards—Interstate System, 5th Edition. Washington: AASHTO, 2005.

American Association for State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition. Washington: AASHTO, 2012.

American Association for State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Roadside Design Guide,
3rd Edition. Washington: AASHTO, 2002.

American Association for State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications, 8th Edition, Washington: AASHTO, 2017.

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA). Manual for Railway
Engineering. American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association, Lanham, MD, 2009.

BNSF Railway – Union Pacific Railroad. Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects. Union Pacific
Railroad, Omaha, NE,2016. (Available on the Union Pacific web site at:
https://www.up.com/cs/groups/public/documents/up_pdf_nativedocs/pdf_rr_grade_sep_projects.pdf)

Bradley, Joseph N. Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways, HDS 1. Washington: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), 1978. (By request, a copy can be provided by Iowa DOT.)

Cronshey, R., R.H. McCuen, N. Miller, W. Rawls, S. Robbins, and D. Woodward. Urban Hydrology for
Small Watersheds, 2nd Edition, 210-VI-TR-55. Washington: Natural Resources Conservation Service

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 11

(NRCS), 1986. (Current edition of Technical Release 55 (TR-55); available on the U.S. Department of
Agriculture web site at: https://data.nal.usda.gov/dataset/small-watershed-hydrology-wintr-55)

Eash, David A. Techniques for Estimating Flood-Frequency Discharges for Streams in Iowa, WRIR 00-
4233. Iowa City: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2001.

Eash, David A., K.K. Barnes, and A.G. Veilleux. Methods for Estimating Annual Exceedance –Probability
Discharges for Streams in Iowa, Based on Data through Water Year 2010 Scientific Investigations Report
2013-5086; (Available on the Iowa USGS web site at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5086)

Eash, David A. Main-Channel Slopes of Selected Streams in Iowa for Estimation of Flood-Frequency
Discharges, WRIR 03-4120. Iowa City: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2003

Eash, David A. Comparisons of Estimates of Annual Exceedance-Probability Discharges for Small

Drainage Basins in Iowa, Based on Data through Water Year 2013, SIR 2015-5055. U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), 2015. (Available on the USGS website at:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2015/5055/pdf/sir2015-5055.pdf)

Federal Highway Administration. “Hydraulic Engineering” web page with links to publications and
software. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/index.cfm

Federal Highway Administration. Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal
of the Nation’s Bridges, FHWA-PD-96-001. Washington: Federal Highway Administration, 1995.

Golden Hills Resource Conservation and Development, Inc. Stream Stabilization in Western Iowa:
Structure Elevation and Design Manual, Iowa DOT HR-385. 1998. (Available on the State Library of Iowa
web site at: https://publications.iowa.gov/16075/)

Hadish, G.A., M. Braster, R.A. Lohnes, and C.P. Baumel. Stream Stabilization in Western Iowa, Iowa
DOT HR-352. 1994. (Available on the Iowa DOT web site at:
https://iowadot.gov/research/reports/Year/2003andolder/fullreports/hr352.pdf)

Iowa Administrative Code. Des Moines: Legislative Services Agency. (Available on the Iowa Legislature
website)

Iowa Department of Natural Resources. How to Control Streambank Erosion. Des Moines: Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, 2005. (Available from the Iowa DNR web site at:
http://www.iowadnr.com/water/stormwater/forms/streambank_man.pdf)

Iowa Department of Transportation. Iowa Bicycle and Pedestrian Long Range Plan. Ames, IA: 2018.
(Available on the Iowa dot web site at: https://iowadot.gov/iowainmotion/files/Bike-and-Pedestrian-
Plan.pdf)
Iowa Department of Transportation. Iowa Trails 2000. Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, IA,
2000. (Available on the Internet at:
https://publications.iowa.gov/10739/1/connecting_people_trails_handbook.pdf)

Iowa State University. SUDAS Standard Specifications. Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 2011. (Available
on the SUDAS web site at: https://iowasudas.org/manuals/design-manual/))

Lagasse, P.F., J.D. Schall, and E.V. Richardson. Stream Stability at Highway Structures, Third Edition;
Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 20 (HEC-20). Washington: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
2001. (Available on the FHWA web site at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/hec/hec20ed3.pdf)

Lagasse, P.F., P.E. Clopper, J.E. Pagan-Ortiz, L.W. Zevenbergen, L.A. Arneson, J.D. Schall, and L.G.
Girard. Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures: Experience, Selection and Design

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 12

Guidance, Volumes 1 and 2, Third Edition; Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 23 (HEC-23). Washington:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2009. (Available on the FHWA web site at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/hec/hec23ed2.pdf)

Lara, Oscar G. Method for Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of floods at Ungaged Sites on
Unregulated Rural Streams in Iowa, WRIR 87-4132. Iowa City: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 1987.

Larimer, O.J. Drainage Areas of Iowa Streams. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Iowa Highway Research
Board Bulletin No. 7 (Red Book). (Available on the Iowa DOT web site at:
https://www.iowadot.gov/research/reports/Year/2003andolder/fullreports/HR-
29%20FINAL%20Drainage%20Areas%20of%20Iowa%20Streams.pdf)

Laursen, E.M. and A. Toch. Scour Around Bridge Piers and Abutments, Iowa Highway Research Board
Bulletin No. 4. Iowa City: Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, 1956. (Available on the Iowa DOT web site
at: https://iowadot.gov/research/reports/Year/2003andolder/fullreports/hr30.pdf)

Norman, J.M., R.J. Houghtalen, and W.J. Johnston. Hydraulic Design of Highway Culverts, Second
Edition; HDS No. 5. Washington: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2001

Richardson, E.V. and S.R. Davis. Evaluating Scour at Bridges, Fifth Edition; Hydraulic Engineering
Circular No. 18 (HEC-18). Washington: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2012. (Available on the
FHWA web site at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/hif12003.pdf)

3.2 Bridges
The information in Article 3.2 for preliminary design of bridges generally is organized by task in the design
process. The sequence of the tasks for a specific design project will not necessarily follow the sequence
in this article but, before completing a preliminary design, the designer should review the information on
each of the following topics that are applicable.
• Identification numbers
• Stream and river crossings
• Highway Crossings
• Railroad crossings
• Pedestrian and Shared Use Path Crossings
• Superstructures
• Substructures
• Cost estimates
• Preliminary Situation plans
• Permits and approvals
• Forms

When developing the site for bridge projects the designer should endeavor to use standard bridges as
much as possible. The Bureau has four types of standard bridges described in the superstructures article:
• Three-span continuous concrete slab (CCS) bridges, J-series [BDM 3.6.1.1],
• Single-span pretensioned prestressed concrete beam (PPCB), HSI-series [BDM 3.6.1.2],
• Three-span pretensioned prestressed concrete beam (PPCB) bridges, H-series [BDM
3.6.1.4], and
• Three-span rolled steel beam (RSB) bridges [BDM 3.6.1.5].

Additionally the Bureau has several series of standard pretensioned prestressed concrete beams [BDM
3.6.1.6] that may be used to assemble bridges with lengths and numbers of spans that vary from the
standard bridges. For spans above 155 feet or for bridges on significant horizontal curves the designer
may select a continuous welded plate girder superstructure [BDM 3.6.1.7].

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 13

The designer shall document the key details that lead to the proposed bridge configuration with a
Preliminary Bridge TSL Development Report. See the commentary for an example.

3.2.1 Identification numbers

A new bridge sized structure will be assigned three identification numbers: a bridge design number, an
FHWA number, and a bridge maintenance number. TheDOT preliminary designer unit staff need only
assign the bridge design number and request the FHWA number; bridge maintenance numbers are
assigned later by others. Assigning the bridge design number requires consideration of record keeping,
letting dates, and final design plan preparation. A bridge sized structure widening, repair, or RCB
extension becomes part of the existing structure, and no new FHWA number is required.

A structure is “bridge sized” if the structure as measured along the centerline of roadway is greater than
20 feet in length between undercopings of abutments or spring lines of arches, or extreme ends of
openings for multiple boxes; it may also include multiple pipes, where the clear distance between
openings is less than half of the smaller contiguous opening. Bridge sized structures shall be assigned an
FHWA number, as they are required to meet National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). When the
proposed structure is bridge sized and within 300 feet from the centerline of the existing FHWA numbered
structure, a replacement FHWA number should be assigned. Otherwise a new FHWA number should be
assigned. A twin 8’ x 8’ RCB with a 9-inch interior wall would require an FHWA number if constructed at a
34-degree or greater skew to the roadway since the extreme ends of opening distance along the roadway
would be greater than 20 feet. On replacement projects, the existing and proposed structure’s FHWA
number shall be shown on the proposed TS&L. Design numbers for temporary bridges utilized for on-site
detours shall be assigned under the replacement bridge FHWA number.

Each bridge should be assigned a separate design number even if there are two bridges with the same
geometry in the same letting. A bridge with a common approach roadway crown that requires a 2-inch
separation to reduce temperature forces should be assigned one design number if both portions are in
the same letting. However, if a bridge is separated by a 2-inch gap with a separate roadway approach
crown, two design numbers should be assigned. The designer shall consult with the Preliminary Bridge
Design Unit Leader if there are any unique situations for assigning design numbers.

Structures that are less than bridge sized (non-NBIS structures) requiring final structural design shall be
similarly assigned a design number (RCBs, bottomless culverts, pipes with special inlets or flumes, etc.).
However, an Asset ID number is assigned for non-NBIS structures in lieu of an FHWA number. DOT
preliminary design unit staff may need to request the Asset ID. Maintenance numbers are not assigned to
non-NBIS structures. For additional information on structure ID number assignment procedure and the
electronic documentation system policy organized by Asset ID, please refer to BDM 1.11.4. Once an
Asset ID is assigned to a structure that is less than bridge sized, a future structure repair, widening, or
extension, etc. becomes part of the existing structure asset ID, and no new Asset ID number is required.

For corridor projects the preliminary designer shall assign a file number for each preliminary engineering
(PE) number. For smaller projects without a PE number, assign a file number for each project. To
minimize file numbers, miscellaneous structures generated before a project is complete shall be
associated with the original file number.

3.2.2 Stream and river crossings

Stream and river crossings require the designer to consider the waterway in detail and, in some cases,
obtain permits for the bridge. The topics listed below are to be considered in design of bridges over
streams and rivers and are discussed in sub-articles that follow.
• Hydrology
• Hydraulics
• Backwater
• Freeboard
• Roadgrade overflow

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 14

• Streambank Protection
• Scour
• Riverine Infrastructure Database
• Datum Correlation
• Stream Slope and Streambed Profile
• State Water Trails and Paddling Routes

Design discharges should be based on current methodologies for determining compliance with Iowa DOT
policy or Iowa DNR regulations. As a general rule, the design discharge for rural structures on Iowa's
primary highway system is the 50-year flood. For bridge locations where the upstream flood damage
potential is high or where the site is located in a detailed Flood Insurance Study (FIS) area, the 100-year
flood should be the design discharge.

When a project is located in a detailed FIS area, the published peak discharges and flood elevations are
used for evaluating compliance with NFIP criteria. The discharges used to satisfy DNR criteria and for the
design of the structure may not be the published FIS discharges. The designer should calculate the
following discharges and stage for each bridge:
• Q2, Q5, Q10, Q25 - when the bridge site rating curve will be included in the Riverine Infrastructure
Database
• Q25 - when the need for coffer dams is anticipated in a river setting
• Q50 - to determine velocity through bridge opening, and freeboard to the regulatory low beam
• Q100 - to determine backwater, and velocities through the bridge opening, and freeboard
• Q200 - to determine design scour
• Q500 or QOvertopping - to determine check (maximum) scour and freeboard

Stage is the water surface elevation for a given discharge. Stage for the purpose of the hydraulic data
block and freeboard calculations is covered in BDM 3.2.2.4.is the engineer’s best estimate of the
PROPOSED water surface elevation at the downstream toe of the road embankment.

For preliminary design of new or replacement bridges at a waterway crossing, a certified report to
document the Hydrology and Hydraulic information is required. See the commentary for more information.

3.2.2.1 Hydrology
Reliable estimates of flood-frequency discharges are essential for the economic planning and safe design
of bridges and other structures located over streams. Hydrology for bridges should include the following
peak discharges for design: Q50, Q100, Q200 and Q500 or Qovertopping. In special cases the designer may need
to determine additional discharges for the project.

Drainage area should be determined by using the USGS web based program called Iowa “StreamStats”.
This method supersedes the Bulletin 7 (Red Book) for determining drainage areas at bridge sites.

“StreamStats” is capable of delineating a watershed from a point and computing the drainage area in
square miles. The engineer may use LiDAR or other more accurate information to check the results for
accuracy and to make and document appropriate corrections.

The designer has several methods for determining estimated discharges, which are listed below.

• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Studies (FIS)

Many cities and counties in Iowa have detailed FISs. Typically, a community with an FIS has
adopted regulations that can prohibit increasing the 100-year flood elevation or encroaching upon
a regulated floodway. The discharges and flood elevations in an FIS are usually legally binding
and are used by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources for ensuring compliance with NFIP
criteria. When a project is located outside the detailed area of an FIS but could impact flood
elevations or flood prone properties of an FIS community, the FIS information should be used for
analysis.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 15

In addition to using the FIS 100-year discharge to assure compliance with NFIP requirements, the
designer should use current methodologies for estimating peak discharges for the design of
structures and to satisfy DNR backwater and freeboard criteria.

• US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Regulated Flow Frequency Studies

For streams regulated by reservoirs, the latest USACE flow frequency study for the stream reach
should be consulted for Operational discharges to be used in design.

These streams are:

- Des Moines River downstream of Saylorville Reservoir.
- Iowa River downstream of Coralville Reservoir.
- Missouri River.

In addition, these documents should be consulted for Reservoir Stage-Frequency data that
should be considered in assessing the Operational characteristics of a riverine site, either on the
main stem or tributaries of these streams.

• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) stream gage
information
Stream gage data may be used for estimation of peak discharges when the structure site is at or
near a gaging station and the streamflow record is fairly complete and of sufficient length.
Information for stream gages in Iowa is available from USGS and USACE web sites as follows:

USGS - Iowa Water Science Center:

USGS - StreamStats - Annual Exceedance-Probability Discharge (AEPD) per Scientific

Investigations Report (SIR) 2013-5086. May be updated in the future to use Open File Report
2015-1214:

USGS - SIR 2013-5086 - Methods for Estimating Annual Exceedance-Probability Discharges for
Streams in Iowa - Based on Data through Water Year 2010. Provides Expected Moments
Algorithm/Multiple Grubbs-Beck (EMA/MGB) and Weighted Independent Estimates (WIE)
AEPD’s for gage data through water year 2010:

USGS - Statistical summaries of selected Iowa streamflow data through September 2013. Open-
File Report 2015-1214 provides EMA/MGB and WIE AEPD’s for gage data through water year
2013:

USGS – SIR 2015-5055 - Comparisons of Estimates of Annual Exceedance-Probability

Discharges for Small Drainage Basins in Iowa, Based on Data through Water Year 2013 provides
a comparison of AEPD estimates from five different AEPD-estimation methods.

USACE – Rock Island District

USACE – Omaha District

➢ Use of USGS Gage Information

If the drainage area at the project site is within 50% of the drainage area of the gage, the gage
discharges should be used and transferred to the project site per the method specified in USGS
SIR 2013-5086. Generally, a regression-weighted estimate should be utilized to ensure a smooth
transition from gage-weighted to regression equation discharge estimates for a stream. When the
project site falls between two stream gages (within 50% of gage drainage area per above) an
area-weighted estimate should generally be utilized. The gage parameters used for weighting

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 16

(gage site regression equation discharge or drainage area) should be reviewed for consistency
with the project (ungaged) site estimate.

The Iowa DOT AEPD spread sheet, addressed in more detail in the following section, includes
estimation of AEPD’s at ungaged sites on gaged streams per SIR 2013-5086. A future version of
the USGS StreamStats web site will also provide this functionality. Refer to the Iowa DOT AEPD
Spread Sheet Usage Guide, Section 4, for additional information on gage weighting
methodologies for ungaged sites on gaged streams.

A thorough review of gage derived AEPD estimates at gaged and ungaged sites should be
performed. Generally, the published gage AEPD estimates per SIR 2013-5086 will be adequate
(data through 2010). AEPD estimates per Open File Report 2015-1214 (data through 2013) can
be utilized and may be preferable for sites with limited years of uncensored records (less than 30
yrs.). A request can be made to the USGS through the DOT for updated statistics as required at a
gage. Considerations would be limited years of record or significant recent floods not captured by
the above reports.

For gaged sites USGS guidelines advise use of the WIE estimate. Since the WIE estimate makes
use of a Regional Regression Equation (RRE) AEPD estimate per SIR 2013-5086, applicability of
the RRE AEPD used in the WIE estimate should be determined. For gage sites with 25 years or
more of uncensored record, preference (weight) should be given to the EMA/MGB estimate in the
event of a significant discrepancy between the EMA/MGB and WIE AEPD estimates. Uncensored
data represents actual observed values, whereas censored data reflects historical or otherwise
estimated data values. Statistics developed using only uncensored data will generally be
presented as ‘period-of-record’ whereas statistics that include censored data generally be
presented as ‘historical period’.

For ungaged sites the gage weighted AEPD estimate should be reasonably consistent with the
gage AEPD estimate, particularly for gage sites with 25 years or more of uncensored record. For
example, that the ungaged site downstream of gaged site has an AEPD estimate greater than
gaged site estimate, etc.

If an AEPD estimate using stream gage data is not possible, alternative methods for discharge
determination are required.

• USGS Scientific Investigation Report 2013-5086 RRE estimates

Regional Regression methods in SIR 2013-5086 are applicable for streams in Iowa that are not
significantly affected by regulation, diversion, channelization, backwater, or urbanization. SIR
2013-5086 has defined three different flood regions for the state. Multi-variable and single-
variable regression equations were developed for each region (MRRE2013 and SRRE2013,
respectively).

Drainage area and basin characteristics should be determined by using the USGS web-based
GIS tool called Iowa “StreamStats”. StreamStats is capable of delineating a watershed from a
point and computing the drainage area in square miles. The designer may use LiDAR or other
more accurate information to check the results for accuracy and to make and document
appropriate corrections. StreamStats will report AEPD’s per SIR 2013-5086 regional regression
equations.

If the site meets the above conditions for use of SIR 2013-5086, the drainage basin is larger than
20 square miles, and an Annual Exceedance-Probability Discharge (AEPD) estimation using
stream gage data is not possible, the MRRE2013 flood estimation method will typically be used
for the design of bridges and culverts.

For small drainage basins in Iowa (20 square miles or less), the USGS report SIR 2015-5055
provides a comparison of several methods for least bias and best accuracy, including but not

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 17

limited to MRRE2013 and SRRE2013. For small basins, the SIR 2015-5055 report should be
consulted for guidance in selecting the method for estimating bridge or culvert design discharges
(see below).
If an AEPD estimation using stream gage data is not possible, the Regional Regression Equation
(RRE) methodology contained in USGS Scientific Investigation Report (SIR) 2013-5086 should
be used to estimate Annual Exceedance-Probability Discharge (AEPD) for the design of bridges
and culverts. A copy of the report can be obtained at the USGS web site per the link provided in
the previous section.

The USGS has developed a web based program called “StreamStats” that calculates the
estimated AEPD’s per SIR 2013-5086. Refer to the StreamStats web link per the above section.

For drainage basins larger than 20 square miles, the USGS SIR 2013-5086 Report should be
used for estimating design discharges.

For drainage basins between 2 and 20 square miles, WRIR 87-4132 may be used for the design
discharge. A thorough review of the basin characteristics and history of flooding along with
engineering judgement is needed when determining design discharges for small basins.

For drainage basins of 2 square miles or less, the Iowa DOT currently recommends that the Iowa
Runoff Chart should be used for calculating peak discharges.

➢ Iowa AEPD Spread Sheet

The Iowa DOT has developed an AEPD spread sheet which provides the ability to calculatean
alternative method to StreamStats for calculating AEPD’s per SIR 2013-5086. The variables for
each regression equation, including the Main-Channel Slope (MCS) variable, must be calculated
by the StreamStats program. AEPD’s per past USGS Regional Regression Equation (RRE)
procedures (USGS WRIR 87-4132 & WRIR 00-4233) can also be calculated for comparison
purposes.

The AEPD spread sheet should be used as a tool for comparing the different methodologies to
determine if any outliers are present in estimating the AEPD’s per SIR 2013-5086. In general,
USGS SIR 2013-5086 provides higher peak discharges than the previous regression equations,
particularly WRIR 87-4132. If the AEPD spread sheet determines that AEPD’s calculated per SIR
2013-5086 are significantly different from those estimated using previous RRE procedures
(USGS WRIR 87-4132 & 00-4233), then engineering judgment can be used to adjust SIR 2013-
5086 AEPD estimates for the design of bridges and culverts in Iowa. Preliminary Unit Leader
approval will be required when a methodology other than USGS SIR 2013-5086StreamStats is
recommended for proposed design discharges for drainage areas greater than 20 square miles.

USGS SIR 2013-5086 has defined three different flood regions for the state and utilizes a multi-
variable equation for each region. For basins that cross region boundaries (multi-region basins),
StreamStats will provide a SIR 2013-5086 RRE AEPD estimate for each region falling in the
basin, and a percent of the total basin area for each contributory flood region.weighted AEPD
estimate per SIR 2013-5086 based on the ratio of the area of each contributory flood region to the
total basin area.

The AEPD spread sheet can calculate AEPD’s for basins that cross region boundaries. per the
above. In addition, the AEPD spread sheet allows for alternate weighting of flood regions in multi-
region basins.

For multi-region RRE estimates, IaDOT recommendation/policy is to use an additional weighting

factor in the RRE estimate for the region where the site is located (outfall region). IaDOT
recommendation is to use an outfall region weighting of 2. Refer to the AEPD Spreadsheet Usage

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 18

Guide referenced above, Section 5, for guidelines on weighting of RRE AEPD multi-region
estimates.

• USGS WRIR 87-4132 and USGS WRIR 00-4233 RRE estimates

The regression equations contained in USGS WRIR 87-4132 & WRIR 00-4233 have been
superseded. However, the previous reports can be utilized for comparative purposes when
engineering judgment is used to estimate peak discharges for the design of bridges and culverts
in Iowa. A thorough review of the basin characteristics and history of flooding along with
engineering judgement is needed when determining design discharges for small basins. WRIR
87-4132 may be used for small basins (D.A. between 2 and 20 square miles).

See commentary for Q50/Q500 Chart to be used with WRIR 87-4132 analysis. The designer shall
utilize a frequency discharge curve to determine the Q200.

• USGS SIR 2015-5055

This study compared and evaluated AEPD estimates from five different AEPD-estimation
methods for small drainage basins (20 square miles or less):
o 2013 multi-variable RREs (MRRE2013)
o 2013 single-variable RREs (SRRE2013)
o 1987 single-variable RREs (SRRE1987)
o TR-55 rainfall-runoff model, and
o Iowa Runoff Chart
For project drainage basins between 2 to 20 with less than 20 square miles, the information
contained in this report should be utilized to aid in selecting an appropriate method for calculating
design AEPD estimates.

• USGS flood reports

Open file flood reports by the USGS have been developed and can be valuable supplemental
information when evaluating discharges and water surface elevations. The reports are listed in
the commentary and, in some cases, available for download as follows.
USGS Publications Warehouse

• Urban Hydrology
When development/urbanization is located within the drainage basin, other hydrologic
methodologies should be considered to account for the higher runoff potential due to additional
impervious areas and the decreased travel time. In general, urban hydrology for a basin should
be considered when 25% or more of the watershed has been developed.

For urban basins with less than 160 acres, the Rational Method may be used for determining
peak discharges. For urban basins larger than 160 acres, and for some complex basins that are
less in size, the design storm runoff may be analyzed by other methods such as TR-55 for
watersheds up to 2000 acres. For areas larger than 2000 acres TR-20 may be used or other
methodologies such as HEC-HMS or other programs.

Generally, a lumped parameter hydrologic model is utilized (NRCS losses/unit hydrograph,

Rational Method, etc.). A unit hydrograph based methodology is preferred except for relatively
small basins. The USGS StreamStats tool for Iowa can provide the basin parameters for the
NRCS methodology.

Hydrologic analysis that use precipitation/frequency relationships should use NOAA Atlas 14,
Volume 8: Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States, Midwestern States.

Rainfall Temporal distribution shall be a ‘Synthetic Storm’ developed from Atlas 14 rainfall data,
or the NRCS MSE-/MSE-4 distributions (supersede NRCS Type-II and III distributions).

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 19

Engineering judgment should be used when determining design discharges for basins that have
development/urbanization within its watershed.

3.2.2.2 Hydraulics
Once the peak discharges are determined for design, the structure must be analyzed to determine the
hydraulic capacity or conveyance of the bridge waterway opening. Bridges with a Q100 average bridge
velocity through a waterway opening (Q/A) of 6 feet/second or less typically do not experience excessive
scour or backwater. Therefore, it is desirable that the average bridge velocity for a proposed bridge
typically be near 6 feet/second. If the Q100 average bridge velocity for a proposed bridge is higher than 8
feet/second, backwater and scour potential needs to be closely reviewed with regard to waterway
adequacy.

Bridge hydraulics (freeboard, average bridge velocity, and backwater) can be analyzed by utilizing
various hydraulic programs such as HEC-2 or HEC-RAS, which are available from the Corps of Engineers
or other sources; the Iowa DOT Bridge Backwater program based on the publication Hydraulics of Bridge
Waterways, HDS 1; or WSPRO, which is available from FHWA. For complex hydraulic situations, 2-D
models such as TUFLOW, SRH-2D, HEC-RAS2D, MIKE FLOOD, etc. may be used. The designer should
be aware of the assumptions and limitations for using the methodology in any hydraulic analysis program.

• HEC-2 or HEC-RAS analysis

When a bridge is located within a detailed Flood Insurance Study (FIS) area, or the upstream
flood plain has a high damage potential (such as a residence or business located in the upstream
flood plain), the designer should perform a HEC-2 or HEC-RAS analysis to determine the impacts
on flood elevations.

• Iowa DOT Bridge Backwater program analysis

For bridges located in a rural area where the flood plain has a low damage potential, the designer
may use the Iowa DOT Bridge Backwater program to analyze backwater and freeboard provided
the conditions listed below are met.

(1) The channel is relatively straight.

(2) The floodplain cross section is fairly uniform.
(3) The stream slope is approximately constant.
(4) The flow is free to contract and expand.
(5) There is no appreciable scour hole in the bed at the constriction.
(6) The flow is in the sub critical range (Type I, non-pressure flow)
(6)(7) The bridge superstructure is not inundated sufficiently to create pressure flow.

• WSPRO analysis
For bridges located in a rural area where the flood plain has a low damage potential, the designer
may use WSPRO program to analyze backwater and freeboard.

• 2-Dimensional hydraulic analysis

For complex hydraulic locations, a 1-D hydraulic analysis may not adequately capture the effects
of flooding and backwater. These locations may include overflow bridges, flood plains with flank
or lateral levees and roadways that are significantly skewed to the flood plain. In those situations,
2-D hydraulic models such as TUFLOW, SRH-2D, HEC-RAS2D, MIKE FLOOD, etc. may be
more appropriate for analyzing the impacts associated with a bridge project.

3.2.2.3 Backwater
Bridge backwater is caused by the encroachment of the road embankment onto the floodplain which
constricts flood flows through the bridge opening. This constriction causes an increase in the normal
stage (flood elevation without a bridge and road embankment in place). The maximum backwater typically
occurs one or two bridge lengths upstream.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 20

Iowa DNR Criteria-

Iowa DNR backwater criteria are listed in Table 3.10.1-2. In general, bridges should be designed to meet
the backwater criteria even when a project does not require Iowa DNR approval. Variances to the
backwater criteria can be requested when it is not feasible to meet the backwater criteria and when
flowage easements are obtained for all affected landowners of low damage potential areas.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Studies (FIS) Criteria-

It should be noted that when a project involves development within a regulatory floodway (including
bridge piers), the analysis must show that the project will not cause an increase in the 100-year regulatory
flood elevation. If a “no rise” condition cannot be obtained when encroaching upon a regulatory floodway,
the designer may need to apply to FEMA for revisions to the FIS by means of a Conditional Letter of Map
Revision (CLOMR). After a CLOMR is issued and construction is completed a Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR) is obtained by submitting as-built plans.

For Iowa DOT projects, a “No-Rise” certification is not required since the Iowa DOT does not obtain
approval from local entities (city or county) for projects. However, we do submit a “Record of
Coordination” [BDM 3.10.1] for projects that do not require DNR approval to document for local
communities that our structures will comply with NFIP requirements.

The designer shall check the FEMA website to determine the current status of a community’s FIS. The
Designer shall consider a Preliminary FIS to be effective for the purpose of project development, unless
informed otherwise.

Projects located in communities that are mapped by the National Flood Insurance Program as flood prone
but do not show the 100-year flood elevation are not subject to the same requirements as a project
located in a detailed FIS area. If a community does not have an adopted floodway or established base
(100 year) flood elevations, it may be possible to construct a structure smaller than the existing structure
as long as the upstream damage potential is low. Sound engineering judgment should be used when
downsizing an existing structure.

Manning’s Equation is used to determine normal depth and a stage-discharge relationship (rating curve)
for analyzing bridges. Typical roughness coefficients for the equation are given in Table 3.2.2.3.

Table 3.2.2.3. Manning’s Roughness Coefficients for natural stream valleys (n-coefficients)

Description Detailed Description Manning’s

Coefficient
Channel, small to medium drainage Irregular section, meandering channel, 0.04-0.05
areas rocky or rough bottom, medium to heavy
growth on bank and side slopes
Uniform section, relatively straight, smooth 0.03-0.04
earthen bottom, medium to light growth on
bank and side slopes
Channel, large drainage area --- 0.025-0.035
Overbank flood plain, pasture land No brush or trees 0.05-0.07
Light brush and trees 0.06-0.08
Overbank flood plain, crop land --- 0.07-0.09
Overbank flood plain, brush and Heavy weeds, scattered brush 0.08-0.10
trees Medium to dense brush and trees 0.09-0.12
Dense brush and trees 0.10-0.15
Heavy stand of timber, a few downed 0.07-0.10
trees, little undergrowth

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 21

3.2.2.4 Freeboard
The purpose of freeboard is to provide adequate clearance for passage of debris and ice during high
flows and to reduce the potential of superstructure submergence. Debris and ice jams can create
horizontal and buoyant forces on the bridge superstructure and can reduce the bridge waterway opening
resulting in increased velocity, scour, and upstream flood levels. When policy desired freeboards are not
initially provided, the preliminary engineer should coordinate with Road Design regarding the roadway
profile, preferably during concept development.

The bridge stage determination differs based on the type of hydraulic model and analysis selected for a
site:
1. Iowa Bridge Backwater (IBB) Program
2. 1D model (eg. HEC-RAS)
3. 2D model (eg. TUFLOW, SRH-2D, HEC-RAS 2D)

For a 1D analysis and IBB, the stage for a given discharge is estimated using the proposed water surface
elevation at the downstream bounding section. This method is preferred, because it is thought to give a
dependable and representative stage elevation at the bridge. A proposed bridge upstream bounding
section in a 1D model has potential to vary due to the internal bridge calculations. For IBB, the
downstream valley section stage is translated to the downstream bounding section location using a
stream slope multiplied by channel distance adjustment.

When analysis is by 2D model, the proposed water surface elevations should be more accurate under
and around the bridge. The hydraulic engineer shall review results and determine the representative
stages to document in the Hydraulic Data Block and to utilize for scour calculations. Also, the engineer
shall determine the appropriate stage to check freeboard and inundation at specific locations along the
bridge.

If the operational freeboard for the 500-year event is less than 0 (no freeboard), consult the Unit Leader
for guidance.

When hydraulic modeling predicts that a span in a pretensioned prestressed concrete beam (PPCB)
bridge will be inundated by the 100-year or lesser floods, the designer should recommend that beams in
the span be vented to prevent buoyancy forces. (See BDM 5.4.2.4.2 for beam vent details.) The designer
also should recommend venting a steel superstructure with integral abutments that will be inundated from
abutment to abutment by the 100-year or lesser floods [BDM 5.5.1.4.2].

For streams draining more than 100 square miles in rural (unincorporated) areas and for streams draining
more than 2 square miles in urban (incorporated) areas, the Iowa DNR 50-year event operational
freeboard is 3 ft. minimum, unless a licensed engineer provides certification that the bridge is designed to
withstand the applicable effects of ice and the horizontal stream loads and uplift forces associated with
the Q100. For streams draining less than 100 square miles in rural areas and streams draining less than
2 square miles in urban areas, no Iowa DNR permit is needed. In this case 3 ft. of 50-year event
operational freeboard is still desirable to facilitate passage of debris and ice. In addition, for all bridges it
is desirable that 500-year event channel freeboard is provided (>=0) to reduce potential for pressure flow
conditions. Channel freeboard is critical for sites that do not have relief (roadway overtop and/or overflow
bridges). For sites such as this, 500-year event channel freeboard should be considered a requirement,
unless waived by the Unit Leader.

Table 3.2.2.4 Freeboard Policy Summary

Freeboard Event (year) Minimum Comments
Type Clearance
Operational - 50 3’ Required, unless floodplain
DNR Permit development permit notes (below) are
required included on the TS&L

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 22

Operational - 50 3’ Preferred
DNR permit
not required
Operational 100 >0’ Preferred. For less clearance, consult
with Unit Leader. TS&L note regarding
venting of beams may be required.
Operational 500 >0’ Preferred. For less clearance, consult
with Unit Leader.
Channel 500 >=0’ Preferred. For less clearance, consult
with Unit Leader. Clearance is critical
for bridges that do not have
overtopping or overflow relief.
Note: Consult the article for more complete information.

For situations where one or more of the following conditions are present, it may be acceptable to consider
a design with a reduced freeboard:
• The bridge is a floodplain overflow structure,
• Ice or debris is not expected to be a problem,
• Road grade overflow readily provides relief in the event the bridge opening is obstructed,
• Raising an existing grade will result in excessive costs or damages, as in heavily developed
urban areas,
• The proposed bridge provides channel freeboard (>=0) for the 500-year event, or
• The proposed bridge channel freeboard is increased as compared to the existing bridge to the
extent feasible.

If a project requires a DNR permit and the Q50 operational freeboard is less than 3.0 feet, the preliminary
designer shall add the following design note to the T,S&L:

Floodplain Development Permit Notes:

The bridge will be designed to withstand the applicable
effects of ice and horizontal stream loads and uplift
forces associated with the Q100.

3.2.2.5 Road grade overflow

New primary road profile grades generally should be designed to ensure that the 100-year flood elevation
including backwater is not greater than the outside edge of shoulder. However, the designer should
recognize that if the road grade is much higher, road grade overflow will not serve as a relief valve for the
bridge during an extreme flood.

Changes to existing primary road profile grades on bridge replacement projects also need careful
consideration. The designer should ensure that raising profile grades in areas with a history of roadway
overtopping does not have a negative impact to adjacent property owners.

Coordination of the road grades with the Design Bureau may be required.

There are situations when roadway overtopping can cause significant damage to the roadway
embankment and pavement due to the duration of overtopping and the head differential across the
road. To mitigate damages due to roadway overtopping during floods, a Grid Tied Concrete Block Mat per
DB RDD 570-20 or 570-22 should be used.

SRD 570-22 (Major Overtopping) should be used for overtopping events with long durations (greater than
12 hours) or when the head differential for a flood is greater than 1.5 feet. SRD 570-20 (Minor
Overtopping) should be used for shorter duration overtopping events (less than 12 hours) or when the
head differential across the roadway is less than 1.5 feet during the overtopping event. The difference

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 23

between the two Standards is the anchor block detail to prevent the Mat separating from the existing
pavement.

The Mat should also be used when significant damage has occurred to the embankment or pavement
due to a flood especially if along an Interstate or high volume NHS route. The vulnerability of an asset
and need for additional protective measures due to roadway overtopping should be evaluated
economically and based on the critical usage of the highway.

3.2.2.6 Streambank protection

Streambank erosion is a natural process in which the stream adjusts to changing conditions within its
channel and watershed. The main factors contributing to streambank erosion are the velocity of water,
angle of attack, soil type, lack of vegetation, and changes in land use.

When stream velocities exceed 8 to 10 feet per second, riprap may be considered. Past aerial photos
should be examined to determine an approximate rate of erosion.

There are many streambank stabilization practices used by the engineering profession. A detailed
description of the different methods is beyond the scope of these guidelines. However, because 75% of
the streambank failures are caused by toe scour, a common design practice for bank protection with
riprap is to provide adequate protection at the toe of the bank: a minimum 6-foot from the toe or to the
maximum scour elevation. The riprap should be a minimum 2-foot thick layer of Class E Revetment [IDOT
SS 2507.03]. For situations where greater protection is recommended, a minimum 3-foot thick layer of
Class C revetment may be considered. The bank slope generally should be 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. The
designer should identify the limits of the riprap by station and offset on the TSL sheet.

As a general rule, any streambank protection design should not extend more than 25% of the width of the
eroded channel, which includes the sandbar. The streambank protection design should be sufficiently
keyed into the bank to prevent undercutting. For a bank toe protection example see the commentary for
this article.

3.2.2.7 Scour
Scour calculations should be made for all new and replacement bridges. The most common cause of
bridge failure is from floods scouring bed material from bridge piers and abutments. Bridge scour is the
engineering term for the movement of soil caused by the erosive action of water. Bridge scour is a
complex process and difficult to analyze but very important in terms of bridge safety and maintenance
cost. For guidance on calculating bridge scour the Bureau generally relies on the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) publication HEC-18 Evaluating Scour at Bridges, 5TH Edition and the
recommendations and guidelines published in “Iowa DOT Bridge Scour Guidelines.” See the commentary
for this article.

The effects of scour should involve a multidisciplinary review of hydraulic, geotechnical, and structural
engineers to assess the stability of a structure.

“Iowa DOT Bridge Scour Guidelines” is derived from HEC-18. The main difference between the FHWA
publication and the Iowa DOT methodology is the way pier scour is calculated. For most cases pier scour
in Iowa has been calculated using the research performed by Laursen under “Iowa Highway Research
Board Bulletin No. 4, Scour Around Bridge Piers and Abutments.” HEC-18 recommends the Colorado
State University (CSU) equation for calculating pier scour. The Laursen equations and the CSU method
give comparable results.

3.2.2.7.1 Types
There are two types of bridge scour: general or contraction scour and local scour.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 24

• General or contraction scour is the decrease in streambed elevation due to encroachment of the
road embankment onto the flood plain causing a contraction of flood flows, and
• Local scour is the loss of material around piers, abutments, wing dikes, and embankments.

There are two conditions for contraction and local scour: clear water and live-bed.
• Clear water scour occurs when there is little to no movement of the bed material of the stream
upstream of the crossing. Typical situations include most overflow bridges without a defined
channel, coarse bed material streams that could be found in northeast Iowa, flat gradient streams
during low flow, and bridges over main channels with a significant overbank length.
• Live-bed scour occurs when velocities are high enough to move the bed material upstream of the
crossing. Most Iowa streams experience live-bed scour since they consist of sands and silts.

The designer should calculate the individual estimates of contraction, pier, and abutment scour. The
designer should also consider long-term degradation when determining the total contraction scour depth.
Local scour should be added below the contraction scour at each pier and abutment for evaluation. The
designer should also apply engineering judgment when comparing results obtained from scour
computations with available hydrologic and hydraulic data to achieve a reasonable and prudent design.

3.2.2.7.2 Design conditions

The design scour is determined for the 200-year or lesser flood, depending on which results in the most
severe scour conditions. Usually the overtopping flood results in the worst scour, so evaluate this
discharge if it is less than the 200-year flood. This scour depth is used by the final designer to check pile
capacity and stability using load factors for the strength limit state.

The check scour is based on the occurrence of a 500-year or lesser flood, depending on which results in
the most severe scour conditions. Bridge foundations will be evaluated by the final designer to ensure
that they will not fail at the extreme event limit state due to the check (maximum) scour.

The preliminary situation plan hydraulic data block shall show the design and check scour elevations.

3.2.2.7.3 Evaluating existing structures

When evaluating an existing bridge for scour, the designer should be aware of the procedures to evaluate
the structure by engineering judgment to determine if it is scour-safe. A “Bridge Scour Stability
Worksheet” and “Intermediate Scour Assessment Procedures” evaluation should be performed before
proceeding with a calculated HEC-18 scour analysis. This may significantly reduce the cost of analyzing
structures for scour that could be considered scour-safe.

The “Bridge Scour Stability Worksheet” was developed in the early 1990s to assess structures based on
the type of structure, observed conditions, and stream geomorphics. The structures were considered
stable or scour-critical based on the point total determined from the worksheet.

The “Intermediate Scour Assessment Procedures” were developed in 1997 to provide additional
assessment of existing structures that have not been evaluated for scour. A flowchart was developed to
assess those bridges that could be considered scour-safe.

If the structure is not determined to be scour-safe after assessment by the “Bridge Scour Stability
Worksheet” or the “Intermediate Scour Assessment Procedure,” a full computational analysis (HEC-18)
must be performed.

3.2.2.7.4 Depth estimates

{Text for this article will be added in the future.}

3.2.2.7.5 Countermeasures
{Text for this article will be added in the future.}

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 25

3.2.2.7.5.1 Riprap at abutments

{Text for this article will be added in the future.}

3.2.2.7.5.2 Riprap at piers

{Text for this article will be added in the future.}

3.2.2.7.5.3 Wing dikes

The use of wing dikes (also called spur dikes or guide banks) shall be considered at any bridge site that
has appreciable overbank discharge (25% or more of the total design Q in an overbank area). Wing dikes
help minimize backwater and scour effects. See the commentary for a table on selecting appropriate
lengths of wing dikes and the Design Bureau’s manual [DB SRP EW-210] for construction details. The
riprap should typically be extended through the end of the wing dike.

3.2.2.7.6 Coding
{Text for this article will be added in the future.}

3.2.2.8 Riverine Infrastructure Database

The Riverine Infrastructure Database (RIDB) is a database of Iowa Department of Transportation facilities
in the riverine environment. The database consists of location data in addition to hydrologic and hydraulic
data so impacts to facilities during a flood event can be rapidly evaluated.

A riverine location for this purpose is a stream crossing a waterway having a drainage area greater than
10 square miles. The RIDB determination should be made before work begins since additional hydraulic
studies will generally be made as part of the concept development.

For more information, refer to the Riverine Infrastructure Database – Data Compilation and Data
Guideline documents. These documents are available on the Iowa DOT website.

RIDB – Data Compilation

RIDB - Data Guidelines

For a bridge project concept requiring an RIDB dataset, the Bridge Bureau Concept Attachment shall
include the RIDB site identification code. The site identification code is used for database indexing and
consists of two parts, the stream ID and River Mile. Stream ID and River Mile shall be obtained through
use of GIS mapping. Map information has been made available through the Iowa DOT ArcGIS Online
web application (see link below). The Iowa DOT preliminary staff reviewer shall verify all consultant site
identification locations during the concept review process. The RIDB site identification code shall be
documented on the TSL in the Hydraulic Data Block.

It is good practice during Concept level development to inquire or check to see if an existing site has a
completed RIDB dataset. If available, RIDB survey and portions of the dataset will be helpful to the
engineer. However, an updated/finalized existing and proposed bridge dataset deliverable will still be
required with the B1 RIDB submittal.

RIDB Stream WebApp

For project development, the RIDB dataset deliverables shall be placed in the project directory under the
preliminary bridge RIDB subfolder. Upon dataset completion, Iowa DOT preliminary bridge staff shall
place a text file within a “pending_PW” subfolder containing the engineer’s name, completion date, and
pathway or link to the completed dataset. The dataset information will be added to the GIS map and
database by others.

3.2.2.9 Datum Correlation

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 26

All data utilized for project development shall be based on the project datum. The designer shall correlate
all data sources to the project datum. Data source correlation information shall be documented in the
Hydraulic Report and stored in the project directory.

Sources including USGS/COE flood studies and Flood Insurance Studies may be based on NGVD 29
datum. Past roadway/bridge projects were developed utilizing a variety of datums. LiDAR and other non-
project datasets based on NAVD 88 datum will need to be verified and adjusted for systematic error
(bias).

Guidance on datum correlation procedures can be reviewed under the Part 6 “Survey Requirements” of
the Riverine Infrastructure Database – Data Guidelines.

3.2.2.10 Stream StabilityHydraulic Grade Line and Streambed Profile

Determination

3.2.2.10.1 Hydraulic Grade Line and Streambed Profile Determination

The determination of design Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) and design Streambed Profile (SP) are critical to
the hydraulic design of structures. The design HGL is typically utilized to determine the stage-discharge
relationship at the downstream boundary for the project hydraulic model and is the source for slope at the
structure location which will be published on the TS&L. The design SP is utilized in calculating scour
elevations and for publication on the TS&L longitudinal section as the Design streambed elevation. The
SP (and low water offsets) are also typically used to “carve” out a channel within a LiDAR dataset for use
in hydraulic modeling.

Following is the recommended procedure for SP determination utilizing LiDAR data. An SP derived from
LiDAR data is recommended in that it may indicate a degrading channel, or slope changes within the
hydraulic model reach, both of which can influence the structure design. Other procedures may be used,
as long as the process accounts for existing local scour (bend, contraction, etc.) and stream degradation
in determination of the design streambed elevation.

The Iowa statewide LiDAR datasets (circa 2008 and 2020) can be utilized for SP determination. Use of a
LiDAR derived SP, as follows, can be considered as representing top of water, in general, at the time of
the LiDAR flight. A profile of the LiDAR derived surface (ground returns) along approximate centerline
channel is obtained. The profile will generally be jagged due to triangulation across the stream channel of
ground returns. The LiDAR SP is derived by plotting a ‘best fit’ profile against the lowest points on this
plot, as these represent the lowest ground returns in the dataset, and therefore approximate water
surface at the time of the LiDAR data collection.

Once a LiDAR derived top water SP is established, the depth to design low water and thalweg from
LiDAR SP can be estimated through consideration of project survey, aerial photography, and bridge
maintenance reports. Low water and streambed elevations can be plotted against the LiDAR top water
SP to estimate offsets to design SP (thalweg) and design low water.

For locations with limited data, an estimate of water level at riffle locations upstream and downstream of
the structure, with offset to thalweg at the riffle, can be used to estimate design low water and streambed
elevation at the structure. Bridge maintenance reports, aerial photography and site photos, in conjunction
with interpretation of the LiDAR dataset, can be used to establish these elevations. The LiDAR top water
SP can then be shifted to these elevations to establish design and low water SP’s.

For culvert projects, this process can be utilized to determine appropriate design inlet and outlet
streambed elevations. Buried culvert flowlines would be relative to the design streambed elevations.

Once the design SP has been determined per the above, the design HGL slope can be estimated.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 27

For projects on small watersheds (culverts, small bridges) the preferred method for determining the HGL
slope is to determine the slope from the LiDAR derived SP. For larger watersheds USGS Flood Profiles or
detailed National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) profiles, when available,
can be utilized to determine the HGL slope. Use of these sources to estimate HGL slope is preferred, with
the slope determined from these sources compared to the LiDAR derived SP to review for outliers in the
flood profile data.

3.2.2.10.2 Grade Control Structures

Stream instability due to channel straightening, land use changes, more intense rainfall events, and
erosive soils can result in the downcutting and associated widening of streams known as degradation.
The unstable stream conditions make their way upstream, negatively impacting structures, utilities,
farmland, and more. Damage from degradation at a bridge might include an increase in unsupported
length for pile bents, unbalanced soil loading on piers, undermined pier footings, a widened channel
(making the bridge too short) or steepened/unstable berm slopes. At a culvert outlet, the damage from
degradation might include headwall settlement, joint separation, or undermining.

Western Iowa is particularly susceptible to channel instability and degradation due to the erodibility of
loess soils. A local group called Hungry Canyon Alliance (HCA) was formed to research and implement
solutions for western Iowa Counties with deep loess soils. Several publications have been made available
covering topics such as how to identify the stages of channel degradation, and potential solutions for
degraded sites. A good study reference for grade control structures (GCS) evaluating different types of
solutions that have been constructed and what works is titled “Case Study 12: Grade Control Structures
in Western Iowa Streams”, Part 654 National Engineering Handbook, August 2007, John T. Thomas,
Hungry Canyons Alliance.

GCS have been found to be a cost-effective solution for the effects of stream instability and degradation.
For small drainage basins, the solution may be culverts or pipes with drop inlets or flumes. For large
drainage areas, the solution may be a sheet pile drop structure with energy dissipation.

A properly designed GCS will provide vertical channel stability in a controlled way. They may be
considered for placement downstream of a highway structure to repair or reduce potential damage
caused by degradation. Once installed, they will have the added benefit of keeping degradation from
progressing further upstream. This reduces potential damage not only to the bridge but also to upstream
structures, buried utilities, and property. Sediment should settle out upstream of the structure to raise the
streambed to a design elevation.

All DOT new and replacement structure sites, as well as sites with unstable channels/bank erosion shall
be evaluated for stream instability and degradation. The following process should be considered standard
practice:
• Review of Bridge Maintenance Reports, for the subject site and downstream bridges, including
local entity bridges (available online through SIIMS).
o Stream profile sketches can provide a comparison between the channel streambed
during recent inspections verses the original structure plan and historical streambed.
Damage at piers or berms may be documented. The Engineer should be looking for a
pattern or duration of channel lowering to help differentiate between channel degradation
and post-flood scour.
o Inspection photos can give an indication of channel bank sloughing up and downstream
in the vicinity of the bridge, and site damage including undermined footings, unbalanced
soil loading on piers, etc.
• A site visit and visual inspection should include review of the site for damage potentially caused
by channel degradation. The engineer should document any indicators of degradation or stream
instability, such as unvegetated and steepened channel banks that extend up or downstream
beyond limits affected by bridge flood flow expansion/contraction.
• Review of high-resolution aerial photographs to determine channel condition upstream and
downstream of the site. Indications of active or relatively recent degradation are unvegetated

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 28

channel banks and changes in channel width within the reach. Review for installed channel
control structures. The subject site may benefit from a recently constructed GCS downstream.
• If the above review indicates degradation may be an issue, a LiDAR channel profile extending a
good distance up and primarily downstream of the site should be developed. If the site is located
in a region identified by the HCA as having past degradation, standard practice at these bridge or
culvert project sites would be to develop a LiDAR profile. Information provided by the profile will
need to be documented and considered. The profile can be used to evaluate whether the stream
is experiencing degradation. If degradation knick-point locations are identified, associated vertical
depth of drop(s) moving up the channel can be determined.
• A review of flood plain permit requirements. Refer to the Iowa DNR web site for flood plain permit
thresholds and criteria [ IAC 567-71.11, 71.12, and 72.11. Also, potentially 71.9, 72.9 may be
applicable if stream bank protection is involved].

When channel degradation is impacting or is identified as having a potential to impact DOT structures, a
grade control structure should be considered. The most typical drop structure options utilized by the Iowa
DOT are listed below.

In general, if the site is regulated under the Iowa DNR Flood Plain Regulations referenced above,
accommodation of fish passage in the design will be required. The Location and Environment Bureau
(LEB) will identify streams at culvert locations that are classified as Waters of the United States (WOTUS)
and require fish passage at the W00 (Preliminary Wetland Review) event [BDM 4.4.11].

Drop Structure Options

1) RC Flumes downstream of a culvert. If fish passage is required, this is not possible. Report IDOT TR-
750 may be a useful reference for this type of design.

2) Grouted rock flumes.

A typical GCS constructed for Iowa DOT would consist of a raised steel sheet pile weir/grouted rock
flume. The structure would allow the stream elevation drop to occur in a controlled setting. Design
guidance documents, such as the River Restoration Toolbox Practice Guide 1: Grade Control is available
on the DNR website. If fish passage is required, a 15:1 or flatter weir slope is required. Iowa rock flume
structures are typically designed with a maximum 4’ drop at a given structure (or up to half the bank full
height).

The sheet pile at the crest of the flume is critical to prevent undermining as it acts as a seepage cut off.
Containment of the revetment at the downstream extent of the GCS should be considered. This can be
accomplished by a self-launching revetment toe of adequate volume, or a sheet pile cut-off wall of
adequate depth, for estimated scour and future degradation.

When a revetment stilling basin is not provided, a sheet pile cut-off wall should be used. In this case bank
stabilization downstream of the wall will need to be designed for scour and future degradation by
providing a self-launching revetment of adequate volume, or a sheet pile containment wall, along the toe
of bank revetment.

If a sheet pile cut-off is used, design scour and future degradation depth shall be provided on the TSL.
The designer shall note on the TSL plan that “Sheet pile depth shall be determined in final design as a
free-standing cantilever wall.”

3.2.2.11 State Water Trail and Paddling Routes

State Water Trails and Paddling Routes are recreational corridors and routes on rivers and lakes that
provide a unique experience for canoeists and kayakers. The Iowa DNR provides information on these
routes for recreational users including adequate access points. A Paddling Map identifying State Water
Trails and Paddling Routes is available on the DNR web site. Projects that will obstruct a waterway

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 29

identified on the DNR Paddling Map will be subject to requirements. The process for coordinating and
implementing the requirements is summarized in the following paragraphs.

Project types listed may result in a potential obstruction to a Water Trail or Paddling Route, and will
require coordination with DNR to determine project requirements. Waterway obstructions typically include
temporary stream crossings (including temporary detour bridges) and causeways, equipment in the river
such as platform barges, cofferdams, and significant amounts of debris such as might occur with a bridge
removal or bridge deck replacement. Work types requiring coordination with the DNR are:
1. New structures
2. Replacement structures
3. Bridge widening
4. Superstructure replacement
5. Superstructure strengthening – when the waterway is obstructed
6. Deck replacements
7. Bridge removal
8. Bridge repairs – when the waterway is obstructed

Coordination with the Iowa DNR is initiated after the B0 or D0 Final Concept is complete, through use of
the Iowa DNR Permit and Environmental Review Management Tool (PERMT), as an Environmental
Review Request. Preliminary design unit staff will make the PERMT submittal and track status, regardless
of project type. The Iowa DNR will respond with a Letter of Agreement, which shall be stored in the
project Permits_Regulatory folder. Typical requirements listed in the Agreement will include notification to
the DNR when signage is placed and removed, and minimum signage specifications and placement
locations to make recreational users aware of the paddling route closures that will be in place for the
duration of the project construction.

Project sign details, plan notes, and bid items associated with the requirements will be addressed by the
Design Bureau and incorporated into the plan set.

The role of the Preliminary Bridge Designer will be:

1. Indicate that the State Water Trail and Paddling Route requirements will be applicable in the BSB
Attachment for Concept Statement (see BDM C3.11 for an example).
2. Include a note to the Final Designer on the B01 TSL that states the requirements for a State Water
Trail or Paddling Route are applicable, and that the signage, plan notes, and bid items shall be
addressed by the Design Bureau and included in the Road Plans. The note is intended for designer
information only and should be removed from the final bridge plan.

3.3 Highway crossings

3.3.1 Clearances
A grade separation design must satisfy both vertical clearance and horizontal clear zone requirements.

Vertical clearance distances at grade separation structures depend upon the mainline and side-road
highway type and whether an interchange is present. Vertical clearance is measured from the low point of
the overhead structure to the roadway, including the traffic lanes and shoulders. Minimum vertical
clearance to be provided for a new or replacement bridge over primary highways is 16.5 feet and over
non-primary highways is 15.0 feet [DB DM 1C-1]. For all primary over non-primary grade separations with
an interchange, it is desirable to provide a clearance of 16.5 feet [DB DM 6B-2, 1C-1]. The specified
minimum vertical clearances are inclusive of an allowance for possible 6-inch future overlay. The
minimum vertical clearance for the permanent condition and any interim condition, due to staging, shall
be shown on the TS&L.

Horizontal clear zone distances depend on design speed, average daily traffic (ADT), horizontal curvature
and roadside geometry; see the Preferred Clear Zone and Acceptable Clear Zone Tables in the Design

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 30

Bureau’s manual [DB DM 8A-2]. Any structure not meeting the preferred clear zone but meeting Design
Bureau’s acceptable clear zone will need Preliminary Unit Leader approval and documentation in the file.

Use values in the fill slope portion of the table (fs ≥ 6:1). The horizontal clear zone is measured either
from the edge of the traveled way in rural sections or from the back of curb in urban sections. Do not
determine the clear zone based on the edge of the pavement, as this is typically 2 feet wider than the
traveled way. If multiple highway types (mainline, ramps, loops auxiliary lanes, etc.) are present, use the
clear zone that governs. Clear zones apply to both the bridge pier and berm slope together when a side
pier is proposed. However, clear zone does not apply to the berm slope alone when there will be no side
pier and a recoverable berm is proposed.

A vertical clearance of 14.5 feet should be provided within the horizontal clear zone [DB DM 8A-2]. This
vertical clear zone is to be maintained throughout the entire horizontal clear zone area.

3.3.2 Ditch drainage

If ditch drainage must be carried through the approach fills of a highway crossing structure, the designer
should use a culvert rather than an open ditch, which increases the bridge length and cost. Ditch drainage
may be conveyed behind the abutment due to excessive length and/or size of culvert.

3.4 Railroad crossings

The following articles are intended to provide guidance for obtaining agreements with the railroad for
constructing within their right-of-way (ROW). Each project is unique and early coordination with the
railroad regarding their design requirements and guidelines will help in the design process for grade
separation structures. All Iowa DOT projects involving railroads should be coordinated at the concept
stage through the Rail Transportation Bureau.

The design requirements and guidelines for grade separation structures over the Burlington Northern
Santa-Fe (BNSF) Railway and Union Pacific Railroad (UP) may be different than other railroad crossings.
Canadian National Railway (CN) and Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) have been requesting similar design
standards to BNSF and UP. For preliminary bridge design of overhead structures, the guidelines are
divided into two groups: BNSF, UP, CN and CP ownership, and Non-BNSF, UP, CN and CP ownership.
The sections covering submittals and underpass structures will apply to all railroads.

The preliminary designer should be aware that federal funding will not include costs associated with
improvements that increase the cost of the bridge above the limits specified in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR 646). Considerations include the level of commitment for future track expansion,
vertical and horizontal clearances, and berm placement location. In general, it is Iowa DOT policy to
accommodate the railroad’s requirements unless a significant cost will be incurred. For BNSF, UP, CN
and CP, the designer should review all feasible options. Additional guidance for these Railroads is
provided in article 3.4.1. In some cases, two bridge TS&Ls may be required to determine the limit of
federal participation for a project.

3.4.1 BNSF, UP, CN, and CP overhead structures

The guidelines provided within this section are intended for overhead grade separation projects impacting
the BNSF, UP, CN, and CP Railroads. The requirements and guidelines generally follow BNSF and UP
Railroad guidelines, but are applied also to CN and CP Railroads and are written from an Iowa DOT
project development perspective. For additional information and detail, the designer may refer to sections
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of BNSF-UP’s Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects [BDM 3.1.5.2],
AREMA’s Manual for Railway Engineering [BDM 3.1.5.2], and any applicable sections of the AASHTO
LRFD Specifications.

3.4.1.1 Vertical clearance

The minimum vertical clearance from the top of rail elevation to low beam is 23'-4 (UPRR/CN/CP) and
23’-6 (BNSF). The BNSF and UP Railroads also require that the extent of the permanent vertical

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 31

clearance shall be a minimum of 9 feet to the field side of the outer most existing or future tracks,
measured perpendicular to the centerline of said tracks, and shall include all spaces between. A wider
envelope may be required for curved track situations. Additional vertical clearance may also be requested
by the railroad for correction of a sag in the track, construction requirements, and future track raises. To
assist the railroad in evaluating the site specific needs, the profile of the existing top-of-rail, measured
1000 feet each side of proposed overhead structure, shall be shown on the standard sheet [BSB SS
1067].

Federal funding limits may not allow for participation in the additional project costs associated with the
desired 18 feet wide vertical clearance envelope and additional clearance for future track raises.
However, it is Iowa DOT policy to accommodate the requested clearances unless a significant expense
will be incurred. Iowa DOT requests for variance to these desired additional clearances should be limited
to these cases.

3.4.1.2 Horizontal clearance

The BNSF, UP, CN and CP Railroads prefer all bridge berms, piers (including pier caps) and abutments
to be located outside the railroad right-of-way. For a project concept, contact the Iowa DOT Rail
Transportation Bureau for ROW information. If this is not feasible, all piers and abutments should be
located to provide the widest feasible horizontal clearance. At a minimum the placements shall meet the
requirements listed in BDM 3.4.2.

Where it is impractical to clear span the Railroad ROW, written justification and request for variance
should be submitted through the Rail Transportation Bureau as part of the Concept coordination. The
request shall describe the geometric, structural, and other constraints which make a clear-span
alternative unfeasible and shall show that all options have been exhausted. A variance request should not
be submitted for non-engineering reasons such as cost or time savings.

Note that pier placement at the right-of-way line may also require an associated shifting of the bridge
berm. Since the berm location determines the bridge length, shifting the berm out to the right-of-way may
result in a bridge exceeding the length and cost allowed for federal participation. The cost difference may
need to be provided to FHWA to determine the appropriate level of funding.

3.4.1.3 Piers
Piers within 25 feet, measured perpendicular from centerline of existing or anticipated future track shall be
of heavy construction as defined in the AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering. Generally, for new
bridges the Bureau prefers the T-pier to satisfy heavy construction requirements in lieu of a pier
protection wall. Top of pier footings located within 25 feet from centerline of track shall be a minimum of 6
feet below base of rail and a minimum 1 foot below the flow line of the ditch.

3.4.1.4 Bridge berms

When feasible, the bridge berm locations should be set beyond the Railroad ROW. It is recognized that
this policy will in most cases exceed the federal policy and requirements summarized below.

FHWA has indicated that full funding participation applies when the location of a bridge berm with a 2.5:1
slope is set at the top of rail elevation 26 feet from centerline of the outermost track (27.5 feet for 3:1
berm slope). This FHWA method of setting the berm location provides for a small ditch sufficient for
ballast to drain. Additional ditch drainage may require a culvert through the bridge berms to adequately
convey the drainage. If a culvert is proposed, it must be analyzed to meet the BNSF and UP hydraulic
design criteria summarized in the drainage section below.

Macadam stone slope protection should be proposed on the bridge berms. The railroad standard shows
the slope protection terminating at the bottom of drainage ditch and must have a cut-off wall to protect the

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 32

slope from scour/erosion. In all cases, the toe of slope shall be below the finished track or roadway sub-
grade.

3.4.1.5 Drainage
Railroad corridors are constructed with a drainage system designed to keep runoff away from the tracks
and ballast. The proposed construction shall safely pass high flows and not inhibit low flows. A complete
hydrologic and hydraulic study is required whenever new or additional drainage is added to the railroad
right of way, or when a drainage structure is scheduled to be added, removed, or replaced. The drainage
report and support documentation must include hydraulic data (EGL, water surface elevations, and
velocities) for both the existing and proposed conditions. If the proposed bridge structure will not change
the quantity and characteristics of the flow in railroad ditches and drainage structures, the plan shall
include a general note stating so.

The BNSF and UP Railroad standard provides for an open ditch under a bridge to convey drainage. For
DOT projects, in most cases the existing railroad ditches will be spanned and used as constructed. In rare
situations when the berm construction impacts the existing open ditch, use of a culvert or non-standard
railroad ditch to convey drainage will need to be justified and a variance requested. In this case, the
justification would need to demonstrate that the proposed design is in compliance with the railroad’s
hydraulic criteria.

3.4.1.6 Barrier rails and fencing

Early coordination with the railroad regarding recommendations for barrier rail and fencing is desired.

On sidewalk or trail facilities the top of the fence should be curved to discourage climbing. A minimum 8-
foot vertical clearance should be provided for the full clear width of the trail or sidewalk. To prevent
surface water from draining onto the railroad right of way, a one-foot parapet is required.

Fencing is also requested by the BNSF and UP on top of barrier rail on overhead structures without
sidewalks or trails. Due to traffic safety concerns related to fencing on top of roadway barrier rail, the Iowa
DOT generally proposes to the railroad that the fencing be omitted and that a 44-inch barrier rail be
provided to control the amount of snow and debris falling onto the track. This proposal is subject to site
specific review and variance by the railroad.

The 44-inch barrier rail and railroad fence requirements should be carried at a minimum to the limits of the
railroad right-of-way or 25 feet beyond the centerline of track, future track or access road, whichever is
greater. Barrier and fence may be reduced back to a more standard configuration on the bridge once the
railroad minimum requirements have been met. The bridge final designer will determine based on cost
and constructability whether it is more economical to keep the fence and rail uniform for the full length of
the bridge or to taper back as soon as allowable.

3.4.2 Non-BNSF, UP, CN and CP overhead structures

The guidelines provided within this section are intended for overhead grade separation projects impacting
non-BNSF, UP, CN and CP Railroads. The requirements and guidelines for each railroad may be
different, but generally follow AREMA’s Manual for Railway Engineering [BDM 3.1.5.2] and any applicable
sections of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications.

3.4.2.1 Vertical clearance

The preferred minimum vertical clearance from the top of rail elevation to low beam is 23'-4 directly above
the rail.

3.4.2.2 Horizontal clearance

The need to accommodate future track and/or access road and the determination of applicable rail
company guidelines for horizontal clearance must be coordinated with the Rail Transportation Bureau.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 33

These needs and requirements should be coordinated at the project concept stage, as they are a
fundamental part of the bridge and roadway design development. Once the design criteria for track and
access road elements have been determined, the designer will be able to proceed to the next step of
establishing pier and berm locations.

It is desirable to provide pier (including pier caps) and abutment locations at least 25 feet measured
perpendicular from the centerline of nearest existing or future track. In unique situations and subject to
site conditions, the preferred minimum horizontal clearance shall be 18 feet measured perpendicular from
the centerline of the track to the face of the pier protection wall. Horizontal clearance less than 18 feet
may be allowed on a case-by-case basis, if approved by the railroad.

3.4.2.3 Piers
Piers within 25 feet, measured perpendicular from centerline of existing or anticipated future track shall be
of heavy construction as defined in the AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering. Generally, for new
bridges the Bureau prefers the T-pier to satisfy heavy construction requirements in lieu of a pier
protection wall.

Top of pier footings shall be a minimum of one foot below finished ground line.

3.4.2.4 Bridge berms

It is the Iowa DOT policy to set the bridge berm location in accordance with the federal requirements.
FHWA has indicated that full participation applies when the location of a bridge berm with a 2.5:1 slope is
set at the top of rail elevation 26 feet from centerline of the outermost track (27.5 feet for 3:1 berm slope).

This method of setting the berm location provides for a small ditch sufficient for ballast to drain. Additional
ditch drainage may require a culvert through the bridge to adequately convey the drainage.

Macadam stone slope protection should be proposed on the bridge berms.

3.4.2.5 Drainage
Railroad corridors are constructed with a drainage system designed to keep runoff away from the tracks
and ballast. If drainage must be carried through the approach fills, this should be accomplished by using a
culvert, not by using an open ditch which increases the bridge length and cost. If the proposed bridge
structure will not change the quantity and characteristics of the flow in railroad ditches and drainage
structures, the plan shall include a general note stating so.

3.4.2.6 Barrier rails and fencing

Early coordination with the railroad regarding recommendations for barrier rail and fencing is desired.

Most of the railroad bridges carrying vehicular traffic will make use of the Iowa standard single slope
barrier rail. The designer shall determine the appropriate barrier rail height by consulting the Iowa DOT
policy for bridge rail height. See BDM 5.8.1.1.1 and BDM 5.8.1.2.1.

Fencing shall be provided for the full length of bridge on all sidewalk or trail facilities. The standard 6-foot
high chain link fence is generally proposed.

On a case by case basis, there may be an alternative to rail or fence proposed. Reasons may include a
request by the railroad or project aesthetics. A statement shall be included with the TS&L submittal to the
Iowa DOT Rail Transportation Bureau, relative to the proposal for barrier rail and fencing.

3.4.3 Underpass structures

Requirements for railroad underpass structures will follow the recommendations and guidelines
applicable to the railroad company owner. Contact the Iowa DOT Rail Transportation Bureau for

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 34

coordination of applicable standards at the concept level of project development. Early coordination is
necessary, as some railroad structures (including BNSF and UP) will require additional vertical clearance
as compared to highway grade separation structures.

Once the proper design guidelines have been identified, the preliminary bridge design effort may be
initiated. Special attention should be given to minimize project impacts on the railroad company service. If
new alignment is not feasible or if staging is not agreeable to the railroad company, a shoofly bridge may
be considered. All options shall be closely coordinated with the Iowa DOT Rail Transportation Bureau.

3.4.4 Submittals
After TS&L completion, the Preliminary Bridge Unit Leader will make the following documentation
available to the Iowa DOT Rail Transportation Bureau for submittal to the railroad:

(1) A response to railroad review comments on the concept submittal.

(2) A pdf file of the bridge TS&L.
(3) The site drainage report, if drainage is affected.
(4) A bridge plan view showing the location of the proposed shoofly (only for railroad underpass
bridges).
(5) If the project will be constructed in stages, controlling dimensions should be included on the
TS&L.
(6) For BNSF and UP RR submittals (See BDM C3.4.4).

3.5 Pedestrian and shared use path crossings

There are several pedestrian and shared use path crossing types. Guidance related to each type of
crossing is provided in this article.

For a pedestrian and shared use path crossing on a highway structure or separate bridge, the cross slope
is typically specified at 1.5%. The maximum cross slope specified shall be 2%, with placement of a TSL
Design Note listing the rationale. See BDM 1.5 for more information.

The following references provide additional information related to the design of shared use paths and
bicycle facilities: Iowa Bicycle and Pedestrian Long Range Plan [BDM 3.1.5.2]; AASHTO’s Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities (4th Edition, 2012)1 [BDM 3.1.5.2]; the design guidelines (Chapter 4) in
Iowa Trails 2000 [BDM 3.1.5.2], and SUDAS Standard Specifications [BDM 3.1.5.2].

The term “path” may be used in this article to represent a sidewalk or shared use path.

• Pedestrian or shared use path on a highway structure

Guidance for sidewalk and shared use paths on roadway bridges is covered under [BDM 3.6.2.2
& 1.5], and Design Bureau's Design Manual [DB DM 12A and B].A preliminary determination will
need to be made as to whether the sidewalk or shared use path on a bridge will be constructed at
the roadway grade or raised above the roadway grade. Table 3.5 and the paragraphs below
provide guidance to assist in the determination of path profile grade. The designer shall review
the table as well as consider site specific factors that may govern site specific preferences. To
assist in coordination with the Design Bureau, the determination should be noted on the TS&L.

Table 3.5 Desired sidewalk or shared use path elevation and surface water drainage
Bridge crossing type Raised At grade Comments
Grade separation
Urban approach section x Profile grade transition not needed. Surface
water drainage (cross slope) not changed.

1 Note that the 5th edition should be available soon.

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 35

Rural approach section x Profile grade and surface water transitions

are allowed within the rural approach section.
Surface water drainage (cross slope) will
change.
Stream/River crossing
Urban approach section x Profile grade transition not needed. Surface
water drainage (cross slope) not changed.
Rural approach section x Profile grade transition not needed. Surface
water drainage (cross slope) not changed.
Note: Site specific factors may govern

Raised paths, which allow water to drain through slots in the separation barrier curb to the bridge
gutterline, should be used on highway and railroad overpasses, and for stream crossings with an
urban roadway approach section (curb and gutter). For rural stream crossings, use of an at grade
sidewalk sloped toward the outer edge of slab allows the water to drain over the slab edge. At
grade paths, which drain the water back towards the gutter line, are typically not used. The
Bureau would like to avoid a condition that would require the exterior girder to be placed higher
than the adjacent interior girder. In addition, in situations of excessive rainfall the paths may be
temporarily flooded because of water from the roadway. Superelevated bridges may require
special considerations. Check with the commentary or your unit leader in this case.

Regardless of the path type, the top of the slab where the chain link fence is attached shall be
made level and drip grooves shall be used on the underside of the slab.

Coordination with the Design Bureau and District staff is necessary during preliminary design to
verify the preferred condition. See the commentary for additional detail and factors to be
considered when making a determination.

Additional guidance for sidewalk and shared use paths on roadway bridges is covered under
[BDM 3.6.2.2 & 1.5], and Design Bureau's Design Manual [DB DM 12A and B].

• Separate pedestrian or shared use path bridge

The following paragraphs do not apply to pedestrian or shared use paths on a highway structure.
For a separate pedestrian or shared use bridge, the Bureau recommends a minimum clear width
of 14 feet. This is different than our recommended 10-foot clear width on vehicular bridges due to
the minimal increase in cost to provide 14 feet on a separate bridge.

To assist in drainage and snow removal, the maximum deck cross slope shall be 2% in one
direction across the full width. Concrete parapets at the base of the fence or railing may be
proposed based on aesthetics and safety concerns. Parapets also protect the fence from being
damaged by snowplow blades. Such parapets require a minimum footprint of 16 inches (plus 2-
inch setback from slab edge) in order to accommodate the fence/railing anchorages. If no parapet
is used, 12 inches is a sufficient fence/railing footprint on each side. The designer shall consult
with the Methods Unit in the Bridges and Structures Bureau regarding usage of parapets.

For structures over a roadway, the desirable minimum vertical clearance is 17.50 feet. Provisions
for additional clearance may be considered for unique bridges. It is undesirable to use truss
bridges over our highways due to damage from over-height loads and the lack of proper fencing
to prevent debris from falling/thrown onto the roadway below. A girder bridge with a concrete
deck and proper fencing is preferred for recreational or trail bridges over a roadway.

For structures over a waterway, the structure low beam should generally be designed at the Q10
water surface elevation. Typically, relief in the approach grading should be provided for
discharges greater than the Q10. Since waterway structures will be inundated by larger floods, the
designer should consider the expected buoyant forces. In general, the bridge approach fill within

July 2024
 IOWA DOT ~ BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BUREAU ~ LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL ~ 3: 36

the floodplain should be designed close to the floodplain grade. This is especially true if the
construction will be within a detailed FIS area.

• Pedestrian or shared use path under a roadway bridge

Adjacent to an urban roadway section, the desirable horizontal clearance from back of curb to
sidewalk or shared use path is 6 feet to allow for snow storage. If