BrDR Spotlight – Illinois Department of Transportation

September 26, 2024

While some states concentrate on the ‘R’ (rating) part of the BrDR software, this month’s spotlight state uses the ‘D’ (Design) portion as well. We spoke with the Design and Rating group representatives from the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) about how their groups interact and the role that the BrDR software plays in that interaction.

Crystal Stone, PE, SE is a Senior Structural Design and Review engineer in the Illinois Department of Transportation, Bureau of Bridges and Structures, Bridge Design and Construction Review Unit. In addition to her duties at IDOT, Crystal has long been a proponent of AASHTOWare BrDR, a regular at the yearly RADBUG meetings, and is a Beta Tester for the AASHTOWare BrDR software.

We also spoke with Ruben Boehler, PE, SE and Engineer of Structural Services for the Illinois Department of Transportation, Bureau of Bridges & Structures. Ruben is a long-time user of BrDR, a member of the software Testing TAG, and a current AASHTOWare BrDR Task Force member.

At over 26,900 bridges in the NBI[1], Illinois has the second largest bridge inventory in the country after Texas. The following article highlights a discussion with both Crystal and Ruben on how their respective departments utilize the software and how the transition is made from Design/construction to maintenance using a single integration tool, BrDR.

Tell me a little about yourself, how you became involved with AASHTOWare, and how long you have been using the software.

Crystal: I initially worked at IDOT from 1999-2002. I returned to IDOT in 2015 after spending over a decade in the building design industry. I noticed that the building design industry appeared to use software packages to a much higher degree than we did in the IDOT group. When I became aware of the AASHTOWare project and that IDOT had an unlimited BrD license and was looking to send a design representative to the RADBUG yearly meeting, I asked if I could attend. The first meeting I attended was in 2018 and was a tremendous help in learning the ins and outs of using the software. I continue to attend and as a user of the software find great value in the material and networking that RADBUG provides. I predominately work with construction review, submittals by consultants.

[1] Data take from the FHWA Infobridge website https://infobridge.fhwa.dot.gov/Data

How is BrDR utilized in your daily design/rating process?

Crystal: We currently use BrR to obtain a Design Load Rating for the bridge design plan submittals that we receive from consultants. This provides a check on the structural adequacy of the bridge design before construction and creates a design BrR model that we forward on to the Ratings and Permits group. Occasionally, if there is an overflow from inhouse design group, our group picks up an in-house bridge design project. In general, our group performs 650 to 800+ consultant bridge design plan or structural construction reviews each year.

Illinois designs/reviews	Number/Year
In house designs	10 to 20
Consultant Design Plan Reviews	150 to 200+
Structural Construction Reviews	500 to 600

Ruben: The ratings and permits group utilizes the BrR models provided by Crystal’s design group. We save them until the bridge is constructed and then check the model according to the as-built structure, process the final rating and then place it in our permit inventory. Some minor changes are made to match the as-built conditions (e.g. we remove the as-designed 50 lb/ft² future wearing surface). Currently, Illinois has over 14,000 state and local bridges input into the BrR system for structures that meet the NBIS span length (20’ or more) and ones that are less than the NBIS required span length (See table). Receiving bridges from the design group and adding them in our permitting inventory is a big help.

Type of Bridge	Number of bridges input in BrR
State owned (AASHTO length > 20’)	7,920
State owned (AASHTO length ≤ 20’)	1,077
Local Public Agency (AASHTO length > 20’	5,139
Local Public Agency (AASHTO length ≤ 20’)	52
Total	14,188

What are some things that your agency has done to make the best use of the software internally?

Crystal: While we currently do not heavily use BrD, we have begun to take steps to facilitate the use of the design arm of the software. After attending the RADBUG meetings as a design representative from Illinois, I thought about creating ‘Tips-and-Tricks’ documents that have a direct correlation between the software and the IDOT Design Guide (see figure). The design guide frequently requires information from the design to be reported. The ‘Tips-and-Tricks’ document file names are labeled with the design guide article number and a brief descriptor of the article. The document contents provide a mini tutorial of where and how to find the information in BrD. In general, I can find nearly everything in BrD, and I am encouraged that AASHTOWare is currently working to improve the report tool and providing output that will enable us to extract this information directly from the software.

Ruben: For the permit/rating side we have made heavy use of the Load Rating Tool (LRT). We started using the LRT through the program API in 2019. With the number of bridge models we have input into BrR, using the LRT provides quick responses for things like proposed legislation for new vehicle loads. We look forward to continued expansion of this highly useful tool.

What encouragement can you provide to other agencies who are looking to use AASHTOWare BrDR for their daily design processes?

Crystal: I believe that attending RADBUG is important. The training provides stimulation for using the software and the networking with other states is very helpful. For me, it provided the thoughts to connect our design guide with the BrD software. I would encourage states that license both the rating and design software to bring along someone from the Design Group so that they can learn the features of the software, ask questions, and help to guide the direction of future development.

One of the things that I like about BrDR is that the support system is excellent and that people that haven’t been exposed to it, need to know that they will get rapid responses from the support board. The support staff go above and beyond anytime that I have a question.

You have been a long-time user and contributor to the software’s success, what are some positive aspects of using the software over the years that you would like to point out?

Crystal: For me, attending RADBUG has been very important. Being able to learn more about the software, ask questions, and interact with other users has helped tremendously.

The online tutorials have been very helpful. I would encourage anyone learning to use the software to check them out.

Note: online tutorials are available at the following link:

Training – AASHTOWare Bridge Design & Rating (aashtowarebrdr.org)

What are some things you would like to see in BrD?

Crystal: We are looking forward to the ongoing development of the enhanced reporting tools provided by Report Tool 2.0. In developing the Tips-and-Tricks documents, we have a pretty good handle on what we need to extract from BrD and where to find it. An enhanced reporting system will allow us to automate that process and increase the value of the BrD software.

We are finding there are fewer people to do more design. Being able to quickly find the required answers for the design guide requirements will be a huge help and will eventually replace the Tips and Tricks documents.

It would also be nice if we could improve the help information provided for input items. For example, is the input required or not? What happens if I don’t enter an input value? This information is sometimes present, but not always.

The AASHTOWare development team would like to thank IDOT, Crystal, and Ruben for their continued use and support of both the rating and design components of the AASHTOWare BrDR software. Joint development works best when all agencies share information and work together!