Peter Weykamp presentation - 6 per page.pdf

8/20/2019 Peter Weykamp presentation - 6 per page.pdf

1/14

Bridge Maintenance Strategies

Peter Weykamp, P.E.Bridge Maintenance Program Engineer

New York State Department of Transportation

•Definitions

•Conditions

•Needs

•Support

•Bridge Elements

BACKGROUND

DEFINITIONS

• Maintenance: a networklevel, long-term strategy thatenhances bridge performanceby using an integrated, cost-effective set of practices thatextend bridge service life,improve safety, and meet

motorist expectations.

– Or anything done to a bridgeshort of a deck replacement.

PREVENTIVEPREVENTIVE

MAINTENANCEMAINTENANCE

CORRECTIVECORRECTIVE

REPAIRSREPAIRS

CYCLICALCYCLICAL

MAINTENANCEMAINTENANCE

DEFICIENT

FHWA - A bridge is“structurally deficient”if either thesuperstructure,substructure, or deckis rated less than 5on a 9 point scale.

NYSDOT CONDITION RATING

• “Deficient” – Weighed average

condition < 5.0

• Rating Scale – 1 – Failed condition

– 3 – Serious deterioration

– 5 – Functioning asdesigned

– 7 – New condition

• Weights – Primary member 10

– Abutments 8

– Piers 8 – Structural Deck 8

– Bridge Seats 6

– Bearings 6

– Wing & Backwalls 5

– Secondary member 5

– Joints 4

– Wearing surface 4

– Sidewalks 2

– Curbs 1

Number and Status of Bridges in the US

(12% SD, 13% FO)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Pre

1910

1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Decade Built

N u m b e r o f B r i d g e

s

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

% o

f D e f i c i e n t B r i d g e s

Number of Bridges % of Deficient Bridges

Source: 2007 NBI


2/14

State and Local Highway BridgeCondition Trends

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

1 99 9 2 00 0 2 00 1 2 00 2 2 00 3 2 00 4 2 00 5 2 00 6 2 00 7 2 00 8

% G o o d a n d E x c e l l e n t b y N u m b e r

Year

Local B ri dg es S ta te Bridges

Deficient Bridge Wave

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900


3/14

CEU QUESTIONS

Current Practices in Bridge

Maintenance

PART 1

EXPANSION JOINTS

• All Joints Leak

• Armored Joints

– Constructability

– Repair-ability

– Safety hazard

– Deterioration

ARMOR-LESS JOINTS

• Elastomeric Concrete

– Polymer based

– “Maintenance friendly” – Rapid setting

– EXPENSIVE

• Seals

– Repairable• Liquid

• Pre-formed


4/14

INTEGRAL

ABUTMENTS

INTEGRAL ABUTMENTS

• Simple joint

• Minimal substructure

• Low Maintenance

• Design Hierarchy

– Integral

– Joint-less

– Joint expansion end

– Joints on both ends

• Large skews• Unbalanced spans, etc

PROTECTIVE COATINGS

• Lead-BasedPrimers

– Safety concerns

• Moisture-curedUrethane – Over-coating

– Total Removal

– Moisture tolerant

CONCERNS

• Surface Preparation

• Health & Safety

– Containment• Cost

– Service Life

– Performance

• New Primer

– Zinc


5/14

ALTERNATIVES

• Weathering Steel• Concrete

• Timber

• New Coating Systems

WEATHERING STEEL

• Self-protecting – Patina

• Aesthetics

• Environment

– Health & Safety

• Needs Wet/DryCycles

P/S ADJACENTBOX BEAMS

• Plant Q/C

• No Painting

• Rapid Construction

• Low Initial Cost

• Freeboard

– Pressure flow• Debris

CONCERNS

• LongitudinalCracking of Decks

– Working Cracks• Limited treatments

• Deck Deteriorates

• Unknown BeamCondition

OPEN GRATED BRIDGE DECKS

• Super and substructuredeterioration

• Eliminated

REINFORCINGSTEEL

• Bare Bars – Premature full-depth

cracking – SIP forms

• Corrosion evident

• Epoxy Bars

– Proven success

– Min. increase in $

• Stainless

– Justifiable


6/14

UNCOATED REBARHP CONCRETE

• Pozzolans

– Fly Ash & Silica Fume

• High Strengths

• Low Permeability

• Shrinkage Cracking

– Increased permeability

BRIDGE BEARINGS

• Steel Bearings

– Lubrication Required

– Can’t meet 4 year cycle

• Jack & Clean

• Often “Freeze”

– Thermal Stresses

• Replacement Program

– Elastomeric Bearings

– “Maintenance Friendly”

CONTEXT SENSITIVE DESIGN PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE


7/14

TASK CODE DESCRIPTION CYCLE

H11 Clean Substructure 2 yrs

H13 Seal Substructure 6 yrsH29 Lubricate Bearings 4 yrs

H38Clean Superstructure &

Deck2 yrs

H58 Remove Wearing Surface 12 yrs

H59 Place Wearing Surface 12 yrs

H60 Place Waterproof Membrane 12 yrs

H69 Seal Deck 4 yrs

H73 Fill Cracks & Joints 4 yrs

H75 Clean Drainage Systems 2 yrs

H89 Bridge Painting 12 yrs

SPOT PAINTING

• Resume Program

• Materials – Calcium Sulfonate

• Needle Scalers

• Vacuum Tools

• MinimalContainmentNecessary

DECK TREATMENTS

• All Concrete Cracks

– Transverse

– Longitudinal

– Map

• New & Old Concrete

• Treatments

– Fill cracks or

– Bridge cracks

RADAR Statistical Analysis• Inspector rating supported

• GPR sees things the

inspector doesn’t

• Rating alone cannot be

used for selecting deck

treatment

• Deterioration is age related

• Age and % delamination

are not correlated

FILLING CRACKS BRIDGING CRACKS


8/14

PM & MINOR REPAIRS

4.4

5.8

$250K

$5K

2370 Good Bridges

4740 Fair Bridges

790 Poor

$3.7M

TreatmentCosts / Bridge

MaintenanceCandidates

Major Rehab orReplacement Candidates

MAINTENANCE DESIGN• Weathering Steel

• Composite Design

• Simple Span

– No pier in water

• Integral Abutment

– No joints

– No bearings

• Epoxy Bars

• Bridge Railing – No sidewalk

Best Practices in Bridge

Management DecisionMaking

PART 2 Bridge Management Decision MakingDomestic Scan Tour

Discover and collect information on how DOTsmanage maintenance of highway bridges and howmaintenance impacts the overall bridge program

Focus on decision processes for maintenanceprograms;How Do Decisions Rely On:

• Bridge Conditions

• Maintenance Needs

• Effectiveness of Maintenance

• Funding Availability


9/14

AASHTO

FHWA Consultant

Academia

Bruce Johnson

Oregon DOT

Scot Becker

Wisconsin DOTTod Kimball

FHWA Vermont

Narendra Khambhati

Arora and Assoc., NJArt D’Andrea

Louisiana DOTKeith Ramsey

Texas DOT

George Hearn

Univ. of Colorado

Pete Weykamp

New York DOT

WA

CA

MI

OH

FL

DE

VA

Washington DOT

California DOT &

El Dorado/Placer County DOTs

Michigan DOT

Ohio DOT

Florida DOT & Turnpike

Delaware DOT

Virginia DOT

Inputs

.

Site Visit

Scan Team

Document Review

Bridge Management Process

Preventive Maintenance

Agency Support

KEY FINDINGS

•Maintenance Needs

•Prioritization•Performance Measures

•Verification

Bridge Management Statewide -- State Owned

0

5000000

10000000

15000000

20000000

25000000

30000000

35000000

40000000

45000000

50000000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Calendar Year Data

S q u a r e A r e a o f B r i d g e s

Non Deficient Total deficient

New York


10/14

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

N u m b e r o f B r i d g e s

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

NBI Rating55

GoodFair Poor Serious orCritical

Michigan

Identified at the element level

Uniform, specific, and repeatable Stated as standard work actions

Accessible throughout the agency

Maintenance Needs

NBI CONDITION ASSESSMENT Ohio

TYPES

Modified NBI

CommonlyRecognized(CoRe) BridgeElements

Own system

SUPPORTS

Detailed reports

Maintenancedecisions

Treatment options

Early intervention

Minimize repair costs

Element Level Inspection

INSPECTION FORM OHIO Uniform, Specific, & Repeatable

METHODS

Inspectors recommend action Drop-down menu

Actions prioritized

Costs per action

Stored in database

Draft work order


11/14

Needs Database New York

Needs Database Oregon

Inspector Recommendations Washington

Integrate objectives for deficiencies,

preventive maintenance, network

performance, and risk.

Engage both central and regional DOT.

Advance from network ‐level rankings

to selection of specific projects.

Prioritization

Prioritization Formulas

• Sufficiency Rating (NBI) Structural Adequacy and Safety (55% maximum);

Serviceability and Functional Obsolescence (30% maximum);

Essentiality for Public Use (15% maximum); Special Reductions

• Health Index (Pontis)Health Index (HI) = (∑ CEV ÷ ∑ TEV) × 100

TEV = Total element quantity × Failure cost of element (FC)

CEV = (∑ [Quantity in condition state i × WF(i)]) × FC

Health 80-89 Health 70-79 Health below 70

D e f i c i e n c y F o r m u l a

D e l a w a r e


12/14

Maintenance Accountability Program Washington

Match objectives in bridge maintenance

Identify work to advance maintenance

objectives

Provide simple indications of status of

bridge networks

V i r g i n i a

Performance Measures

4A2 Structural Bridge Repair

2007-09 M Program Budget: $9.2 million

Bridge inspections result in the “to‐do list” of

smaller‐scale structural repairs for the Maintenance

Program to complete. Examples of these repairs

include: Bridge Cap Repair

Bridge Column Repair

Debris Removal

Scour Repair

Expansion Joint Repair

Washington 4A2 Performance Measurement

A: 90 -100% completed

B: 80 - 89% completed

C: 65 - 79% completed

D: 50 – 64% completed

F: Less than 50% completed

The performance measurement for this activityfocuses on Priority 1 repairs. The of repairs for iscompiled annually.

The Level of Service is based on the percentage ofPriority 1 repairs completed.

Level of Service target is a C

2008 Level of Service delivered is a D

The 2009-11 proposed bud getincludes an additional $1.5 millionto catch up wi th this maintenancebacklog and achieve the target.

Washington

Bridge Maintenance Contract Funding and Backlog

$ 9 4

$ 6 3

$ 6 3

$ 9 4

$ 9 4

$ 9 4

$ 1 3

$ 9

$ 6

$ 6

$ 6

$ 9 4

$ 9 4

1 6 4

5

2 8 8 3

2 9 2 2

2 9 6 1

3 0 0 0

3 0 3 9

3 0 7 8

3 1 1 7

2 8 4 4

1 8 7 0 2

0 9 5 2

3 2 0 2

5 4 4

$-

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

$200

01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14

Fiscal Year

F u n d i n g L e v e l ( M i l l i o n $

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

# o f B r i d g e s

Funding $ Backlog Bridges

Actu alProjected

71

Bridge Maintenance Program

2001 - 2005

CalTrans

Bridge Maintenance Contract Funding and Backlog

$ 9 4

$ 6 3

$ 6 3

$ 9 4

$ 9 4

$ 9 4

$ 1 3

$ 9

$ 6

$ 6

$ 6

$ 9 4

$ 9 4

1 6 4 5

2 6 4 7

2 8 3 5

2 8 7 4

2 9 1 3

2 9 5 2

2 9 9 1

3 0 3 0

2 5 0 7

1 8 7 0 2

0 9 5 2 3

2 0 2

5 4 4

$-

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

$200

0 1/ 02 0 2/ 03 0 3/ 04 0 4/ 05 0 5/ 06 0 6/ 07 0 7/ 08 0 8/ 09 0 9/ 10 1 0/ 11 1 1/ 12 1 2/ 13 1 3/ 14

Fiscal Year

F u n d i n g L e v e l ( M i l l i o n $ )

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

# o f B r i d g e

s

Funding $ Backlog Bridges Reduce Backlog

2007 &2009 Five Year

Plan

Act ual

72

CalTrans


13/14

Strategy is effectiveInvestment

pays

off

Needs are met Level of Service indicators

Needs – Accomplishment = Gap

Work completed Report into BMS, MMS, Capital

Program, …

Verification

74

1,333 BridgesCurrent - 11%

Goal – 5%


Goal – 85%


Goal 10%300 Bridges/Yr

Rehab. Program(SHOPP)

Maintenance Program Preservation Program(Major Maintenance)

40 Bridges/Yr

870 Bridges

Current - 7%

Goal – 5%

9,122 Bridges

Current - 71%

Goal – 85%

2,835 Bridges

Current - 22%

Goal 10%560 Bridges/Yr

Rehab. Program(SHOPP)

Maintenance Program Preservation Program(Major Maintenance)

20 Bridges/Yr

CALTRANS

Preventive Maintenance

Significant part of program

Applied before bridges become deficient

Implements clear plans of action

Flexible allocation of resources

Washington

Tracking Trends Michigan

Deterioration Rate

Statewide Trunkline Bridges

0

50

100

150

200

19 98 19 99 2 000 2 001 2 002 2 00 3 2 00 4 20 05 200 6 20 07 20 08

Year

N u m b e r B r i d g e s G o i n g

f r o m G

o o d / F a i r t o P o o r

Linear Fit

76

Bridge Deck Preservation Matrix Michigan

77

Cyclical Maintenance Virginia

78

Bridge Deck Washing (Concrete) – 1 Year Bridge Deck Sweeping – 1 Year Seats & Beam Ends Washing – 2 YearsCutting & Removing Vegetation - 2 YearsRoutine Maintenance of Timber Structures - 2 YearsReplacement of Compression Seal Joints – 10 yearsScheduled Replacement of Pourable Joints – 6 yearsCleaning and Lubricating Bearing Devices – 4 yearsScheduled Beam Ends Painting – 10 YearsInstallation of Thin Epoxy Concrete Overlay – 15 YearsRemoving Debris from Culverts – 5 Years


14/14

Bearing Replacement Program New York

79

LEGISLATURE: gas tax, dedicated fund, MPO

percentage

DOT Executives: Maintenance is not a episodic.ODOT – “Fix it First”

DOT Central : Use quantitative performance measures, Recognize districts’ first ‐hand knowledge

District Engineers: Evaluate needs and trends funds and projects

Inspectors: Identify needs, recommend actions

Crews: Execute work, take initiative

Agency Support

Funding Levels

Michigan – Fixed: 22% PM, 30% Rehab, 48% Replace

Ohio, Washington – 15% to MPOs (Fed. legislation @ 15% min.)

Virginia – Majority of $ maintenance - legislated

California – PM from $6M to $94M

State Gas Tax

– NY 42.5; Ca 39.9; Wa 37.5; Fl 34.5; Mi 30.9

DIRECTION

“Service-life Extension”

Mobility

Advances in Materials

Concrete repairs, Coatings

Innovative Designs for In-service Bridges

Deck replacement options

Rapid replacement

Culverts

Comparative Measures

Partnerships

Industry, Consultants

Regional Groups

CommunicationOwners, Legislatures

TriagePosted & Closed

AssessmentTreatments

HolisticManagement

CEU QUESTIONS

We, the bridge maintenance engineers

of New York, hold these truths to beself-evident: all joints leak, all concrete

cracks, and rust never sleeps. We will

strive to capitalize our way out of

maintenance and maintain our way out

of capital. It is our endeavor to educate

others that a bridge is as important t o a

highway as a diamond is to a ring.

Date post:	07-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	abimana
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Peter Weykamp presentation - 6 per page.pdf

Documents