Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.Coatings Group
Review of Maintenance Prioritization Review of Maintenance Prioritization Schemes from Three Transportation Schemes from Three Transportation AuthoritiesAuthorities
Christopher L. Farschon, P.E., PCSGreenman – Pedersen, Inc. Coatings Group
October 7, 2009NACE Eastern Area Conference
Why Prioritize Bridge Painting?Why Prioritize Bridge Painting?
Why Prioritize? PLANNINGWhy Prioritize? PLANNING Money Money Money
Define an acceptable state of existence How coating conditions affect
a bridge throughout its lifetime
Identify what funding is needed to meet that need Justify painting budgets
Where to Start Planning?Where to Start Planning?
Bridge typeSizeProximityLocationTraffic ConditionsDeckSubstructureFuture Rehabilitation
– Coating and Corrosion Condition
Goals of a Prioritization ProgramGoals of a Prioritization Program
Vary by Agency Lowest overall cost (today, life cycle, year 20?) Define needed funding Meet constraints
• Integrate with other work
• Improvements
• Traffic
• Aesthetics Be adaptable
MonitorMonitor
LearnLearn
DesignDesign
Three AuthoritiesThree Authorities
A - Toll Authority 1 Major structures only (9 facilities – 26M square feet) Metropolitan area 100% self funded
B - Toll Authority 2 Major highway (hundreds of bridges – focus on 16) Urban / Metropolitan / Rural Combination funding
C - State DOT District Over 1,000 bridges (focus on overpasses) Metropolitan and Suburban area Federal / state funding
Historical - Toll Authority AHistorical - Toll Authority AYears of “as-required” maintenance painting Increasing environmental concerns Increasing steel repair frequencyPainting Program was planned around 1990,
implemented 1993-1995Unofficial Program Goals
Reduce lead paint liabilities Reduce as-needed steel repairs Improve bridge appearance Define needed funding
Program Description – Toll Authority AProgram Description – Toll Authority A
Based on a facility wide survey conducted in 1993
Categorizes bridge areas based on paint conditions and “local” environments
Appropriate painting is performed in each area to minimize costs Access costs very high = minimal contracts One contract – multiple Items – multiple methods
Program Goals – Toll Authority AProgram Goals – Toll Authority A
Maintain an acceptable paint condition while maintaining budget goals
Coordinate with Capital improvement projects and biennial inspections
Address highest priorities within 12 years
Define the Problem – Toll Authority ADefine the Problem – Toll Authority A
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
Co
ati
ng
De
teri
ora
tio
n -
pe
rce
nt
<10% = Optimum Coating Maintenance
20%Deterioration Line
Predicted Trend Without Program
(44% by 2006)
Original Program Goal (10% by
2006)
Track Progress – Toll Authority ATrack Progress – Toll Authority A
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Biennial Cycle
Co
ati
ng
De
teri
ora
tio
n -
pe
rce
nt
Line representing the original program goal (10% by 2006)
Predicted trend without program (44% by 2006)
20%Deterioration Line
<10% = Practical goal for 12-year program
Triangles represent percentage of bridge area requiring paint repair based on biennial inspection data.
Trend line of actual results to date
2% = Optimal / Ideal level of paint deterioration
1995-1996 1997-1998 1999-2000 2001-2002 2003-2004 2005-2006 2007-2008 2009-2010
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
$18,000
$20,000
$22,000
$24,000
$26,000
$28,000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
$ in
th
ou
san
ds
Yearly Costs – Toll Authority AYearly Costs – Toll Authority A
Average = $14.9M per Year
Average = $21.4M per Year
Types of Painting – Toll Authority ATypes of Painting – Toll Authority A
TBTA PaintingCumulative SF - New Coating, Overcoat, and Total
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Year
SF
in
th
ou
sa
nd
s
New - Actual / Forecast SF
New - Original Goal SF
Ovrct - Actual / Forecast SF
Ovrct - Original Goal SF
Total - New + Ovrct Act/Frcst SF
Total - New + Ovrct Orig Goals
Unit Cost Trends – Toll Authority AUnit Cost Trends – Toll Authority A
Low early – High middle – Lower recentlyWorst corrosion addressed first
Large projects (economies of scale were good)Concurrent with some maintenance
Aesthetic areas Hold until re-paint
Combination / Rehabilitation Projects Difficult projects? Some shared costs Some additional costs Maximize shop painting
Cost/Specification Factors- Authority ACost/Specification Factors- Authority A
Size of the projectMobilization and staging areasAccess to work- placement of equipment
Lane closures, water - barge etc.
Environmental controls Inspection requirements - warrantyConfiguration or type of structureLabor, equipment, and material costsBidding climate (other work, available bidders)
Program Summary – Toll Authority AProgram Summary – Toll Authority A
Budgets were justified Funding allocatedProjects designedConditions were monitored with database
population Influenced priorities on a biennial basis
Program is in place that relates painting needs to available time to needed funding Needs not always driven by conditions
Toll Authority - BToll Authority - B
Program recently enacted to prioritize painting of major structures
Not an authority-wide plan (16 of several hundred structures, but the most significant 16)
Works around/with major capital programsCoordination with other maintenance workConstructability a key factor
Project Background – Toll Authority BProject Background – Toll Authority B
Program has 2 objectives: Part 1 - The investigation and assessment of the
existing coating system on 16 major bridges, development of a prioritized list of bridges requiring repainting, and recommendations related to bridge painting as part of a Ten Year Capital Program
Part 2 - The design and development of documents for two (2) Major Bridge Repainting contracts
Budget / Financial – Toll Authority BBudget / Financial – Toll Authority B
Predetermined budget and timeframe anticipated value of $250M 10 year effort
Prioritize the needs based on constraints, coordination, conditions
Generate project specific engineer’s estimates for near-term painting costs
Bridge Surveys – Toll Authority BBridge Surveys – Toll Authority B
Technical Paint Condition Data – Adhesion, thickness, lab tests, visual survey data for paint (peeling and corrosion)
Development of square footage quantitiesOther considerations - Deck and Joint
condition, planned rehabilitations and prior painting work
Painting Options – Toll Authority BPainting Options – Toll Authority B
Total Coating Removal and ReplacementZone Coating Repair (Beam Ends, Bearings,
Weathering Steel)Maintenance Spot Painting and Full
Overcoating
Prioritization – Toll Authority BPrioritization – Toll Authority B Rough Budget Estimates – Key to project designs and
evening out the workload across the program duration Coordination with other work – Use of the deck
condition study data, coordination with completed deck/rehabilitation projects and the capital improvement projects
Prioritization factors Condition of the existing coatings and extent of corrosion Condition of the existing deck Availability of construction staging areas Complexity of maintenance and protection of traffic Complexity of containment Environmental impacts Outside agency coordination
Prioritization Matrix – Toll Authority BPrioritization Matrix – Toll Authority B
CORROSION MPT/Staging Envir/Contain Agency Deck FINAL
Bridge ID RATING Complexity Complexity Coordination Condition SCORE
1 GSP 28.0N 10 2 5 4 3 242 GSP 28.0S 6 2 5 4 3 203 GSP 31.0 8 5 3 4 3 234 GSP 49.0 4 3 5 4 3 195 GSP 51.9 4 3 3 3 3 166 GSP 127.2T 2 3 5 4 5 197 GSP 127.2S8 GSP 158.2 4 1 2 3 3 139 NJT P0.00 4 1 1 1 5 12
10 NJT 84.24N11 NJT 84.24S 4 4 5 4 3 2012 NJT E107.88 6 5 5 4 5 2513 NJT W107.8714 NJT E109.83 4 5 3 4 3 1915 NJT N2.01 4 1 0 3 3 1116 NJT W115.36
maximum ratings 10 5 5 5 10 35
= Sister weathering steel bridges
Project Sequencing – Toll Authority BProject Sequencing – Toll Authority B
Projects of constructible size and duration were appropriately prioritized / sequenced
Highest 2 priorities under design /constructionUpdate survey needed
Project was a snapshot of conditions combined with other available data to make the most appropriate prioritization today
Future survey will justify extending durations before painting or accelerating certain projects
Program Summary – Toll Authority BProgram Summary – Toll Authority B
Select group of bridgesProjects designed and estimated to fit available
budgetTechnical data / conditions were not always the
priority driverProgram is based on a snapshot survey of
facilitiesFollow-up survey will be needed
AuthorityAuthority C C
State Department of Transportation District1998 projectOver 1,000 bridges
Majority are highway overpasses and smaller structures
Semi “Automated” database systemUsed condition data, constraints, project-
specific factorsPrioritization was based on Return on
Investment
Technical Basis – Authority CTechnical Basis – Authority C
Historical data for coatings in appropriate environments defines degradation rates
Survey characterizes exposure conditions and technical paint data
Lowest cost painting option is selected using an ROI calculation
Current coatings and corrosion condition ratings Exposure environment ratings Predicted life to next painting event
Investment of Cost
Investment of Cost - Investment from GainROI
Cost vs. Corrosion TheoreticalCost vs. Corrosion Theoretical
Cost vs. %Corrosion
0.1% 1.0% 10.0% 100.0%
% Corrosion
Co
st
Spot Repair
Maintenance Repaint
Remove and Replace
Cost vs. Corrosion ActualCost vs. Corrosion Actual
Cost vs. % Corrosion
0.1% 1.0% 10.0% 100.0%
% Corrosion
Co
st
Spot Repair
Maintenance Repaint
Remove and Replace
Program Summary – Authority CProgram Summary – Authority C
Database program generates a list of structures sorted by ROI
DOT organizes projects to address priorities (human factor is required)
Condition data easily attainedDegradation models and cost factors were fixedConstraints were variableDoes not estimate budgets
Common ThreadsCommon Threads
All prioritization programs were customAuthority constraints were customAll used existing data sources with
enhancementsAll need maintenance to remain accurateAll provide a starting point for defendable
analysis
Feedback is NeededFeedback is Needed
Programs are tools – use for designated purpose and within limitations
MonitorMonitor
LearnLearn
DesignDesign
Using FeedbackUsing Feedback
Painting ProgramSquare Feet per Year (actual + forecast)
-
200.000
400.000
600.000
800.000
1,000.000
1,200.000
1,400.000
1,600.000
1,800.000
2,000.000
2,200.000
2,400.000
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Years
Sq
uar
e F
eet
of
Pai
nti
ng
per
Yea
r (t
ho
usa
nd
s)
New PaintingMaintenance PaintingEstimated Maintenance
A: 11.3% (7-10 years)B: 41.1% (11-17 years)C: 47.5% (18-30 years)
Prioritization Program ComparisonsPrioritization Program Comparisons
Authority A B C
Budget Justified the level of effort to secure funding
Budget was pre-determined
Program fit priorities to variable funds
Technical Data
Initial survey with biennial updates
Initial survey, one planned update
Initial survey with Authority / consultant updates
Cost Data Living history of project data used in budget updates
Engineer estimates as project schedules advance
N/A - program ranks need, Authority builds and estimates projects
Prioritization Program CostPrioritization Program Cost
Planning/Prioritization Program Cost
0.4%
0.2% 0.2%
0.1%
1.0%
10.0%
100.0%
Toll Authority A Toll Authority B Authority C
Authority
% o
f C
on
stru
ctio
n
Inspection vs. ExpectationInspection vs. Expectation
Planning a ProjectPlanning a Project
ConclusionsConclusionsMaintenance painting is neededAll painting can be scheduled with the most
benefit (least cost) by evaluating structures and implementing a maintenance painting program
Numerous “constraints” affect a program Other work Cost trends Priorities / Goals
Program must be adaptableUse existing data or existing inspection activities