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
8/20/2019 Peter Weykamp presentation - 6 per page.pdf
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
8/20/2019 Peter Weykamp presentation - 6 per page.pdf
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
8/20/2019 Peter Weykamp presentation - 6 per page.pdf
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
8/20/2019 Peter Weykamp presentation - 6 per page.pdf
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
8/20/2019 Peter Weykamp presentation - 6 per page.pdf
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
8/20/2019 Peter Weykamp presentation - 6 per page.pdf
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
8/20/2019 Peter Weykamp presentation - 6 per page.pdf
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
8/20/2019 Peter Weykamp presentation - 6 per page.pdf
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
8/20/2019 Peter Weykamp presentation - 6 per page.pdf
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
8/20/2019 Peter Weykamp presentation - 6 per page.pdf
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
8/20/2019 Peter Weykamp presentation - 6 per page.pdf
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
8/20/2019 Peter Weykamp presentation - 6 per page.pdf
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%
8,623 BridgesCurrent - 69%
Goal – 85%
2,544 BridgesCurrent - 20%
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
8/20/2019 Peter Weykamp presentation - 6 per page.pdf
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.
Top Related