Best Practices in Bridge Management

Decision-Making

NCHRP 20-68AUS Domestic Scan Program

Scan 07-05

Overview of Scan ResultsOverview of Scan ResultsMidwest Bridge Preservation Partnership

October 2010

Peter WeykampBridge Maintenance Program EngineerNew York Department of Transportation

Purpose

Discover and collect information on how DOTs manage maintenance of highway bridges and how maintenance impacts the overall bridge program

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

� Bridge Conditions

� Maintenance Needs

� Effectiveness of Maintenance

� Funding Availability

Scan Team

Scan States

Inputs

Bridge Management Process

Preventive Maintenance

KEY FINDINGS

Preventive Maintenance

Agency Support

•Maintenance Needs

•Prioritization

•Performance Measures

•Verification

Bridge Management

•Verification

Identified at the element level

Uniform, specific, and repeatable

Stated as standard work actions

Maintenance Needs

Stated as standard work actions

Accessible throughout the agency

Element Level

TYPES

� Modified NBI

� Commonly Recognized (CoRe)

SUPPORTS

� Detailed reports

� Maintenance decisions

� Treatment options Recognized (CoRe) Bridge Elements

� Own system

� Treatment options

� Early intervention

� Minimize repair costs

NBI CONDITION ASSESSMENT

Uniform, Specific, &

Repeatable

METHODS

� Inspectors recommend action

� Drop-down menu

� Actions prioritized

� Costs per action

� Stored in database

� Draft work order

Corporate Database OREGON

Needs Database NEW YORK

Tracking Backlogs CALTRANS

14

Bridge Maintenance Program

2001 - 2005

Integrate objectives for deficiencies,

preventive maintenance, network

performance, and risk

Engage both central and regional DOT

Prioritization

Engage both central and regional DOT

Advance from network-level rankings to

selection of specific projects

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) × 100Health 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

Deficiency Formula DELAWARE

MAP WASHINGTON

MAP = Maintenance Accountability Program

Priorities listed by Activity

Service Level OutcomeService Level Outcome

LEVEL OF INVESTMENT

LEVEL OF INVESTMENT

Resources

More

How Does Maintenance WASHINGTON

Measure Performance?

AA

BB

CC

LEVEL OF INVESTMENT

LEVEL OF INVESTMENT

LEVEL OF DELIVERYLEVEL OF DELIVERY

Resources

Less

Preventive Corrective Routine

Low High

Low High

CC

DD

FF

1.0 1.9 2.0 2.9 3.0 3.9 4.0 4.9 5.0 5.9

Service Level Numeric Scale

Reliability

Degree of Risk

Low High

More Less

Program Priorities

Life Cycle Costs

Maintenance

4A2 Structural Bridge Repair

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 RepairBridge Column RepairDebris Removal

2007-09 M Program Budget: $9.2 million

Debris RemovalScour RepairExpansion Joint Repair

4A2 Structural Bridge Repair Performance

Measurement

The performance measurement for this activity focuses on Priority 1 repairs. A list of all repairs for maintenance to complete is compiled each year. The list is identified by either:

the formal bridge inspection process, ormaintenance personnel during daily work activities.

The Level of Service is based on the percentage of Priority 1 repairs

A: 90 -100% completed

B: 80 - 89% completed

C: 65 - 79% completed

D: 50 – 64% completed

F: Less than 50% completed

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

This activity is currently funded at $9.2 million for the 2007-09 biennium.

Level of Service target is a C

2008 Level of Service delivered is a D

The 2009-11 proposed budget includes an additional $1.5 million to catch up with this maintenance backlog and achieve the target.

What is LOS?

Service Level AService Level A Service Level BService Level B Service Level CService Level C

Pavement Patching & Repair

A simple scale that rates the outcomes of maintenance activities.

Service Level DService Level D Service Level FService Level F

Match objectives in bridge maintenance

Identify work to advance maintenance

objectives

Performance Measures

Provide simple indications of status of bridge

networks

Virginia

Bridge Condition Ratings

1000

1200

1400

Num

ber of Bridges

GoodFairPoor

Serious or Critical

MICHIGAN

24

0

200

400

600

800

Num

ber of Bridges

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

NBI Rating

Service Life Extension

5.8$5,000

2370 Good2370 Good

TypicalTreatment Costs perBridge

(~30%)

NEW YORK

4.4 $250,000

4740 Fair4740 Fair

790 Poor790 Poor

$3,700,000

Major Rehab or Replacement Candidates

(~60%)

(~10%)

Performance Measure FLORIDA

Feasible Action Review Committee

Over the last year 7476 of 7492 (99.8%) work orders

Goal: 100% of Priority 1 and 2 WOs completed on time

90% of all work orders completed on time

Priority 1 Emergency 60 days to complete, paperwork may follow corrective actionPriority 2 Urgent 180 days to completePriority 3 Routine 365 days to completePriority 4 Informational no deadline

Over the last year 7476 of 7492 (99.8%) work orders

were completed on time with no delinquent priority

1s and 2s

Bridge Maintenance Contract Funding and Backlog

2647

2835

2874

2913

2952

2991

3030

2507

1870 2095 2320 2544

$120

$140

$160

$180

$200

Fundin

g L

evel (M

illion $

)

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

# o

f B

ridges

2007 & 2009 Five Year

Plan

Actual

Tracking Backlogs CALTRANS

27

$94

$63

$63

$94

$94

$94

$13

$9

$6

$6$6

$94

$94

1645 1870 2095

$-

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

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

Fundin

g L

evel (M

illion $

)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

# o

f B

ridges

Funding $ Backlog Bridges Reduce Backlog

Deficient - Deck Area NEW YORK

Statewide -- State Owned

35000000

40000000

45000000

50000000

Square

Are

a o

f B

ridges

0

5000000

10000000

15000000

20000000

25000000

30000000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Calendar Year Data

Square

Are

a o

f B

ridges

Non Deficient Total deficient

Strategy is effectiveInvestment pays off

Needs are metLevel of Service indicators

Verification

Level of Service indicators

Needs – Accomplishment = Gap

Work completed Report into BMS, MMS, Capital

Program, …

CALTRANS ‘05 –’09 Bridge Preservation

1,333 Bridges

Current - 11%

Goal – 5%

8,623 Bridges

Current - 69%

Goal – 85%

2,544 Bridges

Current - 20%

Goal 10%300 Bridges/Yr

Rehab. Program (SHOPP)Maintenance Program Preservation Program

40 Bridges/Yr

30

Rehab. Program (SHOPP)Maintenance Program Preservation Program(Major Maintenance)

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

Tracking Trends MICHIGAN

31

Preventive Maintenance

Significant part of program

Applied before bridges become deficient

Implements clear plans of actionImplements clear plans of action

Flexible allocation of resources

Washington

Bridge Deck Preservation Matrix MICHIGAN

33

Cyclical Maintenance VIRGINIA

Bridge Deck Washing (Concrete) – 1 YearBridge Deck Sweeping – 1 YearSeats & 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 years

34

Cleaning and Lubricating Bearing Devices – 4 yearsScheduled Beam Ends Painting – 10 YearsInstallation of Thin Epoxy Concrete Overlay – 15 YearsRemoving Debris from Culverts – 5 Years

LEGISLATURE: gas tax, dedicated fund, MPO

percentage

DOT Executives: Maintenance is not a episodic. ODOT

– “Fix it First”

Agency Support

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

Key Recommendations

1. Require element-level inspection programs, and establish standard condition states, quantities, and recommended actions (maintenance, rehabilitation, replacement) to match the operational characteristics of the maintenance program of the agency

Establish national performance measures for all 2. Establish national performance measures for all highway bridges for comparisons among bridge owners and owner-specific performance measures that can be used to allocate funding levels for a full range of actions to optimize bridge conditions

Key Recommendations

3. Use owner-specific performance measures to set overall funding levels for maintenance programs.

4. Determine bridge needs and treatment schedule based on owner-specific objectives, and utilize schedule to develop needs-based funding schedule to develop needs-based funding mechanisms (for the full range of recommended actions) that are consistent with network performance measures.

5. Establish standards, and require implementation by bridge owners, of preventive maintenance programs that are funded at levels set by analysis of performance measures. Programs must include the repair needs of 'cusp' bridges to keep them from becoming 'deficient' bridges. Experience in scan

Key Recommendations

becoming 'deficient' bridges. Experience in scan states has shown that preventive and minor maintenance must be a significant portion of bridge programs that optimize bridge conditions within limited budgets.

6. Develop work programs for maintenance that include the unit or crew level involvement (i.e. at the lowest level of management or supervision) when those positions are staffed by supervisors with extensive field maintenance experience. Avoid

Key Recommendations

extensive field maintenance experience. Avoid “blind” use of work programs from bridge management systems, and work programs dictated by goals to maximize performance measures (although both bridge management systems and performance measures provide useful information to maintenance crews).

FINAL REPORT

• Google: NCHRP Domestic Scan

• Look for: 07-05 Best Practices in Bridge Practices in Bridge Management Decision-Making

THANK YOU