FHWA NBIS Compliance Review

FHWA NBIS Compliance Review

Keith Hoernschemeyer Mohammad Hajeer February 15th, 2016

Agenda

Background of FHWA NBIS Metrics Review Summary of Metrics Individual Metrics Status INDOT Actions

2

FHWA NBIS Review Background

FHWA annually performs a compliance review of INDOT’s bridge inspection program

Required by law (MAP-21) Review is based on nationally identified 23 bridge

inspection criteria (Metrics) contained in the NBIS regulations

INDOT is ultimately responsible for all bridge inspections in the state; this includes ensuring compliance of NBIS regulations by LPAs

3

FHWA NBIS Review Background Review is risk-based and data driven Each criteria individually evaluated/assessed as: Compliant Substantially Compliant - requires action by

INDOT Non-Compliant – requires action by INDOT

If it is in the NBIS regulation, FHWA will review it! Some criteria evaluate sample of bridges Some criteria evaluate entire bridge population in

NBI

4

23 Metrics

1: Bridge inspection organization 2: Qualifications of Program Manager 3: Qualifications of Team Leaders 4: Qualifications of Load Rating Engineer 5: Qualifications of UW Bridge Inspection Diver

5

23 Metrics 6: Routine inspection frequency – Lower risk bridges 7: Routine inspection frequency – Higher risk bridges 8: UW inspection frequency – Lower risk bridges 9: UW Inspection frequency – Higher risk bridges 10: FC inspection frequency

6

23 Metrics

11: Inspection frequency criteria 12: Inspection procedures – Quality Inspections

7

23 Metrics 13: Load Rating 14: Load Post or Restrict 15: Bridge Files 16: FC inspection procedures 17: UW Inspection procedures 18: Scour Critical inspection procedures 19: Complex inspection procedures 20: QC/QA procedures 21: Critical findings procedures

8

23 Metrics - Inventory

22: Prepare and maintain bridge inventory 23: Timely updating of bridge inventory data

9

Results of Annual FHWA NBIP Review

1. Bridge inspection organization: Organizational roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and documented; including delegated roles and responsibilities. Institutional control of program. INDOT Actions: LPA ERC (Employee in Responsible Charge)

requirement/training LPA Manual – bridge inspection chapter

10

Qualification Metrics 2, 3, 4, and 5 2. Qualifications of personnel – Program Manager 3. Qualifications of personnel – Team Leader(s) 4. Qualifications of personnel – Load Rating Engineer 5. Qualifications of personnel – UW Inspection Diver

INDOT Actions: INDOT approves qualified personnel and maintains

documentation related to qualified personnel Ensure that you keep your records up to date: Send INDOT all your Course Certificates INDOT maintains PE certificates on file

11

Qualifications – Training Requirements Certificates for training courses required by the

NBIS taken on/after 2005 must be from NHI or other FHWA-approved course approved for use in specific state.

Examples: Illinois DOT developed 1-week comprehensive course

taken in 1999, not approved by FHWA. PennDOT developed 1-week comprehensive course

taken in 2007, approved by FHWA for PEs. ASCE developed 2-week comprehensive course taken

in 2009, not approved by FHWA.

12

Frequency Metrics 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10

6. Routine inspection frequency – Lower risk bridges 7. Routine inspection frequency – Higher risk bridges 8. Underwater inspection frequency – Lower risk bridges 9. Underwater inspection frequency – Higher risk bridges 10. Inspection frequency – Fracture Critical members

13


FHWA reviews entire NBI database in two ways to determine compliance with frequency metrics: Current Inspection: review inspection date in

most recent NBI; determine if “current” Inspection Interval: review past NBI databases

to determine actual interval between past two inspections

14

Inspection Frequencies

15

Routine Inspection Date

NBI# 2013 NBI 2014 NBI 2015 NBI Interval

32587590 1/2012 1/2012 3/2014 26 months

Next Inspection is due: 1/2016 Interval: CY 2014 Inspection was due 1/2014

Routine – Low Risk

Interval </=24 Months </=28 Months Target 85% 100% Actual 92% 99%

155 bridges had intervals >28 months 153 of 155 bridges were from 2 counties

Routine – High Risk


40 bridges had intervals >28 months 36 of 40 bridges were from 2 counties

UW – Low Risk


6 bridges had intervals >64 months

UW – High Risk


FC – All High Risk



INDOT Actions: LPA Staff actively managing LPA inspection contracts ERC training/requirement Require ERCs to submit quarterly bridge inspection

reports Monitoring INDOT will conduct a quarterly late inspection report Database manager begin performing 25 month checks Continue reporting on the monthly reports

Inspection due dates have been reset for the counties that were late

Inspection data into BIAS w/in 60 days 21

Updating BIAS – LPA Process

Goal: No inspections past 28 months INDOT LPA Corrective Actions??? 22

Routine Inspection (8/2013)

Routine Inspection Due Date (8/2015)

BIAS Update Overdue Inspection (12/2015)

Today (2/2016)

24 Months 4 Months

<2 Months Corrective Action

INDOT LPA Contract Administration

INDOT has “scheduled” all LPA inspection contracts until ~2020. “Hard” target dates for contracts

INDOT LPA Contract Administration

24

Metric 11 - Inspection Frequency Criteria INDOT Actions: Establish “hard” criteria for reduced inspection

intervals for routine Establish “soft” criteria for FC, UW inspections Reduced interval (e.g. 12 months) – 2 options Perform routine at 12 months Change item 90A to 12 months; 92C=N

Perform special detail inspection of component or element that is causing the low rating (i.e. beam ends) Change 92C to Y12; 90A = 24. Identify what you are inspecting

25

Metric 12 - Field Reviews Field Reviews of randomly selected bridges Assess field review vs bridge file Criteria Component Ratings (+/- 1)? Identify all deficiencies? Does documentation in the inspection report

justify condition ratings? Signed by TL; indicating TL was present during

inspection

26

Metric 12 - Field Reviews Substantial Compliance

28

Metric 12 – Quality Inspections INDOT Actions: BIAS simplified to allow for more narrative for each

component Expected to be used!

INDOT and FHWA met with TL assessed as NC INDOT QC/QA commensurate with FHWA IA INDOT issued Memo – common errors Presentations at CBC, Inspection Conference, other meetings

29

Metric 12 – Quality Inspections Common Errors Condition codes not supported by narrative Photos – not labeled with location and description Inaccurate cross-sections – very common Deficiencies not identified, OR not documented

thoroughly, OR not noted as serious issue Inaccurate condition ratings

30

Metric 12 – Quality Inspections Common Errors Condition codes not supported by narrative Expectation/Requirement: the lower the value of the

condition code, the amount of documentation increases to thoroughly describe its location, extent and severity. As condition worsens, also include photos, sketches, measurements, etc.

Requirement for component rating of 5 or less

31

Documentation Commensurate with Deficiency…

Narrative: Hairline crack(s) under each beam. N & S abutments Photo: ? Sketch: ? Measurement: ?

Documentation Commensurate with Deficiency…

Narrative: 1/4” crack full length of beam #6 Photo: Yes Sketch: Yes or full length photo Measurement: Yes – in narrative or on sketch

Can be documented on photo…

34

Photo #6: beam 6, span 1, spall with 1 strand visible, minor section loss of rebar and loss of 1 strand

Gusset plate is labeled for easy identification

Documentation Commensurate with Deficiencies

35

Common Errors Condition Codes Not Supported by Narrative Do use language that supports Condition Ratings

given in the Coding Guide If rated a “5”, discuss section loss, cracking, or spalling Location(s): isolated versus widespread Describe severity of deficiencies: hairline vs wide cracks;

minor section loss vs 25% section loss Do Not use language that does not support rating “I changed the rating from 6 to 4 based on my inspection.” “Rating of 5 based on satisfactory condition.” “Beams continue to rust” “Rating of 5 based on discussion with supervisor.” “In my professional opinion, rating is a 4.” “Bridge performing OK”

Condition Codes Not Supported Use language that support Condition Ratings given in the Coding Guide/MBE

9 EXCELLENT CONDITION 8 VERY GOOD CONDITION - no problems noted. 7 GOOD CONDITION - some minor problems. 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - structural elements show some minor deterioration. 5 FAIR CONDITION - all primary structural elements are sound but may have minor section

loss, cracking, spalling or scour. 4 POOR CONDITION - advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour. 3 SERIOUS CONDITION - loss of section, deterioration, spalling or scour have seriously

affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present.

2 CRITICAL CONDITION - advanced deterioration of primary structural elements. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present or scour may have removed substructure support. Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close the bridge until corrective action is taken.

1 "IMMINENT" FAILURE CONDITION - major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put back in light service.

0 FAILED CONDITION - out of service - beyond corrective action.

Common Errors

Condition Codes Not Supported by Narrative Use common language – from MBE NOT: “severe” rust Use: 25% section loss/pitting NOT: “bottom of bent exposed” Use: spread footing undermined at S abutment

Common Errors

Use common nomenclature from MBE, BIRM, etc.

Problems Noted

Inspection Report Drawing

Channel cross-section shown on drawing Actual channel cross-section(s)

• Drawing (Green) is inaccurate depiction of current conditions (Red)

• Drawing does not give critical dimensions (i.e. dimension to bottom of spread footings; relation of stream bottom to bottom of spread footing)

• Report does not contain enough measurements to accurately document deficiency.

Visual (L) vs Up-Close (R)

Up-close inspection may be needed to adequately document deficiencies

Metrics 13. Load Rating & 14. Load Posting Metrics 13 and 14 were both found to be in

non-compliance during previous review

42

Metrics 13. Load Rating & 14. Load Posting

Past INDOT Actions: BIAS was updated to accept proper NBI codes;

improving! LR per engineering judgment: ~5,800 (2014); 7,300 (2015)

No load rating performed! ~3,400 (2013); ~2,100 (2014); ~750 (2015)

43

44

Code Description

0 Field evaluation and documented engineering judgment

1 Load Factor (LF) reported in tons

2 Allowable Stress (AS) reported in tons

3 Load and Resistance Factor (LRFR) reported in tons

4 Load Testing

5 No rating analysis or evaluation performed

6 Load Factor (LF) reported by rating factor (RF)

7 Allowable Stress (AS) reported by rating factor (RF)

8 Load and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR) reported by rating factor (RF) method using HL-93 loadings.

A-F Assigned rating based on (LFD/ASD/LRFD) reported in tons/RF

Metrics 13. Load Rating & 14. Load Posting Past INDOT Actions (continued): Issued “new” posting policy Re-evaluated and updated its entire LR process

(methodology of rating, rating vehicles, assigned ratings, engineering judgment, etc.)

45

Results of Annual FHWA NBIP Review FHWA Requirement: Load rating and posting policy

must account for all legal loads and routine permit loads

Longstanding INDOT LPA LR&P Policy Bridges rated only for H-20 (Inventory) and HS-20 (Inventory

and Operating) Post only if Inventory Rating for H-20 Inventory was <16

tons

46

Results of Annual FHWA NBIP Review Problems INDOT could not assure this rating policy accounts for all

legal loads and routine permit loads H-16 Inventory Rating does not always control over the HS-

20 Operating Rating as assumed per INDOT policy FHWA identified a number of bridges with H-20 (Inventory)

rating >16ton but with HS-20 (Operating) rating <36 tons; indicating that H-16 (inventory) not always the controlling vehicle for posting.

47

New INDOT Load Rating and Posting Policy Assigned ratings will not be allowed Requires an evaluation to be completed and documented,

determining that the force effects from State legal loads or routine permit loads do not exceed those from the design load. (i.e. HS-20 does not cover all legal loads)

Requires a full complement of rating vehicles to be evaluated

Requires specific documentation for engineering judgement

Requires posting on most restrictive vehicle

48

Metric 15 – Bridge Files

Paper versus electronic MBE Requirements vs NBIS Significant Components Bridge Inventory Assessment System (BIAS) is the primary

repository for bridge files Significant Components Checked: Inspection Reports Waterway Information – channel cross sections Significant Correspondence Special Inspection Load Rating Documentation Posting Documentation Critical Findings and Actions Scour Assessments Evaluation Data

Metric 16 – FCM Inspection Procedures

INDOT actions Update its inspection manual to…clearly address the

following items: The requirements on the inspection plan which will include

clearly identifying the location of all fracture critical members. The frequency of inspection Description of specific risk factors unique to the bridge Inspection methods and equipment to be employed Items that must be individually listed in the inspection for rating

including connection, gusset plates, pins, etc. A methodology will be developed to determine when floor

beams must be considered as fracture critical. Complement sample FC inspection plan/report currently in

the Inspection Manual

Metric 18 – Scour Critical Bridges Background: Scour is #1 cause of bridge failures in US Indiana LPA scour assessments were conducted in 1990’s Assessments initially categorized each bridge according to

scour risk Many bridges originally coded U or Scour Critical, changed

without documentation or approved process Field Reviews found bridges with significant scour risk or

actual scour that were not currently identified as SCB Field Reviews found little evidence that SCB were being

monitored/inspected/closed during triggering events

51

Metric 18 – Scour Critical Bridges LPA Scour Assessments conducted in 1990’s –

questionable quality and unknown documentation INDOT agreed to perform Scour Re-Evaluations AND Review of POAs (for adequacy) AND reporting

process

52

New INDOT Scour Assessment and POA Policies Developed thru ACEC Bridge Inspection

Committee INDOT Scour Screening and Assessment Policy Standardized process Documented

POA Policy Simplified form Methodology for triggering event identified Includes reporting requirements

53

Metric 19 – Complex Bridge Inspection Procedures

5 Bridges identified as complex INDOT and FHWA will review, revise, and

approve all complex bridge inspection plans

Metric 20 – QC/QA Procedures

Many forms revised to match FHWA Metric Review forms

Metric 21 – Critical Findings FHWA’s concern – State Inspection Program Manager needs to establish procedures to ensure all critical findings are closed out in a timely manner. INDOT Actions: Inspection Manual was updated to better define CF

and outline new procedures INDOT PM tracks all CF to ensure close-out Developing a CF tracking form in BIAS

56

What is a Critical Finding?

NBIS definition “A structural or safety related deficiency that

requires immediate follow-up inspection or action.” i.e. it is forward looking

Why Critical Findings are Important

Findings require immediate follow-up and close-out; need process to track (e.g. tech support, FedEx, etc.) Identify systematic problems Gives County/INDOT/FHWA management

“heads up” of potential issues Lane Restrictions/Load Posting/Closure ASAP – bad news delivered later is still bad news

CF Identified – ERC and CO notified

Actions Recommended

Timely Action Taken CF Closed Out

What a Critical Finding Report is NOT?

Not reporting tool for bridges that were closed or posted Not reporting to CO what happened Not a tool to report that a bridge has been

programmed for rehab X years from now.

Actions Taken CO notified

Loss of Bearing of Beam

Safety Related Deficiency

Critical Finding Info -Document in Bridge File-

Critical finding report/email to owner/INDOT CO NBI or State bridge # Description of bridge Date of inspection Description of critical finding Photos/sketches/measurements of critical finding Recommendation(s) for follow-up Recommended timeline for follow-up Close out actions/dates (when completed)

Metric 22 – Inventory Data

Most common error: Approach Roadway Alignment (Item 72) Generally use codes 8, 6, 3 (in accordance with 2-week

course and Coding Guide) Item 72 should not be “downgraded” for narrow bridge Item 72 should not be “downgraded” for horizontal/vertical

curves beyond the roadway approach to the bridge

“Consider how the alignment of the roadway approaches to the bridge relate to the general highway alignment for the section of highway the bridge is on.”

Metric 23 – Inventory Data Update

State Bridges are Required to be Approved and Updated 90 Days After Inspection Date. INDOT Requires Approval 30 Days After Inspection

Local Bridges are Required to be Approved and Updated 180 Days After Inspection Date. INDOT Requires Approval 60 Days After Inspection

INDOT is tracking this on monthly basis and notifies Team Leaders of late approvals.

Future of NBIP

Process of Updating NBIS Regulation (???) Issue Proposed Regulation (NPRM) Solicit Comments Address Comments Issue Final Regulation

Updated Coding Guide (???) Annual Metrics Review – will continue

under FAST-Act

DRAFT Specifications for the NBI (SNBI)

Proposed to replace the NBI Coding Guide in conjunction of new NBIS regulation.

DRAFT Specifications for the NBI (SNBI)

157 total items proposed in SNBI 123 items in 1995 NBI Coding Guide 105 items continued from 1995 NBI Coding

Guide 18 items discontinued from 1995 NBI Coding

Guide

56 new items

Questions about NBIS…

LPA/Consultant ↓

INDOT LPA/Bridge Inspection ↓

Keith Hoernschemeyer Performance Management Team Leader/

Division Bridge Engineer

68

If you have interest in applying for FHWA IN Bridge Engineer position: Contact me Visit: USAJobs.gov

69

Documents

FHWA NBIS Compliance Review