best practices in bridge management decision-making...best practices in bridge management...
TRANSCRIPT
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