Click for next page ( 28


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 27
27 data based on police accident reports (PAR), and an admin- on bridges' vulnerability to scour. The review found no other istrative structure for controlling the data. Most PAR data data sources available on a consistent basis for use in assessing collected by states are similar in nature. Different data schemas risk to infrastructure. However, in many cases individual IHS have been developed for crash reporting, but there is no owners have performed some form of assessment of the risks national standard for these data. The TransXML schema is they perceive to be greatest (e.g., of seismic vulnerability in one example developed through NCHRP Project 20-64. As California, likelihood of flooding in the event of a hurricane described in Appendix A, this schema is based on the Model in Gulf Coast states, etc.). In theory the National Asset Database Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUC). provides a comprehensive listing of critical infrastructures NHTSA's National Center for Statistical Analysis maintains and assets. However, both the Department of Homeland a sample of state crash data through its National Accident Security and Congressional Resource Service have reported Sampling System/General Estimates System (NASS/GES). The significant problems with this database, particularly with NASS/GES contains an annual sample of police-reported traf- regard to consistency in classification of "critical assets" from fic crashes in the United States, which is used to estimate the state to state (20) (21). number of U.S. traffic accidents and their injury outcomes. For predicting consequences of risks, many state DOTs Unlike the FARS, which only contains data describing crashes and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) do have involving fatalities, the NASS/GES contains data on both fatal statewide or regional travel demand models that can be used and nonfatal accidents. The NASS/GES was created in 1988. to model the disruption in the event of system failure. Currently More than 50,000 accidents are recorded in this database the Interstate 95 (I-95) Corridor Coalition is developing an each year. integrated travel demand model for the states along I-95 that, once developed, could be used for consequence modeling. For bridges, the NBI specifies the traffic on and under each State Highway Safety Improvement Plans (HSIP) IHS bridge, as well as the detour distance around the bridge. Each state is required to develop a HSIP on an annual basis This information can be used to approximate consequences detailing its use of Federal transportation safety funding. At a for bridge-related risks. minimum, a state's HSIP has sections on planning (including information on data collection and maintenance, identification 4.3 Analytical Tools of hazardous locations and elements, and project priorities), implementation of planned safety improvement and evalua- This section describes the evaluation of the available ana- tion of completed improvements. The HSIP is a useful source lytical tools for supporting the Interstate Asset Management of data for information on state-level safety improvement Framework. The review described in Appendix A yielded a needs and trends. large number of examples of analytical tools for supporting asset management. The existing tools have been organized by the system types described already: investment analysis Environmental Data systems; management systems; needs and project evaluation; There exists little environmental data available, particu- risk assessment; and results monitoring. Specific systems larly on a consistent basis from agency to agency, for support- available in the public domain are noted. Otherwise, the text ing the Interstate Asset Management Framework. NCHRP describes general functionality available in the existing agency Web-Only Document 103 (19) details data sources and analy- and commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) systems. tical tools used by transportation agencies for environmental management. Investment Analysis The review included several examples of investment analy- Risk-Related Data sis tools. FHWA's HERS-ST, the state version of the Federal Supporting the risk management approach described in HERS program, uses HPMS data to predict highway invest- Chapter 3 requires information on risks to transportation ment needs and measures. The system simulates both pave- infrastructure and information for predicting consequences, ment preservation and highway capacity expansions needs. as well as the detailed asset data described in previous sub- FHWA itself uses a Federal version of HERS for developing sections. Information on the risks to transportation infra- its biennial report on the conditions and performance of U.S. structure is particularly sparse. The NBI contains data on highways, bridges, and transit (the C&P Report). HERS-ST is certain types of risks to structures, through detailing bridge notable in that it is one of few systems that generates needs for design types and materials, through specifying whether or not new capacity. This functionality is in contrast to that provided a bridge has fracture critical details, and by storing information in other tools, which typically can evaluate a set of project or

OCR for page 27
28 network improvements, but lack functionality for needs gen- performed work on NBIAS to modify its models to predict eration. Further, HERS-ST projects a wide range of perfor- benefits in as similar as possible a manner to HERS, and to mance measures, including selected preservation, mobility populate the system with default data, including default user and accessibility, safety, and environmental measures. Issues cost models, agency cost adjustment factors for each state, agencies encounter in using HERS-ST include: and bridge deterioration models for each HPMS climate zone. The system takes NBI data as its input, but also can The system is designed to model HPMS sample sections, import element-level data where available. using the expansion factor to approximate needs for The Multi-Objective Optimization System (MOOS) nonsample sections. One can either run the system using network-level model is a spreadsheet tool for bridge investment sample section data, or supplement the HPMS data, quan- analysis detailed in NCHRP Report 590 (7). The system uses tifying the additional data items required for sample sections data on work candidates generated separately to project for universal sections, as well. For high-level analysis the future conditions and performance given performance and/or use of sample section data is completely appropriate, but budget constraints and objectives. The tool supports use of a for more detailed analyses one may need to supplement the multi-objective approach, but requires extensive data to run, sample section data. to be specified for each individual bridge using the MOOS The system has relatively limited modeling of pavement bridge-level model. The California DOT (Caltrans) has adapted conditions, given the only measures of pavement condition concepts from NCHRP Report 590 in its recent revisions to available in the HPMS are IRI and PSR. FHWA plans to the process for updating the Caltrans Strategic Highway revise the pavement models in HERS in conjunction with Operations and Protection Plan (SHOPP). The bridge analysis the planned changes in the HPMS. performed for the SHOPP update process considers needs for The system relies on future traffic predictions in the HPMS. bridge rehabilitation, guardrail improvements, seismic retrofit, Frequently these values are populated using an overall scour mitigation, and functional improvement using a multi- adjustment factor, rather than through use of a travel objective approach. The process is supported by a number demand model. of tools, including the Pontis BMS and AssetManager NT Indiana DOT (INDOT) has developed an approach for described below. using HERS-ST to support its planning process, accounting AssetManager NT, developed through NCHRP Project for all of the issues described above. The agency models 20-57 (8) and now released through AASHTO, is an investment each of its pavement sections as a sample section (supple- analysis tool designed to integrate data from other investment menting the HPMS data with additional data available analysis and management systems. It takes analysis results from its road inventory database), and defines specific generated by systems such as HERS-ST, NBIAS, and agency improvements in HERS-ST, with traffic data generated management systems as inputs, and uses this information to from the agency's statewide travel demand model, where show performance measure results over time for different a specific improvement has been scoped. Also, INDOT funding scenarios. The system includes spreadsheet "robots" disables the pavement deterioration models in HERS-ST, for automatically running HERS-ST and the Pontis BMS to instead using its own, more detailed PMS for modeling generate system input. The system is unique in its ability to pavement conditions. integrate analysis results from different sources in one display. However, COTS management system vendors have built upon The World Road Association (PIARC) offers HDM-4 for their existing systems to provide similar functionality, where analysis of roadway management and investment alternatives. an agency uses the vendor's system for all of its analysis, as The system has been used internationally to evaluate road proj- described later. ects, budget scenarios, and roadway policy options. HDM-4 In addition to the systems described, a number of agencies has functionality similar to HERS-ST, with a more detailed set have developed their own investment analysis approaches, fre- of pavement models. However, the system does not use HPMS quently using spreadsheets, to support the process. The Alaska data as an input, and has not been implemented in the U.S. Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and Michi- FHWA's National Bridge Investment Analysis System gan DOT are two examples of agencies that have developed (NBIAS) is designed for modeling national-level bridge spreadsheet approaches. Other agencies have developed their investment needs. FHWA uses NBIAS in conjunction with own cross-asset analysis systems. The Ministry of Transporta- HERS when preparing the C&P Report, and has recently tion of Ontario (MTO) has developed a prototype Executive made a number of enhancements to the system to facilitate Support System (ESS) for cross-asset analysis. The system state use. The system uses a modeling approach originally includes functionality similar to AssetManager, as well as a pre- adapted from the Pontis BMS to predict bridge preservation processor for using work candidate and asset inventory to sim- and functional improvement investment needs. FHWA has ulate future conditions and performance. The New Brunswick

OCR for page 27
29 Department of Transportation has recently adapted the Remsoft survival probability that can be used to establish a pavement Spatial Planning System (RSPS) to perform strategic analysis deterioration model. of its pavement and bridge investment needs. RSPS is a suite A feature of the more advanced commercially available of tools originally designed for developing long-term forest systems is that these systems can model other assets besides management plans. RSPS includes the Woodstock modeling pavement, provided an agency has the data and models to system, used to formulate optimization models, which are then support such an analysis, and subject to a number of modeling solved using a separate linear program (LP) solver. assumptions. Also, the systems from Deighton and Agile Assets offer the ability to view analysis results across assets modeled in the system. Utah DOT has successfully used the Deighton's Management Systems dTIMS CT system to perform analysis across assets, including Pavement. PMS are used to collect, store and retrieve pavement, structures, safety, mobility, and maintenance needs. pavement inventory and condition data. These systems are used to reduce data, summarize conditions, support develop- Bridge. BMS are used for storing bridge inventory and in- spection data, supporting reporting, modeling bridge condi- ment of pavement treatment rules, model future conditions, tions, recommending work, and other functions. Nearly all and perform analysis of investment needs, and develop stan- U.S. agencies have a BMS to support collection of bridge in- dard query reports. All U.S. agencies have some form of PMS, spection data. Many, though substantially fewer, use their BMS and all use their pavement systems to support HPMS and for bridge modeling. Commercially available bridge man- other reporting. There are a number of commercially avail- agement systems that have been put into production in the able PMS, including systems offered by the Army Corps of United States and Canada include AASHTO's Pontis, Delcan's Engineers, Deighton, Agile Assets, and Stantec. There are sev- BRIDGIT, and Stantec's Ontario Bridge Management System eral additional state-specific systems in use. (OBMS). All of these systems store data and model bridges at Typically PMSs allow for specification of multiple mea- an element or component level, going beyond characterizing sures of distress, including roughness, rutting, cracking/ conditions at a finer level than the deck, superstructure, and faulting, and other measures. Most systems support flexible substructure ratings in the NBI. specification deterioration models for each measure of distress In addition to these systems, many agencies have devel- and decision rules, allowing for a range of treatments triggered oped their own systems for storing bridge inventory and in- by different distress measures. The available systems use dif- spection data and/or modeling bridge conditions. Agencies ferent approaches to project-level analysis for recommended such as Alabama DOT and New York State DOT developed specific treatments over time for given pavement section and BMS prior to the release of Pontis and continue to use their network-level analysis for predicting overall conditions over agency-specific systems. Other agencies have developed bridge time given a budget constraint and/or other constraints. inventory and inspection systems, while using Pontis for any In part because the available systems are so flexible in their modeling needs, or use Pontis with extensive customizations. design, a challenge agencies face in using the available systems For instance, Caltrans has developed the Structures Mainte- is in determining what distress measures to model, how to nance and Reports Transmittal (SMART) system using a predict deterioration over time, and what treatments should Pontis database and custom tables, with a custom user inter- be triggered at different condition levels. Increasingly, agen- face. Florida DOT has made extensive customizations to cies are using the concept of Remaining Service Live (RSL) for Pontis, and has developed a standalone spreadsheet for bridge developing pavement deterioration models and treatments. analysis (incorporated in the MOOS Bridge Level Tool detailed RSL typically is defined as the life of an asset from the time it in NCHRP Report 590). is completed for use until application of the first significant rehabilitation or reconstruction of the asset. The placement Maintenance. Maintenance management systems (MMS) of a structural HMA overlay (versus a thin overlay) or recon- often are used to inventory and characterize conditions of struction signals the end of a pavement's serviceable life; the roadside assets besides pavements and bridges, including road application of minor maintenance treatments is not considered shoulders, nonbridge structures, and safety features. Transpor- significant enough to indicate the end of service life. In con- tation agencies use a number of different tools to support their junction with the concept of RSL, survival analysis can be used maintenance management functions. Different approaches to determine the mean service life for a family of pavement to maintenance management systems can be summarized as sections or other assets with similar characteristics (e.g., design, follows: usage, climate). Survival analysis utilizes information on assets still in service and assets that have either failed or been Legacy highway MMSs. Several states use MMS that were rehabilitated or reconstructed to predict a time-dependent developed in the 1970s and 80s. These systems are often

OCR for page 27
30 mainframe or client/server systems that field crews use to detailed in NCHRP Web Document 8 (14) and described enter labor, equipment, and materials usage by activity type. previously. This approach requires agencies to conduct These systems enable maintenance managers to develop physical inspections on a sample of the network and model maintenance budgets and plans based largely on what work the relationship between expenditure and the resulting was accomplished in previous years. In the legacy systems, condition. The analytical functionality required to support the inventory data are either nonexistent or consist of a this type of budgeting is not widely available in the types of rudimentary features inventory. As these legacy systems systems described above. Therefore, agencies pursing this have been upgraded, many have evolved into inventory- approach often develop standalone tools that draw infor- based systems, as described below. mation from their MMS. Inventory-based highway MMSs. These systems provide many of the features of the legacy systems, and add more Other. Management systems have been developed for a sophisticated approaches for tracking inventory data. A variety of other assets, including but not limited to signs, cul- number of commercially available asset management sys- verts, tunnels, ITS equipment, and facilities. Generally, but by tems fall in this category, including Agile Assets' Maintenance no means exclusively, these systems focus on supporting col- Manager, Infor's Asset Management Suite, CartGraph's lecting and reporting basic inventory and inspection data. Management Suite, Exor's Highways Suite, and the Mainte- There are many best practice examples for these systems, but nance Activity Tracking System (MATS) jointly developed little or no standardization between them concerning data by the DOTs of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. requirements and functionality. Nontransportation work management systems. Many Regarding other structures besides bridges, there are varying large private sector firms that are responsible for some practices in use for managing these. Most agencies do store type of asset maintenance use work order systems to plan, data on culverts that are at least 6.1 meters (approximately schedule, and track maintenance activities. One example 20 feet) long, as these are included in the NBI. In many cases, of this type of system is IBM's Maximo. Work orders can agencies store data on shorter culverts, tunnels, and other be generated by Maximo automatically based on preven- structures in their BMS, as well. This approach, where used, tive maintenance schedules, or specified by maintenance facilitates use of BMS functionality for predicting future mangers based on local knowledge. Information associated conditions and performance. However, often data on other with work orders can include location, date, activity, per- structures is stored separately, or simply not stored in an elec- sonnel, materials, and equipment usage (both planned and tronic format. New York's Metropolitan Transportation actual). Although these systems are not designed specifically Authority--Bridges and Tunnels uses its Capital Programming to support the public transportation sector, they can be used System to store detailed data on conditions and predicted by transportation agencies wishing to track maintenance future needs for nine major bridges and tunnels in and around work orders. New York City. FHWA has issued guidance on tunnel inspec- Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. ERP systems tion procedures and developed a Tunnel Management System are enterprise-oriented products that offer a suite of inte- that demonstrates collection of tunnel inventory and inspection grated modules covering financial and operations man- data. Also as noted in Section 4.2, FHWA has issued guidance agement. SAP is a common ERP system. SAP has several on sign, light, and traffic signal support structures recommend- financial modules including General Ledger, Payables and ing inspection data be collected for these structures using the Receivables, Controlling (budgeting), and Asset Account- element-level approach established in Pontis. ing. Its also includes four modules that may be applicable to the maintenance management function: Plant Mainte- Needs and Project Evaluation nance, Service Management, Materials Management, and the Project System. A cross-application timesheet module Many of the analytical tools developed for asset manage- (CAT) also is available through SAP, which interfaces to the ment fall into this category. Typically these tools are used to financial, logistics, and human resource families of products. analyze a user-defined scenario or project, calculating costs, In addition, a business information warehouse product performance measures, or other parameters used to support provides data warehouse capabilities, allowing linkages the decision-making process. between SAP and external data. A number of state DOTs are Surface Transportation Efficiency Analysis Model (STEAM) implementing ERP systems to support maintenance man- and ITS Deployment Analysis System (IDAS) are tools for agement, including Pennsylvania, Idaho, and Colorado. evaluating network performance for a specified set of trans- Performance-based budgeting systems. A number of DOTs portation improvements. Both systems require information have developed spreadsheets or systems for supporting a on the improvements to be evaluated, and output from a performance-based maintenance budgeting approach, as travel demand model. STEAM uses this information to

OCR for page 27
31 calculate a wide range of measures of transportation and Risk Assessment environmental performance for multimodal improvements. IDAS is designed to evaluate the benefits of more than 60 types There are relatively few tools available for assessing risks of of ITS investments. system failure for IHS assets. Appendix A provides a number of A number of tools are available to evaluate project-level examples where risks have been characterized and prioritized costs and benefits. BCA.Net is a web-based tool developed by using either calculations of economic losses (e.g., through FHWA for highway benefit-cost analysis. The system predicts creating risk scenarios and using a travel demand model to costs and benefits for a range of different highway projects, estimate consequences) or thresholding approaches. and includes functionality for sensitivity analysis. BCA.Net To the extent that tools have been implemented for risk builds upon the models developed for older benefit-cost assessment, they typically have been used for assessing risks to analysis systems, most notably MicroBENCOST. A key feature structures. As described earlier, Caltrans recently implemented of the system is that because it is web-based, an agency user a multi-objective needs analysis approach supported using can run the system without installing any software other than AssetManager that includes consideration of risks to structures, an Internet browser. StratBENCOST is another system that adapting the approach detailed in NCHRP Report 590. uses MicroBENCOST models, but applies them to multiple Recently NCHRP published the Disruption Impact Esti- project alternatives. TransDec is a tool for multimodal, multi- mating Tool (DIETT) for prioritizing risks to transportation objective project analysis. It helps prioritize projects or project choke points such as bridges and tunnels (22). It includes an alternatives considering multiple objectives and measures. Access tool for filtering choke points and a spreadsheet for AssetManager PT is a spreadsheet tool for project analysis. It prioritizing choke points based on potential economic losses helps prioritize projects given information on the costs, if the choke point were closed. The system is intended to be used benefits, and performance impacts of a set of projects. in conjunction with the Science Applications International Several available tools are spreadsheet tools intended for Corp. (SAIC) Consequences Assessment Tool Set (CATS). detailed lifecycle cost analysis (LCCA) for pavement or bridge Lloyds Register has introduced the Arivu system for pri- projects. RealCost is FHWA's current tool for pavement oritizing maintenance actions for a range of assets such as LCCA, replacing a number of earlier LCCA tools. The system bridges, drainage structures and lighting based on risk. This includes a number of advanced features, including models for tool has been implemented for transportation agencies in the predicting user costs due to construction, and probabilistic United Kingdom. modeling of analysis inputs using Monte Carlo simulation. The MOOS bridge level model described earlier is intended BLCCA is a lifecycle cost analysis tool designed for bridge as a project analysis tool, in that it considers a range of differ- LCCA. It is designed to use data from systems such as Pontis. ent projects and is not limited to risk mitigation. However, Like RealCost, it includes probabilistic modeling of input the tool can be used to prioritize risk mitigation for bridges parameters. The MOOS bridge level model predicts bridge by focusing on project types intended to mitigate risks of life cycle costs as well. It differs from BLCCA in a number of failure (e.g., seismic risks). respects. Specifically, MOOS includes consideration of multi- ple objectives (e.g., minimizing costs, maximizing condition, Results Monitoring or maximizing overall utility) and incorporates preservation models from Pontis. However, it lacks features of BLCCA Transportation agencies typically use their pavement, such as modeling of uncertainty in input parameters. bridge, and maintenance management systems, described Many agencies have developed their own tools for project- above, for monitoring asset conditions over time. All agencies level analysis. Often these tools are used for initial screen- have highway inventory systems and geographic information ing of candidate projects. For instance, Caltrans uses the systems (GIS) for storing geospatial data. These systems are spreadsheet tool Cal B/C for project analysis. Wisconsin integrated to greatly varying degrees, with some agencies DOT developed a spreadsheet for calculating project-level integrating most or all of their management and inventory user benefits as part of its Mobility Project Prioritization systems with each other and their GIS, while others have Process. The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario recently minimal integration. developed a prototype spreadsheet tool, the Priority Economic For monitoring project delivery all agencies have additional Analysis Tool (PEAT), for project-level benefit-cost analysis, systems for construction and project management. A number adapting models from HERS-ST and other systems. South of agencies use AASHTO's Trns*Port suite to support precon- Carolina DOT has developed the Interactive Interstate struction and construction management. Trns*Port includes Management System (IIMS) for ranking interchange needs, 14 separate modules, with functionality in areas such as con- and calculating the costs and benefits of user-defined inter- struction cost estimation, letting and awards, construction change improvements. administration, bidding, and construction management.