National Academies Press: OpenBook
Page i
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25397.
×
Page R1
Page ii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25397.
×
Page R2
Page iii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25397.
×
Page R3
Page iv
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25397.
×
Page R4
Page v
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25397.
×
Page R5
Page vi
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25397.
×
Page R6
Page vii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25397.
×
Page R7
Page viii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25397.
×
Page R8
Page ix
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25397.
×
Page R9
Page x
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25397.
×
Page R10

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

  NCHRP Web-Only Document 259: Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data Glenn Washer Mohammad Hammed Henry Brown University of Missouri Columbia, MO Robert Connor Purdue University West Lafayette, IN Paul Jensen Jensen Engineering & Consulting, LLC East Helena, MT Jason Fogg Joshua Salazar Brian Leshko HDR, Inc. Pittsburgh, PA Jeremy Koonce Calvin Karper Collins Engineers, Inc. Chicago, IL Contractor’s Final Report for NCHRP Project 12-104 Submitted October 2018 ACKNOWEDGMENT This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, and was conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been edited by TRB.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

C O O P E R A T I V E  R E S E A R C H  P R O G R A M S        CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP Web-Only Document 259 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Waseem Dekalb, Senior Program Officer Megan A. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications Kathy Mion, Senior Editorial Assistant NCHRP PROJECT 12-104 PANEL AREA TWELVE: DESIGN—BRIDGES Matthew M. Farrar, Idaho Transportation Department, Boise, ID (Chair) Manuel Bernaldo Carrasco, Texas DOT, Austin, TX Arthur W. D'Andrea, Louisiana DOTD, Baton Rouge, LA Frank N. Lisle, Fairfax, VA Sue McNeil, University of Delaware, Newark, DE Bruce John Sylvia, Massachusetts DOT, New Bedford, MA Sarah M. Wilson, Illinois DOT, Schaumburg, IL Larry D. O'Donnell, FHWA Liaison Stephen F. Maher, TRB Liaison .

v CONTENTS 1  BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1  1.1 Element-Level Bridge Inspection ..................................................................................... 1  2  RESEARCH APPROACH ............................................................................................................ 3  3  FINDINGS AND APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................. 4  3.1 Survey of Bridge Engineers ............................................................................................. 4  3.2 Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Data ............................................. 8  3.2.1  Visual Guide .......................................................................................................... 8  3.2.2  Development of Accuracy Requirements ........................................................... 12  3.2.3  Effect of Accuracy Requirements on Deterioration Modeling ........................... 15  3.2.4  Status of the Guidelines for Improving Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data 19  3.3 Field Inspection Exercises .............................................................................................. 20  3.3.1  Indiana Field Exercises ....................................................................................... 21  3.3.2  Michigan Field Exercises .................................................................................... 27  3.3.3  Discussion ........................................................................................................... 33  3.3.4  Conclusions from the Field Exercises ................................................................. 37  4  CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTED FUTURE WORK ........................................................ 39  4.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 39  4.2 Suggested Future Work .................................................................................................. 39  REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 41  APPENDIX A: SURVEY OF BRIDGE ENGINEERS .................................................................. A-1  APPENDIX B: DRAFT GUIDELINES TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF ELEMENT-LEVEL BRIDGE INSPECTION DATA ....................................................................................................... B-1  APPENDIX C: REVISED MANUAL FOR BRIDGE ELEMENT INSPECTION ..................... C-1  APPENDIX D: FIELD EXERCISE PLAN ..................................................................................... D-1  APPENDIX E: FIELD EXERCISE RESULTS .............................................................................. E-1  APPENDIX F: FIELD EXERCISE DATA ..................................................................................... F-1 

vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Pie chart showing distribution of responses for question 32. ......................................... 5  Figure 2. Bar graph showing the survey response to question 42 regarding estimating defect areas. ......................................................................................................................................................... 6  Figure 3. Bar graph showing estimated time to complete a first-time and routine element-level inspection. ....................................................................................................................................... 7  Figure 4. Photograph of the forensic science visual scales used for developing the visual guide. 9  Figure 5. Visual standard for defect element 1080-Delamination / spall / patched area. ............ 11  Figure 6. Example comparison image for estimating area (5% of area). .................................... 12  Figure 7. Examples of probability density functions for normally distributed inspection results. 14  Figure 8. Model for accuracy requirements showing normal distributions. ................................. 15  Figure 9. Markov results for an element with two different condition state vectors. ................... 16  Figure 10. Markov model for 30% decision threshold A) -2.5% accuracy level, B) +2.5% accuracy level for a slow rate of deterioration. ............................................................................................ 17  Figure 11. Markov model for 30% decision threshold in fast rate deterioration A) -2.5 % accuracy level, B) +2.5% accuracy level for a fast rate of deterioration. .................................................... 17  Figure 12. Inspectors conducting an assessment of simulated damage on a plate girder (A) and inspection of a truss element (B) at the S-BRITE Center. ............................................................ 22  Figure 13. Results from S-BRITE Task 2 (A) and Task 3 (B) showing area estimates provided by TGA and TGB. ............................................................................................................................. 23  Figure 14. Inspector results for Defect 1000 Corrosion damage in a steel truss element. ........... 24  Figure 15. Inspectors conducting an assessment of test bridges I1 and I2. ................................. 25  Figure 16. Individual inspection results for element 107- Open Steel Girder (ft) for bridges I1 and I2. .................................................................................................................................................. 26  Figure 17. Inspectors conducting an assessment of twin prestressed girder bridges M1 and M2. ....................................................................................................................................................... 28  Figure 18. Inspection results for PS girder damage for bridges M1 (top) and M2 (bottom). ....... 29  Figure 19. Inspectors conducting an assessment of the deck elements of bridges M3 and M4. . 32  Figure 20. Inspection results for RC deck M4 showing areas of damage in the deck. ................. 33  Figure 21. Standard deviation (σ) as a function of damage for CS 3 (A) and CS 2 + CS 3(B). .. 35  Figure 22. Rate of detection for CS 3 as a function of the mean. ................................................ 36 

vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Listing of defect elements included in the visual guide. ................................................. 11  Table 2. Result of Markov model for different decision thresholds and accuracy levels for slow and fast rate deterioration. ............................................................................................................. 18  Table 3. Quality ratio for different threshold values and accuracy levels. .................................. 19  Table 4. Recommended accuracy requirements for element-level inspection. ........................... 19  Table 5. Bridge inspection exercise summary for Indiana ........................................................... 21  Table 6. Results for element 12-RC deck for bridges I1 and I2 with two outliers removed from TGB............................................................................................................................................... 27  Table 7. Bridge inspection exercise summary for Michigan. ...................................................... 27  Table 8. Inspection result for element 205 - Reinforced Concrete Column for bridge M1 and M2 inspected using units of (ea) and reported as percentage of the total quantity ............................. 29  Table 9. Inspection result for element 205 - RC Column for bridge M1 and M2 using units of ft, reported as a percentage of the total quantity. .............................................................................. 30  Table 10. Inspection result for Element 310-Elastomeric Bearing for bridge M1 and M2 reported as percentage of the total quantity. ............................................................................................... 31  Table 11. Inspection results for the decks of bridges M3 and M4. ............................................... 32  Table 12. COV values determined for TGA and TGB for the field exercises. ............................. 34 

viii AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research documented in this report was performed under NCHRP project 12-104 by the University of Missouri in Columbia, MO. The University of Missouri was the prime contractor for the study with Dr. Glenn Washer, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Missouri, as Principal Investigator. Dr. Robert Connor from the Civil Engineering Department at Purdue University was the Co- Principal Investigator. The authors of the report include: Mohammad Hammed Henry Brown University of Missouri Paul Jensen, Jensen Engineering & Consulting, LLC Jason Fogg Joshua Salazar Brian Leshko HDR, Inc. Jeremy Koonce Calvin Karper Collins Engineers, Inc. The authors also acknowledge the guidance and input from the Project Panel.

ix SUMMARY This report summarizes the research and findings of NCHRP Project 12-104: Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data. This research was focused on developing guidelines that could assist in improving the consistency of element-level data obtained from routine inspections of highway bridges. The primary outcome of the research was a visual guide intended to assist inspectors in identifying defects and assigning the appropriate condition state (CS) for bridge elements. This visual guide was incorporated into the AASHTO Manual for Bridge Element Inspection (MBEI) during the course of the research. Background The quality of element-level bridge inspection data is critical for effective bridge management and to ensure the safety and serviceability of bridges. The objective of this research was to develop guidelines to improve the quality of element-level data collection for bridges on the National Highway System (NHS). The collection of element-level data for NHS bridges became a requirement for all agencies in 2014 to meet the requirements of the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)” legislation. Prior to that time, element-level data was not required, although many bridge owners collected element-level data within their programs as part of their normal business practice. Required data to be collected and reported generally includes National Bridge Elements (NBEs) and certain Bridge Management Elements (MBEs) deemed to be necessary to analyze bridge conditions on a national scale. To meet current legislative requirements and to ensure the safety and serviceability of bridges, bridge owners need guidelines to promote consistency in the collection of element-level data for bridges on the NHS. The collection of quality element-level data is also needed to support asset management practices. The guidelines should include recommendations to improve consistency in data collection and assessment of bridge element conditions. The guidelines also need to establish accuracy levels for element conditions and applicable defect quantities to support bridge management system deterioration forecasting and evaluation. The research reported herein addresses these needs. Research Approach In summary, the approach of the research team was to develop implementable guidelines to improve the consistency in data collection and assessment for bridge element conditions. The guidelines were developed to provide a tool for inspectors in the field that would improve the quality of element-level data collection. The guideline also provides accuracy requirements for element-level data collection. A methodology was developed to verify the impact of different accuracy requirements on deterioration models. A visual guide was developed that provides images which illustrate the different condition states (CSs) for defect elements. This guide was developed by capturing images in the field that illustrate the different CSs for common defects described in the MBEI. Field trials were conducted to demonstrate, evaluate, and improve the developed guidelines. The field trials were planned in cooperation with participating state Departments of Transportation in Indiana and Michigan, and with the Steel Bridge Research, Inspection, Training and Engineering Center (S-BRITE) at Purdue University. The methodology for developing the field trial plan was to identify suitable test bridges and develop plans to test key aspects of the guidelines. This included evaluating the quality of element- level data and potential improvements to the quality resulting from use of the guidelines.

x Findings and Applications A survey of bridge engineers was conducted to determine the current state of the practice for element- level inspection, and to identify needs for improving the quality of data. Guidelines to improve the quality of element-level bridge inspection data were developed through the research. These guidelines include a visual guide that illustrates bridge element conditions. Included in the visual guide are visual standards that define the CSs of some of the key defect elements included in the MBEI. This standard can be used by inspectors in the field to make decisions regarding the appropriate assignment of CSs. The visual guide also includes tools to improve the quality of quantity estimates for element-level data. Recommendations for developing accuracy requirements and evaluating the quality of element-level inspections are also included in the guideline. Field exercises were completed in cooperation with participating state Departments of Transportation in Indiana and Michigan, and with the S-BRITE Center at Purdue University. The objectives of the field exercises were to evaluate the effectiveness of the guideline developed through the research, to assess potential changes to the MBEI, and to assess the quality of element-level inspections overall. The results of the field exercises showed that there was variability in the damage quantities determined from element- level inspections. It was found that the variation was on the order of greater than 50% of the quantity being measured, based on statistical analysis of the data. It was found that the variation in the inspection data increased as the quantity of damage increased. It is noted that the field exercises included a limited number of participants and consequently the statistical analysis is based on a very small sample. Additional testing is needed to more fully characterize the quality of element-level inspection data. The field exercises did not show that there was an improvement in data quality when using the visual guide as compared with not using the visual guide. Based on feedback from a post-test questionnaire, more training and experience with the visual guide is needed to make the guide more effective for improving the quality of element-level data. Qualitatively, inspectors indicated that the guide was helpful and assisted in identifying the correct assignment of CSs. Inspectors also indicated that the guide was relatively easy to use, but could be improved if it was reformatted to be more suitable for field use. It was assessed that the results of the field exercises indicated that more training and experience with the use of a visual guide is needed to realize positive results. Given the short period of time that the inspectors had to work with the guide, it may have been unrealistic to expect a recognizable improvements. Analysis of the assignment of defect elements and CSs indicates that more training is needed in these areas. The variability found in this area suggests that the visual guide is needed to improve the consistency of inspection results. The analysis of potential changes to the units of measure for elements such as protective coating and columns indicated the following: Overall, the results showed that using units of length (ft) as compared to area (sq ft) resulted in a higher quantity of damage reported, but reduced variation between inspectors. Using unit of length (ft) as compared to ea resulted in decreased quantities of damage and decreased variation between inspectors. Conclusions The primary product of this research was a visual guide intended to improve the quality of element-level inspection data. This visual guide was incorporated into the MBEI during the course of the research. The revised version of the MBEI was approved by AASHTO in 2018. A guideline for improving the quality of element-level bridge inspections was also developed which includes recommendations for accuracy requirements and methods for improving the quality of element-level data. Methods for improving the quality of element-level data include field testing and inspector calibration. The results of the field exercises showed that there was variability in the damage quantities determined from element- level inspections. It was also found that there was variability in the assignment of CS 4 for

xi gusset plate elements in the Indiana field exercises. If was found that 1/3 of inspectors did not report any gusset plates in CS 4, while 2/3 of inspectors did report gusset plate elements in CS 4. Use of the visual guide was not found to improve the quality of element-level data based on the results of the field exercises. This may be attributed to a lack of familiarity with the visual guide during the conduct of the testing. The field exercises were the first opportunity for the inspectors to use the guide. Additional training and experience with the use of the visual guide is likely needed in order to be able to measure improvements in quality. Suggested future work includes additional field exercises to evaluate the quality of element-level inspection data. Inspector calibration exercises are also suggested to promote more uniform implementation of inspection procedures and practices and to improve data quality from element-level bridge inspections.

Next: 1. Background »
Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Web-Only Document 259: Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data is intended to assist inspectors in identifying defects and assigning the appropriate condition state for bridge elements.

To ensure the safety and serviceability of bridges, the guidelines include accuracy requirements designed to help promote consistency in the collection of element-level data for bridges on the National Highway System.

The quality of element-level bridge inspection data is critical for effective bridge management and asset management practices. Therefore, the guidelines also include a methodology developed to verify the impact of different accuracy requirements on deterioration models.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ Manual for Bridge Element Inspection includes elements of the guidelines in NCHRP Web-Only Document 259.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!