National Academies Press: OpenBook

Proposed AASHTO Guides for Bridge Preservation Actions (2020)

Chapter: Chapter 3 - Current Practice in Bridge Preservation

« Previous: Chapter 2 - Bridge Preservation
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Current Practice in Bridge Preservation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Proposed AASHTO Guides for Bridge Preservation Actions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26013.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Current Practice in Bridge Preservation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Proposed AASHTO Guides for Bridge Preservation Actions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26013.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Current Practice in Bridge Preservation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Proposed AASHTO Guides for Bridge Preservation Actions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26013.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Current Practice in Bridge Preservation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Proposed AASHTO Guides for Bridge Preservation Actions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26013.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Current Practice in Bridge Preservation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Proposed AASHTO Guides for Bridge Preservation Actions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26013.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Current Practice in Bridge Preservation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Proposed AASHTO Guides for Bridge Preservation Actions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26013.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Current Practice in Bridge Preservation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Proposed AASHTO Guides for Bridge Preservation Actions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26013.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Current Practice in Bridge Preservation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Proposed AASHTO Guides for Bridge Preservation Actions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26013.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Current Practice in Bridge Preservation." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Proposed AASHTO Guides for Bridge Preservation Actions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26013.
×
Page 18

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.

10 A search of state DOT documents was made to determine current practice for preserva- tion of highway bridges, and to collect specifications and material requirements for preservation actions. The following are among the findings of the literature search: • Preservation is a broad term. State DOTs identify actions from deck sweeping to bridge replacement as preservation. Many state DOTs include major repairs and rehabilitation in preservation. • State DOTs distinguish scheduled or cyclic maintenance from reactive or response maintenance. • State DOTs publish intervals for actions in scheduled maintenance. • State DOTs publish costs of maintenance actions. Costs are presented in (1) bridge element units (i.e., deck area, joint length, and so forth), or (2) units of resources (i.e., hours of labor, cubic yards of concrete, and so forth). • State DOTs publish descriptions, procedures, and specifications for preservation actions (i.e., actions are presented with various levels of detail in various guides, manuals, and contract documents). Literature Search A literature search was performed to address a set of questions in bridge preservation, including the following: • What actions do bridge owners identify as preservation? • What are the intervals for cyclic actions in preservation? • What are the criteria for the selection of actions in preservation? • What data are available on effort, accomplishment, and costs of actions for preservation? • What descriptions, procedures, and specifications are available for preservation actions? • What performance measures do bridge owners use for programs in preservation? Method of Search The search focused on the literature of practice in bridge preservation: specifications, guides, manuals, and policy statements of state DOTs. Information on materials for preserva- tion was included. Qualified product lists and approved product lists were reviewed. Addi- tional information on these products was collected from manufacturers. NCHRP reports and syntheses and FHWA documents were also included. C H A P T E R 3 Current Practice in Bridge Preservation

Current Practice in Bridge Preservation 11 State DOT Documents Documents were collected from public internet websites of the U.S. DOT, state DOTs, and TRB. At each website, searches were made using a standard set of search terms (see Table 7). Searches were conducted for words and word stems. State DOT Data Unpublished documents and data on preservation actions were collected from 11 state DOTs. Data provided by state DOTs included maintenance recommendations, let main- tenance projects, maintenance crew production, bid item costs, and cost estimating tools. Most datasets were transmitted as Excel workbooks. Data were collected from the state DOTs of California (12), Connecticut (13, 14, 15, 16), Illinois (26), Michigan (32, 33), New York (34, 35, 36), Ohio (37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44), Oregon (45), Pennsylvania (47), Virginia (61), Washington (62), and Wisconsin (64). Research Studies Technical reports on evaluations of deck treatments in service were collected. Evaluations were reported by the state DOTs of Alaska (30), Alabama (50), Illinois (48, 49), Iowa (6, 8, 17), Kansas (31), Louisiana (51), Michigan (7, 11, 28, 54), Missouri (23), Montana (27), Ohio (9), Oregon (29), Pennsylvania (24), Utah (22), Virginia (46, 53, 55, 56), Washington (52, 63), and Wisconsin (10). Review Each document was reviewed for content related to preservation of bridges and bridge decks. Information collected from state DOTs was grouped in categories as follows: • Policies and Definitions • Actions, Intervals, and Costs • Procedures, Methods, and Specifications Search Term Preservation, General Preservation, Decks Bridge maintenance Bridge preservation Bridge rehabilitation Bridge repair Performance measure Crack Deck maintenance Deck preservation Deck rehabilitation Deck repair Epoxy Latex Methacrylate Overlay Patch Polyester Polymer Seal Silane Silica Siloxane Waterproofing membrane Wearing surface Table 7. Terms for literature search.

12 Proposed AASHTO Guides for Bridge Preservation Actions Policies and Definitions Descriptions of programs for bridge preservation and programs using the term bridge pres- ervation were collected. Criteria for selection of actions were also collected. The eligibility of bridges for preservation actions defines the bridge preservation population in a state. Definitions were collected for the terms bridge preservation and bridge maintenance. Actions, Intervals, and Costs Actions were collected for individual state DOTs. States identify groups of actions using terms such as routine maintenance, preventive maintenance, reactive maintenance, and corrective main- tenance, among others. States’ groups of actions were included in summaries for individual states. Intervals for actions were collected. Intervals can be for intended (re)application of actions, or for average service life of repairs. Costs of actions were collected. These are average costs published by state DOTs. Procedures, Methods, and Specifications State DOTs publish general procedures for preservation actions in bridge manuals, and they publish specific requirements for actions in specifications. Procedures and specifications were collected. Some general procedures include requirements for materials, equipment, and labor, and provide average values of daily production. Other Information Performance measures were collected. Performance measures allow state DOTs to gauge the effectiveness of programs for bridge preservation and to report accomplishments in preser- vation to state government executives and the general public. Information that was useful to a state DOT for preparing the Guide for bridge preservation but was only found for a few state DOTs was collected as “Other” information. State Summaries of Current Practice in Bridge Preservation State summaries of information related to bridge preservation are provided in Appendix B: Summaries of Information from State DOTs. Selected information from state summaries is presented here. Definitions of Bridge Preservation and Related Terms Definitions of bridge preservation and related terms were collected from state DOT documents. Terms such as maintenance, routine maintenance, reactive maintenance, preventive main- tenance, corrective maintenance, cyclic maintenance, scheduled maintenance, and major maintenance all include actions for preservation of bridges or bridge decks. State DOT terms applied to bridge preservation and their corresponding actions are presented in this section. Actions are presented using the component, activity, detail system used in the Bridge Guide. Corrective Maintenance—Actions Examples of actions in corrective maintenance are from the state DOTs of Arizona, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Actions are included in Table 8.

Current Practice in Bridge Preservation 13 Preservation—Actions Examples of actions in preservation are from the state DOTs of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia. Actions are included in Table 9. Preventive Maintenance—Actions Examples of actions in preventive maintenance are from the state DOTs of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Actions are included in Table 10. Rehabilitation—Actions Examples of actions in rehabilitation are from the South Dakota DOT. Actions are included in Table 11. Approach Bearing Bridge Channel Culvert Deck Rehabilitate Repair Replace Repair Rehabilitate Clean Paint Repair Clean Retrofit Repair Retrofit Overlay Rehabilitate Repair Retrofit Drain Joint Railing Substructure Superstructure Rehabilitate Repair Retrofit Repair Replace Repair Replace Retrofit Rehabilitate Repair Replace Retrofit Paint Repair Retrofit Table 8. State DOTs: actions in corrective maintenance. Approach Bearing Bridge Channel Culvert Deck Repair Replace Paint Rehabilitate Repair Clean Paint Rehabilitate Repair Replace Retrofit Seal Repair Retrofit Rehabilitate Repair Replace Overlay Rehabilitate Repair Replace Retrofit Seal Drain Joint Railing Substructure Superstructure Repair Replace Retrofit Repair Replace Retrofit Seal Repair Replace Retrofit Seal Rehabilitate Repair Retrofit Paint Repair Replace Retrofit Table 9. State DOTs: actions in preservation.

14 Proposed AASHTO Guides for Bridge Preservation Actions Response Maintenance—Actions Examples of actions in response maintenance are from the state DOTs of Georgia, New York, Pennsylvania, and Utah. Actions are included in Table 12. Routine Maintenance—Actions Examples of actions in routine maintenance are from the state DOTs of Alabama, Illinois, Montana, New York, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin. Actions are included in Table 13. Approach Bearing Bridge Channel Culvert Deck Clean Repair Clean Paint Repair Replace Retrofit Clean Paint Rehabilitate Repair Retrofit Seal Clean Repair Retrofit Clean Retrofit Clean Overlay Repair Retrofit Seal Drain Joint Railing Substructure Superstructure Clean Repair Retrofit Clean Repair Replace Seal Clean Paint Repair Retrofit Seal Clean Repair Retrofit Seal Clean Paint Repair Replace Retrofit Seal Table 10. State DOTs: actions in preventive maintenance. Approach Bearing Bridge Channel Culvert Deck - Repair Paint Retrofit - - Overlay Rehabilitate Drain Joint Railing Substructure Superstructure - Repair Retrofit Repair Rehabilitate Table 11. South Dakota DOT: actions in rehabilitation. Approach Bearing Bridge Channel Culvert Deck Clean Overlay Repair Seal Clean Clean Paint Repair Clean Retrofit Clean Clean Overlay Repair Drain Joint Railing Substructure Superstructure Clean Retrofit Clean Repair Replace Clean Repair Replace Repair Seal Repair Table 12. State DOTs: actions in response maintenance.

Current Practice in Bridge Preservation 15 Scheduled Maintenance—Actions Examples of actions in scheduled maintenance are from the state DOTs of Georgia, Michigan, and New York. Actions are included in Table 14. Maintenance—Actions Examples of actions in maintenance are from the state DOTs of Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Utah, and Washington. Actions are included in Table 15. Historical preservation includes activities performed to maintain the appearance and the fabric of a historic bridge. Information on historical preservation was not collected during the course of NCHRP Project 14-36. Terms used in federal regulations include preventive maintenance, preservation, and routine maintenance. Federal definitions are relevant for bridges eligible for federal aid. Preventive maintenance is eligible for federal aid under agreements developed by states and corresponding FHWA divisions (59). Preservation is among the construction activities eligible for federal aid (60). Routine maintenance is not eligible for federal aid (19). Selection of Preservation Actions for Bridges State DOTs select actions for bridge preservation using the recommendations of safety inspec- tors, bridge condition, and status of bridges as candidates for improvement or replacement. Approach Bearing Bridge Channel Culvert Deck Repair Seal Clean Repair Clean Paint Repair Replace Clean Repair Retrofit Clean Clean Repair Seal Drain Joint Railing Substructure Superstructure Clean Rehabilitate Clean Repair Retrofit Repair Clean Paint Repair Replace Clean Paint Repair Replace Table 13. State DOTs: actions in routine maintenance. Approach Bearing Bridge Channel Culvert Deck Repair Retrofit Clean Clean Paint Repair Seal - - Seal Drain Joint Railing Substructure Superstructure Clean Clean Repair - Seal Clean Table 14. State DOTs: actions in scheduled maintenance.

16 Proposed AASHTO Guides for Bridge Preservation Actions Inspector Recommendations Information on inspector recommendations and preservation actions are included in the summaries for Arizona and Utah. In Arizona, inspectors make recommendations related to structural integrity but not maintenance. In Utah, inspectors put work recommendations into standard categories and assign priorities to them. Condition of Bridges, Components, and Elements State DOTs publish guidance for the selection of maintenance actions based on the bridge condition. Information is included in state summaries for Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, North Dakota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. States relate preservation actions to general condition ratings (GCRs) and element-level condi- tions and quantities. Additional Data on the Condition of Bridges, Components, and Elements Some states perform additional inspections and collect additional condition ratings. State maintenance crews may perform additional inspections between the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) routine inspections. Additional condition ratings, imitating the format of NBI GCRs, may be reported for wearing surface, joints, bearings, beams, paint, drift in channels, approach slabs, and relief joints for slabs. Information on additional inspections and additional condi- tion data are included in state summaries for Alabama, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington. Improvement or Replacement Bridge candidates for improvement or replacement may be selected in response to condition, load rating, fracture-critical components, scour-critical components, and coordina tion of bridge projects with highway projects along route segments. When bridges are already programmed for Approach Bearing Bridge Channel Culvert Deck Clean Overlay Rehabilitate Repair Replace Retrofit Seal Clean Paint Repair Clean Paint Rehabilitate Repair Replace Retrofit Seal Clean Repair Retrofit Clean Repair Retrofit Seal Clean Overlay Paint Repair Replace Seal Drain Joint Railing Substructure Superstructure Bridge, Movable Clean Repair Retrofit Clean Repair Replace Retrofit Clean Paint Repair Replace Retrofit Seal Clean Paint Rehabilitate Repair Replace Retrofit Seal Clean Paint Repair Replace Retrofit Seal Repair Table 15. State DOTs: actions in maintenance.

Current Practice in Bridge Preservation 17 improvement or replacement, interim work may be limited to essential repairs. Information on preservation actions in relation to improvement or replacement is included in state summaries for Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Actions for Bridges Actions for bridges are collected from state DOT maintenance manuals, bridge coding manuals, bridge inspection manuals, lists of activities in contract work, and statements of policy. Some state DOTs include bridge rehabilitation and bridge replacement as actions in bridge maintenance or preservation. Collection of Actions Actions collected from state DOTs are grouped by component, activity, and detail; this is the naming system used in the Bridge Guide. Actions are listed in Table 22 of Appendix A: Detailed Information on the Current Practice in Bridge Preservation. The terms used by state DOTs are retained with the actions. Intervals for Actions States report intervals for actions. Intervals are grouped by component, activity, and detail; this is the naming system used in the Bridge Guide. Intervals are listed in Table 23 of Appendix A. Further information on intervals for actions is provided in a Kentucky study (25). Costs of Actions Unit costs of bridge actions are found in state DOT documents. Costs are grouped by component, activity, and detail; this is the naming system used in the Bridge Guide. Costs are listed in Table 26 of Appendix C: Detailed Information on the Context, Performance, and Cost of Bridge Preservation Actions. Sources of cost are identified as advice, modified advice (adv mod), and history (hist). Advice indicates a unit cost computed by a state DOT for an action. Modified advice indicates the conversion of state DOT advice for reporting unit (meter to foot), or a conversion from work units to bridge element units. History indicates the use of state DOT historical records to compute unit costs. The state DOT that is the source for each cost is listed. State DOT action number or activity number is listed if available. Units for costs are also listed. All costs are adjusted to the year 2016 using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Construction Cost Index System (57). Methods, Procedures, and Specifications for Actions Methods, procedures, and specifications for actions were collected from state DOT docu- ments. Methods are descriptions of actions, and procedures are step-by-step descriptions. Methods and procedures sometimes indicate the expected production per day or per standard crew. Specifications are formal requirements for the delivery of actions. Procedures for bridge preservation actions are cited in summaries for state DOTs of Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and West Virginia.

18 Proposed AASHTO Guides for Bridge Preservation Actions Specifications for deck treatments are cited in summaries for the state DOTs of Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Performance Measures Performance measures for bridges can be used to quantify the accomplishments of programs in bridge preservation. Many performance measures are used by state DOTs. There are two U.S. DOT national performance management measures for bridges in the national highway system: the percentage of deck area for bridges in good condition and the percentage of deck area for bridges in poor condition (58). Both federal measures employ GCRs reported in the NBI (18). The NBI is used in many state performance measures. Performance measures used by state DOTs employ data on bridge condition, bridge status, bridge maintenance accomplishments, and bridge inventory. Performance measures using bridge condition employ reports of NBI GCRs and element- level condition states. Performance is reported as the average condition or as the portion of a bridge inventory beyond a threshold condition. The federal measures of good/poor bridges use thresholds for condition. Performance measures may reduce multilevel condition reporting scales to two or three condition levels such as “good,” “fair,” or “poor.” Examples of performance measures using bridge condition are found in state summaries for California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Jersey, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Performance measures based on bridge status are counts, percentages, or deck area for bridges that are structurally deficient (SD), functionally obsolete (FO), load posted, or weight restricted. Examples of performance measures using bridge status are found in the state summaries for Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. Performance measures based on bridge maintenance use annual completion of actions such as bridge washing or deck sealing, level-of-service grades for bridges (an extension of highway maintenance quality assurance surveys), and expenditures in maintenance programs. Examples of performance measures using delivery of bridge maintenance are found in state summaries for Colorado, Connecticut, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Performance measures based on bridge inventory are counts of bridges and age of bridges. For bridge age, average age and the portion of bridge population beyond a threshold age are reported. Examples of performance measures using bridge inventory are found in state summaries for Idaho, Utah, and Washington.

Next: Chapter 4 - Context, Performance, and Cost of Bridge Preservation Actions »
Proposed AASHTO Guides for Bridge Preservation Actions Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Many transportation departments have significant practical experience with bridge preservation and have developed conclusions regarding the effectiveness of bridge preservation actions based on those experiences. However, limited efforts have been made to identify, measure, evaluate, and document the short- and long-term performance of specific bridge preservation actions.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Research Report 950: Proposed AASHTO Guides for Bridge Preservation Actions presents the development of two AASHTO guides for bridge preservation, including a general guide to preservation of highway bridges and a guide to preservation of highway bridge decks.

Supplementary to the report is Appendix B: Summaries of Information from State DOTs.

  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!