Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Element-Level Bridge Inspection Data (2019) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 42-83
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 42... ...
A-1 APPENDIX A Survey of Bridge Engineers
|
From page 44... ...
A-3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure A-1. Pie chart showing distribution of responses for question 32.
|
From page 45... ...
A-4 LIST OF TABLES Table A-1. NCHRP 12-104 Survey Respondents' Status ........................................................................
|
From page 46... ...
A-5 A.1 Background and Purpose The objective of NCHRP Project 12-104 is to develop guidelines to improve the quality of element-level data collection for bridges on the National Highway System (NHS) in reference to the AASHTO Manual for Bridge Element Inspection First Edition with 2013 and 2015 Interim (MBEI)
|
From page 47... ...
A-6 Table A-1. NCHRP 12-104 Survey Respondents' Status No.
|
From page 48... ...
A-7 A.3 Summary of Key Findings This portion of the appendix summarizes some of the key finding from the survey of bridge engineers. Training and Qualifications The survey asked if agencies had additional formal education or licensure requirements beyond those in the NBIS.
|
From page 49... ...
A-8 Data Quantification, Accuracy and Precision Several questions in the survey (questions 20-24) were designed to develop an understanding of the current state-of-the-practice regarding the use of quantitative data to describe CS and accuracy requirements used by agencies implementing element-level inspection.
|
From page 50... ...
A-9 that they were incorporating defect descriptions into the CS language and recording quantities as a note in their manual, which was still being developed. It was significant that more than 40% of respondents indicated they had developed elements that were subsets of BMEs.
|
From page 51... ...
A-10 Table A-3. Summary of responses for QA procedures analyzed according to the general models for QA (Washer and Chang, 2009)
|
From page 52... ...
A-11 Inspection Process and Procedure A series of question in the survey were focused on inspection process and procedures. Because the bridge inspection process can vary significantly for different situations encountered in the field, an example bridge was provided for consideration in responding to the survey.
|
From page 53... ...
A-12 team. More than 60% of the respondents indicated that the method for making the measurement was at the discretion of the inspection team.
|
From page 54... ...
A-13 generally expected to take longer than subsequent inspections. One respondent skipped these two questions.
|
From page 55... ...
A-14 face-to-face meetings and reports illustrate a commitment to quality and an important understanding of the need for feedback to improve the quality of visual inspections. The survey also revealed that there were broad variations in approaches to inspecting a common highway bridge, with significantly different estimated times to complete the inspection, different methods of access, traffic control and tools are used during routine inspections.
|
From page 56... ...
A-15 Background of Inspection Personnel 2. Which of the following best describes the organization of bridge inspection teams (used for typical NHS bridges)
|
From page 57... ...
A-16 Figure A-6. Agencies' practice for conducting routine bridge inspection Qualification of Inspectors 4.
|
From page 58... ...
A-17 Purpose of the question: The purpose of the question is to determine how many states require a field performance test to qualify inspectors. Field performance tests are a quality tool intended to ensure that inspectors meet a standard level of quality when performing inspections in the field.
|
From page 59... ...
A-18 an existing team leader for a week or two before working independently. Wisconsin requires the team leader to have a P.E.
|
From page 60... ...
A-19 b) Assignments are ad-hoc, meaning inspection teams typically inspect a different population of bridges during each inspection cycle c)
|
From page 61... ...
A-20 b) Yes, FHWA data plus MBEI defects c)
|
From page 62... ...
A-21 14. Is the manual available in a format that is suitable for use in the field by inspectors during the conduct of inspections?
|
From page 63... ...
A-22 Figure A-9. Agencies' plan on developing element level manual 16.
|
From page 64... ...
A-23 specifically mentioned in the survey were the software installation, additional cost to transition to element level inspections for a particular bridge, changing personnel, unpredictable weather, internal restructuring of the regions, completing inspections within 24 month time period, and BrM software issues. The lack of inclusion of all elements in MBEI was identified as a challenge (e.g., there is no prestressed concrete slab yet this is a common element and was present in the CoRe)
|
From page 65... ...
A-24 measures or a health index. It was also reported that the data has been used for data deterioration modeling, forecasting future funding needs, and project level planning.
|
From page 66... ...
A-25 Two respondents answered this question. Maine indicated that the issues concerned with subjective assessments are covered at annual training.
|
From page 67... ...
A-26 Purpose of the question: The purpose of the question is to determine if agencies have supplemented bridge elements with special defect elements or their own customized elements. These data suggest the expected or desired level of accuracy in the element-level data for a given Agency in terms of describing the existing conditions, materials and defects.
|
From page 68... ...
A-27 corrosion resistant reinforcing, and one for nonmetallic reinforcing. Appendix B lists that ADEs, BMEs and defect elements submitted by participants.
|
From page 69... ...
A-28 In Montana, Bridges are inspected by a QA Review team which consists of the original inspector, the district bridge inspection coordinator, any other inspectors who would like to join the team, and two Quality Assurance engineers from headquarters, who are considered "experts," and the result is compared to the routine inspection results. With the inspector on-site during the review, changes to an inspector's rating typically generates discussion that becomes on-site training.
|
From page 70... ...
A-29 a) Retraining/re-certification b)
|
From page 71... ...
A-30 d) Quarterly or biennial (every 6 months)
|
From page 72... ...
A-31 Figure A-11. Agencies' quality control procedure Inspection Process and Procedure 37.
|
From page 73... ...
A-32 39. Based on your experience, are the previous inspection results reviewed prior to the inspection?
|
From page 74... ...
A-33 preservation activities which may be suggested through bridge management processes based on element level inspection. Figure A-12.
|
From page 75... ...
A-34 Figure A-13. Methods used to estimate the CS's of the deck element 43.
|
From page 76... ...
A-35 Figure A-14. Sources of the method used for Deck CS's estimation 44.
|
From page 77... ...
A-36 Figure A-15. Sounding frequency to determine the area of damage in the deck New Hampshire, Nebraska, and Missouri deem sounding appropriate if visual signs of deterioration are present.
|
From page 79... ...
A-38 From the responses it is found that 25 agencies do not require recording the inspection team's time of inspection, and 11 agencies require recording the inspection team's time to inspect a structure.
|
From page 80... ...
A-39 approved by the District Bridge Safety Inspection Engineer, new photographs shall be required during each inspection. Old photos can be included for comparison or to show a better picture of a condition (i.e.
|
From page 81... ...
A-40 substructure is going to be repaired the repairs are measured in square feet." Two other agencies propose more consistency in units (deck in .sq ft while abutment/pier in lft )
|
From page 82... ...
A-41 proposing the same change and requests "better description of defects" and states, "one or two lines of text don't always cover the issues." One agency asks, "Why it is needed to add non-primary defects per inspection which in the next inspection may become a primary defect? " One agency proposes adding "prestressed slab element in the manual", another agency proposes "include wingwalls, these have been added as ADEs", and one agency wants to "change how trusses and arches are measured and quantified." DELETION Another respondent proposes, "Remove the reference of (does not warrant structural review)
|
From page 83... ...
A-42 REFERENCES Drury, C
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.