U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000


Skip to content
FacebookYouTubeTwitterFlickrLinkedIn

Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology
Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations

 
REPORT
This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information
Back to Publication List        
Publication Number:  FHWA-HRT-14-052    Date:  October 2014
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-14-052
Date: October 2014

 

Long-Term Bridge Performance High Priority Bridge Performance Issues

 

APPENDIX B-FOCUS GROUP SUMMARIES

Summaries of the focus group interviews are presented in this section in the order of occurrence, and a summary of responses and discussion is given for each general area of questioning. Each State transportation department was requested to identify the forms of bridge deterioration that were most common on the bridges in their State and the maintenance and repair activities requiring the most resources. These were classified as being related to decks, superstructure elements or substructure elements. The transportation department was also requested to identify any functional issues that were prevalent on/at its bridges. The typical functional issues identified included the following:

 

ALABAMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Alabama Department of Transportation (ADOT) focus group meeting was conducted at an ADOT facility in Montgomery on December 2, 2009. Focus group interviewees included the following:

Organizational Structure

ADOT has a decentralized structure comprising nine divisions, some of which have bridge maintenance crews, along with three statewide bridge maintenance crews; the central office provides oversight and support. Table 12 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 12. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Alabama.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned
State transportation department 5,738
Other State agency 38
Local agency 10,098
Federal agency 165
Toll authority 0
Railroad company 24
Private 7
Total 16,070

 

Program-Level Decision Support

ADOT has a bridge maintenance system called Alabama Bridge Information Management System (ABIMS), which has been in place since 1995.(8) ADOT has deferred implementation of AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software until the upcoming changes to AASHTO CoRe elements are in place. The ABIMS module for maintenance needs summary is completed by the inspectors who identify and document the maintenance need, determine necessary quantities of work items, attach the cost from the cost table in a database, and then classify it as emergency, priority, routine, or monitoring. Inspectors and superintendents can mark work completed, but most of the data are in the maintenance management system, which is not integrated with the bridge management system.

The central bridge maintenance office determines bridge replacement needs. In making decisions, the primary tool is an assessment called a deficiency algorithm (developed by the University of Alabama) that ranks structures on how well they meet targets.(9) During the selection process, each division has input on its bridges.

All State inspections are done by ADOT employees with the exception of specialty cases. ADOT has an underwater unit that performs inspections and assists in construction. The emergency bridge inspection team includes a designer.

Project-Level Decision Support

Each division has authority to determine how to spend its budget dollars. The budget is distributed proportionately based on asset needs. Bridge painting is funded separately.

When an inspector finishes the inspection (items BI5—element-level inspection and BI9—maintenance needs), the recommendations are reviewed by someone who can make decisions on prioritization of work (could be bridge operations engineer/manager or division maintenance engineer or his assistant). BI5—element-level inspection and BI9—maintenance needs are examples of inspection reporting items on the ADOT Structure Inventory and Inspection Menu as described in the Alabama ABIMS User Guide.(8)

What ADOT would like to see is the changeover to AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software CoRe element, which will better capture quantity, and the project development modules, which will address many of the issues.

Additional testing includes load-rating analysis, dye penetrant, ultrasonic testing (UT), and magnetic particle testing. ADOT employs ground-penetrating radar (GPR) occasionally.

Performance Measures

The GASB 34 index refers to an Asset Sustainability Index and its related ratios that are used in reporting transportation asset management needs and issues. The Asset Sustainability Index and its related ratios are considered in GASB 34 as evolutionary next steps to further enhance the reporting of transportation asset management needs and issues. For bridges, the sum of the weighted ratings for deck, superstructure, and substructure equates to100; for culverts, the index value is based 100 percent on the culvert condition rating.

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure:

Superstructure:

Deck: (none cited).

Functionality: (none cited).

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: 50 percent of budget.

Superstructure: 50 percent of budget.

Deck: (none cited).

Functionality: (none cited).

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) focus group was conducted on September 17, 2008, at the Caltrans headquarters in Sacramento, CA. Caltrans interviewees included the following:

Organizational Structure

Caltrans has a centralized structure, divided into two Regions with bridge staff primarily located in either the Sacramento Headquarters office or in southern California (Los Angeles). Table 13 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 13. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in California.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned
State transportation department 12,180
Other State agency 167
Local agency 11,881
Federal agency 563
Toll authority 5
Railroad company 9
Private 6
Total 24,811

 

Program-Level Decision Support

Caltrans has a formal bridge management system built on AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software and augmented with additional data including the following:

Caltrans maintains a complete archive of plans and inspection reports, to which it is adding photos, information on emergency response for large-scale and significant seismic and flood events, and information on encroachments (for which it is electronically collecting data on utilities such as high pressure water, gas, and anything flammable that can fill up the box and potentially cause an explosion). The State does track maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation actions and cost information, which is kept in a work management system, although it does not include the cost of maintenance of traffic.

Project-Level Decision Support

At Caltrans, bridge needs are identified through the following:

These needs are kept in a centralized location and are filed under each bridge.

The State performs both NBI safety and element-level inspection (AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software). Additional testing, i.e., sounding, may be performed by the material engineering testing group. Its greatest difficulties are access to the decks because of traffic and the need for lift equipment to get to areas of the bridge.

Reliance is placed on inspector recommendations when determining needed repairs. (All inspectors have Professional Engineer (PE) licenses and are encouraged to determine the reason for problems and deterioration.) The Division of Engineering Services provides districts with recommendations of how to spend resources, but districts determine actual actions with the exception of very low sufficiency rating or critical issues such as scour. They track 55 maintenance actions.

Performance Measures

Caltrans stated that it needs performance metrics that will tell why a bridge fails. It would like to see different performance measures that could be linked to ones previously or currently used, such as structurally deficient.

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure: Scour, ASR, seismic.

Superstructure: Steel fatigue, corrosion of steel girders and resulting protective coating systems for steel girders, box girder hinges, cracking.

Deck: Cracking, delaminations, spalling.

Functionality: Lack of capacity for traffic.

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: None explicitly identified.

Superstructure: Bridge painting, structural steel painting.

Deck: Joint seals, deck seals.

Functionality: Lack of capacity for traffic.

State Transportation Department Successes

Caltrans has supplemented AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software with the following other significant sources of information:

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

Caltrans wants data that will help determine the lifecycle of a bridge and what repair needs will be encountered during that life. However, Caltrans is more concerned with the “why” (source of problem) than the “what” of deterioration—something emphasized with its inspectors.

 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) focus group meeting was conducted at the FDOT maintenance yard in Jacksonville, FL, on November 13, 2008. Focus group interviewees included the following:

Organizational Structure

FDOT has a decentralized structure comprising seven geographical districts, plus the Florida Turnpike, with bridge maintenance staff for each (Districts 1 and 7 share an office). The central office provides planning and support, establishes policy, and conducts QA. Table 14 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 14. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Florida.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned
State transportation department 5,414
Other State agency 157
Local agency 5,078
Federal agency 140
Toll authority 1,137
Railroad company 0
Private 56
Total 11,982

 

Program-Level Decision Support

State-owned bridges are primarily inspected by in-house personnel, although larger structure inspections may be outsourced. Local governments generally have their structures inspected by consultants.

FDOT uses a customized version of the AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software for its bridge management system. FDOT has customized AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software probably more extensively than any other State. Some of the modifications include the following:

FDOT has integrated AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software with the following other systems:

FDOT has been integrating more between maintenance and financial management—it previously had to physically make a file and send, but now the systems are increasingly tied together electronically. The maintenance office, the planning office, the work program office and the district bridge inspection offices all have ad hoc reporting capability. Report access is read-only. For security reasons, FDOT developed a front-end for AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software to code the password so users cannot use that system directly to run reports; thus, ad hoc reporting is accomplished through an Oracle database queried by Microsoft® Access, FoxPro, or Infomaker® software.

When asked whether FDOT tracks costs of specific types of maintenance or repair activities, representatives indicated FDOT’s asset maintenance process tracks in-house man-hours and equipment, but because contractors are not required to give actual costs, it is not possible to record actual contracted repair costs.

Project-Level Decision Support

AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software database is used to support a custom project-level analysis tool (PLAT). One example is a desktop PC Microsoft® Excel program that can pull up a specific bridge and allow users to look at it to project future deterioration. This program is currently in the development stage. The intent is to help districts in planning for maintenance and preservation projects at the bridge level.

FDOT’s collection of AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software data started in November1998. FDOT has been using the PLAT for only the last 3to 4years because it required a lot of outside data, including user costs, State transportation department costs, and other data AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software normally did not collect.

Despite their use of AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software, the engineers at FDOT feel they often operate in reactive mode, wherein most work is based on needs identified at the time of inspections or as a result of unpredicted incidents. Because the overall inventory is in good condition, they generally build a 2-to 3-year program that includes the most important priorities and then revise it each year based on inspection reports.

In addition to structural considerations, bridge engineers also consider traffic levels, maintenance of traffic (MOT), environmental factors (for example, bats’ nesting season), and public events (for example, tourist season, major sporting events) that can affect when it is best to do bridge work. They tend to do more maintenance and repair work when the winter tourists leave (i.e., when traffic counts go down) and try to finish before tourist season starts.

With regard to routine inspection procedures, they rely primarily on visual inspection; they do not perform chain drags because decks are not often a maintenance issue in Florida—primarily they have problems with substructure deterioration in marine environments. For inspections, additional testing often includes UT for pin-and-hangar assemblies, magnetic particle, and dye penetrant. FDOT has a special contract for NDT.

Performance Measures

FDOT identifies priorities from field inspections or response to incidents, according to the following scale:

Performance measures are part of an annual quality assessment review—each year the Central Office makes an oversight visit to every district. It assesses compliance or noncompliance with regard to whether or not there has been any delinquency in addressing Priority 1 or 2 work orders. The Central Office may have findings on priorities review as well. The performance criterion for Priority 1 and 2 work orders is that 95 percent of the work orders must be completed on time. (Most districts are generally running at 100 percent.)

As a statewide performance measure, FDOT has established a goal that 90percent of State bridges will meet State standards of being in good or excellent condition (using NBIS1–9 condition ratings, where excellent is 8–9, good is 6–7, fair is 5, and poor is 4 or below). Currently, 93 percent of statewide bridges are in the good or excellent categories.

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure: The most common forms of substructure deterioration are the following:

Superstructure: The most common forms of superstructure deterioration are the following:

Deck: The most common forms of deck deterioration are the following:

Functionality: The most common are the following:

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure:

Superstructure:

Deck: (none cited).

Functionality: (none cited).

State Transportation Department Successes

The elimination of deck joints on bridges up to 120 ft.

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

 

ILLINOIS STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) focus group meeting was conducted at the IDOT facility in Springfield, IL, on December 9, 2009. Focus group interviewees included the following:

Organizational Structure

The central office for IDOT provides technical expertise and manages the big investment bridges but IDOT is otherwise decentralized; the nine districts (transitioning to five regions) handle maintenance and inspection. Most districts still have bridge maintenance crews, and IDOT does have regional bridge engineers. Table 15 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 15. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Illinois.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned
State transportation department 7,740
Other State agency 44
Local agency 18,125
Federal agency 43
Toll authority 458
Railroad company 71
Private 33
Total 26,514

Program-Level Decision Support

IDOT has a system for bridge management that was developed specifically for it. Most projects are scheduled in conjunction with roadway projects, and roadway projects are first determined on the basis of pavement needs, with bridge needs then added into the project. IDOT does use AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software but not to generate projects. IDOT uses a system, Bridge Analysis & Monitoring System (BAMS), developed in-house, to plan and program bridge projects. BAMS separates bridges into 16 tables based on the type of bridge deficiency and the severity of the deficiency. For example, bridges that are structurally deficient with an NBI deck rating of 0–3 are placed in table 2. The other 15 tables are related to different deficiencies (structural or functional) or the same deficiency with a higher or lower NBI condition rating. For example, bridges that have a deck with an NBI deck rating of 5 are placed in table 10. The lower number tables are for bridges with the most urgent needs. So, bridges that fall into tables 1 through 4 are considered urgent, those that fall into tables 5 through 10 are considered short-term needs, and those that fall into tables 11 through 16 are considered long-term needs.

Maintenance activities are recorded in the maintenance management system, which is currently being rewritten.

District IDOT personnel perform modified AASHTO CoRe element-level inspections for State bridges, while special inspections, such as underwater or fracture critical, are outsourced. Inspections for about half of the major bridges managed by the Central Office are outsourced. (So, every other cycle, a bridge is inspected by a consultant.) Additional testing includes: dye penetrant, magnetic particle testing, UT, and GPR.

The preventive maintenance program for major bridges is a line item in the programming process, so it is funded separately from the rest of the system.

Project-Level Decision Support

The Central Office does make recommendations, but the districts make decisions on their bridge maintenance. If repairs are within a contract maintenance project, the local district bridge maintenance engineer for IDOT reviews the reports and makes the plan. If repairs are more significant, a bridge condition report is prepared to identify project scope and cost. In addition to structural deficiencies, IDOT also considers roadway needs and load capacity.

Performance Measures

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure:

Superstructure:

Deck:

Functionality: Deterioration of approach slabs.

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: (none cited).

Superstructure: (none cited).

Deck: Most of the money is spent here, with MOT being the biggest cost factor.

Functionality: (none cited).

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

 

IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Iowa Department of Transportation (IADOT) focus group meeting was conducted at the IADOT bridge office in Ames, IA, on April 17, 2009. Focus group interviewees included the following:

Organizational Structure

IADOT has two units, bridge design and bridge maintenance and inspection. Bridge inspection is centralized. There are six districts, and each has a district bridge repair specialist. Table 16 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 16. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Iowa.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned
State transportation department 4,071
Other State agency 22
Local agency 20,366
Federal agency 33
Toll authority 1
Railroad company 1
Private 2
Total 24,496

Program-Level Decision Support

IADOT uses AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software-based element-level inspection but does not use AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software for network budgeting and programming. IADOT performs dual inspection using AASHTO CoRe elements and has collected element-level inspection data since 1994. It uses the Bridge Electronic Records Management System to track maintenance recommendations and when these recommendations have been performed.

Project-Level Decision Support

IADOT uses a Microsoft Access® database (named BRIDGE CAN) to accumulate and prioritize maintenance and preservation work on bridges for development of a 5-year program before putting out to contract. There must be agreement between the districts and the central office before a bridge is put into the program.

Performance Measures

IADOT tracks thepercentage of structures with Structure Inventory and Appraisal/NBI condition ratings and sufficiency ratings that meet the previous year’s values. The annual target is 95 percent. Bridges for which the sufficiency rating falls simply because of increased traffic are not deemed to have missed the previousyear’s value. IADOT is currently reviewing its performance measures.

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure:

Superstructure:

Deck:

Functionality: Corrosion at construction joint between rail and deck.

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

The majority of bridge maintenance expenditures were noted to be on deck repair and maintenance. IADOT has concerns about future needs related to deterioration of prestressed concrete beams.

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

 

KANSAS STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) focus group meeting was conducted at the KDOT facility in Topeka, KS, on December 10, 2009. Focus group interviewees included the following:

Organizational Structure

KDOT has six districts, two of which have bridge maintenance crews although the heavy maintenance crews in each district do bridge work. The central office handles design and contract maintenance while districts are responsible for in-house maintenance and bridge inspection. Table 17 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 17. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Kansas.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned
State transportation department 4,976
Other State agency 41
Local agency 19,673
Federal agency 115
Toll authority 364
Railroad company 3
Private 4
Total 25,176

Program-Level Decision Support

KDOT personnel perform routine element-level inspections using AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software, based on AASHTO CoRe elements and supplemented with other custom elements. Localities only provide NBI data. Additional tests that may be performed as conditions indicate include the following:

The State transportation department contracts out inspections on eight bridges in Kansas City and the turnpike bridges, as well as fracture-critical, pin-and-hangar structures, and underwater inspections.

Bridge replacement recommendations are prioritized by applying the following:

KDOT is now tracking a performance measure called the HI, which is part of the AASHTOWare Bridge Management® system. The HI of any particular structure is calculated by dividing the sum of the current value of all the structure’s components by the sum of the failure values (replacement or repair) of all components. An HI of 100 percent indicates that all of the components of the structure are in the best possible condition state. An HI of 0 percent indicates that all of the components are in the worst possible condition state.

The State transportation department is also creating a spreadsheet-based bridge management system to supplement AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software. The HI is used to prioritize work, but KDOT has found AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software to be effective for forecasting no more than 3 years ahead. Detailed cost information is lacking on the maintenance side because work is contracted out or combined with road repairs. Bridge funding and prioritization decisions are influenced by which corridor is involved, traffic data, truck data, other programmed roadway work (associated work), and economic impact.

Project-Level Decision Support

Decisions are based on inspection reports. Bridge work is also tacked onto road work. Priority authorizations from the legislature also guide decisions.

Performance Measures

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure:

Superstructure:

Deck:

Appurtenances:

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: (none cited).

Superstructure:

Deck: Polymer overlays.

Functionality: (none cited).

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

 

MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) focus group meeting was conducted at the Mn/DOT Bridge Office in St. Paul, MN, on February 19, 2009. Focus group interviewees included the following:

Organizational Structure

Mn/DOT has a decentralized structure comprising eight geographical districts with the seven‑county Metro district around the Twin Cities accounting for nearly half the bridge network. There are bridge maintenance staffs for each district. The central office establishes bridge policy, houses the bridge management systems, provides construction planning and support, processes load rating and permitting, conducts training and QA of district and county inspection programs, and does specialty (fracture critical) inspections. Mn/DOT directly manages bridges on the county and local systems. Table 18 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 18. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Minnesota.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned
State transportation department 3,615
Other State agency 61
Local agency 9,330
Federal agency 78
Toll authority 0
Railroad company 19
Private 18
Total 13,121

Program-Level Decision Support

Mn/DOT conducts most inspections with State forces on State bridges, employing some consultants on occasion to help with fracture-critical structures or as QA/QC support. A significant number of inspections were outsourced temporarily following the I‑35 Wbridge collapse in 2007 because the Governor called for re-inspection of all bridges in the State in a very short time window. Many counties with small staffs or few bridges hire consultants for inspections. Inspector qualifications follow NBIS guidelines and required proficiency tests.

Mn/DOT uses AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software with modifications that allow the documentation of more details about particular elements. The department has added some custom elements, such as smart flags for deck cracking, strip seal and/or joint seals, and some additional deck types, to document conditions that are not adequately represented in the basic AASHTO CoRe elements.

Mn/DOT does not directly use AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software for decisionmaking but does employ the system for limited forecasting. Mn/DOT has found AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software useful for maintenance planning, using element-level data to identify needs. Data are pulled from AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software and provided along with other information, such as past maintenance records, to districts to set up maintenance work plans. Maintenance is tracked through time sheets and a spreadsheet developed in-house. Mn/DOT use estimated costs from prior years to determine costs for preventive maintenance items. However, for recent years, much of the information is no longer captured in one central location so there is a gap. Money is allocated to districts based on a formula that is heavily driven by average daily traffic (ADT) and vehicle miles traveled, while a portion of money is managed centrally for major bridge work. Districts use a spreadsheet tool to record and prioritize maintenance actions with data drawn from bridge inspections. Districts take suggested work plans developed by central office personnel to assist in making decisions on specific activities.

For considerations of replacement or new construction, primarily NBI inventory and condition data, and ADT are used as planning inputs. Mn/DOT did establish a “Major Bridge Program” for very large bridges that would otherwise consume a disproportionate share of resources within the districts. Also, at the time of the interview in 2009, MnDOT had a bridge preservation program that was funded separately from the regular bridge maintenance program.

Project-Level Decision Support

Most bridge preservation projects are scheduled in conjunction with roadway projects, and roadway projects are first determined on the basis of pavement needs with bridges needs then added into the project. Work is prioritized (high, medium, and low) on inspection reports. Nondestructive testing (GPR and infrared thermography) is contracted out as needed although experience with NDT has been minimal.

Performance Measures

Mn/DOT primarily tracks bridge performance based on general condition ratings, by trying to limit the number of bridges in fair or poor condition (NBI condition rating of 5 or less) to less than 16 percent. The primary measure used is the number of bridges in poor condition (NBI condition rating of4or less) with a goal of 2 percent. There is a goal of 16 percent for bridges in fair condition (NBI condition rating of 5 or less on deck condition rating, superstructure condition rating, or substructure condition rating). The number of good bridges (NBI rating of 7 and above) is tracked for informational purposes.

Mn/DOT has tracked goals on bridge performance for 10 years and used that to drive investment in bridge replacements and improvements.

All maintenance is recorded in spreadsheets so that Mn/DOT can track and report annually thepercentage of work performed. Fouryears ago, it started tracking preventive maintenance measures.

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure

Superstructure

Deck

Functionality

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: (none cited).

Superstructure: 10 percent of budget spent here.

Deck: 90 percent of budget spent here (including deck patching, deck joints, railings, driving surface and approach slabs).

Functionality: (none cited).

State Transportation Department Successes

Mn/DOT has district bridge maintenance crews that have been valuable particularly in preventative maintenance work.

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

Mn/DOT wants well-established cost-benefit relationships for the various maintenance actions that it employs on bridges. In particular, Mn/DOT would like better prediction of paint life.

 

MONTANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Montana Department of Transportation (MDOT) focus group meeting was conducted at the MDOT facility in Helena, MT, on October 19, 2009. Focus group interviewees included the following

Organizational Structure

MDOT has a centralized structure with five districts and a central office. Design is done within the central office while districts are responsible for inspection. Maintenance is under the central office personnel who are assigned maintenance crews in each district to assist with the work. Table 19 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 19. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Montana.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned
State transportation department 2,488
Other State agency 0
Local agency 1,930
Federal agency 702
Toll authority 0
Railroad company 0
Private 0
Total 5,120

Program-Level Decision Support

MDOT uses AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software along with post-processing to manage goals and objectives. Network-level indices (structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, HI, Sufficiency Rating, and eligibility status) are used to help in prioritization. Indices are also used to help prioritize off-system bridges. Maintenance data are entered into the maintenance management system but cost and work performed are not captured with recommendations/work request on specific structures.

MDOT has a capital program for rehabilitation and replacement. The preventive maintenance program is mill and fill (peel off riding system and fix joints and bearings) or healer/sealer to fill voids in cracks.

Additional functionality in AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software desired includes the following:

MDOT employees conduct routine biennial bridge inspections, while underwater and hangar and pin inspections are outsourced. Additional testing includes GPR and chloride testing.

Project-Level Decision Support

Maintenance decisions are made based on NBIS and the vulnerabilities index from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 590—Multi-Objective Optimization for Bridge Management Systems, along with bridge inspection report recommendations.(12) The five major vulnerabilities are seismic, scour, ADT, overloads, and condition. Actions are prioritized high, medium, and low, but they do not have timeframes associated with them. Maintenance work is performed by MDOT road crews and captured in a system designed for road maintenance, so captured information is incomplete for bridges.

Performance Measures

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure:

Superstructure:

Deck:

Functionality:

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: (none cited).

Superstructure: (none cited).

Deck: Majority of resources expended on the deck.

Functionality: (none cited).

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

 

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) focus group meeting was held at the Rutgers University Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation on September 24, 2008. Focus group interviewees included the following:

Organizational Structure

NJDOT has a centralized structure. Although there are three geographic regions in the transportation department, bridge staff are located in two central office groups: design and inspection resides under Capital Project Management, and bridge maintenance resides under Operations and Maintenance.

NJDOT owns about 2,500 bridges for which it has design, construction, inspection, and maintenance responsibility. Table 20 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 20. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in New Jersey.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned
State transportation department 2,371
Other State agency 214
Local agency 2,637
Federal agency 30
Toll authority 1,163
Railroad company 2
Private 17
Total 6,434

Program-Level Decision Support

NJDOT uses AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software for its bridge management system to archive data. At the time of the interview in 2008, NJDOT had not had sufficient funds to customize the software.

Decisions regarding maintenance activities are based on inspections and identification of priority repairs: emergency (within 3days), priority1 (within 1month), and priority2 (within 3months). A log in the maintenance office is kept to track actual activities; this log is separate from the bridge management system. Cost data are kept within the contracts and are not part of the system. NJDOT shares information with the New Jersey Turnpike Authority because it faces several of the same issues, such as truck traffic volume.

Project-Level Decision Support

NJDOT performs AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software CoRe element and NBI inspections. It uses a capital investment strategy to help prioritize activities. The State looks at bridges and prioritizes them based on condition, which is determined by the sufficiency rating. NJDOT does not capture actual repairs performed versus those recommended from inspections.

Performance Measures

NJDOT inspects all bridges in the State, with the exception of those owned by toll authorities and one county. The department monitors inspection records for all structures to ensure compliance with the inspection cycles. NJDOT has a performance measure to reduce scour critical bridges by 20 structures per year. It focuses on decks because that is where its customers are focused. It tracks the priority log to ensure action is taken within the designated time period (emergency within 3days, priority1 within 30 days, and priority 2 within 90 days).

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure: Spalling, pier cap deterioration, rusted and/or frozen bearings, scour.

Superstructure: Bearing misalignment or failure, joint deterioration, impact damage deterioration of paint systems, cracking of steel beams, rust and corrosion of steel superstructure members.

Deck: Spalling, cracking.

Functionality: Lack of capacity for traffic volumes, impact damage, poor performance of deck drains.

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: Approximately 20percent of funds.

Superstructure: Approximately 20percent of funds.

Deck: 60percent of funds.

Functionality: Impact damage, lack of capacity for traffic volumes.

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

 

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) focus group meeting was conducted at Parsons Brinkerhoff offices in Penn Plaza, New York, NY, on October 6, 2008. Focus group interviewees included the following:

Organizational Structure

NYSDOT has a decentralized structure comprising 11 regions with bridge maintenance staff in each; the central office provides oversight and support. Table 21 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 21. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in New York.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned
State transportation department 7,460
Other State agency 212
Local agency 8,646
Federal agency 115
Toll authority 364
Railroad company 3
Private 4
Total 17,420

Program-Level Decision Support

NYSDOT does not currently use a formal bridge management system, but it does have extensive bridge management tools that were developed in-house and that are used to do various levels of bridge management analysis—forecasting, needs, and inventory—and these tools interface to various degrees. NYSDOT does not use AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software on a production basis, although NYSDOT owns a license and has a small group investigating future options. The program development unit at headquarters, along with the planning division, assesses programs and needs (for example, recently completed a 20‑year needs assessment) and have developed a tool that extracts data from the inventory and the program support systems. NYSDOT has a tool that predicts deterioration rates of bridge elements and a cost estimating tool.

NYSDOT personnel and consultant inspectors perform element-level (using customized elements, not CoRe elements) and NBI inspections and collect more data than required by NBI. They use a span-by-span method of rating the elements of the bridge. They have approximately 20 years of maintenance data, although the level of quality of maintenance varies for data older than 5 years. There is a maintenance management system that tracks work and resources. The bridge foreman enters data and the system also serves as a time and attendance system. The accuracy of hours spent on an action is limited, because, for example, an emergency call has a minimum 4‑hour charge per worker even if actual work only took 1 hour. Thus, the system shows maintenance activity that was done even if time estimates are sometimes inflated. Currently, the inspection and maintenance systems do not interface.

Decisions regarding maintenance activities are related to regional goals, but goals vary across the State. NYSDOT has good core data and deterioration modeling that is used. Cost estimates are good for replacement but not as accurate for rehabilitation and repair. NYSDOT can forecast costs inventory-wide and forecast element-level deterioration.

Project-Level Decision Support

The maintenance engineer makes the decision(s) on individual projects, giving equal weight to bridge inventory data, recommendations of bridge crews, and the engineer’s experience and knowledge. Maintenance engineers track needed work and trends separately. They use the database of bridge conditions and emergency response history in their decisionmaking. NYSDOT has its own definition of “deficient,” which is different from the Federal definition. NYSDOT reports inspection data to the FHWA in the 0 to 9 format required by the NBIS. NYDOT also defines deficient bridges using the Federal criteria according NBIS. When prioritizing, they look at Federal sufficiency ratings, NYSDOT condition ratings, geometric dimensions, and eligibility for Federal funds. The Regional offices have all the condition lists, and the main office provides them with a priority list that takes into consideration all of the following:

Testing to supplement the routine inspections may include indepth load rating analysis, magnetic particle testing, ultrasonic testing, thermographic camera when further testing is needed, UT, and dye penetrant. NYSDOT clarified that “visual” inspection actually employs sight, sound, and touch. If an inspector rates something 4 or less, that inspector must document this with written notes, photo, and test data and add that to the inspection report. NYSDOT employs GPR on many bridges now.

Performance Measures

NYSDOT uses its own custom bridge condition rating system to determine whether a bridge should be classified as deficient. The NYSDOT condition rating scale ranges from 1 to 7, with 7 meaning in new condition, no deterioration, and 1 meaning the element is in a totally deteriorated or failed condition. A rating of 3 means an element has serious deterioration or is not functioning as designed. The several different elements on the bridge are each rated between 1 and 7, and different weights are assigned to the different element ratings. Bridges with a calculated rating of less than 5.000 are deficient. NYSDOT recognizes that using a performance measure that quantifies just the number of bridges produces skewed results when considering long span (high deck area) bridges (such as the Brooklyn Bridge). Thus, NYSDOT tabulates performance data both for number of bridges and for deck area of bridges. NYSDOT looks at critical components—it does not want certain critical elements to be less than 3 and has tools that will list these elements.

NYSDOT looks at posted bridges—load-posted and permit-posted bridges on the network (and where these bridges are located on network). It tracks flagged work needs and resolution of the flagged needs—the number of overdue flagged work needs has increased in the last couple of years, and NYSDOT is not keeping up as well as it did previously. This may be the result of economics, age of bridges, increase in traffic, or increase in heavy loads. The number of flags indicates how well NYSDOT is maintaining its structures for each region. The goal is to minimize flagged work needs, but NYSDOT tries to correct all the problems on a bridge rather than just fixing the flagged item, i.e., if the structure has another condition looming while workmen are fixing a flagged item, they should try to spend more time to correct all the pending problems. NYSDOT feels this might prevent a flagged item down the road; however, resources become an issue.

NYSDOT has had a robust preventive and corrective maintenance program for the last 10 years and has seen positive changes in deterioration rates.

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure: Spalling, rusting and exposed rebar, delaminations, scour, corrosion, deterioration of steel piles.

Superstructure: Girder end deterioration, impact damage, paint chalking, peeling, leaking joints.

Deck: Spalling, pot holes, cracking.

Functionality: Bridge width not matching road width, vertical clearance.

Structural capacity: Load rating.

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: 50 percent of budget expended, including scour.

Superstructure: (none cited).

Deck: (none cited).

Functionality: (none cited).

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

 

OHIO STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT, presented as ODOT-OH for the purposes of this report) focus group meeting was conducted at the ODOT-OH facility in Columbus, OH, on December 1, 2009. Focus group interviewees included the following:

Organizational Structure

ODOT-OH has a decentralized structure with 12 districts. The central office manages contracts, while districts handle design, maintenance, and inspection. ODOT-OH does have district bridge maintenance crews although the dollars are limited, and ODOT-OH contracts out much of the maintenance work. Table 22 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 22. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Ohio.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned
State transportation department 10,345
Other State agency 11
Local agency 16,140
Federal agency 11
Toll authority 472
Railroad company 32
Private 34
Total 27,045

Program-Level Decision Support

ODOT-OH does not use AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software. It has its own bridge management/inspection system—each bridge has a unique structural number and shows 5 years of ratings—so ODOT-OH has a history of needs that includes recommended actions with status (new, recurring, completed). Decisions are based on bridge condition, or the operational performance indicator (OPI), as listed in the bridge management system.3 The inspection is emailed to the bridge engineer for review, and it automatically populates the bridge maintenance system. ODOT-OH employees perform element-level (not per span) inspections on all bridges in the State and comply with NBIS. Underwater bridge inspections are outsourced. Localities and turnpikes conduct their own bridge inspections. Additional testing included in some State bridge inspections is limited GPR, UT, and magnetic particle testing. ODOT-OH does use SHM (long-term instrumentation) on some major structures.

Repair information is kept in a Web portal. ODOT-OH does have archived cost information. It needs better document handling (for example, photos are all in separate folders and drives) and is planning a geotechnical document database and has scanned old bridge plans, aperture cards, etc. ODOT-OH has multiple systems that currently are not linked.

Project-Level Decision Support

Districts make decisions—some bridge repair work is done in-house, but a lot of bridge repair work is contracted out to the private sector. At the time of the interview in 2009, if the cost of repair on a bridge was more than $50,000, then the repair was contracted out. Central office planning provides oversight. Decisions are based on inspection reports, safety, and congestion.

Performance Measures

No performance measures were captured.

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure: Scour.

Superstructure:

Deck:

Functionality:

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: (none cited).

Superstructure: Painting.

Deck: Overlays—the majority of the funds are spent on decks.

Functionality: (none cited).

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

 

OREGON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT, presented as ODOT-OR for the purposes of this report) focus group meeting was conducted at the ODOT-OR facility in Salem, OR, on October 20, 2009. Focus group interviewees included the following:

Organizational Structure

ODOT-OR is decentralized, with five regions that are primarily responsible for delivering projects. Within the 5 regions is a total of 15 districts that are responsible for maintaining infrastructure and providing oversight of the region for the capital program. Headquarters has a technical services group (bridges included) that is responsible for inspection and that manages standards and funding for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the major maintenance program. Eleven bridge maintenance crews are shared across the districts. Table 23 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 23. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Oregon.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned
State transportation department 2,706
Other State agency 54
Local agency 4,074
Federal agency 790
Toll authority 2
Railroad company 5
Private 7
Total 7,638

Program-Level Decision Support

ODOT-OR uses AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software to store inventory, inspectors’ data and reports, and condition ratings. It also uses the software for external processing of NBI data. ODOT-OR collects additional data in 13 categories to supplement the NBI data (for example, widening). Additional information is used in developing the capital program and stored external to AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software. ODOT-OR has a strategy to focus on structurally deficient bridges or bridges with an NBI rating of 5 on NHS and on State freight routes. At the time of the interview in 2009, ODOT-OR had set aside $7‑8 million for major maintenance to target critical deficiencies it could not develop into STIP or could not be done by maintenance forces by supplementing their budget on specific projects . This program is managed statewide. Maintenance activity is captured in the maintenance management system. ODOT-OR is working on coming up with project costs—it is considered a major need for the information technology and bridge groups to develop a system to tie maintenance costs to individual tasks within AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software and to bridges and elements.

Headquarters manages the capital program and identifies needs, working with regions for prioritization and programming in the STIP. About one-third of the capital program is spent on preserving high-cost structures and moveable bridges, one-third is spent on strengthening and freight movement, and one-third is spent on safety or Federal requirements. ODOT-OR would also like to have a program focused on retrofit of bridges with known seismic vulnerabilities.

AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software element-level inspections are performed by State employees and include an underwater crew as well as management of the consultant program for inspecting major bridges and local bridges. ODOT-OR has a rigorous QA/QC program that requires inspector ratings to be within plus or minus 1 of the QA rating. The QA rating is the NBI condition rating assigned by experienced ODOT-OR inspectors to deck, superstructure, or substructure. During training of new inspectors, the trainees must inspect the bridge components and independently arrive at a rating that is plus or minus 1 of the QA rating.

Additional testing includes magnetic particle testing, timber boring, UT, and, rarely, impact echo. ODOT-OR has SHM (long-term instrumentation) on about a dozen bridges, including strain gauges, corrosion surveys, cathodic protection, and load testing.

Project-Level Decision Support

In addition to NBIS, ODOT-OR looks at the following:

If maintenance crews are spending a lot of recurring time on a bridge, it may not show in the data, but ODOT-OR would get that data through the feedback loop when sending out the bridge priority list. From the field, ODOT-OR is trying to link projects with road crews/field coordination.

Performance Measures

The only items ODOT-OR routinely reports on are structurally deficient and functionally obsolete; the goal is to have 75 percent of structures rated good or better. ODOT-OR is moving from performance measures to return on investment at the commission level.

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure:

Superstructure:

Deck:

Functionality: Functional obsolescence.

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: (none cited).

Superstructure: Most of capital program maintenance funds are spent on paint, cathodic protection, and repairing cracked girders.

Deck: Sealing decks, repairing joints, and replacing timber elements.

Functionality: (none cited).

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) focus group meeting was conducted at the TxDOT facility in Austin, TX, on April 29, 2009. Focus group interviewees included the following:

Organizational Structure

TxDOT has a decentralized structure. There is a central Bridge Division, and each district has a Bridge Engineer. The central Bridge Division provides support for construction and design. It oversees design, field operations, administration, special inspections, and project development. Districts perform inspection and bridge management. There are 25 districts. Maintenance is run from the maintenance division at headquarters. Table 24 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 24. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Texas.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned
State transportation department 33,513
Other State agency 34
Local agency 17,663
Federal agency 227
Toll authority 793
Railroad company 3
Private 10
Total 52,243

Program-Level Decision Support

There is a dedicated bridge preventive maintenance fund. TxDOT has enhanced AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software for data entry that has decreased entry errors. It would like to enhance the software for use as a planning tool but needs to develop a deterioration model to use for running scenarios. Data records only go back to 2000. TxDOT has developed its own inspection module, currently being piloted by one district because TxDOT wants to collect more information than AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software requires. The maintenance division tracks cost according to broad work categories, but cost is not tied to specific bridges. TxDOT is building a new maintenance system.

Project-Level Decision Support

Maintenance recommendations are made at the district level (ranked list based on condition ratings) and passed to area offices where the recommendations are implemented. There is little corridor planning although TxDOT is promoting it.

Performance Measures

The fundamental performance measure used by TxDOT for bridges is thepercentage of bridges that are rated good or better. The State transportation department set a goal of having 80 percent of structures rated good or better by 2011.

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure:

Superstructure:

Deck: High levels of carbonation of materials used from 1950s through the 1970s.

Functionality:

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: 50 percent of budget.

Superstructure: (none cited).

Deck:50 percent of budget.

Functionality:(none cited).

State Transportation Department Successes

TxDOT has revised its inspection processes, now based on rotating assignments within a pool of inspection consultants. This centralized process has improved compliance, QA, and consistency.

TxDOT designed a Web-enabled interface to AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software, called Pontis, which is used by inspection consultants to submit inspection results and by TxDOT personnel to review and analyze the bridge management information.

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

 

UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) focus group meeting was conducted at the UDOT Central Office in Salt Lake City, UT, on March 5, 2009. Focus group interviewees included the following:

Organizational Structure

UDOT has a decentralized project management organization, so project managers and roadway design staff are located in four regions. Supervisors help manage bridge maintenance projects in their regions of the State. The central design unit oversees consultant design, inspections, and technical specialties. Table 25 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 25. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Utah.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned
State transportation department 1,773
Other State agency 0
Local agency 1,029
Federal agency 145
Toll authority 0
Railroad company 0
Private 0
Total 2,947

Program-Level Decision Support

UDOT uses a modified version of AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software in an Oracle database (a customized module for UDOT data was added). UDOT has bridge files dating back to the 1920s and is scanning archived bridge plans to create electronic files. It does not use AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software for projecting or planning. UDOT has requested linking databases (materials, construction bid with cost, project management, and AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software) across the State transportation department. Currently, pre‑1999 records are hard copy only. UDOT uses a spreadsheet developed in-house to plan for every bridge project. The spreadsheet tracks every bridge in the STIP and indicates whether the bridge is approved for concept and development phase and whether a project is approved for funding. Using this spreadsheet, along with a similar one for projects on pavement sections, the main office and the regional offices work together to schedule bridge projects and, when possible, link them to roadway projects to minimize the disruption of traffic.

Project-Level Decision Support

Information was requested from district engineers on where they perceived needs on bridges. (At the time of the interview in 2009, 50 percent of the budget funds were allocated to preservation and 50 percent to maintenance.) Inspection data feeds into STIP. Public perception and safety feed into decisionmaking.

Performance Measures

UDOT has established a goal to eliminate bridges rated structurally deficient (currently 2.5 percent of the inventory is rated structurally deficient).

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure:

Superstructure:

Deck:

Functionality:

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: 25 percent of budget.

Superstructure: 25 percent of budget.

Deck:50 percent of budget.

Functionality: (none cited).

State Transportation Department Successes

UDOT is a leader in using Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) to minimize the impact of bridge construction on the public. UDOT is dedicated to its initiative to replace conventional construction techniques with ABC, wherein the State transportation department is able to build new structures while minimizing the impact to the public and increasing worker safety. Utah representatives admit that this is in an early stage—durability of the structures is still unknown. The program has evolved over the last 10 years, starting with partial-depth precast decks, progressing to full-depth precast decks, and then migrating to construction of bridges onsite or offsite and moving them into position using sliding or self-propelled modular transports. Many details evolved during this time; for example, (prefabricated) decks migrated from welded tie to post-tensioning. Changes in connection details on bent caps (constructability issue) are another example. UDOT set the policy that, as of fiscal year 2010, it will use ABC exclusively on new construction. Examples of structures with details that may affect long-term durability and maintenance include the following:

Use of geofoam instead of lightweight fill has been implemented to counter the effects of prolonged settlement of lake bed silt and other materials.

Contrary to prior practice, UDOT now designs the exterior girders of bridges to carry full lane loads in anticipation of future expansions needed to address capacity issues.

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program

Despite expressing confidence in the benefits of the ABC process, UDOT does want to know what implications for long-term bridge life may exist for using precast decks and other elements and what that means for preservation and maintenance efforts in 10 to 15 years.

Utah representatives expressed a desire for a uniform resource to identify and document best practices in bridge preservation. They would also like a resource that identifies design details that help ensure durable structures. For example, UDOT has experimented with moving expansion joints off of structures to approaches and feels this has been a successful practice. Do other States have similar or contrasting experience? There should be a clearinghouse for such information.

Regarding health monitoring concepts, UDOT would like to know what instrumentation is most successful, durable, and applicable to assessing condition and structural performance.

 

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) focus group interview was held at the Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research in Charlottesville, VA, on August 13, 2008. VDOT interviewees included the following:

Organizational Structure

VDOT is decentralized, made up of nine engineering districts with bridge offices in each and a central office division that provides planning, design, and bridge management support.

Table 26 shows the number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in the State.

Table 26. Number of bridges owned by various types of agencies in Virginia.

Agency Type Number of Bridges Owned
State transportation department 11,892
Other State agency 9
Local agency 1,934
Federal agency 340
Toll authority 74
Railroad company 50
Private 10
Total 17,420

Program-Level Decision Support

VDOT has a formal bridge management system composed of the AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software and the Highway Traffic Record Information System. However, in practice, these are primarily used to archive data and are more for information management than bridge management. The State is using AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software to perform network-level analysis, to determine statewide needs, and as a guide in allocating funding to the districts. VDOT currently tracks maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation actions through manual inspection reports although efforts to streamline retrieval of information are under way. At the time of the interview in 2008, cost information was tracked separately by each district.

VDOT would like to have these additional capabilities:

Project-Level Decision Support

In making decisions, VDOT relies on element-level inspection data along with NDE and other test data, traffic data, flood risk, environmental needs, local transportation needs, information provided by the trucking industry and other interest groups, public involvement, the known and acceptable options available to them, and funding availability.

VDOT performs both NBI safety and element-level inspections, and uses AASHTOWare Bridge Management® software. In addition, it performs the following supplemental testing:

Results are kept in individual inspection records.

In determining repairs, the State considers the prioritization of needs and funding allocations, condition ratings, and appraisal ratings. To more accurately define the extent of repairs and improve cost estimating, the following nonstructural data would be useful:

VDOT does not capture actual repairs performed versus specified repairs.

Performance Measures

For performance measures, VDOT tracks the following:

VDOT is now tracking HI, which is part of the AASHTOWare Bridge Management® system.(10) The HI of any particular structure is calculated by dividing the sum of the current value of all structure’s components by the sum of the failure value (replacement or repair) of all components. An HI of 100 percent indicates that all of the components of the structure are in the best possible condition state. An HI of 0 percent indicates that all of the components are in the worst possible condition state.

The State uses a dashboard that shows the number of structures and their condition (functionally deficient, structurally deficient, and OK).

Common Forms of Deterioration

Substructure: Scour, cracking, spalling, and delamination.

Superstructure: Corrosion, age and deterioration with time of the existing paint system, parapet repair; bearing pedestals deterioration, and concrete pop-outs due to freezing.

Deck: Spalling, fatigue cracks, weathering as well as decay, splitting and insect damage in timber decks.

Functionality: No specific forms noted.

Maintenance and Repair Activities Requiring the Most Resources

Substructure: Shotcrete/pneumatic concrete repair of concrete spalls, scour countermeasures, and blocking and jacking/installation of temporary supports.

Superstructure: Complete painting, repair/replace due to impact damage, complete superstructure replacement.

Deck: Patching, thin overlay, rigid overlay, full or partial deck replacement.

Functionality: No specific forms noted.

Desired Outcomes From LTBP Program


2 The Caltrans Transportation Laboratory is the central research facility of Caltrans.

3 The organizational performance index monitors the monthly performance of all 12 districts in several key areas of construction management, contract administration, equipment and facilities, finance, information technology, plan delivery, quality and human resources, system conditions, traffic safety, and highway maintenance. These scores are used to monitor several programs and to standardize services across districts. OPI exception reports and action plans are discussed during monthly executive management meetings. Many of these performance measures are used to annually evaluate management and staff.

 

Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center | 6300 Georgetown Pike | McLean, VA | 22101