VDOT’S BRIDGE PRESERVATION PROGRAM

Virginia Concrete Conference, 2012

RICHMOND, VA

March 9, 2012

Adam Matteo, PE Assistant State Structure and Bridge Engineer for Bridge Maintenance

VDOT Structure and Bridge Division

2

The Structure and Bridge Division has the same organizational structure in the Central Office and the Districts

State Structure and Bridge Engineer Ken Walus

Preliminary Engineering David Nuckols

Inspection & Load Rating Claude Napier

Maintenance Adam Matteo

Engineering Services Julius Völgyi

District Bridge Engineer

Preliminary Engineering Inspection & Load Rating Maintenance

Central Office

9 District Offices

3

The Challenge There isn’t enough money to meet all the needs of Virginia’s aging

Bridges and Culverts

• $1.7 Billion total maintenance need statewide • Replacement value of the inventory is $52.4 Billion • Approximately 60% of Virginia’s inventory is 40 years old or older • Structures built prior to 2007 were designed for 50 year life • Replacement value of all structures 40 years or older is $18.7 Billion • Structures designed for 50 years may need to be to kept functional for

100 years or more, perhaps even as long as 150 years • 4719 structures with a minimum General Condition Rating of 5 (almost

¼ of the entire inventory) • Approximately 21,000 structures in the inventory, 19,390 of which are

VDOT-maintained (by comparison, Florida has 6,644 structures) • 1,537 structures with a min. General Condition Rating of 4 or less • Maintenance budgets are about 2/3 needs

4

114

1,562

2,332

2,115

3,458

4,252

1,715

853

3,842

513

100 31 21 0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

2010's 2000's 1990's 1980's 1970's 1960's 1950's 1940's 1930's 1920's 1910's 1900's

No. o

f Stru

ctur

es

Decade* County Bridges added to the VDOT Inventory during this period with unknown construction dates (Assumed year built equaled year added to system)

Structures Built – by Decade

5

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Total

Ave

rag

e A

ge

Bristol Salem Lynchburg Richmond Hampton Roads Fredericksburg Culpeper Staunton NOVA Statewide

Average Age of Structures – by Highway System

6

General Condition Ratings

DEFINITIONS 9 EXCELLENT CONDITION 8 VERY GOOD CONDITION 7 GOOD CONDITION 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION 5 FAIR CONDITION 4 POOR CONDITION 3 SERIOUS CONDITION 2 CRITICAL CONDITION 1 "IMMINENT" FAILURE CONDITION 0 FAILED CONDITION GENERAL CONDITION RATINGS ARE PROVIDED AT EACH INSPECTION FOR: • DECK • SUPERSTRUCTURE • SUBSTRUCTURE • CULVERT

The General Condition Rating is an imperfect index, but it can provide good broad-based information about an inventory.

7

64

1,473

4,719

6,944

6,086

1,409

165 0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Num

ber o

f Str

uctu

res

Minmum GCR

Number of Structures by Minmum GCR

Total No. of Structures = 20,860

7%

23%

33%

29%

7%

Approximately 200 structures per year go from “5” to “4” and become Structurally Deficient

8

The Solution

Whine until we get more money?

9

Attacking the Problem

Spend Resources as wisely as possible to extend the life of the inventory

• Replace joints in a timely manner • Spend money on the most cost-effective actions

• Make data-driven decisions when selecting interventions • Constantly evaluate new materials and methods

• Don’t pursue a “worst first” approach • Emphasize preventive maintenance • Balance spending

• Perform high quality work • Utilize state bridge crews • Address highway systems with largest impact to commerce and the

public

10

Bridge Maintenance Requires Bridge Management

Inventory • Work needs • Structure Condition

Inspection

Bridge Management • Work Prioritization • Project Scoping

Project Development • Design • Permitting • Advertisement & Award

Construction

VDOT uses Pontis for structure inventory and modeling of needs

11

Bridge Longevity

New Construction Existing Structures

Jointless Bridges

High Performance Concrete

Corrosion Resistant Reinforcement

Concrete Culverts Preventive Maintenance

Rehabilitation

Replacement

Restorative Maintenance

Painting

12 Maintenance Activities

Examples of Preventive Maintenance

• Bridge Cleaning (washing and/or sweeping) • Deck Sealing • Sealing Joints • Thin Deck Overlays • Removing Large Debris in Channels • Cleaning Culverts • Spot and Zone Painting

VDOT has a system preservation agreement with FHWA to fund these activities Preventive maintenance has been shown to be the most cost-effective of all bridge maintenance activities for sustaining the lives of structures

13 Maintenance Activities

Examples of Restorative Maintenance • Painting (Overcoating or Re-Coating) • Rigid Deck Overlays • Reconstructing/Closing Joints • Superstructure Repairs (Type B patching, etc.) • Substructure Repairs (including shotcrete, bearings, other elements) • Joint removal • Fatigue Retrofitting • Scour Repairs • Cathodic Protection • Electrochemical Chloride Extraction • Replace timber decks

Much of this work is “reactive” in nature but needs to be performed to sustain our inventory

14 Maintenance Activities

Rehabilitation

• Generally work of a major nature • Deck replacement • Superstructure replacement • Culvert lining

Replacement

• Part of the maintenance cycle • Includes replacement of foundations • Often coincides with a need for widening or geometric improvement • Many projects are funded through the Dedicated Bridge Fund

15 Codifying “Best Practices”

Chapter 32 has recently been adopted – available online

• Acts as a primer for those not familiar with bridge maintenance • Provides strict rules where appropriate • Provides guidelines where appropriate • Explains and provides guidance on funding • Provides guidance on decision processes • Provides a schedule for preventive maintenance activities • Is based on both practical experience and studies • Future revisions will include additional elements such as:

• Standard details • Contract templates for maintenance work • Standard Special Provisions • Design Aids • Additional culvert and timber bridge guidance

16 What Constitutes “Best Practices”

Fundamental Principals

• Keep the roof dry and clean • Replace or eliminate joints • Timely installation of overlays • Timely spot or zone painting • Maintain drains in a functional condition • Sweep and wash bridges

• Perform repairs in a timely manner • Evaluate new technologies and implement the good ones

• Sponsor studies • Utilize research performed by others • Try new materials and methods

• Utilize appropriate materials • Avoid asphalt overlays • Use approved patching materials

17

Fundamental Principals, continued:

• Utilize proven technologies • Perform quality work

• Treat maintenance work the same as new construction • Test and monitor material installation, particularly for concrete • Provide adequate inspection • Utilize controls where possible

• Distribute resources appropriately. Chapter 32 suggests: • Preventive Maintenance – 15% (Program 604) • Painting – 10% (Program 604) • Restorative Maintenance – 25% (Program 604) • Rehabilitation/Small Structure Replacement – 50% (Program 604)

• Maximize available resources • Utilize available funding (state and federal) • Plan and perform work for best efficiency (multiple structure contracts)

18

The Importance of Preventive Maintenance - Joints

19 The Importance of Preventive Maintenance - Joints

20

The Importance of Preventive Maintenance - Decks

21

Preventive Maintenance

• Highest cost benefit ratio of the maintenance categories • Most of the problems with bridge deterioration can be significantly

reduced or avoided altogether with planned preventive maintenance • FHWA agreement allows these activities to be billed as system

preservation

22

Preventive Maintenance Proposed Activity Cycle

Activity Preferred

Cycle (years) Federally Eligible?

1 Bridge Deck Washing 1 Yes

2 Bridge Deck Sweeping 1 Yes

3 Seats & Beam End Washing 2 Yes

4 Cutting & Removing Vegetation 2 No

5 Routine Maintenance of Timber Structures 2 No

6 Scheduled Replacement of Compression Seal Joints 10 Yes

7 Scheduled Replacement of Pourable Joints 6 Yes

8 Cleaning & Lubricating Bearing Devices 4 No

9 Scheduled Installation of Thin Epoxy Overlay 15 Yes

10 Beam Ends Painting 10 Yes

11 Removing Debris from Culverts 5 Yes

23

64

1,473

4,719

6,944

6,086

1,409

165 0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Num

ber o

f Str

uctu

res

Minmum GCR

Number of Structures by Minmum GCR

Total Number of Structures = 20,860

7%

23%

33%

29%

7%

Approximately 200 structures per year go from “5” to “4” and become Structurally Deficient

System Preservation Candidates Restorative MaintenanceCandidates

Replacement Candidates

24

Using Data to Make Better Decisions

There are Several Active Studies with the Research Council • Coating Study

• Process review of how we recoat structures • Review enclosure/encapsulation requirements • New technologies for removing • Other coating systems and application methods available in the market • Meeting with the transportation industry and surveying other industries

• Waterproofing membrane (monitoring effort) • Low permeability asphalt such as Rosphalt • Asphalt Plug Joints • Deterioration rates of structures (data mining)

• Looks at past performance of structures and the longevity of interventions • Developing cost/benefit ratios • Will help guide decision-making for maintenance activities

VDOT also participates in other studies such as the Long Term Bridge Performance Study being sponsored by FHWA

25

Average General Condition Ratings of Virginia’s Structures

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

2001-2010 1991-2000 1981-1990 1971-1980 1961-1970 1951-1960 1941-1950 1931-1940 1921-1930 1911-1920 pre-1911

Aver

age

Gen

eral

Con

ditio

n R

atin

g

Decade Built

deck GCR

Super GCR

Sub GCR

Min bridge GCR

Culvert GCR

26

Using Data to Make Better Decisions Theoretical Deterioration

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Gen

eral

Con

ditio

n R

atin

g

Age of Bridge

Extending Bridge Life

Minimal Maintenance

Overlay at years 10, 25 & 40

New Construction

27

Evaluating Interventions

9

7 7 7

8 8

7 7 7

5

6 6

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

9 9

8 8

6 6 6 6

5 5 5 5 5 5 5

4 4 4

3

12,512

17,282

21,716

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Aver

age

Dai

ly T

raffi

c

Con

ditio

n R

atin

g

Hunter Mill Road over Difficult Run 1969-2011

Superstructure Condition Rating Average Daily Traffic

15 Yrs 15 Yrs

1969 - VDOT builds new 1993 - VDOT builds new

1984 - Bridge is rated as Critical & classified as

2008 - Bridge is rated as Poor & classified as

Structurally Deficient

1988 - Posted

2005 - Posted

2011 - Bridge rated as Critical; Posted

28

Evaluating Interventions – Epoxy Overlays

Effect of Overlays on Deck General Condition Rating

6.1

6.15

6.2

6.25

6.3

6.35

6.4

6.45

6.5

6.55

Concrete decks no overlays

Bridges with Epoxy Overlays

Conc Bridges with Asphalt Overlays

Aver

age

Dec

k G

ener

al C

ondi

tion

R

atin

g

Type of Deck Surface

29

6 year GCR Trends (2006 through 2011)

6.200

6.300

6.400

6.500

6.600

6.700

Ave

rag

e G

CR

of

Bri

dg

e D

ecks

Interstate 6.387 6.361 6.338 6.310 6.285 6.253

Primary 6.339 6.342 6.340 6.307 6.286 6.291

Secondary 6.614 6.617 6.613 6.603 6.598 6.606

Average 6.516 6.504 6.497 6.481 6.474 6.477

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Deck General Condition Rating

30

6 year GCR Trends (2006 through 2011)

6.100

6.200

6.300

6.400

6.500

Ave

rage

GC

R b

y S

uper

stru

ctur

es

Interstate 6.400 6.415 6.352 6.273 6.210 6.152

Primary 6.375 6.367 6.346 6.313 6.287 6.288

Secondary 6.411 6.394 6.379 6.362 6.366

Average 6.408 6.383 6.357 6.328 6.324

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Superstructure General Condition Rating

31

6 year GCR Trends (2006 through 2011)

Deck GCR

5.900

6.000

6.100

6.200

6.300

6.400

Ave

rage

GC

R o

f Sub

stru

ctur

es

Interstate 6.147 6.162 6.132 6.091 6.008 5.974

Primary 6.349 6.338 6.317 6.296 6.268 6.258

Secondary 6.386 6.369 6.347 6.326 6.319

Average 6.350 6.330 6.307 6.283 6.271

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Superstructure General Condition Rating

32

Evaluating the Performance of Culverts

Culverts have outperformed bridges and concrete culverts have outperformed steel culverts

2010 - 2012

2000 - 2009

1990 - 1999

1980 - 1989

1970 - 1979

1960 - 1969

1950 - 1959

1940 - 1949

1930 - 1939

Pre 1900 - 1929

Concrete 8.49 7.53 7.03 6.68 6.40 6.27 6.32 6.11 6.15 5.90 Steel 8.00 7.27 6.39 6.06 5.91 5.66 5.80 5.17 5.75 5.33

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

GC

R

Decade

Average Culvert GCR by Decade and Material

33

Evaluating the Performance of Culverts

Culverts have outperformed bridges and concrete culverts have outperformed steel culverts

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

16.00%

18.00%

20.00%

2010 - 2012

2000 - 2009

1990 - 1999

1980 - 1989

1970 - 1979

1960 - 1969

1950 - 1959

1940 - 1949

Pre 1900 - 1939

Perc

enta

ge o

f Str

uctu

rally

Def

icie

nt C

ulve

rts

Decade

Percentage of Structurally Deficient Culverts by Material Type and Decade

Concrete

Steel

1/18

29/332 37/414

83/633

46/308

15/88 2/12

29/157

1/818 1/460 3/840 10/ 1,494

7/525 1/211

13/824

34

Inventory • Work needs • Structure Condition

Inspection Bridge Management • Work Prioritization • Project Scoping

Project Development • Design • Permitting • Right of Way • Advertisement & Award

Construction •Preconstruction Conf. •Mobilization •Traffic Control •Joint Preparation

Importance of Quality Control Governmental procurement rules require many steps before any work can be done in the field

Installation

35

Importance of Quality Control

Installation

All previous efforts are wasted if the final step isn’t properly performed

36

Importance of Quality Control

37

Importance of Quality Control

38

Summary

• Replace joints in a timely manner • Spend resources wisely

• Emphasize preventive maintenance • Make data-driven decisions when selecting interventions • Constantly evaluate new materials and methods • Balance spending

• Perform high quality work