Review of Maintenance Prioritization Schemes from Three Transportation Authorities

1
Review of Maintenance Prioritization Schemes from
Three Transportation Authorities

• Christopher L. Farschon, P.E., PCS
• Greenman Pedersen, Inc. Coatings Group
• October 7, 2009
• NACE Eastern Area Conference

2
Why Prioritize Bridge Painting?
3
Why Prioritize? PLANNING

• Money
• Money
• Money
• Define an acceptable state of existence
• How coating conditions affect a bridge throughout
  its lifetime
• Identify what funding is needed to meet that need
• Justify painting budgets

4
Where to Start Planning?

• Bridge type
• Size
• Proximity
• Location
• Traffic Conditions
• Deck
• Substructure
• Future Rehabilitation
• Coating and Corrosion Condition

5
Goals of a Prioritization Program

• Vary by Agency
• Lowest overall cost (today, life cycle, year 20?)
• Define needed funding
• Meet constraints
• Integrate with other work
• Improvements
• Traffic
• Aesthetics
• Be adaptable

6
Three Authorities

• A - Toll Authority 1
• Major structures only (9 facilities 26M square
  feet)
• Metropolitan area
• 100 self funded
• B - Toll Authority 2
• Major highway (hundreds of bridges focus on 16)
• Urban / Metropolitan / Rural
• Combination funding
• C - State DOT District
• Over 1,000 bridges (focus on overpasses)
• Metropolitan and Suburban area
• Federal / state funding

7
Historical - Toll Authority A

• Years of as-required maintenance painting
• Increasing environmental concerns
• Increasing steel repair frequency
• Painting Program was planned around 1990,
  implemented 1993-1995
• Unofficial Program Goals
• Reduce lead paint liabilities
• Reduce as-needed steel repairs
• Improve bridge appearance
• Define needed funding

8
Program Description Toll Authority A

• Based on a facility wide survey conducted in 1993
• Categorizes bridge areas based on paint
  conditions and local environments
• Appropriate painting is performed in each area to
  minimize costs
• Access costs very high minimal contracts
• One contract multiple Items multiple methods

9
Program Goals Toll Authority A

• Maintain an acceptable paint condition while
  maintaining budget goals
• Coordinate with Capital improvement projects and
  biennial inspections
• Address highest priorities within 12 years

10
Define the Problem Toll Authority A
11
Track Progress Toll Authority A
12
Yearly Costs Toll Authority A
Average 21.4M per Year
Average 14.9M per Year
13
Types of Painting Toll Authority A
14
Unit Cost Trends Toll Authority A

• Low early High middle Lower recently
• Worst corrosion addressed first
• Large projects (economies of scale were good)
• Concurrent with some maintenance
• Aesthetic areas
• Hold until re-paint
• Combination / Rehabilitation Projects
• Difficult projects?
• Some shared costs
• Some additional costs
• Maximize shop painting

15
Cost/Specification Factors- Authority A

• Size of the project
• Mobilization and staging areas
• Access to work- placement of equipment
• Lane closures, water - barge etc.
• Environmental controls
• Inspection requirements - warranty
• Configuration or type of structure
• Labor, equipment, and material costs
• Bidding climate (other work, available bidders)

16
Program Summary Toll Authority A

• Budgets were justified
• Funding allocated
• Projects designed
• Conditions were monitored with database
  population
• Influenced priorities on a biennial basis
• Program is in place that relates painting needs
  to available time to needed funding
• Needs not always driven by conditions

17
Toll Authority - B

• Program recently enacted to prioritize painting
  of major structures
• Not an authority-wide plan (16 of several hundred
  structures, but the most significant 16)
• Works around/with major capital programs
• Coordination with other maintenance work
• Constructability a key factor

18
Project Background Toll Authority B

• Program has 2 objectives
• Part 1 - The investigation and assessment of the
  existing coating system on 16 major bridges,
  development of a prioritized list of bridges
  requiring repainting, and recommendations related
  to bridge painting as part of a Ten Year Capital
  Program
• Part 2 - The design and development of documents
  for two (2) Major Bridge Repainting contracts

19
Budget / Financial Toll Authority B

• Predetermined budget and timeframe
• anticipated value of 250M
• 10 year effort
• Prioritize the needs based on constraints,
  coordination, conditions
• Generate project specific engineers estimates
  for near-term painting costs

20
Bridge Surveys Toll Authority B

• Technical Paint Condition Data Adhesion,
  thickness, lab tests, visual survey data for
  paint (peeling and corrosion)
• Development of square footage quantities
• Other considerations - Deck and Joint condition,
  planned rehabilitations and prior painting work

21
Painting Options Toll Authority B

• Total Coating Removal and Replacement
• Zone Coating Repair (Beam Ends, Bearings,
  Weathering Steel)
• Maintenance Spot Painting and Full Overcoating

22
Prioritization Toll Authority B

• Rough Budget Estimates Key to project designs
  and evening out the workload across the program
  duration
• Coordination with other work Use of the deck
  condition study data, coordination with completed
  deck/rehabilitation projects and the capital
  improvement projects
• Prioritization factors
• Condition of the existing coatings and extent of
  corrosion
• Condition of the existing deck
• Availability of construction staging areas
• Complexity of maintenance and protection of
  traffic
• Complexity of containment
• Environmental impacts
• Outside agency coordination

23
Prioritization Matrix Toll Authority B
24
Project Sequencing Toll Authority B

• Projects of constructible size and duration were
  appropriately prioritized / sequenced
• Highest 2 priorities under design /construction
• Update survey needed
• Project was a snapshot of conditions combined
  with other available data to make the most
  appropriate prioritization today
• Future survey will justify extending durations
  before painting or accelerating certain projects

25
Program Summary Toll Authority B

• Select group of bridges
• Projects designed and estimated to fit available
  budget
• Technical data / conditions were not always the
  priority driver
• Program is based on a snapshot survey of
  facilities
• Follow-up survey will be needed

26
Authority C

• State Department of Transportation District
• 1998 project
• Over 1,000 bridges
• Majority are highway overpasses and smaller
  structures
• Semi Automated database system
• Used condition data, constraints,
  project-specific factors
• Prioritization was based on Return on Investment

27
Technical Basis Authority C

• Historical data for coatings in appropriate
  environments defines degradation rates
• Survey characterizes exposure conditions and
  technical paint data
• Lowest cost painting option is selected using an
  ROI calculation
• Current coatings and corrosion condition ratings
• Exposure environment ratings
• Predicted life to next painting event

28
Cost vs. Corrosion Theoretical
29
Cost vs. Corrosion Actual
30
Program Summary Authority C

• Database program generates a list of structures
  sorted by ROI
• DOT organizes projects to address priorities
  (human factor is required)
• Condition data easily attained
• Degradation models and cost factors were fixed
• Constraints were variable
• Does not estimate budgets

31
Common Threads

• All prioritization programs were custom
• Authority constraints were custom
• All used existing data sources with enhancements
• All need maintenance to remain accurate
• All provide a starting point for defendable
  analysis

32
Feedback is Needed

• Programs are tools use for designated purpose
  and within limitations

Monitor
Design
Learn
33
Using Feedback
34
Prioritization Program Comparisons
35
Prioritization Program Cost
36
Inspection vs. Expectation
37
Planning a Project
38
Conclusions

• Maintenance painting is needed
• All painting can be scheduled with the most
  benefit (least cost) by evaluating structures and
  implementing a maintenance painting program
• Numerous constraints affect a program
• Other work
• Cost trends
• Priorities / Goals
• Program must be adaptable
• Use existing data or existing inspection
  activities