National Bridge Scour Evaluation Program Update

1
National Bridge Scour Evaluation Program Update

• Presented for
• WASHTO-X Video Conference
• By
• Jorge E. Pagán-Ortiz
• Principal Bridge Engineer- Hydraulics
• Leader, FHWA National Hydraulics Team
• March 14, 2006

2
Topics to be Covered

• Overview of the National Bridge Scour Evaluation
  Program
• National Bridge Scour Evaluation Data
• Plan of Action
• Scour Focus States
• Item 113 Coding Issues
• Unknown Foundations
• Tidal Bridges
• Technical Assistance
• Upcoming Conference
• Open Discussion

3
Overview of the National Bridge Scour
Evaluation Program

• Policy all bridges over waterways shall be
  evaluated for their scour vulnerability to be in
  compliance with the NBIS

4
Overview of the National Bridge Scour
Evaluation Program (Continued)

• Program structure based on rating factors of Item
  113 of the Recording and Coding Guide for the
  Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nations
  Bridges Coding Guide
• Key for identifying Scour Critical Bridges
  meaning bridges with foundation elements
  determined to be unstable for the calculated
  and/or observed stream stability/scour conditions

5
National Bridge Scour
Evaluation Program Data

• Evaluations Completed Over 344,000
• Scour Critical bridges Over 26,000
• Unknown Foundations About 86,000
• Includes 161 interstate bridges
• Tidal Bridges Over 900
• Includes 91 interstate bridges
• Scour Susceptible Over 26,000

6
Scour Evaluations

• Completion of Evaluations
• Needed to be in compliance with the NBIS
• Need assistance of FHWA bridge engineers to
  ensure that their corresponding DOTs and local
  agencies complete evaluations of all bridges over
  waterway and tidal systems

7
Plan of Action

• First Technical Advisory on scour, TA 5140.20
  dated September 1988, introduced the concept of
  needing to develop a plan of action (POA) for
  each scour critical bridge.
• FHWA Headquarters officially notified field
  offices about moving to POA phase of the scour
  program in July 24, 2003.

8
Authority for Requiring a Plan of
Action (POA)

• Updated NBIS regulation, 23 CFR 650.313.e.3
• DOTs must develop an implement a plan that
  defines their actions to reach full compliance
  with updated NBIS regulation
• Target date for implementing NBIS requirements
  was January 13, 2006.
• Resources needed and schedule for implementing
  POAs for each scour critical bridge.

9
Reduction of Scour Vulnerable
Bridges

• It is one of the performance measures of Outcome
  3 of the FHWA Bridge Strategic Plan
• Outcome 3 Highway Structures provide a high
  level of safety and service under all conditions
• Targets reduction of scour vulnerable bridges
  (susceptible, critical, unknown and tidal) --
  from 27.6 percent in CY 2004 to 10 percent by CY
  2010.
• Target for CY 2006 is 23.5 percent.

10
Scour Focus States

• Identified by HIBT as states that FHWA will work
  with to reduce percent of scour vulnerable
  bridges during Calendar Year 06
• These states have been working diligently towards
  completing their bridge scour evaluations and/or
  are actively working towards developing and
  implementing Plan of Actions (POAs) to reduce
  the number of scour critical bridges
• CA, FL, MD, NY, OK, PR and TX

11
Item 113 Coding Issues

• Quality of Database
• NBI database not consistent when compared with
  Biannual Scour Report database
• Bridges lt 10 years old coded 6 or U
• Interstate bridges coded 6
• Revisions to Item 113
• Distributed to Division Offices by memo dated
  April 27, 2001
• Consistency in coding Items 60 and 113
• Expand description of codes for Item 113
• Must ensure that State and locals are aware of
  Item 113 revisions dated April 27, 2001

12
Unknown Foundations, Us

• Unknown Foundation Summit held I Lakewood, CO
  (November 15-16, 2005)
• Teams established to work on
• Policy, guidance, training and research needs
• Plan of Action should be developed and
  implemented for bridges coded U
• This is a recommendation, not a requirement!
• Evaluations of interstate bridges coded U
  should be a priority.

13
Tidal Bridges (Ts)

• Tidal bridges need to be monitored until an
  evaluation is performed
• While these bridges may be considered low risk,
  they have to be evaluated, too.
• Evaluations of interstate bridges coded T
  should also be a priority!
• Updating guidance for tidally influenced bridges
  for
• Design storm frequency and freeboard analysis and
  design
• Guidance on HEC-25, Tidal hydrology, Hydraulics
  and Scour at Bridges clarifying procedures for
  estimating hydrologic and hydraulics parameters
  for estimating scour at bridges over tidally
  influenced waterways.

14
Technical Assistance

• The FHWA National Hydraulics Team is available to
  provide technical assistance to our customers
  (State DOTs, local agencies, . . .)

15
National Hydraulics Team

• Headquarters
• Jorge E. Pagán-Ortiz, Sterling Jones, Joe
  Krolak, Dr. Kornel Kerenyi, Larry Jones (NHI)
• Resource Center
• Peter Osborn, Dr. Larry Arneson, Cynthia Nurmi,
  Dan Ghere, Dr. Eric Brown, Veronica
  Ghelardi
• Federal Lands Highway Program
• Bart Bergendahl, Brian Beucler, Abbi Ginsberg,
  Dave Dajc, Peter Sletten, Dr. Thiet Nguyen, Dr.
  Mark Browning, Sven Leon
• Division Office
• Steve toillion

16
Conference

• National Hydraulic Engineering Conference
• San Diego, California August 29-September 1,
  2006
• Hotel information and online registration
  available at http//www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/
  hydraulics/conferences/hyd2006.cfm

17
. . . And One More Thing . . .

• Re-establishment of Hydraulics Process Reviews
• Nationwide Drainage Reviews conducted for many
  years
• Useful interaction between FHWA/State DOTs
• Help to identify needs
• FHWA will welcome State DOTs requests through
  FHWA Divisions

18
Open Discussion