Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Coatings Group 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

Why Prioritize Bridge Painting?

Why Prioritize? PLANNING  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

Where to Start Planning?  Bridge type  Size  Proximity  Location  Traffic Conditions  Deck  Substructure  Future Rehabilitation –Coating and Corrosion Condition

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 Monitor Learn Design

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

Historical - Toll Authority A  Years of “as-required” maintenance painting  Increasing environmental concerns  Increasing steel repair frequency  Painting Program was planned around 1990, implemented  Unofficial Program Goals  Reduce lead paint liabilities  Reduce as-needed steel repairs  Improve bridge appearance  Define needed funding

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

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

Define the Problem – Toll Authority A

Track Progress – Toll Authority A

Yearly Costs – Toll Authority A Average = $14.9M per Year Average = $21.4M per Year

Types of Painting – Toll Authority A

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

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)

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

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

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

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 engineer’s estimates for near-term painting costs

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

Painting Options – Toll Authority B  Total Coating Removal and Replacement  Zone Coating Repair (Beam Ends, Bearings, Weathering Steel)  Maintenance Spot Painting and Full Overcoating

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

Prioritization Matrix – Toll Authority B

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

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

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

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

Cost vs. Corrosion Theoretical

Cost vs. Corrosion Actual

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

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

Feedback is Needed  Programs are tools – use for designated purpose and within limitations Monitor Learn Design

Using Feedback

Prioritization Program Comparisons AuthorityABC Budget Justified the level of effort to secure funding Budget was pre- determined Program fit priorities to variable funds Technical Data Initial survey with biennial updates Initial survey, one planned update Initial survey with Authority / consultant updates Cost Data Living history of project data used in budget updates Engineer estimates as project schedules advance N/A - program ranks need, Authority builds and estimates projects

Prioritization Program Cost

Inspection vs. Expectation

Planning a Project

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