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 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

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 Design Traffic Aesthetics

Monitor

Be adaptable

Learn

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 1993-1995 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

50%
Predicted Trend Without Program (44% by 2006)

40% Coating Deterioration - percent

30%
Original Program Goal (10% by 2006)

20%
20%Deterioration Line

10%
<10% = Optimum Coating Maintenance

0% 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000 Year

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Track Progress Toll Authority A

50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 2 1995-1996 3 1997-1998 4 1999-2000 5 2001-2002 6 2003-2004 7 2005-2006 8 2007-2008 9 2009-2010 10 20%Deterioration Line Line representing the original program goal (10% by 2006) Trend line of actual results to date Predicted trend without program (44% by 2006) Triangles represent percentage of bridge area requiring paint repair based on biennial inspection data.

Coating Deterioration - percent

<10% = Practical goal for 12-year program 2% = Optimal / Ideal level of paint deterioration

Biennial Cycle

Yearly Costs Toll Authority A

$28,000 $26,000

Average = $21.4M per Year Average = $14.9M per Year

$24,000 $22,000 $20,000 $18,000 $ in thousands $16,000 $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Types of Painting Toll Authority A

TBTA Painting Cumulative SF - New Coating, Overcoat, and Total
New - Actual / Forecast SF New - Original Goal SF Ovrct - Actual / Forecast SF Ovrct - Original Goal SF Total - New + Ovrct Act/Frcst SF Total - New + Ovrct Orig Goals

20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000

SF in thousands

12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

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 engineers 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

CORROSION MPT/Staging Complexity Envir/Contain Complexity Agency Coordination Deck Condition FINAL SCORE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Bridge ID GSP 28.0N GSP 28.0S GSP 31.0 GSP 49.0 GSP 51.9 GSP 127.2T GSP 127.2S GSP 158.2 NJT P0.00 NJT 84.24N NJT 84.24S NJT E107.88 NJT W107.87 NJT E109.83 NJT N2.01 NJT W115.36 maximum ratings

RATING

10 6 8 4 4 2 4 4 4 6 4 4

2 2 5 3 3 3 1 1 4 5 5 1

5 5 3 5 3 5 2 1 5 5 3 0

4 4 4 4 3 4 3 1 4 4 4 3

3 3 3 3 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 3

24 20 23 19 16 19 13 12 20 25 19 11

10

10

35

= Sister weathering steel bridges

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
Gain from Investment - Cost of Investment ROI = Cost of Investment

Current coatings and corrosion condition ratings Exposure environment ratings Predicted life to next painting event

Cost vs. Corrosion Theoretical

Cost vs. %Corrosion

Cost

Spot Repair Maintenance Repaint Remove and Replace

0.1%

1.0%

10.0% % Corrosion

100.0%

Cost vs. Corrosion Actual

Cost vs. % Corrosion

Cost

Spot Repair Maintenance Repaint Remove and Replace

0.1%

1.0% % Corrosion

10.0%

100.0%

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

Design

Monitor

Learn

Using Feedback
Painting Program
Square Feet per Year (actual + forecast) 2,400.000 2,200.000
Square Feet of Painting per Year (thousands)

2,000.000 1,800.000 1,600.000 1,400.000 1,200.000 1,000.000 800.000 600.000 400.000 200.000 19 92 19 94 19 96 20 00 20 02 20 04 20 06 20 08 20 10 20 12 20 14

New Painting Maintenance Painting Estimated Maintenance

A: 11.3% (7-10 years) B: 41.1% (11-17 years) C: 47.5% (18-30 years)

20 16

20 20

20 22

Years

20 24

19 98

20 18

Prioritization Program Comparisons

Authority
Budget

A
Justified the level of effort to secure funding Initial survey with biennial updates Living history of project data used in budget updates

Budget was pre- Program fit determined priorities to variable funds Initial survey, one planned update Engineer estimates as project schedules advance Initial survey with Authority / consultant updates N/A - program ranks need, Authority builds and estimates projects

Technical Data Cost Data

Prioritization Program Cost

Planning/Prioritization Program Cost
100.0%

% of Construction

10.0%

1.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% Toll Authority A Toll Authority B Authority Authority C 0.2%

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