Office of Infrastructure

A P R E S E N TAT I O N I N T H E W E B I N A R G E N E R A L S E S S I O N F O R T H E 2 0 2 0 A N N UA L M E E T I N G O F

T H E A A S H TO C O M M I T T E E O N B R I D G E S A N D ST R U C T U R E S

J U N E 1 , 2 0 2 0

J O S E P H L . H A R T M A N N , P H D , P. E .D I R E C TO R , O F F I C E O F B R I D G E S A N D ST R U C T U R E S

FHWA Update

COVID-19 Related Activities National Bridge Inspection Standards

(NBIS) Rulemaking

Specifications for the National Bridge Inventory (SNBI)

Critical Findings Database NTSB FIU Pedestrian Bridge Collapse

Investigation Recommendation

Contents2

Divisible Load Permits on the Interstate For FY2020…“The term ‘qualifying emergency’ means…an event

for which the President declared a major disaster AND OR an emergency under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.” (CARES Act, Sec. 4502(a)(1)(B))

Potentially Late Bridge/Tunnel Inspections “…it is important that the Division Office work with their State

partner to document and implement a risk-based response plan that maintains bridge and tunnel safety during the delays, and produces the documentation needed to support the annual compliance determination.” (HIBS email to Division Offices)

COVID-19 Related Activities3

NBIS Regulation Update4

NPRM Published November 12, 2019

Comment period initially scheduled to close on January 13, 2020

Comment period extended 60 days

NPRM closed March 13, 2020

Required by MAP-21 Update methodology, training,

and qualifications for inspectors

Update frequency of inspection using a risk-based approach

Establish procedures for reporting and monitoring of critical findings

Establish national certification of bridge inspectors

Ensure uniformity of the inspections and evaluations

Overview of Proposed Changes5

Changes and lessons learned since last update (2004) Element level data Load rating vehicles Clarifications Fill gaps Address other questions

and requests for change

Method 1:Simplified Risk

Method 2:Rigorous Risk

Routine Interval 24 months ≤ 12 months (3 criteria) > 24 and ≤ 48 months (9 criteria)

Underwater Interval 60 months ≤ 36 months (2 criteria) 72 months (4 criteria)

NSTM Interval 24 months ≤ 12 months (3 criteria) > 24 and ≤ 48 months (4 criteria)

Routine Interval ≤ 12, 24, 48 or ≤ 72* months *>48, Service Insp. at 24 months Min. 5 criteria, min. 4 damage

mode types

Underwater Interval ≤ 36, 60 or ≤ 72 months Min. 5 criteria, min. 4 damage

mode types

NSTM Interval ≤ 12, 24 or ≤ 48 months Min. 5 criteria, min. 4 damage

mode types

6

Proposed 650.311 Inspection Interval

Method 1:Simplified Risk

Method 2:Rigorous Risk

Routine Interval 24 months ≤ 12 months (3 criteria) > 24 and ≤ 48 months (9 criteria)

Underwater Interval 60 months ≤ 36 months (2 criteria) 72 months (4 criteria)

NSTM Interval 24 months ≤ 12 months (3 criteria) > 24 and ≤ 48 months (4 criteria)

Routine Interval ≤ 12, 24, 48 or ≤ 72* months *>48, Service Insp. at 24 months Min. 5 criteria, min. 4 damage

mode types

Underwater Interval ≤ 36, 60 or ≤ 72 months Min. 5 criteria, min. 4 damage

mode types

NSTM Interval ≤ 12, 24 or ≤ 48 months Min. 5 criteria, min. 4 damage

mode types

7

Proposed 650.311 Inspection Interval

265 Sets of Comments

90 day load rating requirement

30 day load posting requirement

Inspection of private bridges

Reporting of critical findings

Agreements for delegating functions

Inspection intervals

8

Specifications for the National Bridge Inventory9

Proposed Incorporated Reference in the updated NBIS

Included in Federal Register (FR) docket for comment

1450 comments submitted to the FR

39 States

Format Comprehensive Example Simplified Appraisal Items Condition Code Changes Eliminating Culvert Designation Crash Tested Railing

Example Comment Topics10

Dislikes

Transition Plan11

Draft Final Rule and Preamble

Review by USDOT Review by OMB Publish (Enact) Final Rule

in the Federal Register Effective 30 days after

enactment Current target is to publish

next spring

12

MAP-21 requirement Collects 20 data items for each CF Conducted two pilots – Bridge CFs and Tunnel CFs Bridge Pilot: Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Washington State, and West Virginia

Tunnel Pilot: California, District of Columbia, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, and Virginia

Revise the specification and collection tool based on the results of the pilots and comments/suggestions received from the Division Offices involved.

Implementation of the CFD beginning summer 2020 Division Offices will be asked to update CFD quarterly

Critical Findings Database

Bridge Data Item Examples13

Bridge Pilot - Data Summary14

15

Tunnel Pilot - Data Summary

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

10200 Ventilation System 10650 Fire DetectionSystem

10700 Fire ProtectionSystem

10750 EmergencyCommunication System

NTEs with High Number of CFs Occurred

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)made 30 individual findings as a result of its investigation.

NTSB primarily identified “the load and capacity calculation errors made by FIGG Bridge Engineers, Inc., (FIGG) in its design of the main span truss member 11/12 nodal regionand connection to the bridge deck” as the probable cause of the accident.

NTSB made 11 recommendations: FHWA – 1 (joint recommendation to both FHWA and AASHTO) FDOT – 5 AASHTO – 3 FIGG – 2

NTSB Highway Accident Report FIU Pedestrian Bridge Collapse

16

“NTSB Highway Accident Report Miami” Assist the American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials with developing a requirement that concrete bridge structures be designed with reasonable estimates for interface shear demand, the cohesion and friction contributions to interface shear capacity, and the clamping force across the interface shear surface. (H-19-24)

FHWA/AASHTO Recommendation17

Design error…Findings #7 and #8 FHWA has engaged with T-10 (Concrete

Design)...methodology and language are clear. FHWA and AASHTO are primarily focusing on providing

emphasis to the current language on determining the permanent compressive force that should be used in determining interface shear capacity within the commentary to the specifications.

FHWA Initial Response18

Analysis error…Findings #8 and #11 FHWA has engaged with T-5 (Loads and Load

Distribution). The analysis errors cannot be addressed simply through changes to the design specifications.

FHWA and AASHTO believe that providing additional emphasis on the importance of verifying results generated from refined analysis is the most appropriate action.

Manual for Refined Analysis in Bridge Design and Evaluation (FHWA-HIF-18-046)

FHWA Initial Response19

Office of Infrastructure

A P R E S E N TAT I O N I N T H E W E B I N A R G E N E R A L S E S S I O N F O R T H E 2 0 2 0 A N N UA L M E E T I N G O F

T H E A A S H TO C O M M I T T E E O N B R I D G E S A N D ST R U C T U R E S

J O S E P H L . H A R T M A N N , P H D , P. E .D I R E C TO R , O F F I C E O F B R I D G E S A N D ST R U C T U R E S

Thank you for your time and attention.