Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.Coatings Group

Review of Maintenance Prioritization Review of Maintenance Prioritization Schemes from Three Transportation Schemes from Three Transportation AuthoritiesAuthorities

Christopher L. Farschon, P.E., PCSGreenman – Pedersen, Inc. Coatings Group

October 7, 2009NACE Eastern Area Conference

Why Prioritize Bridge Painting?Why Prioritize Bridge Painting?

Why Prioritize? PLANNINGWhy 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?Where to Start Planning?

Bridge typeSizeProximityLocationTraffic ConditionsDeckSubstructureFuture Rehabilitation

– Coating and Corrosion Condition

Goals of a Prioritization ProgramGoals 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

MonitorMonitor

LearnLearn

DesignDesign

Three AuthoritiesThree 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 AHistorical - Toll Authority AYears of “as-required” maintenance painting Increasing environmental concerns Increasing steel repair frequencyPainting Program was planned around 1990,

implemented 1993-1995Unofficial Program Goals

Reduce lead paint liabilities Reduce as-needed steel repairs Improve bridge appearance Define needed funding

Program Description – Toll Authority AProgram 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 AProgram 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 ADefine the Problem – Toll Authority A

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Co

ati

ng

De

teri

ora

tio

n -

pe

rce

nt

<10% = Optimum Coating Maintenance

20%Deterioration Line

Predicted Trend Without Program

(44% by 2006)

Original Program Goal (10% by

2006)

Track Progress – Toll Authority ATrack Progress – Toll Authority A

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Biennial Cycle

Co

ati

ng

De

teri

ora

tio

n -

pe

rce

nt

Line representing the original program goal (10% by 2006)

Predicted trend without program (44% by 2006)

20%Deterioration Line

<10% = Practical goal for 12-year program

Triangles represent percentage of bridge area requiring paint repair based on biennial inspection data.

Trend line of actual results to date

2% = Optimal / Ideal level of paint deterioration

1995-1996 1997-1998 1999-2000 2001-2002 2003-2004 2005-2006 2007-2008 2009-2010

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

$22,000

$24,000

$26,000

$28,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

$ in

th

ou

san

ds

Yearly Costs – Toll Authority AYearly Costs – Toll Authority A

Average = $14.9M per Year

Average = $21.4M per Year

Types of Painting – Toll Authority ATypes of Painting – Toll Authority A

TBTA PaintingCumulative SF - New Coating, Overcoat, and Total

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Year

SF

in

th

ou

sa

nd

s

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

Unit Cost Trends – Toll Authority AUnit Cost Trends – Toll Authority A

Low early – High middle – Lower recentlyWorst 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 ACost/Specification Factors- Authority A

Size of the projectMobilization and staging areasAccess to work- placement of equipment

Lane closures, water - barge etc.

Environmental controls Inspection requirements - warrantyConfiguration or type of structureLabor, equipment, and material costsBidding climate (other work, available bidders)

Program Summary – Toll Authority AProgram Summary – Toll Authority A

Budgets were justified Funding allocatedProjects designedConditions 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 - BToll 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 programsCoordination with other maintenance workConstructability a key factor

Project Background – Toll Authority BProject 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 BBudget / 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 BBridge Surveys – Toll Authority B

Technical Paint Condition Data – Adhesion, thickness, lab tests, visual survey data for paint (peeling and corrosion)

Development of square footage quantitiesOther considerations - Deck and Joint

condition, planned rehabilitations and prior painting work

Painting Options – Toll Authority BPainting Options – Toll Authority B

Total Coating Removal and ReplacementZone Coating Repair (Beam Ends, Bearings,

Weathering Steel)Maintenance Spot Painting and Full

Overcoating

Prioritization – Toll Authority BPrioritization – 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 BPrioritization Matrix – Toll Authority B

CORROSION MPT/Staging Envir/Contain Agency Deck FINAL

Bridge ID RATING Complexity Complexity Coordination Condition SCORE

1 GSP 28.0N 10 2 5 4 3 242 GSP 28.0S 6 2 5 4 3 203 GSP 31.0 8 5 3 4 3 234 GSP 49.0 4 3 5 4 3 195 GSP 51.9 4 3 3 3 3 166 GSP 127.2T 2 3 5 4 5 197 GSP 127.2S8 GSP 158.2 4 1 2 3 3 139 NJT P0.00 4 1 1 1 5 12

10 NJT 84.24N11 NJT 84.24S 4 4 5 4 3 2012 NJT E107.88 6 5 5 4 5 2513 NJT W107.8714 NJT E109.83 4 5 3 4 3 1915 NJT N2.01 4 1 0 3 3 1116 NJT W115.36

maximum ratings 10 5 5 5 10 35

= Sister weathering steel bridges

Project Sequencing – Toll Authority BProject Sequencing – Toll Authority B

Projects of constructible size and duration were appropriately prioritized / sequenced

Highest 2 priorities under design /constructionUpdate 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 BProgram Summary – Toll Authority B

Select group of bridgesProjects designed and estimated to fit available

budgetTechnical data / conditions were not always the

priority driverProgram is based on a snapshot survey of

facilitiesFollow-up survey will be needed

AuthorityAuthority C C

State Department of Transportation District1998 projectOver 1,000 bridges

Majority are highway overpasses and smaller structures

Semi “Automated” database systemUsed condition data, constraints, project-

specific factorsPrioritization was based on Return on

Investment

Technical Basis – Authority CTechnical 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

Investment of Cost

Investment of Cost - Investment from GainROI

Cost vs. Corrosion TheoreticalCost vs. Corrosion Theoretical

Cost vs. %Corrosion

0.1% 1.0% 10.0% 100.0%

% Corrosion

Co

st

Spot Repair

Maintenance Repaint

Remove and Replace

Cost vs. Corrosion ActualCost vs. Corrosion Actual

Cost vs. % Corrosion

0.1% 1.0% 10.0% 100.0%

% Corrosion

Co

st

Spot Repair

Maintenance Repaint

Remove and Replace

Program Summary – Authority CProgram 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 attainedDegradation models and cost factors were fixedConstraints were variableDoes not estimate budgets

Common ThreadsCommon Threads

All prioritization programs were customAuthority constraints were customAll used existing data sources with

enhancementsAll need maintenance to remain accurateAll provide a starting point for defendable

analysis

Feedback is NeededFeedback is Needed

Programs are tools – use for designated purpose and within limitations

MonitorMonitor

LearnLearn

DesignDesign

Using FeedbackUsing Feedback

Painting ProgramSquare Feet per Year (actual + forecast)

-

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

1,000.000

1,200.000

1,400.000

1,600.000

1,800.000

2,000.000

2,200.000

2,400.000

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

Years

Sq

uar

e F

eet

of

Pai

nti

ng

per

Yea

r (t

ho

usa

nd

s)

New PaintingMaintenance PaintingEstimated Maintenance

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

Prioritization Program ComparisonsPrioritization Program Comparisons

Authority A B C

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 CostPrioritization Program Cost

Planning/Prioritization Program Cost

0.4%

0.2% 0.2%

0.1%

1.0%

10.0%

100.0%

Toll Authority A Toll Authority B Authority C

Authority

% o

f C

on

stru

ctio

n

Inspection vs. ExpectationInspection vs. Expectation

Planning a ProjectPlanning a Project

ConclusionsConclusionsMaintenance painting is neededAll 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 adaptableUse existing data or existing inspection activities