TAM Case Study - Bridge Management Practices in Idaho, Michigan, and Virginia

Transportation Asset Management Case Studies

Presented by

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Highway

Administration

BRIDGE MANAGEMENT

Practices in Idaho, Michigan and Virginia

Cover: Perrine Bridge, courtesy of Idaho Transportation Department

Note from the Director

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of Inspector General (OIG) recommended in Janu-

ary 2009 that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) evaluate the State Departments of Trans-

portation’s implementation and use of Bridge Management Systems (BMS) and provide technical assis-

tance to them as needed.

With such factors as an aging national infrastructure and limited funds weighing heavily on transporta-

tion agencies, State DOTs are looking for innovative and proactive ways to manage and maintain their

transportation assets and to maximize the performance of both their transportation systems and or-

ganizations. Transportation asset management is a strategic approach to managing transportation

infrastructure assets and their performance. The goal of transportation asset management is to mini-

mize the whole-life costs for managing and maintaining transportation assets.

A transportation asset management performance based approach can provide valuable information for

planning, programming, and overall management of the transportation network. Information from

management systems is essential in transportation decision-making and helps organizations establish

realistic agency goals, setting investment levels across assets.

The FHWA Office of Asset Management, Pavements and Construction will continue to advance the

concepts and initiatives of asset management through such tools as the new AASHTO Transportation

Asset Management Guide, various webinars, peer-exchanges, training and workshops. We are combin-

ing our efforts to better manage our transportation assets.

In an effort to provide technical assistance to the bridge community, we have undertaken a number of

activities to share information on best practices. We have developed publications that include case

studies of best practices from State DOTs or other organizations on various topics including bridge

management and culvert management. Recently, we conducted a review of Bridge Management prac-

tices in Idaho, Michigan, and Virginia with the goal to identify and promote best practices.

On behalf of the FHWA, we are pleased to present you the Bridge Management Systems Case Study of

Idaho, Michigan, and Virginia. I believe the case study will be helpful as you work toward implement-

ing and advancing bridge management systems in your agency

Butch Wlaschin

Director, Office of Asset Management, Pavement, and Construction

Note to the Reader

The Transportation Asset Management Case Study series is the result of a partner-

ship between State departments of transportation and the FHWA Office of Asset

Management. The FHWA provides the forum from which to share information, and

the individual states provide the details of their experiences. For each case study

report, the FHWA and a contractor interviewed State transportation staff, and the

resulting material was approved by the State. As such, the reports rely on the

agencies’ own assessment of their experience. Readers should note that the re-

ported results may or may not be reproducible in other organizations.

Contributors

Case studies were prepared by George Hearn using information provided by State

DOTs and by the USDOT FHWA. Contributors include:

Idaho Transportation Department: Matt Farrar, Kathleen Slinger

Michigan Department of Transportation: David Juntunen, Amy Gill, Linda Reed,

Robert Kelley, Richard Kathrens

Virginia Department of Transportation: Kendal Walus, Adam Matteo, Jeffery

Milton, Prasad Nallapaneni

USDOT FHWA: Shyan-Yung Pan, Wade Casey, Sonny Jadun, Larry O’Donnell

Acronyms

AASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials

BCFS Bridge condition forecasting system

BMS Bridge management system

BSIR Bridge safety inspection report

CPM Capital preventive maintenance

CSM Capital scheduled maintenance

DBSIE District bridge safety inspection engineer

DMV Division of Motor Vehicles

DOT Department of Transportation

ECR Epoxy-coated rebar

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FO Functionally obsolete

FY Fiscal year

HBP Highway bridge program

HMA Hot-mix asphalt

ITD Idaho Transportation Department

LHTAC Local Highway Technical Assistance Council

MBIS Michigan bridge inspection system

MBRS Michigan bridge reporting system

MDOT Michigan Department of Transportation

N/A Not applicable

NBI National Bridge Inventory

NBIS National Bridge Inspection Standards

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

OIG Office of Inspector General

QA Quality assurance

QC Quality control

S&B Structure and Bridge Division

SD Structurally deficient

SF Square feet

STC State Transportation Commission

STIP Statewide transportation improvement program

TAMC Transportation Asset Management Council

TAMS

Idaho: Transportation asset management system

Virginia: Turnkey asset maintenance services

TMS Transportation management system

US United States

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation

Executive Summary

Bridge management practices of departments of transportation (DOTs) in three US states, Idaho, Mich-

igan and Virginia, are reported. These DOTs are examples of the success that is possible for asset man-

agement practices applied to bridges and culverts. Idaho, Michigan and Virginia employ bridge man-

agement practices that include four features:

• Measurement of performance of bridges and culverts with targets for performance.

• Work programs that respond to performance measurements and targets.

• Reporting to stakeholders on performance of bridges and culverts.

• Commitment within DOTS to preservation of existing assets.

Idaho, Michigan and Virginia measure the performance of bridges and culverts using National Bridge

Inventory (NBI) general condition ratings. Idaho reports network-level performance as the percentage

of structures in good condition. Michigan and Virginia report the percentage of structures in fair or

good condition. The lowest NBI general condition rating for a structure determines its classification.

These DOTs identify structures in fair condition as having all NBI condition ratings at 5 or higher (Table

1). Idaho TD reports percentages for deck area on structures. Virginia and Michigan report percent-

ages for counts of structures. Virginia identifies its performance classifications as red, yellow and

green, rather than poor, fair and good. Red structures are structurally deficient (SD). Yellow structures

are functionally obsolete (FO). Green structures are neither deficient nor obsolete.

Table 1

Structure Condition &

NBI General Condition Ratings

Structure Condition

Good Fair Poor or SD

Idaho TD ≥ 6 5 ≤ 4

Michigan DOT ≥ 7 5, 6 ≤ 4

Virginia DOT - - ≤ 4

Transportation departments in Idaho, Michigan and Virginia employ preservation as a means of bridge

management. Structures in fair or good condition that have adequate traffic capacity and adequate

load rating are preserved more easily than they could be rebuilt or replaced. But needs at structures in

poor condition may seem to be more urgent. Funding, always limited, can be exhausted in projects

for structures in poor condition if priorities are evaluated among structures as a single population. The

adaptation seen in practices in Idaho, Michigan and Virginia is a segmentation of structure populations,

and a separation of work programs. Based on their general conditions, structures are identified as

good, fair or poor, and so become candidates for maintenance to preserve good conditions, for repairs

to avoid poor conditions, or for rehabilitations to remedy poor conditions. There are budgets directed

to each work category, and projects are selected and prioritized within each work category. This allows

structures in good and fair condition to receive needed maintenance and repair.

Each State’s strategy for management of structures is quantified as the mix of funding directed to pre-

ventive maintenance at healthy structures, to repair of structures with defects, and to rehabilitation of

structures with major defects. Idaho, Michigan and Virginia each identify three categories of work to

keep bridges and culverts in service. The categories provide actions for 1) Cleaning and patching; 2)

Deck overlays, painting, and repair or replacement of devices such as joints, and; 3) Rehabilitation in-

cluding work such as deck replacements. The names of the work categories differ (Table 2). At Idaho

TD, the work categories are operation, preservation and restoration. Michigan identifies scheduled

maintenance, preventive maintenance and rehabilitation. Virginia has work categories for preventive

maintenance, restorative maintenance and rehabilitation.

Table 2

Work Categories

for Structures

Typical Actions

Work Category

Idaho TD Michigan DOT Virginia DOT

Clean, patch Operation

Capital

Scheduled

Maintenance

Preventive

Maintenance

Overlays, Joint

repair/replacement

Preservation

Capital

Preventive

Maintenance

Restorative

Maintenance

Rehabilitation,

Deck replacement

Restoration Rehabilitation Rehabilitation

Strategies are adjusted in response to performance measures. Projects are selected to be consistent

with strategies, to deliver programs that balance needs statewide, and to recognize the limited capaci-

ties in DOT district offices to develop and manage projects. Strategies are set by bridge management

staff. Staff make use of outputs from BMS. Once strategies are set, decisions in selection and prioriti-

zation of projects begin with BMS data, usually as lists of structures needing work. Lists are reviewed

and revised in consultations among DOT staff in district offices and the central office.

Transportation departments in Idaho, Michigan and Virginia use Federal highway bridge program (HBP)

funds for preventive maintenance of bridges and culverts under agreements with the USDOT FHWA.

Actions for preventive maintenance include repairs, deck overlays, joint replacements, and corrosion

protection including painting (Table 3).

Table 3

HBP-Eligible

Preventive

Maintenance

Idaho TD Michigan DOT Virginia DOT

Repairs,

Deck overlays,

Joint replace,

Deck Rehabilitation

Repairs,

Deck overlays,

Joint replace,

Painting,

Slope repair

Joint replace, Deck overlays,

Painting/Coating, Cathodic protection,

Electrochemical chloride extraction,

Scour countermeasures,

Retrofit fracture-critical members,

Cleaning/washing structures

State maintenance crews perform cleaning, minor repairs, and clearing of embankments and channels.

Virginia DOT’s crews do some larger repairs on structures on secondary roads (Table 4).

Table 4

Work by State

Maintenance Crews

Idaho TD Michigan DOT Virginia DOT

Clean, Painting,

Sealing, Patching,

Debris removal

Repairs, Patching,

Spot painting,

Brush cutting

Maintenance, repairs and

rehabilitation of struc-

tures on secondary roads

Projects for replacements and improvements are included in statewide transportation improvement

programs (STIPs). Virginia DOT has, in addition to STIP, a dedicated fund program to replace SD bridges

on non-interstate routes.

Public accountability for management of bridges and culverts is provided by frequent reporting on

bridge conditions. Internet dashboards at each of these transportation departments report network-

level performance as percentages of structures meeting goals for general condition. Dashboards ad-

dress many aspects of performance of transportation systems including measures of traffic safety,

traffic operations, pavement conditions, structure conditions, financial management, program (con-

struction) delivery, access to transportation services and user satisfaction (Table 5).

Table 5

Dashboard

Performance Measures

Idaho TD Virginia DOT Michigan DOT

Bridge condition

Pavement condition

Safety

Traffic operations

Project delivery Public transit

Project costs Intermodal facilities

DOT administration Risk/Vulnerability

DMV services Airport pavements

Idaho, Michigan and Virginia apply asset management principles to physical assets that include struc-

tures and pavements, and to operational and administrative aspects of department activities. These

states implement data systems to support asset management, including comprehensive systems for

management of multiple asset classes. Table 6 lists data systems for asset management developed by

or for these DOTs.

The abilities among DOT staff have increased greatly since the earlier days of automated bridge man-

agement systems. DOT staff know what the program outcomes ought to be. Staff know that work can-

didates and projects must have adequate scope and be reasonably coordinated along routes and

throughout a State. Staff abilities are evident in the ownership role taken by DOTs in BMS analysis and

analytical software. Virginia DOT extends Pontis capabilities with a post-processor to make realistic

work plans for bridges. Michigan DOT uses Markov deterioration models expressed in NBI condition

ratings that offer recommendations for projects to add to existing work plans using unencumbered

portions of budgets. Idaho has applied an analysis of improvements to performance that could be, and

subsequently were, achieved by dedicated funding for preventive maintenance of structures.

Table 6 - Data Systems for Asset Management

Idaho TD Michigan DOT Virginia DOT

TAMS

, including Bridge Condition Forecasting System Roadway Network System

Financial Planning TMS

, including Optimizer for Pontis

Pavement Management Bridge Reporting System

Maintenance Management Bridge Inspection System

Fleet and Equipment System Congestion Management

Network Management Intermodal Management

WebCars (vehicle crash data) Pavement Management

Public Transportation Management

Safety Management

Asset management enjoys political support in Idaho, Michigan and Virginia. The focus on performance

and reporting underscores the importance of asset management to these DOTs and their State gov-

ernments. The transportation departments get direction on asset management goals and methods

from advisory boards or councils. Michigan DOT has an internal transportation asset management

program that interacts with a Transportation Asset Management Council (TAMC). TAMC, a part of

Michigan State government, oversees asset management activities of all State and local agencies. Ida-

ho TD has a bridge asset management unit and a separate transportation asset management unit. Both

report to Idaho’s State Transportation Board.

Asset management has mandates in State law. State law in Michigan and in Virginia defines terms in

preservation, maintenance and asset management. Michigan law establishes the TAMC and creates its

central role in statewide direction of asset management. Virginia law requires the use of asset man-

agement procedures, and periodic reporting on asset conditions and on the budgets and programs

intended to maintain assets.

Asset management of structures has improved conditions of structures. Idaho has increased the per-

centage of structures in good condition from 67% in 2006 to 73% in 2010. Michigan increased its per-

centage of good and fair bridges from 79% in 1998 to 91.6% in 2011. Virginia increased its percentage

of fair and good structures from 90.3% in 2000 to 92.3% in 2011.

Transportation Asset Management System (TAMS)

Transportation Management System (TMS)

Background

Bridge management has been an evolving area of practice among US State DOTs for more than twenty

years. During that time, states have made steady progress in development of bridge management

practices, in measurement of performance of bridges and culverts, and in capabilities of data systems.

This progress is documented in case studies of bridge management experiences of California, Florida,

and South Dakota published in 2007

, and in case studies of bridge management practices of Idaho,

Michigan and Virginia presented here.

Transportation departments in Idaho, Michigan and Virginia have bridge management practices that

are similar in outline, but different in detail. Specific targets for performance measures differ. Specific

activities identified as structure preservation or structure restoration differ. Levels of funding directed

to preservation and to restoration differ. But each DOT has a program to preserve structures. Each

DOT tracks structures in good or fair condition as a performance measure. Each DOT evaluates work

strategies in terms of performance measures. And each DOT has made improvements in recent years

in performance measures for structures.

DAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT

The Idaho Transportation Department’s (ITD) practice for management of bridges and culverts is data-

driven and expert-mediated. The practice is data-driven because project selection and prioritization

begins with BMS data on structure conditions and work needs. It is expert-mediated because ITD staff

in both central and district offices advance or delay specific work candidates based on knowledge of

local needs together with global assessments of contributions to statewide mobility. In short, data on

structure condition, age and service are examined to identify work candidates and to select appropri-

ate actions. Projects indicated by data are reviewed jointly by ITD staff in the central office and in dis-

trict offices to arrive at work programs.

ITD has funding dedicated to structure preservation and to structure restoration. These dedicated

funds are part of ITD’s focus on performance of structures and networks. Preservation and restoration,

together, have allowed ITD to shift away from a worst-first approach to work programming.

ITD’s management of structures responds to, and is guided by, performance measures. ITD’s goal is to

have 80% of State-owned bridges in fair or good condition

Administration

ITD is guided by a seven-member Transportation Board appointed by the Governor of Idaho. The Board

sets policy and general direction for ITD

. ITD has six divisions

. ITD’s Highway Division is responsible

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/bmcs7toc.cfm

Using ITD’s definitions of fair and good conditions. See Table 1.

for State-owned roads and bridges. In ITD’s Highway Division, the Bridge Section has a unit for Bridge

Design and a unit for Bridge Asset Management. The Bridge Asset Management Unit keeps data on

structure inventory and conditions, operates bridge management software, and performs structure

inspections and load ratings. The Bridge Design Unit develops and programs projects in preservation

and restoration of State-owned bridges and culverts.

Idaho has a Local Highway Technical Assistance Council

(LHTAC) that assists local agencies in construc-

tion and maintenance of local roads.

Inventory of Structures

There are nearly 4200 bridges and culverts in Idaho (Figure 1). Of these, 3681 meet the national bridge

inspection standards (NBIS) definition of a bridge

; others are short spans

. There are 1800 State-

owned bridges and culverts. ITD manages more than 1700 sign structures. ITD has one movable bridge;

a border bridge shared with Washington State.

Figure 1 - Idaho Structures (year 2011)

Structures Count

NBIS Structures

State-owned, highway bridges > 20’ 1300

County or locally owned

highway bridges > 20’

2381

Non-NBIS Structures

State-owned, highway bridges ≤ 20’ 500

Ancillary Structures

Overhead sign structures 1743

In 2011, ITD reported 52 SD bridges and 201 FO bridges in the State-owned inventory (Table 7). Bridges

owned by local agencies include more than 295 SD bridges.

Table 7

ITD SD/FO Bridges

System

Structurally

Deficient

Functionally

Obsolete

Interstate 16 129

US Route 15 19

State Highway 20 13

Other 1 40

Facts and Figures 2010 (2010) ITD, 48p.

Administration, Aeronautics, Highways, Motor Vehicles, Transportation Planning, Public Transportation

http://www.lhtac.org/

Bridges and culverts on public roads with span greater than 20 ft.

Bridges and culverts with spans between 10 ft. and 20 ft.

Year 2011 counts from ITD Bridge Asset Management Unit.

Management of In-Service Structures

ITD manages in-service bridges and culverts with programs for operations maintenance, preservation

and restoration (Table 8). Operations maintenance includes cleaning, channel clearing, minor repairs

and some painting and coating activities

. Preservation includes repairs and replacements of compo-

nents, some rehabilitation, and painting. Preservation also includes preventive maintenance activities

such as crack sealing, seal coating, and thin overlays

. Some preventive maintenance activities are

eligible for Federal HBP funds. Restoration includes rehabilitation and replacement. Rehabilitation

projects can be preservation or restoration depending on extent and cost.

Table 8

ITD

Work

Programs

& Activities

Program Activities

Operations

Maintenance

Clean structure, Clear drains

Painting

, Coating and sealant applications

Minor deck patching

Railing repairs

Debris removal, Stabilizing banks

, Correcting erosion problems

Preservation

Structure improvements, Rehabilitation

Rail modification

Deck protection systems, Crack Sealing, Seal Coating, Repairs

Overlays

, Replacements

Joint repairs

and replacements

Painting

Incidental repairs

Restoration

Structure rehabilitation, Replacement

Deck replacement

Incidental repairs

Local bridge

Structure rehabilitation, Replacement

Deck replacement

Painting

Structure Management by Local Agencies

Local governments and agencies in 191 cities, 33 counties, 64 local highway districts, 5 metropolitan

planning districts, and one transportation management area (metro-Boise)

manage highway struc-

tures. Idaho’s LHTAC develops uniform standards for local highway maintenance, construction, opera-

tion and administration. LHTAC makes recommendations to the Idaho Transportation Board for the

prioritization and use of Federal funds for local highway projects.

Maintenance Manual (2011) ITD, http://itd.idaho.gov/manuals/Online_Manuals/Maintenance/index.htm

Idaho’s Transportation Vision (2004). Idaho Transportation Partners 84p.

Federal-aid eligible preventive maintenance activity.

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (2011). ITD, 121p.

Work Programming

Operations maintenance to clear drains and make minor repairs is managed in ITD districts. Needs in

operations maintenance are identified in road surveys by maintenance foreman, and collected from

lists of needs that ITD’s Bridge Asset Management Unit sends to districts four times each year. The

bridge asset management unit compiles lists of work needs from reports of safety inspection.

Bridges and culverts are programmed for preservation or for restoration based on their condition and

age. Guidelines are flexible. In general, structures having an NBI general condition rating at 5 or lower

are restored. Structures in good condition are preserved. Structure age is important. Younger struc-

tures are preserved. Older structures are restored.

ITD’s central Bridge Design Unit develops programs for structure preservation and restoration. The

Unit collects lists of structures, their conditions and their needs from the BMS. The Unit examines

structural deficiencies, scour-critical status, structure age, NBI general condition ratings and element-

level condition reports. Knowledgeable input is sought and used. Bridge inspectors are asked to identi-

fy their top work candidates. As projects emerge, the Unit considers route, average daily traffic, and

location to form balanced statewide programs. Project selections are reviewed and refined in face-to-

face meetings with staff in each of ITD’s six districts. District staff have a great influence in decisions on

projects. The final, consensus list of projects goes forward to ITD’s STIP.

SD bridges and culverts are programmed for replacement under ITD’s bridge restoration program.

Functional improvements are made when structures are replaced or rehabilitated; that is, functional

defects are addressed when structures are programmed for work due to poor or deficient condition.

Projects for structures are added every year as the fifth year of a continuing STIP. The STIP delivers

projects for preservation and restoration of pavements and structures, as well as projects for highway

expansion and safety. Projects are added to the STIP after approval by the Idaho Transportation Board.

Bridges and culverts owned by local agencies are prioritized for restoration or replacement according

to their NBI sufficiency ratings. LHTAC gets sufficiency ratings for structures from ITD, and coordinates

with local bridge owners to develop work programs. Once prioritized, projects are programmed to the

extent of available funding.

Performance Measures

ITD tracks performance measures that include traffic fatalities, on-time completion of projects, com-

parison of construction costs and estimates, conditions of pavements, and conditions of bridges

ITD’s strategic plan identifies performance measures and goals

(Table 9). ITD reports performance

measures at an internet Dashboard

(Figure 2).

Annual Accountability Report (2010) ITD, 24p.

2011 Strategic Plan (2011). ITD, 2p.

http://itd.idaho.gov/dashboard/default.htm

Table 9 - ITD Performance Measures and Goals

Asset Performance Measure Goal

Safety Five-Year Annual Fatality Rate Per 100 Million Miles Traveled 1.38

Highways

Pavements in Good or Fair Condition 82%

Bridges in Good Condition 80%

Services

Percentage of Current-Year Projects Developed on Time 100%

Bid Amounts Between 90% and 110% of Construction Budgets 100%

User satisfaction

Completion Time for Title Requests 7 Days

Internet Transactions Processed by DMV annually 225,000

Performance of bridges and culverts is measured as the percentage of network deck area on state-

owned structures in good condition

. Currently (year 2011) structures in good condition make up 73%

of state-owned deck area, fair structures make up 20% of deck area, and poor structures make up 7%.

Structures in good condition have increased from 67% to 73% of network deck area in the last five

years.

Figure 2 - ITD Dashboard (portion)

see Table 1

Bridge Management - Data Systems

ITD uses AASHTOWare Pontis bridge management analytical software to store inventory data, condi-

tion data, and inspectors’ recommendations for work on bridges and culverts

. The Pontis database

includes data for both State-owned and locally-owned bridges (Figure 3).

Figure 3 - ITD Bridge List (portion)

ITD is developing other data systems for management of transportation assets and operations

. These

include a financial planning system, pavement management system, maintenance management sys-

tem, fleet and equipment system, mobility (network) management system, and safety (WebCars) man-

agement system.

Systems for pavement management and maintenance management are integrated under a Transpor-

tation Asset Management System (TAMS); a data system developed for ITD

. The maintenance man-

agement system will generate and track work orders including work orders for needs at structures.

Maintenance actions will be coded in a numbering series presented in ITD’s maintenance manual

TAMS may eventually integrate data from Pontis BMS.

BMS Analyses

In 2009 as part of a study of transportation funding, ITD analyzed the outcomes in structure conditions

that would result from funding directed to structure preservation and restoration. In the analysis,

structure conditions were related to structure age. Costs for preservation and restoration projects

were expressed in terms of bridge deck area. Various budget levels were investigated. Greater or lesser

budgets delivered preservation and restoration at greater or lesser aggregate quantity of bridge deck.

In the analysis, costs for projects were costs to preserve or restore conditions, plus costs to remedy

structural deficiencies and functional obsolescence. The analysis showed that funding directed to a mix

of preservation and restoration projects would lead to better conditions among structures. One result

of the study is ITD’s current strategy for management of in-service bridges and culverts. ITD’s strategy

directs approximately 20% of funding to preservation and 80% of funding to restoration.

Management of Idaho’s Bridges (2009). ITD, Technical Report 18, 4p.

The Transporter (2010) ITD, webpage, http://itd.idaho.gov/transporter/2010/121710_Trans/121710_TAMS.html

Bridge Management Staff

Management of in-service structures is performed by the ITD Bridge Design Unit and ITD Bridge Asset

Management Unit. Both units report to the ITD Chief Engineer. The Bridge Design Unit identifies struc-

tures needing work and develops work programs. The Bridge Asset Management Unit is responsible for

safety inspections and load ratings, and operates ITD’s implementation of Pontis BMS. BMS analytical

software is operated by a full-time database manager with part-time participation by the Bridge In-

spection Engineer

and the State Bridge Engineer

The Bridge Design Unit has a staff of twelve engineers (including three squad leaders) and six techni-

cians. The Bridge Asset Management Unit has three engineers, four bridge inspectors, one bridge

equipment specialist and one BMS database manager.

ITD has a Transportation Management Unit that operates TAMS software and oversees its continued

development.

Bridge Inspection

ITD’s Bridge Asset Management Unit is respon-

sible for inspection of the entire population of

4200 State- and locally-owned highway struc-

tures

. Underwater inspections are performed

at 232 bridges. Safety inspections collect both

NBI general condition ratings and element-level

condition reports. ITD has developed additional

bridge elements, beyond the set of AASHTO

commonly recognized elements.

ITD’s bridge

elements include bridge wingwalls, bridge gus-

set plates, submerged abutments and sub-

merged piers (Table 10).

Locally-owned bridges and culverts are inspect-

ed by consultants managed by ITD’s Bridge Asset

Management Unit. Inspectors’ recommendations for work on structures are transmitted to bridge

owners. ITD reports data on structure inventory, conditions and sufficiency ratings to LHTAC and to

bridge owners for their use in prioritizing work.

Quality Review of Inspection Data

ITD’s procedures for quality review and assurance include periodic field review of each ITD inspection

team leader, and each consultant inspection team. The ITD Bridge Inspection Engineer makes field

Head of ITD Bridge Asset Management Unit

Head of ITD Bridge Design Unit

American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials

AASHTO Guide For Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Structural Elements. (1997). AASHTO, Washington, 60p.

Single-Point Urban Interchange, Idaho

reviews of ITD team leaders. ITD team leaders, located in ITD districts, make field reviews of consult-

ant inspection teams. Office reviews are made of a sample of reports from inspections performed by

ITD team leaders, and of all reports from inspections performed by consultants. Reports from inspec-

tion consultants are reviewed by ITD inspection team leaders and by the ITD database manager.

Table 10

ITD Additional

Structure Elements

and Flags

No. Name Unit

Structure Elements

162 Unpainted Gusset Plate(s) EA

163 Painted Gusset Plate(s) EA

209 Reinforced Concrete Wingwall EA

208 Timber Wingwall EA

224 Painted Steel Submerged Pile EA

218 Reinforced Concrete Submerged Abutment LF

219 Reinforced Concrete Submerged Pier Wall LF

Smart Flags

364 Steel Connection Distress EA

Scour Monitoring

ITD uses BridgeWatch

for real-time monitoring of 250 scour-vulnerable bridges. BridgeWatch uses

weather data and stream flow data to post alerts for individual bridges according to stream flow condi-

tions specified by ITD.

Reporting

ITD publishes manuals for inspection, maintenance and evaluation of structures, and reports on trans-

portation performance, capital programs, department administration and department goals and strat-

egies.

ITD manuals related to bridge management include a bridge inspection coding guide

, a maintenance

manual

, a bridge evaluation manual

, and a manual for funding of local highway jurisdictions

. ITD

publishes annual accountability reports

, reports of projects and costs in the current STIP

, reports on

formation and inputs to the STIP

, a strategic plan

, a long-range plan

, and ITD’s Vision

. ITD pub-

lishes annual facts and figures reports5 that outline ITD organization, administration and funding.

Budgets for In-Service Structures

ITD’s six divisions6 have a combined annual budget of $539M (FY 2010). The highway division receives

87% of the total. Preservation and restoration of State-owned bridges and culverts are funded at about

Idaho Bridge Inspection Coding Guide (2010) ITD, 185p.

http://www.usengineeringsolutions.com/solutions/bridgewatch/

ITD Manual For Bridge Evaluation - Section 6: Load Rating (2010) ITD, 44p.

Manual on Local Highway Jurisdictions Funding (2003) LHTAC, 25p.

Capital Investment Program - All Districts - By Program (2010) ITD Office of Transportation Investment, 97p.

Idaho On The Move (2010). ITD, 48p.

$48M per year; 9% of ITD’s total budget. Funding for local and off system structures is about $14.7M

per year (Figure 4).

Funding for major work on local bridges and culverts is mostly Federal-aid funding. Allocation and use

of Federal funds for local roads is controlled by the Idaho Transportation Board

Program

5-Yr Funding

$ Thousands

Preservation - ITD Bridges 46,910

Restoration - ITD Bridges 190,924

Local Bridges 38,815

Off System Bridges 35,026

Figure 4 Bridge Programs in ITD’s 2011-2015 STIP

Bridge Management Achievements

ITD is improving the conditions of its bridges and culverts by funding programs for preservation and

restoration, by using inventory and condition data to identify work candidates, and by engaging the

inputs of bridge inspectors and ITD district personnel to assemble effective work programs.

ITD invested in work to develop deterioration models and cost models in Pontis, but has found that a

staff-managed process to identify work candidates is effective.

Bridge Management Future

ITD’s bridge management process has improved Idaho’s efforts to reach performance goals. ITD notes

that the AASHTOWare Pontis BMS is currently undergoing changes that affect element-level inspec-

tions and bridge deterioration modeling. ITD looks forward to incorporating these changes in its bridge

management process in the future. Resources are limited though, both in availability of ITD staff and in

funding to engage consultants to maintain models for deterioration and for costs. ITD uses Pontis to

complement, rather than supplant, engineers’ judgment in selection of work candidates and projects.

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Michigan DOT executes programs for preventive maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement to

manage in-service bridges and culverts, uses performance measures to direct work programs and to

monitor progress in networks, applies deterioration models in programming and budgeting, and relies

on deterioration models as meaningful predictors of structure conditions to be achieved, or incurred,

by greater or lesser funding for programs.

Michigan DOT’s deterioration models are notable. Michigan DOT forms Markov chains for NBI condi-

tion ratings, and tracks each structure by its lowest condition rating. The resulting models employ

relatively few transition probabilities. Calibration of models each year and for each DOT region is prac-

tical.

Bridge Inspection, Michigan DOT

Recent history of bridge programs at Michigan DOT is instructive. A strategic plan to improve deficient

bridges and preserve good bridges was implemented more than a decade ago. Michigan DOT estab-

lished funding allocations for preventive maintenance and rehabilitation of bridges in good and fair

condition, and for replacement of bridges in poor condition. Since adopting this strategy, conditions

among Michigan DOT bridges have improved, and the number of SD bridges has been reduced by more

than half (Figure 5).

Figure 5

Michigan SD

Structures (State-owned)

Administration

Michigan DOT is guided by a State Transportation Commission (STC) that is assisted by TAMC. STC sets

policy for system preservation and development, and for long-term planning for all modes of transpor-

tation

. TAMC establishes methods and standards for asset management processes

. For bridge

management, Michigan DOT’s Bridge Operations Section interacts with bridge engineers in DOT re-

gions to develop programs for work, to monitor conditions, and to evaluate the success of programs

for bridges and culverts. The Section collects and digests data on structure conditions, computes per-

formance measures, and reports these to the TAMC, to Michigan State government and to the public.

Strategic Plan for Trunkline Bridges

In 1998, Michigan DOT established a strategic plan

for bridges on trunkline

roads. The plan identi-

fied bridge condition as a performance measure, set goals for bridge condition, and established work

categories for bridges. The strategic plan allowed Michigan DOT to transition from ‘worst first’ pro-

gramming to a balance of preventive maintenance, rehabilitations and replacements.

2011 System Performance Measures Report. Michigan DOT, 80p.

About the State Transportation Commission (2011) http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-

9623_31969_31970-29364--,00.html

Transportation Asset Management Council (2011)

http://tamc.mcgi.state.mi.us/MITRP/Council/Default_Council.aspx

Strategic Investment Plan for Trunkline Bridges (1998). Michigan DOT, 30p.

Trunkline roads include interstate routes, US routes and State routes.

The plan worked. More than 90% of freeway

bridges are in good or fair condition

today (year 2011)

compared to 76% in 1998

Inventory of Structures

Michigan DOT maintains 4400 state-owned bridges and culverts having over 49 million square feet (SF)

of deck area. Nearly 1700 bridges are freeway bridges. Michigan DOT maintains about 40% of the

bridges in the State, and about 75% of bridge deck area. Local agencies own and maintain 6400 bridges

and culverts. Michigan DOT also manages short spans

, pedestrian bridges, railroad bridges, high mast

lights, and sign structures. Counts of structures are shown in Figure 6.

Structures Count

NBIS Structures

State-owned, highway bridges > 20’ 4403

Toll authority owned

highway bridges > 20’

County or locally owned

highway bridges > 20’

6437

Other highway bridges > 20’ 30

Non-NBIS Structures

State-owned, highway bridges ≤ 20’ 1060

Pedestrian bridges 173

Railroad bridges 127

Ancillary Structures

High mast lights 350

Overhead sign structures ~1000

Figure 6 Michigan Structures

Management of In-Service Structures

Michigan DOT applies programs for preventive maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement in its

management of in-service bridges and culverts

(Table 11). Preventive maintenance includes activities

identified as Capital Scheduled Maintenance (CSM)

and activities identified as Capital Preventive

Maintenance

(CPM). CSM keeps structures in good condition using activities such as structure wash-

Bridges that carry or cross controlled-access roads.

Good = NBI condition ratings 7 and higher; Fair = NBI condition ratings 5 and 6.

Transportation System Performance Measures (2011). Michigan DOT,

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT-Performance_Measures_Report_289930_7.pdf

Bridges and culverts with span between 10 ft and 20 ft.

Counts are from MDOT’s response to questionnaire for BMS case study, 2011.

Typical Work Activities For Bridge Preservation Components (2008) Michigan DOT 1p.

Bridge Capital Scheduled Maintenance Manual (2010) Michigan DOT, 59p.

Project Scoping Manual (2009) Michigan DOT, 462p.

ing, joint repairs, drain maintenance, crack sealing, and removal of debris and vegetation. CPM is ap-

plied to structures in fair condition. CPM activities include painting, joint replacements, deck overlays,

pin/hanger replacements and scour countermeasures. Rehabilitation of in-service bridges includes

deck overlays, and major repairs to superstructures or substructures. Michigan DOT’s replacement

program includes deck replacement, superstructure replacement and substructure replacement, as

well as complete replacement of structures.

Table 11 - Michigan DOT Actions for In-Service Structures

Capital Scheduled Maintenance Capital Preventive Maintenance

Superstructure washing Pin & hanger replacement

Vegetation control Complete painting

Drainage system cleaning / repair

Zone painting

Spot painting

Joint replacemen

Joint repair

Epoxy overlay

Concrete sealing

Deck patching

Minor concrete patching and repair

Scour countermeasures

Concrete crack sealing

HMA overlay with waterproofing membrane

Approach pavement relief joints

HMA cap (no membrane)

Slope paving repair

Minor substructure repair

Reseal construction joints

Rehabilitation

Concrete overlay – shallow Extensive substructure repair

Concrete overlay – deep Substructure repair

Superstructure repairs Substructure replacement

Beam end repairs Replace bridge rail

Diaphragm repair/replacement Widen bridge

Bearing rehabilitation

Replacement

Deck replacement Culvert replacement

Superstructure replacement Structure replacement

Maintenance by Local Agencies

Local agencies in Michigan manage and inspect their own bridges and culverts. There are local road

agencies in 83 counties and approximately 450 municipalities. Work programming for locally-owned

structures is administered by the Michigan DOT Local Agency Program assisted by a Local Bridge Advi-

sory Board and by seven Regional Bridge Councils. Michigan’s TAMC publishes a guide to bridge asset

management for local agencies

that includes relevant State law, an overview of NBIS, and sample

Federal-aid eligible preventive maintenance activity.

Asset Management Guide for Local Agency Bridges in Michigan (2011) TAMC, 78p.

asset management plans for structures. Asset management plans identify maintenance and preserva-

tion activities, relate condition data to selection of activities, provide intervals for scheduled mainte-

nance, and list likely service life of repairs.

Work Programming

Michigan DOT follows a collaborative process to develop work programs for bridges and culverts. DOT

regions propose new projects in response to an annual call for projects from the central Bridge Opera-

tions Section. The annual call begins in September each year with instructions transmitted from DOT

central office to DOT regions. Instructions to regions include proposed strategies. Strategies, set by the

central Bridge Operations Section, are expressed as the mix of funding directed to preventive mainte-

nance, rehabilitation, and replacement. DOT regions respond with projects, costs and expected out-

comes. The Bridge Operations Section analyzes regions’ selections and their contributions to goals for

network performance.

Selection Criteria

Conditions of structures determine assignments to pro-

grams. Structures in good condition are assigned for pre-

ventive maintenance, structures in fair condition are as-

signed for rehabilitation, and structures in poor condition

are assigned for replacement.

Michigan DOT publishes decision matrices for preventive

maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of bridge

decks.

46,47

Decision matrices identify repair options in re-

sponse to deck conditions, and the expected duration (life)

achieved by each repair. A portion of the decision matrix for

decks with uncoated reinforcing steel is shown in Table 12.

Big Bridges

Michigan DOT has thirty-one Big Bridges. These include movable bridges, unique bridges and bridges

with deck area in excess of 100,000 SF. The central Bridge Operations Section manages safety inspec-

tions, work planning, and work programming for big bridges. Michigan DOT develops 50-year plans for

each big bridge showing the anticipated years and costs of projects for preventive maintenance and

rehabilitation.

Scour Vulnerability

Michigan DOT prioritizes projects for scour-vulnerable structures using assessment methods developed

for NCHRP

. The NCHRP report, intended to help DOTs recognize and mitigate hazards in general,

presents six steps to vulnerability assessment and response: 1) Identify critical assets; 2) Assess vulner-

Bridge Deck Preservation Matrix – Decks With Epoxy Coated Rebar (ECR) (2011) Michigan DOT 2p.

Bridge Deck Preservation Matrix – Decks With Uncoated “Black” Rebar (2011) Michigan DOT 2p.

A Guide to Highway Vulnerability Assessment for Critical Asset Identification and Protection (2002). NCHRP

20-07/Task 151B, 42p.

Deck Repair, Michigan DOT

abilities; 3) Assess consequences; 4) Identify countermeasures; 5) Estimate costs of countermeasures,

and; 6) Review operational security. Michigan DOT identifies scour-vulnerable structures and then

combines the risk of scour-related failure at structures with the impacts on mobility resulting from loss

of structures. Structures that possess both greater potential for failure and greater importance to net-

works are the higher priorities for scour remediation.

Table 12 - Bridge Deck Preservation - Decks with Uncoated Reinforcing Steel

Deck Condition State

Repair

Options

Repair

Life,

Years

Top Surface Bottom Surface

BSIR

#58a

Defect

Area

BSIR

#58b

Defect

Area

≥ 5

N/A N/A N/A Seal Cracks/Healer Sealer 1 to 4

≤ 5% > 5 ≤ 2% Epoxy Overlay 10 to 15

≤ 10% ≥ 4 ≤ 25% Deck Patch 3 to 10

4 or 5

10% to

25%

5 or 6 ≤ 10% Deep Concrete Overlay 25 to 30

10% to

25%

Shallow Concrete Overlay 20 to 25

HMA Overlay + membrane 8 to 10

2 or 3 > 25% HMA Cap 2 to 4

< 3 >25%

> 5 < 2% Deep Concrete Overlay 20 to 25

4 or 5 2% to 25%

Shallow Concrete Overlay 10

HMA Overlay + membrane 5 to 7

2 or 3 >25%

HMA Cap 1 to 3

Replace Deck use Epoxy Coated Rebar 60+

Performance Measures

Michigan DOT tracks performance of pavements, bridges, intermodal assets, public transportation,

safety, and airport runways. Performance of bridges and culverts is measured using NBI general condi-

tion ratings. Michigan DOT’s goal is to have at least 85% of non-freeway structures and at least 95% of

freeway structures with no NBI general condition ratings less than 5 (Figure 7).

BSIR = Bridge Safety Inspection Report

Figure 7 - Michigan DOT Freeway Bridge Condition

Bridge Management - Data Systems

For management of bridges and culverts, Michigan DOT uses data systems that include AASHTOWare

Pontis BMS, and two applications developed by Michigan DOT: a Transportation Management System

(TMS) that holds inventory and condition data for most transportation assets, and a Bridge Condition

Forecasting System (BCFS) (Figure 8) that models deterioration and evaluates the outcomes of pro-

posed bridge programs.

Figure 8 - Michigan DOT BCFS

2010 Annual Report Dashboard (2011). TAMC, http://tamc.mcgi.state.mi.us/MITRP/Data/PaserDashboard.aspx

TMS is a central database with web-accessible portals adapted to management areas that include

structures, pavements, congestion, safety, public transportation, intermodal transportation, and air-

port runways. For bridges and culverts, portals in TMS include:

Michigan Bridge Reporting System (MBRS) - Access to structure inventory and condition data; access to

lists of critical structures, SD bridges, and Federal-aid eligible structures; access to work pro-

grammed for structures (Figure 9).

Michigan Bridge Inspection System (MBIS) – Portal to assign, track and report safety inspections for

bridges and culverts.

Figure 9

Michigan Bridge

Reporting System

Bridge Condition Forecasting System

Michigan DOT has developed BCFS, an application to forecast network-level conditions of bridges from

current conditions, budgets, deterioration transition probabilities, and improvement probabilities.

BCFS operates with NBI general condition ratings. Deterioration models and improvement probabilities

are expressed in the 9-0 NBI scale. BCFS operates on an input population of structures expressed as

counts of structures at each NBI condition rating. BCFS can analyze structures statewide, or within one

DOT region. BCFS employs three work programs: Preventive maintenance, rehabilitation, and replace-

ment. Each program is represented as a single generic action. In consequence, BCFS operates with

three average costs only. Work programs are expressed as budget amounts. BCFS applies as many pro-

jects in each program as the program’s budget allows.

BCFS uses lists of programmed work to compute unencumbered budgets and to avoid duplication of

work. Future conditions are the combination of improved conditions at structures included in work

programs and continued deterioration at other structures. Forecasts of future condition include antici-

pated effects of programmed work and BCFS-generated projects.

Pontis BMS

Michigan DOT uses Pontis BMS to generate lists of potential work candidates and activities. Agency

rules for Pontis have been developed and refined through repeated use to achieve outputs from Pontis

that are consistent with Michigan DOT policy for programs. Pontis’ lists of potential projects are trans-

mitted to DOT regions for their use in development of work programs.

Michigan DOT uses Pontis to forecast the number of years until structures reach poor condition; that

is, have at least one NBI general condition rating of 4 or lower. The analysis uses Pontis’ deterioration

models together with the NBI translator.

Bridge Management Staff

Bridge management is the responsibility of Michigan DOT’s Bridge Operations Section, a part of the

DOT Construction Field Services Division. The Section performs activities in management, inspection,

and load rating. The Section provides technical guidance for bridge fabrication, erection, assembly,

construction quality assurance, fracture critical members, and mechanical and electrical systems for

movable bridges.

The Bridge Operations Section develops policies on preventive maintenance, rehabilitation and re-

placement work, provides guidance to regions in annual calls for projects, sets budgets for work pro-

grams, and analyzes the impacts of work programs on conditions of structures. The Section maintains

structure data and data applications. This entails annual updates to cost workbooks and annual calibra-

tion of deterioration models in BCFS. Bridge management activities are performed by three to four

staff in the DOT central office, and one or two staff in each of seven regional offices. Bridge manage-

ment activities are led by the State Bridge Operations Engineer.

Data Collection

Michigan DOT inspects all State-owned bridges and culverts having span of 10 feet or greater

. Michi-

gan DOT collects both NBI general condition ratings and element-level condition reports. Michigan

DOT’s data record for structure inventory and appraisal includes NBIS data items plus additional

items

. Additional data items identify railing type and paint type, and provide additional information

on load posting, and on pins and hangers.

Michigan DOT has developed additional bridge elements and smart flags, beyond the set of AASHTO

commonly recognized elements

. Additional elements provide for a range of concrete reinforcing

materials and types of joints. Additional smart flags indicate conditions of decks, false decking, con-

crete coatings, hard contact at ends of beams, and anchors in concrete for sign or utility attachments

to structures.

Pontis Bridge Inspection Manual (2009) Michigan DOT, 101p.

Michigan Structure Inventory and Appraisal Coding Guide (2009) Michigan DOT, 125p.

Michigan DOT collects a subset of inventory data for structures that do not carry roadways. These data

include structure type, length, location and the agency having maintenance responsibility.

Quality Control. Quality Assurance.

Michigan DOT conducts independent review of 10% of safety inspection reports for quality control

(QC). Reviews are performed by peer team leaders, and include field verification of reports. Reviews

are logged by report, inspector, and reviewer.

Michigan DOT conducts quality assurance (QA) review of DOT regions every eight years; typically re-

viewing one region per year. Central office inspection activities undergo QA review, too, at 8-year in-

terval. QA reviews examine inspection reports, load ratings, structure inventory and appraisal data,

and element-level data. Michigan DOT manages QA reviews of bridge programs of local agencies. Most

QA reviews of local agencies are performed by consultants to Michigan DOT.

Reporting.

Michigan DOT issues publications related to bridge management data systems and data coding

51,52

maintenance activities

42,43,46,47

, costs of activities

53,54

, planning

34,55,56, 57

, and performance

50,58,59, 60

Michigan DOT reports annually on conditions and performance measures for transportation assets

TAMC prepares a similar, but separate, annual report on performance

. The DOT report is posted at

an interactive website

. Data from TAMC’s report is posted as an internet dashboard (Figure 10)

Michigan DOT publishes average unit costs for activities in preventive maintenance

, and in structure

rehabilitation and replacement

. Costs are prepared by the Bridge Operations Section as Excel work-

books, and are available to DOT regions for project development.

Capital Scheduled Maintenance Bridge Project Cost Estimate (2010) Michigan DOT, Excel workbook.

Bridge Repair Cost Estimate (2010) Michigan DOT,

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/BridgeRepairCostEstimate_112227_7.xls

MI Transportation Plan Moving Michigan Forward – 2005-2030 State Long-Range Transportation Plan (2007).

Michigan DOT, 32p.

State Long-Range Transportation Plan, 2005-2030, Highway/Bridge Technical Report (2006) Michigan DOT, 120p.

2011-2015 Five-Yea Transportation Program (2011) Michigan DOT, 70p.

Driven by Excellence A Report on Transportation Performance Measurement at MDOT (2010) Michigan DOT, 28p.

Highway Bridge Report - Listed By County (2011) Michigan DOT, 142p.

Michigan’s Roads and Bridges 2010 Annual Report (2010). TAMC, 41p.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT-Performance_Measures_Report_289930_7.pdf

http://tamc.mcgi.state.mi.us/MITRP/Data/PaserDashboard.aspx

Figure 10 - Michigan TAMC Dashboard

Budgets for Bridge Programs

Michigan DOT’s annual baseline budget for in-service bridges and culverts

is $185 million combined

State and Federal funds. Average allocations are shown in Figure 11. Funding for preventive mainte-

nance, rehabilitation, and replacement is 88% of the program for in-service structures. The relative

funding levels of 23% for preventive maintenance, 31% for rehabilitation, and 46% for replacement are

the current DOT strategy. The allocation shown for Big Bridges is an average annual amount; it can vary

significantly year to year. Special Needs are essential repairs at structures in poor condition. Emerging

Technologies are project-level trials of new methods and materials.

Bridge

Program

Allocation

Million $

Big Bridges 16.0

Special Needs 3.0

Emerging Technologies 3.0

Preventive Maintenance 35.9

Rehabilitation 48.9

Replacement 78.2

Figure 11 Michigan DOT Budgets for In-Service Structures

Structures with span 10 ft and greater.

In the current year (FY 2011), budget allocations provide projects for 198 bridges and culverts

. These

include preventive maintenance projects for 84 structures, rehabilitation of 62 structures, and re-

placement of 52 structures.

Michigan State government has determined that current funding for preservation of transportation

assets is not adequate. In 2009, a task force studied transportation funding outlooks and alternatives

Among its findings, the task force noted that declines in revenues from motor fuels taxes and increases

in material and construction costs is moving Michigan from under-investing in transportation assets to

dis-investing. The task force predicted that without new funding sources, poor conditions along State

trunkline routes could increase from the current level of 10% of pavements and structures to 35% by

the year 2015.

Improving Management of Structures

Michigan DOT identifies steps to improve management of highway structures. These include expanded

use of Federal HBP funds for preventive maintenance of locally-owned structures, the use of Federal

HBP funds for highway structures affected by comprehensive projects along road corridors, and the

consideration of relative benefits of structure preservation and structure functional improvements.

Coordination of work on structures within larger road projects can offer cost savings. The preservation

of structures that are functionally obsolete can sometimes be a useful alternative to replacement or to

taking no action at all.

Improving Data Systems

Michigan DOT identifies several areas of development for bridge management software. These include

a database of transition probabilities for bridge elements, offering both national and regional values; a

software utility to link contract pay items to costs of actions in BMS; greater capabilities in BMS to es-

timate costs of individual projects, and make comparisons among project alternatives, and; inclusion of

structure vulnerability and criticality in automated programming of work. Michigan DOT’s current

practice in prioritizing scour-vulnerable structures provides a model for this approach.

Impediments

Michigan DOT could expand its use of data systems for management of structures. Michigan DOT is

limited at present by lack of staff and of funding for information technology and particularly for devel-

opment of web-based applications.

These are 178 highway bridges, 7 culverts, and 13 pedestrian bridges.

Transportation Solutions A Report on Michigan’s Transportation Needs and Funding Alternatives (2009). Michigan

Transportation Funding Task Force, 84p.

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) maintains State-owned bridges and culverts, and

monitors the conditions of all structures on public roads in the State. VDOT’s role in structure mainte-

nance includes direct work by State crews and contractors, oversight of autonomous asset mainte-

nance contractors, QA reviews of local government bridge construction programs, and guidance to

local government bridge owners. Most maintenance of State-owned structures is performed by con-

tractors. All operations maintenance on interstate routes is delivered by asset maintenance contactors.

In some Virginia counties, maintenance of secondary roads is managed by county governments using

State-provided funds.

State law

66,67

requires the use of asset management processes, and periodic reporting on conditions of

transportation assets. Managed assets include pavements, pavement markings, bridges, culverts, signs,

guardrails, ditches, shoulders and cross pipes.

Deck Replacement, Corrosion-Resistant Reinforcing Steel, Virginia DOT

For bridges and culverts, VDOT has work programs that deliver projects for rehabilitation, restoration

and preventive maintenance together with service maintenance (deck washing, for example). VDOT

Virginia General Assembly, Appropriation Act Item 444 A. (Special Session I, 2006)

Code of Virginia (2007). § 33.1-13.02.

implements six-year improvement plans that deliver projects for structures, and has a dedicated-fund

program to replace deficient structures on non-interstate routes.

Inventory of Structures

VDOT has responsibilities for nearly 13000 bridges and 8000 culverts

(Figure 12). Ninety-three per-

cent of these structures are owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Thirty-nine percent of structures

are on interstate and primary road systems. About 8% of bridges and culverts statewide are SD. VDOT

manages six tunnels, and more than 10000 sign structures, signal structures and high mast lights.

Structures Count

NBIS Structures

State-owned, highway bridges

and culverts > 20’

11,807

Toll authority owned,

highway bridges > 20’

County, or locally owned,

highway bridges > 20’

1,240

Other highway bridges > 20’ 124

Non-NBIS Structures

State-owned, highway bridges ≤ 20’ 2,694

County, or locally owned,

highway bridges ≤ 20’

Other highway bridges ≤ 20’ 17

Pipes, smaller culverts ≤ 20’ 4,942

Pedestrian bridges 15

Ancillary Structures

High mast lights 672

Overhead sign structures 1,362

Traffic signal structures 8,653

Tunnels 6

Luminaires 17,656

Sign structures (Cantilever, Bridge Mount-

ed, or Butterfly)

2,201

Camera poles 420

Figure 12 Virginia Structures

Includes short spans and structures not owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia

Management of In-Service Structures

VDOT lists standard activities

for work on in-service bridges and culverts (Table 13). Standard activi-

ties identify structure component (Bridge, Deck, Superstructure, Substructure, and Culvert) and work

category (Preventive Maintenance, Restorative Maintenance, Rehabilitation, Replacement, and Inspec-

tion/Engineering). Preventive maintenance includes cleaning/clearing of structures and channels, zone

coating, and minor repairs. Restorative maintenance

includes most repairs to structures. Rehabilitation in-

cludes major repairs and replacements of decks or su-

perstructures. Replacement is complete replacement

of structures. Inspection/engineering includes safety

inspections, load ratings and maintenance administra-

tion.

VDOT has planned-preventive maintenance activities

that are performed at set intervals to stay ahead of

potential deterioration (Table 14). Planned-preventive

maintenance activities are eligible for the Federal HBP

funds under an agreement between VDOT and the

FHWA.

VDOT has goals for its structure inventory: 1) Reduce the number of SD structures, 2) Restore struc-

tures that may become deficient, 3) Improve structure capacity as required for system growth, 4) Pre-

serve structures that are in good condition

, and 5) Furnish new structures that are more resistant to

deterioration than existing structures. In new construction, VDOT is eliminating deck joints, and using

protective systems and corrosion-resistant materials.

Recording and Tracking Bridge Maintenance Work (2010) IIM-S&B-85.1, VDOT, 5p.

Structures with all NBI general condition ratings ≥ 6

Bridge Replacement, Virginia DOT

Table 13 – VDOT Maintenance Activities

Category Activities

Preventive

Maintenance

Deck cleaning, Sealing, Thin-bonded overlay

Remove/replace joint seals, Repair/patch joint walls

Superstructure cleaning, Paint beam ends

Clean/lubricate bearings

Substructure cleaning, Culvert cleaning

Stream bank stabilization, Debris/vegetation removal

Restorative

Maintenance

Asphalt overlay/membrane, Rigid overlay, Latex/silica fume overlay, Deck patching

Repairs to rails, parapets, curbs, safety walks

Apply wood preservatives, Repair/replace timber deck boards, Tighten/replace deck

fasteners,

Reconstruct joints, Close joints, Install/repair relief joints

Bearing align, repair or replace

Paint, overcoat, recoat, and zone coat

Superstructure repairs

Substructure repairs, Settlement repair

Culvert repairs, Repair damaged headwalls/endwalls

Fill scour holes, Rip-rap, Other scour countermeasures

Rehabilitation

Replace bridge deck or superstructure

Replace/major repair of substructure

Extend culvert, Sleeve installation, Flowline restoration

Replacement Replace bridge or culvert

Inspection &

Engineering

Safety inspection, Load rating analysis, Work scheduling, Planning/budgeting, Work

oversight, Develop plans, specifications and/or contract documents for rehabilitation

or replacement

Maintenance Delivery

VDOT uses State crews, project-level contracts, ‘as-needed’ contracts and asset maintenance contracts

to maintain bridges and culverts. District-wide, as-needed maintenance contracts are set-up with bid

items for commonly-needed work at structures. Turnkey Asset Maintenance Services (TAMS) contracts

provide minor maintenance and incident management on interstate highways. VDOT makes great use

of contract maintenance. In FY 2008, $891 million of $1.20 billion (74%) of highway maintenance ex-

penditures were paid to the private sector

Maintenance by Local Agencies

Some cities and towns in Virginia manage structures and other transportation assets on their road

systems. Funding for local maintenance include local governments funds and street maintenance pay-

Federal-aid eligible preventive maintenance activities.

Annual Report on Initiatives for Outsourcing, Privatization and Downsizing within VDOT (2008) VDOT, 22p.

ments from VDOT. Safety inspections of locally-owned structures are executed by local governments

and reported to VDOT. VDOT performs QA reviews of local government bridge programs.

Table 14

VDOT

Planned-Preventive

Maintenance

Action

Interval

(years)

Bridge Management Services

Bridge deck washing (concrete) 1

Bridge deck sweeping 1

Seats and beam-ends washing 2

Cutting and removing vegetation 2

Routine maintenance of timber structures 2

Removing debris from culverts 5

Preventive Maintenance

Cleaning and lubricating bearing devices 4

Scheduled replacement of pourable joints 6

Scheduled replacement of compression seal joints 10

Scheduled beam ends painting 10

Installation of thin epoxy concrete overlay 15

Virginia has transferred (‘devolved’) maintenance responsibilities for secondary roads to some county

governments

. Maintenance by counties is supported by State funding. Counties that maintain assets

on secondary roads report the conditions of assets to VDOT.

Work Programming

VDOT examines structure conditions, status, and estimated costs to select work candidates and identi-

fy appropriate actions. When funding is available, in-service structures are replaced if they are SD and

if their NBI sufficiency rating is 50 or less, or if rehabilitation costs exceed 65% of replacement costs.

Structures are eligible for rehabilitation if their NBI sufficiency rating is 80 or less, and at least one NBI

general condition rating is below 6. Structures are eligible for restorative maintenance if at least one

NBI general condition rating is below 6 and limited repairs are needed. Preventive maintenance is

usually applied to structures that have no NBI general condition ratings below 6.

Functional obsolescence and weight restrictions at structures are addressed in projects for replace-

ment or rehabilitation. Functional obsolescence and weight restrictions, by themselves, usually do not

make structures candidates for work unless improvement of structures would have a significant effect

on commerce.

Most of the projects in VDOT’s structure maintenance program involve rehabilitation, restorative

maintenance and preventive maintenance. A dedicated-fund program replaces SD structures that are

Bridge Preservation (2011) VDOT, ppt, Structure and Bridge Annual Leadership Training, 76 slides.

Code of Virginia (2004). § 33.1-23.5:1.

not on interstate routes. Some projects for replacement

or rehabilitation are delivered as part of Virginia’s Six-

Year Improvement Plans

Bridge Risk

VDOT identifies risk in terms of the number of struc-

tures that may become SD if not repaired. At-risk struc-

tures have at least one NBI general condition rating

equal to 5, but no condition ratings below 5. These

structures are candidates for restorative maintenance

(Table 13). In 2011, VDOT had 1720 SD structures and

4720 structures at risk.

Review, Improvement of Bridge Programs

VDOT forms topical index committees to develop and update specifications, standards, details, and

design aids. There are six main committees (Table 15); each is chaired by an engineer from VDOT’s

Structure and Bridge Division (S&B). More than forty sub-committees deal with specific sub-topics.

Table 15

VDOT Topical

Index Committees

Design of Structures

Concrete Design

Steel Design

Geotechnical Design

Miscellaneous Design (sign structures, culverts, other structures)

Inspection & Bridge Management

Efforts to improve bridge programs include regular meetings of S&B engineers to review practices and

policies. There are monthly meetings of leadership within the central S&B group, monthly meetings of

S&B staff in each DOT district

, quarterly meetings between the State Structure and Bridge Engineer

and District Bridge Engineers, and annual meetings of central S&B staff with S&B staff in all districts.

Performance Measures

VDOT’s annual reports

present performance measures for structures that include counts of: 1) SD

structures; 2) FO structures; 3) Deficient structures (the sum of SD and FO structures); 4) SD structures

restored or deteriorated; 5) Weight-posted structures; and values of 6) Bridge health index; and 7)

Structure age. Performance measures for other transportation assets include pavement condition,

VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program, http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/allProjects.aspx

VDOT has nine districts: Bristol, Salem, Lynchburg, Richmond, Hampton Roads, Fredericksburg, Culpeper, Staun-

ton, and Northern Virginia

State Of The Structures And Bridges Report (2011). VDOT, 72p.

Jointless Bridge - Virginia DOT

pavement ride quality, and need for repairs of ditches, shoulders, cross pipes, signs and pavement

markings

Two measures, SD structures and FO structures, are reported at VDOT’s internet Dashboard

(Figure

13). The Dashboard also shows measures of pavement conditions, traffic safety, traffic congestion,

DOT expenditures compared to budgets, DOT administrative performance, inputs from citizens, and

on-time delivery of projects.

Figure 13

VDOT Dashboard

VDOT applies level-of-service grades to service maintenance of transportation assets. For bridges,

level-of-service is related to deck ride quality, and response time to restore ride quality

VDOT has goals to limit the percentages of SD bridges and culverts (Table 16). Goals vary by road sys-

tem. The statewide goal is structural deficiency at not more than 8% of bridges and culverts.

Biennial Report on the Condition and Performance of Surface Infrastructure in the Commonwealth of Virginia. HB

2838/SB 1128 (2007). VDOT, 33p.

http://dashboard.virginiadot.org/Default.aspx

Biennial Report on the Condition of and Investment Needed to Maintain and Operate the Existing Surface Trans-

portation Infrastructure for FY 2011 and FY 2012 (2009). VDOT, 87p.

Table 16

VDOT

Performance Measures

and Goals

SD Structures

System 2011 Value Goal

Statewide 8.2% ≤ 8%

Interstate Roads 3.4% ≤ 3%

Primary Roads 5.7% ≤ 6%

Secondary Roads 10.4% ≤ 11%

Locally-maintained roads 8.7% ≤ 8%

Bridge Management - Data Systems

VDOT uses Pontis BMS analytical software in bridge inspection, inspection QC, identification of work

candidates, statewide budgeting for in-service structures, allocation of budgets to DOT districts, report-

ing on structure conditions, computation of investment needs for structures, and for maintaining all

bridge and culvert inventory data.

VDOT is developing a bridge programming tool, called the Optimizer, that uses Pontis outputs to form

coherent work plans for structures. The Optimizer will provide realistic scoping for bridge projects, and

will propose projects that conform to VDOT criteria for bridge programs.

Bridge Management Staff

VDOT has four full-time staff members in its central S&B division who use bridge management soft-

ware on a regular basis. The Assistant State Structure and Bridge Engineer for maintenance works with

three other engineers on statewide maintenance planning and bridge management. These engineers,

a BMS team, review element-level condition data from safety inspections, and investigate unusual or

unexpected condition reports. The BMS team assists in selection of structures for repair, rehabilitation

and replacement. The BMS team reviews plans for maintenance and repair of structures, and manages

the distribution of VDOT’s dedicated bridge fund. The BMS team reviews completed maintenance

work on structures. The BMS team is supplemented by individuals in district bridge offices.

The BMS team prepares policy memos for bridge and culvert maintenance and rehabilitation

. The

BMS team identifies best practices in bridge and culvert maintenance and rehabilitation, and evaluates

the performance of new materials and systems for bridges and culverts.

Data Collection

In safety inspections, VDOT collects both NBI general condition ratings and element-level condition

data

. VDOT defines ten additional structure elements and eleven additional smart flags, beyond the

set of AASHTO commonly recognized elements

. Additional elements include types of sidewalk, steel

girders supporting timber deck, slopes, wingwalls, and slabs under fill. Additional smart flags address

Instructional and Informational Memoranda of the Structures and Bridge Division are posted at

http://www.virginiadot.org/business/bridge-ii-memoranda-index.asp

Element Data Collection Manual (2007). VDOT, 92p.

utilities on structures, drains, lighting, pavements over culverts, debris in channels, and deck replace-

ment needs.

Quality Control, Quality Assurance

District Bridge Safety Inspection Engineers (DBSIE) review all inspection reports for structures in DOT

districts. DBSIEs perform QC review of inspection teams each quarter. VDOT central office performs

annual QA reviews of the inspection programs of all DOT districts.

Districts offices perform QA reviews of local agency bridge programs. QA for local agencies includes

office review of bridge and culvert inspection folders, and field verification of a sample of inspection

reports.

Reporting

VDOT makes annual reports of conditions of transportation assets

and biennial reports of invest-

ments needed to maintain and improve assets

. Reports on asset conditions include current values,

trends and goals for performance measures. Biennial reports on investments identify the maintenance

and improvement needs for nine asset classes (Table 17). Biennial reports include estimated costs for

needed maintenance and improvement of assets during the next biennium, current values of perfor-

mance measures, and, in some reports, the total funding needed to remedy all deficiencies and de-

fects.

Table 17

VDOT Reporting on

Transportation Assets

Pavements Pavement markings Cross pipes

Bridges/culverts Guardrails Ditches

Tunnels Signs Shoulders

Budgets for Bridge Programs

Annual funding for bridges and culverts is $510M (FY 2011), with about 50% going to projects in six-

year plans, 16% to the dedicated bridge fund, 26% to preventive maintenance, restorative mainte-

nance and rehabilitation, and 8% to service maintenance (Figure 14). Virginia’s 2012-2017 six-year plan

provides $258M per year (average) for projects for bridges and culverts. The dedicated bridge fund

provides about $80M per year. Maintenance funding is about $172M per year. Dedicated bridge funds

and maintenance funds are allocated by the DOT central office to the DOT districts on the basis of total

needs, historical levels of expenditures, and available funds. Maintenance funds are applied to in-

vestments in structures ($131M) and service for structures ($41M). Investments include activities in

preventive and restorative maintenance, and rehabilitations. Service for structures include deck wash-

ing, bridge inspection and bridge load rating.

Program

Annual

Budget

$ Millions

Six-Year Plan, Bridge and culvert projects 258

Dedicated Bridge Fund

(structure replacement, non-interstate roads)

Maintenance

Prevention, Restoration, Re-

habilitation

131

Service for Structures 41

Figure 14 Annual Budgets for In-Service Structures (year 2011)

VDOT identifies funding needs for several levels of performance for structures. Funding of $4.67B

would replace all SD bridges and culverts. Funding of $850M would reduce the number of SD bridges

and culverts to meet current goals for performance (Table 16). Funding of $344M would provide all

restorative maintenance needs in the next biennium. Funding of $99.1M would provide all preventive

maintenance activities during the next biennium.

Bridge Management Achievements

VDOT’s management of bridges and culverts is part of a department-wide commitment to asset man-

agement of transportation infrastructure. VDOT makes programmatic use of performance measures,

and reports performance measures to Virginia government and citizens. VDOT uses, and enhances,

BMS analytical software to identify work candidates and actions for candidates. VDOT pursues simul-

taneous programs for planned-preventive maintenance, for restoration and rehabilitation, and for

replacement. Simultaneous, but separate, programs and funding ensure that preventive maintenance

and restoration go forward, even though there are pending needs for replacement of deficient struc-

tures.

VDOT identifies two avenues for further improvement of management of bridges and culverts. One is

funding. Policy at the Federal level to recognize and reward states’ success in structure preservation

would support current practices and prompt State DOTs to increase preservation efforts. The other is

BMS analytical software. A better, user-friendly interface for BMS analytical software is needed. Better

project-level analysis and tracking are needed. An update to the NBI translator is overdue, both to

correct its existing limitations, and to accommodate newly defined national bridge elements

AASHTO Bridge Element Inspection Manual (2011) AASHTO, 172p.

FURTHER INFORMATION:

USDOT Federal Highway Administration Shyan-Yung Pan

Office of Asset Management

202-366-1567, Shyan.Pan@dot.gov

Idaho Transportation Department Matthew M. Farrar

Bridge Engineer

208-334-8538, Matt.Farrar@itd.idaho.gov

Kathleen Slinger

Bridge Asset Management Engineer

280-334-8407, Kathleen.Slinger@itd.idaho.gov

Michigan Department of Transportation David Juntunen

Bridge Operations Engineer

517-322-5688, juntunend@michigan.gov

Virginia Department of Transportation Kendal R. Walus

State Structure and Bridge Engineer

804-786-4575, [email protected]ia.gov

Trademarks

AASHTOWare® is a registered trademark of the American Association of State Highway Transportation

Officials (AASHTO). Pontis® is a registered trademark and proprietary software product of AASHTO.

Quality assurance statement

The FHWA provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a man-

ner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the

quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. The FHWA periodically reviews quality issues

and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Photography Credits

Photographs courtesy of Idaho Transportation Department, Michigan Department of Transportation,

and Virginia Department of Transportation.

Front Cover: Perrine Bridge, Twin Falls, Idaho