Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

4/1/2017 3:01 AM FHWA Status Report - AASHTOWare Bridge Design/Rating User Group Meeting Virginia Beach, VA August 6-7, 2013 Thomas Saad, P.E. Senior.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "4/1/2017 3:01 AM FHWA Status Report - AASHTOWare Bridge Design/Rating User Group Meeting Virginia Beach, VA August 6-7, 2013 Thomas Saad, P.E. Senior."— Presentation transcript:

1 4/1/2017 3:01 AM FHWA Status Report - AASHTOWare Bridge Design/Rating User Group Meeting Virginia Beach, VA August 6-7, 2013 Thomas Saad, P.E. Senior Structural Engineer Federal Highway Administration Phone: (708) © 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries. The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

2 Outline Design and Analysis Tools Research
LRFR Implementation Webinars New FHWA Design Manuals and Design Examples Design and Analysis Training Research Long-Term Bridge Performance Program (LTBPP) Policy and Regulatory Issues NBIS Update NBI Coding Guide Update NTIS Etc…

3 FHWA LRFR Webinar Series
Topic No. 1: Implementation of the Load and Resistance Factor Rating Method, October 5, 2011 Topic No. 2: LRFD/LRFR Design and Load Rating of Culverts, November 17, 2011 Topic No. 3: LRFR Load Rating of Segmental Concrete Bridges, January 19, 2012 Topic No. 4: State-Specific LRFR Load Rating Guidelines, April 19, 2012

4 FHWA LRFR Webinar Series
Topic No. 5: Application of Load Testing in Bridge Load Rating (1), September 20, 2012 Topic No. 6: Application of Load Testing in Bridge Load Rating (2), December 6, 2012 Topic No. 7: Application of Computer Software in Bridge Load Rating (1), February 28, 2013 Topic No. 8: Application of Computer Software in Bridge Load Rating (2), April 25, 2013 Recordings:

5 LRFR Webinar No. 9: Load Rating of Steel Truss Bridges (1)
September 12, 1:00 – 3:30 pm EDT Focus on evaluation of gusset plates New gusset design/analysis provisions Gusset plate load rating methods case study Evaluating deteriorated gusset plates

6 Other FHWA Design and Analysis Tools www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge
Steel Bridge Design Handbook – Available Fatigue Repair and Retrofit Manual - Available Refined Analysis Manual – early 2014 PT Box Girder Design Manual – early 2014 FHWA PT Installation and Grouting Manual – release expected very soon Manual on Engineering Stability in Construction of Bridge Superstructures – early 2014

7 FHWA/NHI Bridge Design and Analysis Courses (www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov)
NHI Course : LRFD for Bridge Superstructures NHI Course : LRFD for Bridge Substructures and ERS NHI Course : LRFR for Highway Bridges NHI Course : LRFD Seismic Analysis and Design of Bridges NHI Course : LRFD Seismic Analysis and Design of Tunnels, Walls and other Geotechnical Features NHI Course : LRFD: Design and Analysis of Skewed and Horizontally Curved Steel Bridges

8 FHWA Seismic Retrofit Seminar
1 ½ day seminar (9 PDH) Overview of FHWA Seismic Retrofit Manual Develop design response spectrum identically to current LRFD Delivered in IN, IL, NY, NJ, GA, MA, TN, UT

9 Seismic Design Category (zone) (500 year Return Period)
Zone 1-SDC “A” Zone 2-SDC “B” Zone 3-SDC “C” Zone 4-SDC “D” Just showing accelerations isnt enough. We need to have the maps show seismic zones as well

10 Seismic Design Category (zone) (1000 Year Return Period)
Zone 1-SDC “A” Zone 2-SDC “B” Zone 3-SDC “C” Zone 4-SDC “D” SITE CLASS “B”

11 Seismic Design Category (zone) (1000 Year Return Period)
Zone 1-SDC “A” Zone 2-SDC “B” Zone 3-SDC “C” Zone 4-SDC “D” When EQ happened in Charelstion in 1886, it was felt in Boston, Chicago, and St Louis (900 miles away) SITE CLASS “D”

12 Seismic Design Category (zone) (1000 Year Return Period)
Zone 1-SDC “A” Zone 2-SDC “B” Zone 3-SDC “C” Zone 4-SDC “D” SITE CLASS “E”

13 Long-Term Bridge Performance (LTBP) Program
Definition of Bridge Performance: Bridge Performance Encompasses How Bridges Function and Behave Under the Complex and Interrelated Factors they are Subjected to Daily: Traffic Volumes Loads De-Icing Chemicals Freeze-Thaw Cycles Environment Extreme Events Method of Design Construction Materials Age Maintenance History

14 Long-Term Bridge Performance (LTBP) Program
Vision: The LTBP Program will Serve as the National Platform for Strategic Long-Term Investigation of In-Service Bridge Performance. Mission: Foster Improved Bridge Performance, Health, Stewardship, and Management Through the Analysis of Data Collected Over a 20-Year Period on a Large Representative Sample of U.S. Highway Bridges. To achieve this, the Program is Designed to Produce and Support Improved Deterioration Models, Reliable Life-Cycle Cost and Forecasting Models, Design Procedures, and Decision-Making Tools.

15 Virginia Bridge Testing
Coring USW Impact Echo GPR Electrical Resistivity

16

17 Initial East Coast N/S Bridge Corridor

18 Long Term Bridge Performance Program
“Robot” Remote controlled Cameras GPS 4 NDE technologies Deployed on 24 bridges 3 high-resolution cameras capture holistic deck-surface images to show deck cracks, and the lengths and widths of the cracks as small as 1 millimeter. 360-degree images also can show the presence and condition of barriers, poles, curbs, and other surrounding hardware. GPS precisely tags condition data with exact location using global coordinates. Electrical resistivity device enables bridge inspectors to measure the level of corrosion within the deck. 14 impact echo devices are a seismic or stress-wave technology that are used to find defects and anomalies in concrete such as delamination and debonding, including depth, spread, and severity. 6 ultrasonic surface wave sensors are used to assess the quality and modulus of elasticity or strength of the concrete deck. GPR provides a qualitative condition assessment of the deck and can detect apparent or suspected deterioration such as delamination or corrosion. The system uses 32 dense array, ground-coupled antennas for high-spatial resolution. Integrates data into a 3-D visualization that shows the exact shape, width, depth, and location of damages.

19 High-Resolution Imaging USW (Modulus) IE

20 NBIS Compliance Update
Progress made nationally on 20 of 23 metrics 1 metric stayed the same at 100% Satisfactory 2 metrics re‐defined with no comparison available Significant improvement in 5 metrics 3 frequency, scour POAs, QC/QA CY 2011 PY 2013 % Change Satisfactory 70.5 % 79.3 % 8.9 % Active Improvements 29.0 % 20.6 % (8.4 %) Unsatisfactory 0.5 % > 0.08 % (0.42 %) Things are noticeably improving. Significant improvements in 5 metrics: CC to SC or C, and SC to C

21 NBIS Compliance Update
FHWA/AASHTO Task Force in 2011 Some metrics revised for 2012 assessments Remainder revised for current cycle Issued latest version of metrics on 4/1/13 May training for FHWA staff Risk considerations, commentary, incorporated Q&As Metrics for PY 2014 (upcoming review year) 15 of 23 metrics were revised and sent out to Divisions on 4/1/2013

22 NBI Data Quality Trends show results of significant efforts to reduce errors Error = bad or missing data > 60 Million pieces of data in NBI Number of Errors 2009 2010 2011 2012 115,811 20,284 6,967 4,155 Further clarification: Bad data includes values that are coded that are out of the range of assigned codes for a specific item, or data that does not pass certain reasonableness cross checks such as the bridge deck with curb to curb being larger than the bridge deck with out to out. We acknowledge that there are exceptions so some of these cross checks because of unusual structure configurations. Further clarification: Missing data is values that are not submitted for required items to be coded for highway bridges. A check is made that the bridge is a highway bridge before issuing an error. For instance if a pedestrian bridge is submitted we would not expect to see a functional classification or certain other information.

23 NBIS Video for Local Agencies
Central online library of videos and resources for local agencies Each video addresses a single topic condenses complex regulations and requirements of the Federal-aid Highway Program into easy-to-understand concepts and illustrated examples Launched August 27, 2012 at the American Public Works Association (APWA) International Public Works Congress and Exposition

24

25 National Tunnel Inspection Standards (NTIS)
SNPRM published in Federal Register Comments due by September 30, 2013 https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/07/30/ /national-tunnel-inspection-standards#h-4 TOMIE Manual at National Tunnel Inventory and Coding Guide being developed

26 Asset Management System Primer
MAP-21 requires AMS for NHS bridges and pavements States document how they will do business State must define performance measures for bridges and pavements Penalties if performance not met

27 NBIS Regulations Update
Mandated by MAP-21 Methodology, training, and qualifications for inspectors Frequency of inspections Three years to complete (October 2015)

28 NBIS Update Risk-based inspection intervals
4/1/2017 3:01 AM NBIS Update Risk-based inspection intervals Is 24 months the right interval for both of these bridges? In carrying out the revisions required by paragraph (6), the Secretary shall consider a risk- based approach to determining the frequency of bridge inspections. © 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries. The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

29 NBIS Update Procedure for National Certification of Inspectors
4/1/2017 3:01 AM NBIS Update Procedure for National Certification of Inspectors © 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries. The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

30 NBIS Update Procedures for Reporting “Critical Findings”
4/1/2017 3:01 AM NBIS Update Procedures for Reporting “Critical Findings” Relate to structural or safety- related deficiencies of highway bridges Monitoring activities and corrective actions taken in response to a critical finding © 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries. The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

31 Compliance Oversight and Penalty Procedures
MAP-21 mandates Procedures for annual compliance reviews Penalty for noncompliance with the NBIS Establishes timeframes States notified of noncompliance concerns by Dec 31st 45 days to resolve or establish a PCA Implement penalty if no PCA or resolution Federal Register Notice being developed

32 Thank you!


Download ppt "4/1/2017 3:01 AM FHWA Status Report - AASHTOWare Bridge Design/Rating User Group Meeting Virginia Beach, VA August 6-7, 2013 Thomas Saad, P.E. Senior."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google