Lifecycle Decision Framework for Steel Bridge Painting
Publication: Journal of Bridge Engineering
Volume 22, Issue 11
Abstract
Bridge agencies seek to apply appropriate rehabilitation or maintenance treatments at the right time. For a specific treatment, improper timing can have significant adverse consequences: Premature application could mean wasteful spending by the agency even if road users and the community enjoy the benefits of a superior bridge condition, and deferred or delayed application can result in higher user or community disbenefits caused by poor condition and consequent reduced asset longevity in the long-term. For short-term decisions regarding the identification of the most cost-effective paint action at a specific time (do nothing, spot paint, overcoat, or recoat), the paper presents a methodology for developing a painting decision tree. For long-term decisions regarding the identification of the most cost-effective schedule over the superstructure lifetime, the paper demonstrates a methodology for developing a long-term schedule of painting activities. An analysis of the state of paint scheduling at a specific highway agency revealed that the current practice of complete recoating every 25 years may not be optimal. Instead, a painting schedule that includes the application of lower-level treatments (spot repairing and overcoating) can yield as much as a 19% reduction in the lifecycle cost and a 31.97% higher cost-effectiveness compared to the current practice.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data. The valuable contributions of the Study Advisory Committee for this project are acknowledged. The members included Dr. Samy Noureldin, Ms. Anne Rearick, and Mr. Jaffar Golkhajeh. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of FHWA or the Indiana DOT, nor do the contents constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The contributions of Dr. Arash Roshandeh early in this study are also acknowledged.
References
Agbelie, B. R. (2014). “An empirical analysis of three econometric frameworks for evaluating economic impacts of transportation infrastructure expenditures across countries.” Transp. Policy, 35(Sep), 304–310.
Agbelie, B. R., Labi, S., Noureldin, S., and Sinha, K. C. (2015). “Linking interstate pavement preservation investment to performance: An exploratory aggregate analysis.” J. Infrastruct. Syst., 04015004.
Agbelie, B. R., Labi, S., and Sinha, K. C. (2017). “Estimating the marginal costs of bridge damage due to overweight vehicles using a modified equivalent-vehicle methodology and in-service data on life-cycle costs and usage.” Transp. Res. A Policy Pract., 95(Jan), 275–288.
Agbelie, B. R., Volovski, M., Zhang, Z., Bardaka, E., Labi, S., and Sinha, K. C. (2016). “Updating state and local highway cost allocation and revenue attribution: A case study for Indiana.” Transp. Res. Rec., 2597, 1–10.
ASTM. (2012). “ASTM standard practice for evaluating degree of rusting on painted steel surfaces.” ASTM DD610-08, West Conshohocken, PA.
BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). (2016). “Consumer price index.” 〈http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm〉 (May 10, 2016).
Chong, S. L. (2004). “Preventing corrosion in steel bridges.” Public Roads, 68(2), 〈https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/04sep/08.cfm〉(Jun. 12, 2015).
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). (1997). “FHWA bridge coatings technical note.” Washington, DC.
Ghorbanpoor, A., Tabatabai, H., and Leppi, Z. (2013). “Aesthetic coatings for steel bridge components.” WisDOT 0092-11-07, Dept. of Civil Engineering & Mechanics, Univ. of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Milwaukee.
Hass, R., Turay, S., and Austin, H. (1991). “Pavement rehabilitation lifecycle economic analysis model.” No. 21180, Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Toronto.
Labi, S., and Sinha, K. C. (2003). “Measures of short-term effectiveness of highway pavement maintenance.” J. Transp. Eng., 673–683.
Oregon DOT. (2016). “Coastal bridge needs, bridge notes, bridge section.” Oregon Dept. of Transportation, Salem, OR.
Qiao, Y., Moomen, M., Zhang, Z., Agbelie, B., Labi, S., and Sinha, K. C. (2016). “Modeling deterioration of bridge components with binary probit techniques with random effects.” Transp. Res. Rec., 2550, 96–105.
Roberts, J., and Shepard, R. (2000). “Bridge management for the 21st century.” Transp. Res. Rec., 1696, 197–203.
Zayed, T. M., Chang, L. M., and Fricker, J. D. (2002). “Statewide performance function for steel bridge protection systems.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 46–54.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Bridge Engineering
Volume 22 • Issue 11 • November 2017
Copyright
© 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Oct 14, 2016
Accepted: May 31, 2017
Published online: Sep 1, 2017
Published in print: Nov 1, 2017
Discussion open until: Feb 1, 2018
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.