Bridge Element Data Collection and Use (2022)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

4 Background Initial efforts to define and collect bridge element data in the United States started in the late 1990s with the development and implementation of bridge management systems (BMSs). AASHTO published the Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Structural Elements Guide (AASHTO 1997) to define and standardize bridge element data inspection and collection. The majority of the state departments of transportation (DOTs) adopted the guide and started collecting bridge element data, which was a significant advance in bridge inspection and management practice. This major step moved the United States toward consistent condition data collection with a more quantitative and granular methodology nationwide and implementation of BMSs. Over the years, the bridge management community gave feedback and made suggestions to improve the bridge element inspection methodology. In 2011, the AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures approved a new element-level bridge inspection manual (AASHTO 2011), which was later updated (AASHTO 2013). The new AASHTO Manual for Bridge Ele- ment Inspection (MBEI) (AASHTO 2013, 2019) replaced the CoRe Structural Elements Guide (AASHTO 1997) and the Guide Manual for Bridge Element Inspection (AASHTO 2011). The new element inspection methodology incorporates state DOT experience in inspecting elements over 20 years and improves the guidelines. The bridge elements in the new manual are classi- fied into three categories as National Bridge Elements (NBEs), Bridge Management Elements (BMEs), and Agency-Defined Elements (ADEs). The number of condition states (CSs) is stan- dardized as four (whereas CoRe elements had three, four, or five CSs). In addition, the new manual introduces a new defect-based inspection methodology and separates wearing surfaces and protection systems from structural elements. MAP-21 focuses on performance-based management for bridge structures and requires each state and appropriate federal agency to report bridge element-level data for bridges on the National Highway System (NHS). As a result, state transportation agencies have revised their element inspection manuals and condition databases to adopt the new elements. As of October 1, 2014, DOTs were required to begin collecting element-level data, and for the April 1, 2015, National Bridge Inventory (NBI) data submission, agencies sent element-level data as part of their inventories. The state DOTs have been transitioning to the use of element inspection data for document- ing bridge conditions since 2014. This condition assessment methodology offers a significant opportunity to improve the timing, cost-efficiency, and accuracy of bridge maintenance, reha- bilitation, and replacement decisions. However, no standard guidance is available on achieving those benefits. Bridge management platforms such as the AASHTOWare™ Bridge Management (BrM) software can combine these data with other inputs to forecast future conditions and rec- ommend optimal plans for a portfolio of bridges. C H A P T E R 1 Introduction

Introduction 5   Anecdotal evidence suggests that DOTs that receive the new inspection reports are taking numerous approaches to using the data. Many DOTs rely on general condition ratings (GCRs) reported to the NBI to support bridge maintenance and investment decisions. Still others are beginning to incorporate the element-level data into those decisions. In comparison to GCRs, element-level data are more granular and more quantitative. A major driver for the AASHTO MBEI was creating elements for wearing surfaces (e.g., flexible overlays, epoxy overlays), steel protective coatings (e.g., paint, galvanization, weathering steel patina), and concrete protective coatings (e.g., silane/siloxane water proofers, crack sealers). The addition of these new elements, when combined with already existing elements such as joints, provides a data framework that is not available in GCRs to account for the costs and benefits of preservation. The granular and quantitative nature of element-level data and the capability to collect data for bridge preser- vation make this the ideal data framework for BMS implementation and bridge management improvement. Objectives The objective of this synthesis is to document current state DOT practices and experience regarding collecting and ensuring the accuracy of element-level data. The synthesis also exam- ines how DOTs are using the data from inspection reports. Scope and Approach This synthesis primarily focuses on current state DOT policies and practice on bridge ele- ment definitions, bridge element data collection, processes to underpin the quality of bridge element inspections, definition and use of performance measures based on bridge element data, business processes that employ bridge element data, and internal and external communication based on bridge element data. The information in this synthesis report was obtained from three sources. First, a literature review was conducted to obtain background information on the history of bridge element data and to support a discussion of the status of related processes for ensuring bridge element data quality, introduction of the most common performance measures based on bridge element data from the literature and on use by DOTs, and presentation of background information on the bridge element models that are most relevant to asset decision-making. Second, a survey was conducted to document current state DOT practice and experience regarding collecting and ensuring the accuracy of element-level data. The synthesis survey also addressed how DOTs are using bridge element data in asset management decision-making. The survey questionnaire was distributed to the bridge management contacts in all 50 state DOTs and the District of Columbia, as recently collected by the Transportation System Preservation Technical Services Program (TSP2) Bridge Preservation BMS Working Group in 2021 for a survey. All invited DOTs participated in and returned the survey (a response rate of 100%). Third, another data source was information gathered from video conferences and emails with representatives from six state DOTs—in Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin—to expand on one or more of the following aspects of their efforts: • Existence of practices for measuring preservation benefits based on element data or models. • Existence and use of performance measures based on element data for decision-making. • In-place procedures for ensuring element data quality. • Experience in using element models or modeling frameworks for bridge- and network-level decision-making.

6 Bridge Element Data Collection and Use • Success in using and communicating element data analysis in agency reports, internal and external communication, and Transportation Asset Management Plans (TAMPs). The information obtained from all three resources was applied to develop the findings in this synthesis. Information from the case examples—developed for the practices of the Florida DOT, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Michigan DOT, Minnesota DOT, Rhode Island DOT, and Wisconsin DOT—was also incorporated into the synthesis findings and the research opportu- nities documented in this report. Organization This synthesis of practice consists of the following five chapters and two appendixes: • Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter introduces the synthesis, providing background infor- mation and summarizing the synthesis approach and organization of the document. • Chapter 2: Literature Review. This chapter summarizes and presents key findings from the literature. Topics included are the history of bridge element data, bridge element data quality, performance measures based on bridge element data, and models built on bridge element data. • Chapter 3: State of the Practice. The results of the survey of state DOT practice are presented in this chapter, organized to address the following: – State of the practice in bridge element data collection in states nationwide. – Quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) for bridge element data. – Performance measures and models. – Use of bridge element data in asset management. • Chapter 4: Case Examples. This chapter summarizes the information provided by the six state DOTs that were interviewed in greater depth to learn more about how they measure preservation benefits based on element data (Florida DOT, Wisconsin DOT), their performance measures based on element data (Florida DOT, Wisconsin DOT), how they ensure element data quality (Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Michigan DOT, Minnesota DOT, Rhode Island DOT), how they make decisions based on bridge element data (Florida DOT, Rhode Island DOT, Wisconsin DOT) and how they communicate based on element data CS thresholds (Florida DOT, Rhode Island DOT). • Chapter 5: Summary of Findings. The report concludes with a summary of key observations from the findings and suggestions for further research in this area to support state DOTs in their efforts to effectively collect and use bridge element data. • Appendix A. This appendix includes a copy of the questionnaire distributed electronically to the state DOTs of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. • Appendix B. This appendix summarizes the survey responses received from the 51 survey participants.