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.

51   State DOTs are invested in collecting bridge element data, as evidenced by detailed and custom bridge element inspection manuals, established QC and QA programs, and many ADEs. Although examples exist of state DOTs using bridge element data in decision-making, most agencies are progressing toward improving their applications of bridge element data. Major Findings About Agency Practice The following findings draw from the information gathered in this effort through the literature review, state DOT survey responses (from 50 states and the District of Columbia), and developed case examples: • The state DOTs are invested in bridge element data collection. Survey responses indicate that all state DOTs are collecting NBE and BME data aligned with federal guidelines while 67% are also gathering data for ADEs. Most agencies are also collecting data on element defects. State DOTs are sometimes utilizing NDE techniques in bridge element inspections. • The majority of the state DOTs (55%) report moderate confidence in the quality of their bridge element data, and most of the remaining state DOTs (39%) indicate high confidence. • Less than half of the state DOTs have established project decision rules, decision trees, or performance measures based on bridge element data. One-fourth of the state DOTs employ element cost and deterioration models in which they are confident. Most typically, the state DOTs have developed element or cost deterioration models but still observe that these models need further improvement. • A total of 26 state DOTs do not compare element condition data and NBI GCRs. Meanwhile, the remaining 25 state DOTs created a conversion profile that needs further improvement, developed a profile in which they are confident, or apply a default conversion profile available in the state BMS. • The most common uses of element data in asset decision-making are the selection of bridge preservation projects, bridge-level decision-making (e.g., choice of work type or scoping for individual structures), and selection of bridge rehabilitation or replacement projects. Element data are also commonly utilized in selecting bridge maintenance projects and in making net- work-level decisions. Aside from four state DOTs, all state DOTs note some form of applica- tion for bridge element data. • Confidence in models and decision-making based on component data (compared to element data) is reported to be relatively higher. In response to the survey, state DOTs consistently describe ongoing and planned efforts to improve deterioration models, cost models, life-cycle cost models, performance measures, and treatment efficiency models for bridge elements. • One-fourth of the state DOTs do not employ element data or models in asset management decisions. Of course, element data or models are not the only sources of information in asset C H A P T E R 5 Summary of Findings

52 Bridge Element Data Collection and Use decision-making. For final decisions, state DOTs rely on a combination of data resources, engineering judgment, and experience. • Case examples document in greater detail the practice of six state DOTs to improve the quality and expand the use of bridge element data: – The Minnesota DOT and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet both conduct a significant number of QA reviews and QC protocols that aim to continually improve bridge element data quality. – The Michigan DOT has developed more than 60 automated queries on its inspection data that are scheduled to run each month. The agency has used these queries since 2017, significantly improving data quality and consistency. – The Rhode Island DOT uses a custom steel beam and related element to track critical section loss and, if necessary, trigger a new load rating, post a bridge, or schedule repairs. – The Florida DOT employs an advanced bridge management framework that is built on bridge element data and subject to continual research, refinements, and improvements. The custom DOT BMS includes project- and network-level decision-making algorithms and element-based treatment triggers that work in coordination with bridge element models. The Florida DOT maintains bridge element performance measures for bridge decks, deck joints, steel protective coating systems, and concrete slope protective systems. These met- rics are utilized for internal agency communication as well as external communication with asset management contractors. – The Wisconsin DOT uses element deterioration models for decks and wearing surfaces to forecast future conditions and to trigger recommended work actions in its automated BMS (WiSAMS). The agency applies not only bridge deck element deterioration models that consider defects and wearing surfaces but also element-based bridge preservation perfor- mance measures that can be included in internal communication. The Wisconsin DOT is one of the many agencies that intend to further develop their bridge element models. Opportunities for Future Research The following list highlights knowledge gaps that could be supported by future research opportunities: • Cost and deterioration models function as the backbones of asset decision-making, so improv- ing confidence in these models would assist in implementation and increase the use of element data and models for asset management decisions. • Several state DOTs have developed models and established processes that are fundamental to their asset management decision-making, utilizing bridge element data. Documentation of recommended practices for developing and customizing bridge element cost and deterio- ration models and element-based decision-making processes would support agencies that exhibit different levels of maturity in these efforts. Peer exchanges could also facilitate inter- agency communication and provide agencies with learning opportunities. • The application of element data to develop performance measures and decision trees is limited when compared to the number of state DOTs that use the data for decision-making. Research is needed to understand how exactly the element data are being employed by the agencies. Research is also necessary for developing performance measures based on element data that inform asset management decisions and can be used in BMSs. • The majority of the state DOTs intend to further refine their bridge element models (e.g., deterioration, action, and cost-effectiveness models). Additional research could identify the most critical agency needs for the refinement efforts.

Summary of Findings 53   • Most state DOTs do not have a conversion algorithm to map element conditions to NBI GCRs and ultimately link element conditions to the federal performance measures. Future research to establish conversion algorithms that state DOTs are comfortable using would be valuable and could improve the application of element-based analysis in decision-making and planning efforts. • Only limited examples indicate how agencies communicate BMS results or the outcome of analyses based on bridge element data. Research in this area could offer guidance or examples to agencies. Research is also needed to identify how the use of bridge element data in asset management communication can be improved.