Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:


Pages 29-50

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 29...
... 29   Responses from the questionnaire and the literature search were employed to identify state DOTs that reported success in collecting bridge element data, ensuring the quality of the data, and integrating the data into asset management decision-making. These state DOTs were contacted to further discuss their practices and the rationale for developing them.
From page 30...
... 30 Bridge Element Data Collection and Use Practice State DOT Florida Kentucky Michigan Minnesota Rhode Island Wisconsin Preservation benefits based on element data X X Performance measures based on element data X X Ensuring of element data quality X X X X Decision-making based on element data X X X Communication based on element data X X Table 4-1. Highlighted practices in the case examples.
From page 31...
... Case Examples 31   PLAT develops three alternatives for each bridge: no action; management, repair, rehabilitation, and improvement (MRR&I) ; and bridge replacement (Figure 4-2)
From page 32...
... 32 Bridge Element Data Collection and Use Figure 4-4. Florida DOT NAT algorithm.
From page 33...
... Case Examples 33   customized NBI Translator and applies it to map element condition data to NBI GCRs for stateowned structures. The Florida DOT is comfortable using the conversion tool for state-owned bridges, which are in good to excellent condition.
From page 34...
... 34 Bridge Element Data Collection and Use Figure 4-5. Sample of the Florida DOT bridge performance report.
From page 35...
... Case Examples 35   Kentucky Transportation Cabinet: Ensuring Element Data Quality The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet conducts a file review at its central office of 10% of all inspections each month to underpin QA (Kentucky Transportation Cabinet 2020)
From page 36...
... 36 Bridge Element Data Collection and Use the NBI GCRs, conforming to the comparison guidelines in Figure 4-8. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet also utilizes custom conversion profiles to ensure consistency between element condition data and NBI GCRs (Figure 4-9)
From page 37...
... Case Examples 37   Michigan DOT: Automated and Scheduled Data Queries for Quality Assurance The Michigan DOT has developed a series of queries that check data quality and consistency for various NBI items and bridge element condition data. Approximately 60 queries are run once a month to identify potential data quality issues.
From page 38...
... 38 Bridge Element Data Collection and Use Figure 4-9. Samples of Kentucky Transportation Cabinet custom conversion profiles for mapping element condition data to NBI GCRs.
From page 39...
... Case Examples 39   with the associated NBI data items. For example, the queries verify that no black bar elements (BME for deck protection system, coated reinforcing steel)
From page 40...
... 40 Bridge Element Data Collection and Use • Deck rating = 9 and CS2>5% and CS3>1% and CS4>1%. • WS rating = 3 and CS3<20% and CS4<10%.
From page 41...
... Case Examples 41   QC. Each inspection agency in Minnesota must designate a registered professional engineer to provide oversight to its inspection program.
From page 42...
... 42 Bridge Element Data Collection and Use Figure 4-10. Description of Rhode Island steel beam end element.
From page 43...
... Case Examples 43   Figure 4-11. Examples of Rhode Island inspection photos for steel beam end element.
From page 44...
... Figure 4-12. Example of the Rhode Island DOT steel beam end element report.
From page 45...
... Case Examples 45   The report for the load rating team gives the percent and quantity of the steel beam ends in CS3 and CS4 and also notes both the timing of the last load rating on the bridge and the latest bridge inspection. The report also informs the load rater of the relevant RhodeWorks group for the bridge.
From page 46...
... 46 Bridge Element Data Collection and Use anticipates that most structures will outperform the current deterioration curves and that the BMS thus will produce conservative recommendations. The Wisconsin DOT also contends that data refinement to further develop the models would be better served by updated and expanded inspection data (up to 2021)
From page 47...
... Case Examples 47   where • NUMOVERLAY is an inventory reference to the number of thick overlays. For this rule, the intent is to exclude TPOs applied on top of concrete overlays.
From page 48...
... 48 Bridge Element Data Collection and Use 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Pe rc en tD el am in ati on Wearing Surface Age Thermography for SE Region State-Owned Bridges with Bare Wearing Surface Max Min Average % delam Figure 4-15. Wisconsin DOT percent delamination by wearing surface age based on thermographic inspections.
From page 49...
... Case Examples 49   bridge element preservation eligibility matrixes, are available in the Wisconsin DOT Bridge Manual chapter on bridge preservation (Wisconsin DOT 2020)
From page 50...
... 50 Bridge Element Data Collection and Use Using element deterioration models enabled the Wisconsin DOT to shift away from relying solely on NBI GCRs. The NBI GCRs are still part of the WiSAMS rules, but where the NBI GCRs have element-based triggers, they are more like safety nets than the actual triggers.

Key Terms



This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.