Skip to contentUnited States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration Go to TFHRC homeGo to FHWA websiteFeedback


Long Term Bridge Performance

Federal Highway Administration Long-Term Bridge Performance Program Power Point Presentation

PowerPoint Version (4,233 kb)

FHWA Long-Term Bridge Performance Program

"A Flagship Initiative"

Hamid Ghasemi, Ph.D.
Program Manager
Long-Term Bridge Performance Program
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
Federal Highway Administration
McLean, Virginia


Outline

  • Highlights
  • Vision
  • Methodology
  • Focus Group Meetings
  • Pilot Study
  • Conclusions


Long-Term Bridge Performance Program (LTBP Program)

  • Designated in the "SAFETEA-LU" surface transportation authorization legislation (August 2005)
  • Anticipated to be a long-term research effort to improve our knowledge of bridge performance
  • Funding was authorized through FY-2009

LTBP Program Activities (January 2006 - Present)

  • Outreach (i.e., Conferences, Workshops, Meetings)
  • Draft Framework (U. of Delaware)
  • Workshop in January 2007 (Las Vegas, NV)
    • Participants: FHWA, AASHTO, Other Government Institutions, Academia, Industry, International Bridge Experts
      • Short-Term and Long-Term Goals
      • Specific Data to be Collected
      • Sample Bridges to Test, Evaluate and Monitor

LTBP Program Activities (January 2006 - Present)

  • FHWA Bridge Management Information Systems Laboratory
    • Synthesis Report on Bridge Performance
    • Sampling Methodology
    • Data Gaps
    • Deterioration Model

LTBP Program Activities (January 2006 - Present)

  • July 2007 (Solicitation)
  • April 2008 (Contract Was Awarded to CAIT/Rutgers University)
  • May 2008 - Present (Developmental Phase)

Moving the American Economy

Friday, May 2, 2008.

"Acting Federal Highway Administrator Jim Ray"



FHWA Launches Flagship Initiative to Collect Nationwide Data on Highway Bridges - A 20-year research effort to collect data on bridges nationwide will lead to better investment decisions on bridges

Objective

Diagram. LTBP Program Objective. The diagram depicts an arrow starting thin at the left bottom part of the diagram and widening towards the top-right. There are three circles near the tail, middle, and head of the arrow proportionate to the arrow width. The text below the first (smallest) circle near the tail states the first LTBP program objective as "Collect, document and maintain high quality, quantitative performance data." The text below the middle circle near the middle of the arrow states the second LTBP program objective as "Improved knowledge of bridge performance." The text below the last (largest) circle near the arrow head states the third LTBP program objective as "Improved asset management."

LTBP program is not intended to become a repository of vast amounts of bridge data without consideration of the value of the data in assessing bridge performance

No Data Warehouse

Anticipated Impacts of the LTBP Program

  • Advances in deterioration and predictive models
  • Effective use of Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
  • Improved inspection/condition information thru NDE and SHM
  • Support improved design standards
  • Improved maintenance practices
  • Help foster the next generation of bridge and asset management systems

Approach

  • Detailed inspection, periodic objective evaluation and monitoring (from a representative sample of bridges, excluding long-span bridges)
  • Forensic autopsies of decommissioned bridges
  • Accelerated Testing

Organization Chart. LTBP Team. The chart depicts the organization of the LTBP program team. The organization of LTBP program starts by a box in the top with the FHWA program manager in TFHRC. The second box of the management team comes below the FHWA box and includes two boxes inside representing Rutgers University and PB. Rutgers University represented by Center for Advanced Infrastructure & Transportation (CAIT) includes Principal Investigator, Contract Management, Outreach / Communications, NDT / NDE, and Modelling. PB box includes Coordination, QA/QC, and Visual Inspection A small box to the right is connected with a line to Rutgers University box and includes TFHRC labs that includes BMSIL and NDT/NDE. The second level of the team includes four boxes below the management team. These boxes from left to right represent Utah State University (Utah Transportation Center) covering Western Half for Bridge Health Monitoring, Virginia Transportation Research Center (VTRC) and Virginia Tech covering Eastern Half of Bridge Health Monitoring, Siemens America for Data Infrastructure, Data Model, and Database, and Institute of Transportation Studies UC Berkeley for Life Cycle Cost Analysis and Bridge Asset Management. The third level comes below the second level and includes two boxes which are from left to right: Bridge Diagnostic Inc. for Diagnostic Testing and Instrumentation, and Advitam for Data Interface Management.

Please click for the description of the image

Systems Approach

  • Collect scientific quality performance data from the nation's highway bridges, as representing critical node-points of the highway transportation network.
  • The data and information to be collected is expected to advance our knowledge of how our highway transportation, together with its linkages to other infrastructures, performs as a complex multi-domain system, governed by dynamic interactions between human, natural and engineering systems and elements.

Top-Down/Heuristic Approach

Diagram. Strategic Action Plan. The diagram shows eight small circles formed in a W-shaped path with black road line between the circles and a background of the United States map. Each circle represents a step with a symbol inside the circle representing that step. Steps start from left to right in a zigzagged way along the black line between them representing the direction. The steps from left to right along the black line are: Step 1 "Defining Bridge Performance", Step 2 "Data to be Collected", Step 3 " Data Management System", Step 4 " Design the Experimental Program", Step 5 " Data Collection", Step 6 "Data Analysis and Modeling", Step 7 "Dissemination of Findings", and finally "Program Outcome".

Diagram. Data QA/QC. The diagram shows eight small circles formed in a W-shaped path with black road line between the circles and a background of the United States map. Each circle represents a step with a symbol inside the circle representing that step. Steps start from left to right in a zigzagged way along the black line between them representing the direction. The steps from left to right along the black line are: Step 1 "Defining Bridge Performance", Step 2 "Data to be Collected", Step 3 " Data Management System", Step 4 " Design the Experimental Program", Step 5 " Data Collection", Step 6 "Data Analysis and Modeling", Step 7 "Dissemination of Findings", and finally "Program Outcome". A square is drawn under Step 3 "Data Management System" with the name of the two contractors "Advitam and Siemens" and an elliptical arrow representing the feedback between the box representing them and two boxes for the contractor of Step 5 " Data Collection" and Step 6 "Data Analysis and Modeling"

Performance, Measure, Category or Indicators

????

Bridge Performance?

  • National Survey
  • Number of bridges needing work
  • Structural deficiencies and posting
  • Condition rating, sufficiency rating and health index
  • Deficiencies and load carrying capacity
  • Customer satisfaction

Peformance Categories

All Limit States
  • Serviceability
  • Operation
  • Scour and Floods
  • Wind
  • Hurricane
  • Earthquakes
  • Overloads
  • Vessel Collisions
  • Fire
  • Fatigue
  • Terrorism

Which Performance Category is More Critical?

Picture. Five pictures for collapse of bridges

Picture. Four pictures for collapse of bridges

Picture. Four pictures for collapse of cases including the twin towers of word trade center

Challenges in Measuring Bridge Performance

  • It is not well defined and understood or documented
  • Relies too heavily on expert opinion
  • Based on significant assumption or generalization
  • Uncertainties
    • Subjectivity of current condition ratings
    • Lack of proper documentation (i.e., records of actions and costs, deferring the action)
    • Incomplete data (i.e., cost, maintenance)
    • Many hidden deterioration and damage escape visual inspection

Diagram. Strategic Action Plan. The diagram shows eight small circles formed in a W-shaped path with black road line between the circles and a background of the United States map. Each circle represents a step with a symbol inside the circle representing that step. Steps start from left to right in a zigzagged way along the black line between them representing the direction. The steps from left to right along the black line are: Step 1 "Defining Bridge Performance", Step 2 "Data to be Collected", Step 3 " Data Management System", Step 4 " Design the Experimental Program", Step 5 " Data Collection", Step 6 "Data Analysis and Modeling", Step 7 "Dissemination of Findings", and finally "Program Outcome".

FOCUS GROUP Meetings

  • Focus group meetings across a number of geographically distributed locations initiated
  • Partnering with practitioners in order to get the information and data that is needed to improve the ong-term performance of our bridge systems
  • The program cannot be a one size fits all approach, and should not place additional burdens on highway agencies

FGM and Pilot Study

  • Summer 2009
  • Detailed inspection and Monitoring of 7 bridges
  • Validate protocols and processes
  • Viability of the data infrastructure
  • Efficacy of sensor technology

Map. LTBP Focus Group Meeting (FGM) and Pilot Study. GIS map of the United States showing three symbols for the states that have FGM completed with green color, the states that have FGM proposed with yellow color, and the states that have proposed pilot bridges with red boundary. FGM completed states include: NY, NJ, VA, FL, and CA. FGM proposed states include: OH, AL, IL, MN, IA, AR, LA, TX, MT, UT, and OR. States with proposed pilot study include: NY, NJ, VA, FL, MN, UT, and CA.

John Penrod:
Pilot Study Program manager

Diagram. LTBP Roadmap Line Diagram showing the roadmap timeline from May 2008 to December 2010. The diagram shows that Development Phase begins in May 2008 and completed in April 2009. Pilot Program begins in January 2009 and completes in April 2010. Phase I Long-term Data Collection begins in May 2010 and continues forward. Pilot Program Tasks & Objectives: Monitor a small number of bridges to determine general aspects of deterioration and factors impacting condition, verify all data collection procedures and protocols, and establishing a solid foundation for the long-term program. Program Deliverables: Report on pilot study outcomes, Meetings/workshops with stakeholders and industry organizations. Pilot Program Final Result: Working prototype for each aspect of the program (data collection, methodologies, etc.), Clear vision and tested plan for phase I data collection.

Oversight

  • Internal Expert Task Group
  • External Expert Task Group

Outreach

  • AASHTO Subcommittees on Bridges
  • Organized a Workshop at TRB
  • Presentation at AASHTO Annual Meeting
  • SHRP-2 Initiation
  • NIST and NSF
  • International community
  • Plan for Industry Involvement

Conclusions

  • A dynamic program
  • Not a one-size fit all program
  • Not a data-warehouse
  • Synergy among the FHWA, stakeholders, industry, academia, international bridge community
  • Consider lessons learned from the LTPP
  • Successful outreach strategy
  • Take advantage of in-house expertise

Conclusions

  • Be cognizant of program's limitations

Data to Information to Experience to Knowledge to Wisdom to Decision Making

Web-Site and Contact Information

http://www.tfhrc.gov/ltbp/

ltbp@dot.gov

Thank You!

PowerPoint files can be viewed with the PowerPoint Viewer

Search

Search TFHRC

Search All DOT

 

Related Links

National Bridge Inventory

National Bridge Inspection Standards