Steel Bridge Protection Policy, v. 4 of 5 - Life Cycle Cost Analysis and Maintenance Plan : Final Report

212 Pages·1999·5.8 MB·English

by  Fricker, Jon D.

Joint
Transportation
I
Research
I
Program
JTRP
FHWA/IN/JTRP-98/21
Final Report
Steel Bridge Protection Policy
VolumeIVofV
Life Cycle CostAnalysis andMaintenancePlan
Jon Pricker
TarekZayed
May 1999
Indiana
Department
of Transportation
Purdue
University
b

FINAL REPORT
STEEL BRIDGE PROTECTION POLICY
VOLUME
IV
LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
FHWA/IN/JTRP-98/21
by
Jon D. Pricker
Principal Investigator
And
Tarek Zayed
Research Assistant
Purdue University
School ofCivil Engineering
Joint Transportation Research Program
Project No.: C-36-26J
File No.: 4-4-10
Prepared in Cooperation with the
Indiana Department ofTransportation and
The U.S. Department ofTransportation
Federal Highway Administration
The contents ofthis report reflect the views ofthe authors who are responsible for the facts
and the accuracy ofthe data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the
official views of the Federal Highway Administration and the Indiana Department of
Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, a specification, or a regulation.
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
May 27, 1999

TECHNICALREPORTSTA.VUARDTTTLEPACE
1. ReportNo. 2. GovernmentAccessionNo. J.kecipicnt'iCatalog.No.
FHWA/IN/JrRP-98/21
4.riUeandSubUUe S. ReportDate
May 1999
SteelBridgeProtectionPolicy
VolumeIVofV:LifeCycleCostAnalysisandMaintenancePlan
6. PerfonningOrganizationCode
7.Authors) 8. PerformingOrganization ReportNo.
JonFricker,TarekZayed
FHWA/IN/JTRP-98/21
9. PerfonningOrganizationNameandAddress lO.WoricUnitNo.
JointTransportationResearchProgram
1284CivilEngineeringBuilding
PurdueUniversity
WestLafayette,Indiana 47907-1284
11. ContractorGrantNo.
SPR-2038
12. SponsoringAgencyNameandAddress 13. TypeofReportandPeriodCovered
IndianaDepartmentofTransportation
StateOfiQceBuilding FinalReport
100NorthSenateAvenue
Indianapolis,IN46204
14. SponsoringAgencyCode
IS. SupplementaryNotes
PreparedincooperationwiththeIndianaDepartmentofTransportationandFederalHighwayAdministration.
16. Abstract
ThestudyidentifiesvariouspaintingsystemsthataresuccessfullyusedinIndiana'ssurroundingstatesandotherindustries. Theidentified
systemsarefurtherscreenedandevaluated.AfterprudentlycomparingINDOT'sinorganiczinc/vinylsystemwiththewaterbomeacrylic
system,themoisturecureurethanecoatingsystem,andthe3-coatsystemofzinc-epoxy-urethane,theresultsshowthatthenew3-coatsystem
fulfillsINDOT'sneedswiththemostbenefits.Therefore,the3-coatsystemisrecommendedtoreplaceINDOTpresentinorganiczinc vinyl
system.
Todealwiththeproblemsfacingthelead-basedpaint,acomparisonbetweenfull-removalandover-coatingalternativesismade.Resultsshow
thatover-coatingmightprovideagoodprotectionforlessthanhalfthecostoffull-removal;howeveritdelaystheleadfijll-removalprocessand
doesnotcompletelysolvetheenvironmentalproblem.
Themetalizationofsteelbridgesisseeminglyapotentialprotectionpolicy.Afterreviewingstandardsandspecificationsonmetalization,itis
shownthatmetalizationjobsrequireahigherdegreeofcontrol.Itsuitson-shoppractices,however,theinitialcostisconsiderablyhigh.
ThisstudyalsodescribesalifecyclecostanalysisthatwasdonetodetermineanoptimalpaintingsystemforINDOT.Herein,adetemunistic
methodofeconomicanalysisandastochasticmethodofMarkovchainsprocessareused. Theanalysisnotonlyreconfirmsthatthe3-coat
systemisthecomparativelybetterpaintingsystem,butalsogeneratesanoptimalpaintingmaintenanceplanforINDOT.
Toassurethequalityofpaintmaterialandworkmanshipaftersubstantialcompletionofthepaintingcontract,thedevelopmentoflegally
bindinganddependablewarrantyclausesisinitiatedinthisstudy. Thedevelopedpaintingwarrantyclauseswereprimarilyderivedfromthe
paintingwarrantyclausesusedbyIDOT,MDOT,andINDOT'spavementwarrantyclauses.Acomparativestudywasconductedoneleven
essentialcategories.Amongthem,itwasfoundthatthewarrantyperiod,thedefinitionof"defect",andtheamountofthewarrant}'bondall
needfurtherevaluation.
17. Keywords 18. DistributionStatement
coating,inspection,lifecyclecostanalysis,MarkovChainsProcess, Norestrictions. Thisdocumentisavailabletothepublicthroughthe
metalization,painting,qualitycontrol,steelbridge,warranty NationalTechnicalInformationService, Springfield,VA22161
Clauses.
19. SecurityClassif.(ofthisreport) 20. SecurityClassif.(ofthispage) 21.No.ofPages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 187
FormDOTF1700.7(8-69)
Digitized by the Internet Arciiive
in 2011 with funding from
LYRASIS members and Sloan Foundation; Indiana Department of Transportation
http://www.archive.org/details/steelbridgeprote04fric
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAINT PERFORMANCE, LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS
AND
MAINTENANCE PLAN
SUBJECT PAGE
INTRODUCTION
1
STUDY OBJECTIVES
2
STUDY STEPS
3
REPORT OVERVIEW
4
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE WORK 7
CHAPTER PAINT PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS:
I:
DETERIORATION MODELS
DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE FUNCTIONS USING
1.1.
DETERMINISTIC METHOD 9
1.1.1. Deterministic IVIettiod (Regression Analysis) 9
1.2. STOCHASTIC METHOD (MARKOV CHAINS PROCESS) 14
1.2.1. Development ofMarkov Prediction Model 16
1.2.2. Transition Probability Matrix Determination 20
1.2.3 Steps ofNLP Application 23
1.2.4 Application ofthe Markov Chains Model 28
1.3. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REGRESSION AND MARKOV 29
CHAPTER
II: STEEL BRIDGE PAINT LIFE CYCLE
COST ANALYSIS 39
11.1 EXISTING SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS 39
11.1.1 Markov Decision Process (MDP) (Based on
Stochastic Method) 39
TABLE OFCONTENTS
II.1.2 Minimizing the Total Expected Discount Cost 42
//.1.3 PolicyImprovement Technique Algorithm 43
11.1.4 Application ofMarkov Decision Process (MDP)
for Steel Bridge Paint 44
1.5 Economic Analysis forDifferent Paint Types 45
//.
11.2 COMPARISON OF EXISTING WITH NEW SYSTEMS 56
CHAPTER STEEL BRIDGE NEW PAINT SYSTEM
III:
COST ANALYSIS
(3'Coat Paint System: In/OZEU) 66
3-COAT SYSTEM MICHIGAN DATA ANALYSIS 66
111.1
111.1.1 Regression Analysis 66
111.1.2 Markov Chains Analysis 66
1.3 Regression Vs. Markov Process Results for
///.
3-Coat System 67
1.4 Markov Decision Process (MDP) Application for
///.
3-Coat System 69
///.1.5 Economic Analysis for 3-Coat System 72
111.1.6 Sensitivity Analysis ,., 74
111.1.7 Conclusion ' v - 75
111.2 INDOT MAINTENANCE PLAN ,84
III.2.1 Maintenance Plan Procedure ,84
CHAPTER
IV: REFERENCES 87
Appendix
A: Regression Output. 91
Appendix B: NLP Calculations.
Appendix C: Markov Decision Process Calculations.
Appendix D: Economic Analysis.
Appendix
E: Condition Rating Standards.
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
Bridges ofthe United States are under constant attack from the environment. It
may be sudden yet violent effects offloods or earthquakes or the long-term effects
associated with sunlight, rain, deicing salts and freeze/thaw cycles.
The quality ofthe environment has always been ofconcern to the general
populace. Concerns over the potential pollution ofthe environment, by lead and other
heavy metals, during the removal ofolder paint systems from bridges has resulted in
regulations severely limiting the options available for paint removal. Prior to 1985 open
air blasting with grit was the standard method ofpaint removal. While inexpensive, it
resulted in paint debris scattered over a wide area. Today, open air blasting is illegal and
has been replaced with removal in containment. Containment means that the bridge or a
portion ofthe bridge is enclosed, thereby containing the paint debris.
Additional regulations have been enacted limiting Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs) for architectural and maintenance coatings. These regulations have resulted in
the application, into bridges, ofmodified paint systems with limited available information
associated with their durability. The use ofthese paints to replace or repair existing
systems is a risk that the states must take in orderto meet regulatory compliance.
The economic health ofa nation is dependent on its ability to engage in
commerce. This ability is directly related to the capability ofits infrastructure to
efficiently and safely respond to the demands placed upon it, not only by its users, but
A
also by the environment. recent survey indicates that ofthe nearly 600,000 bridges
tabulated,just over 190,000 bridges were considered substandard. While the reasons for
this classification are varied, a growing number are the result ofthe presence oflead-
containing paints previously applied for corrosion protection. Both recently adopted and
proposed future regulations have resulted from a growing awareness ofthe need to
protect the environment from uncontrolled pollution, and to safeguard the health of
workers engaged in renovation as well as that ofthe general populace. Under this
INTRODUCTION
research project, INDOT needs to evaluate the existing and new paint systems from cost
point ofview. Therefore, a life cycle cost analysis was done forthe existing and some
new paint systems to select the best paint type that is convenient to Indiana.
STUDY OBJECTIVES
The purpose ofthis project was to review aspects ofthe rehabilitation process in
light ofthe above mentioned limitations, assess to the degree possible the state ofthe art,
arrive at conclusions and make recommendations where applicable.
The objective ofthis study was to perform an economic study on INDOT steel
A
bridge paint maintenance problems and life cycle cost analysis. major goal ofthis
study was to develop economic models that can be used to provide a rational framework
forthe evaluation ofalternatives in the paint maintenance ofsteel bridges. To accomplish
the objective, an extensive study ofsteel bridge maintenance practices was conducted.
The purpose ofthis effort was to acquire cost data and detailed information on practices
and performance experience, and gain a better imderstanding ofthe bridge maintenance
problems as viewed from the owner's perspective. This study has included a literature
search and a series ofmeetings and discussions with various groups and individuals
within the bridge maintenance community, including various state highway department
persormel, representatives ofthe paint industry, the different departments of
transportation (DOTs) and bridge painting contractors. The data and experience from the
bridge paint maintenance study were used to formulate the models and to provide input
data for the completed models.
The sub-objectives ofthis study are:
1- Study the deterioration models forthe existing paint systems using the deterministic
and probabilistic methods. The deterministic method such as the regression analysis
and the stochastic method such as the Markov chains process.
2- Compare the different existing paint systems according to life cycle cost analysis
using economic traditional methods and the Markov decision process method.