status of nchrp 12-82 (1)
TRANSCRIPT
1
Status of NCHRP 12-82 (1)Developing Reliability-Based
Bridge Inspection Practices: Case Studies of the Methodology
Glenn A. Washer, PIRobert Connor, Co-PI
This investigation was sponsored by TRB under the NCHRPProgram. Data reported are work in progress. The contents ofthis presentation has not been reviewed by the project panel orNCHRP, nor do they constitute a standard, specification, orregulation.
AASHTO – SCOBS , T-18 June 2013
NCHRP 12-82 Goals• Goal: Improve the safety and reliability of
bridges – focusing inspection efforts where most needed
• Optimize the use of resources– Better match inspection requirements to
inspection needs – Develop a rational process for assessing
inspection needs using reliability theories
2
AASHTO – SCOBS , T-18 June 2013
Component Lifetime Characteristics
3
Time to corrosion initiation for RCTypical lifetime performance
AASHTO – SCOBS , T-18 June 2013
Reliability-Based Inspection (RBI)
• What can go wrong?– Identify damage modes for elements– Deterioration mechanisms
• How likely is it? • Categorization based on reliability characteristics of a
bridge elements• Based on expert judgment and expert elicitations
• Past experience• Analysis of existing or potential damage modes• Deterioration data if available (and relevant)
• What are the consequences?– How important is it?
• Semi-quantitative methodology
4
AASHTO – SCOBS , T-18 June 2013
Reliability/Risk Matrix• Set inspection interval
based on this assessment • Selected to ensure low
likelihood of severe damage between inspections
• 12-96 months• Maintenance
inspections
5
AASHTO – SCOBS , T-18 June 2013
Potential Benefits of RBI• Better, more effective and purposeful
inspections– Inspection plan (scope and interval) supported by
engineering assessment by RAP• Vs. Calendar-based inspection strategy
– Rational inspection strategies• Flexible intervals based on need and engineering
analysis• Allocate resources more effectively
– Focus inspections resources where most needed• Improved bridge reliability and safety
6
AASHTO – SCOBS , T-18 June 2013
Guidelines and Report from Phase I
• Available by request from NCHRP– Draft guidelines and draft final report
• Overview of the method• Background on reliability concepts• Assessment processes
• Occurrence (likelihood) and consequence factors• Identifying and assessing attributes • Consequence assessment• Inspection intervals
• Maintenance, initial, start-up and inspections• Criteria for reassessment
• Inspection scope• Starting an RBI program
• Scope of analysis, training, integration
7
AASHTO – SCOBS , T-18 June 2013
Phase II: Case Study Work Plan
• Conduct analysis in 2 States– Steel / PS – Oregon and Texas
• Assemble and train panel, conduct analysis, identify criteria for setting inspection practice (schedule and scope)
• Perform back-casting on sample of bridges to analyze effectiveness of methodology– Validate the approach– Quantitative data on effectiveness and accuracy of the
approach– Foundation for implementation
• Modify/improve guidelines, complete final report with verification data
8
AASHTO – SCOBS , T-18 June 2013
RBI Process
9
AASHTO – SCOBS , T-18 June 2013
Progress on Phase II Case Studies
• 2 families of bridges– Oregon
• Prestressed concrete– Texas
• Steel superstructures• Reliability Assessment Panels (RAP)
– Inspection, management, materials, structures and maintenance
– Academia– Industry
10
AASHTO – SCOBS , T-18 June 2013
RAP Meetings• Oregon April, 2013• Texas May 2013• Training in the RBI process
– Pre-meeting webinar– 5 slide modules
• Analysis of family of bridges– Deck, superstructure and substructure analysis– Consequences of identified damage modes
11
AASHTO – SCOBS , T-18 June 2013
Damage Modes and Attributes• RAP identifies most likely damage modes• Attributes contributing to that damage
mode– Deterioration mechanisms– Ex. Corrosion, fatigue
12
AASHTO – SCOBS , T-18 June 2013
Consequences
• Scenarios considered by RAP according to category descriptions from guidelines
13
AASHTO – SCOBS , T-18 June 2013
Highlights• Uncommon damage modes • Element-level data • Expert elicitation process
– Exercises – Consensus building
• Common attributes• Consequence analysis
14
AASHTO – SCOBS , T-18 June 2013
Other ongoing work …….
15
98765432
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Data
Freq
uenc
y
17.37 7.925 68414.19 7.627 50812.98 7.454 69512.03 7.233 85812.18 7.223 7699.724 6.945 70
Shape Scale N
0-1011-2021-3031-4041-5051 and more
Variable
Histogram of 0-10, 11-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51 and moreWeibull
• Statistical analysis of NBI data to support criteria
AASHTO – SCOBS , T-18 June 2013
Data Input Tools
16
AASHTO – SCOBS , T-18 June 2013
Conclusion• Data from RAP meetings being analyzed,
implemented in tools– Uncommon attributes– RAP identified criteria
• Back-casting process starting• Consequences text adjustment• On schedule to complete
– Letter Report September, 2013– Draft Report December, 2013– Compete March 2014
17
AASHTO – SCOBS , T-18 June 2013
Questions?
18