NYDOT Bridge Inspection

[mdlsbridge]

Hi,

Can anyone provide some insight as to why NY rates the worst of multiple elements for some elements (i.e. one bearing is a 2, while the rest are 6s, but the element rating is a 2) and does not rate the worst for other multiple elements?

Thanks in advance.

 

[bridgebuster]

The failure of a bearing, pedestal, or column could result in a catastrophic failure of the bridge.

 

[mdlsbridge]

Bridgebuster,

I agree with the potential for catastrophic failure on non-redundant older bridge configurations, of which NY has many. But in the case of new bridges, which commonly have high levels of redundancy and multiple load paths, I am not convinced that "rating the worst of" is beneficial.

Are you aware of any other DOTs that use this practice? I have done some looking and can not seem to find any other manuals that talk about it.

Thank you.

 

[bridgebuster]

m-

I understand your point but there can't be two systems, i.e. one for old bridges and one for new bridges.

The is a certain method to the madness. By using a worst element rating the overall rating is lowered. Perhaps the idea is to keep the element on "the radar screen" so that it gets repaired quickly.

I've done bridge inspection in a few states and NY is the only one I've come across that uses this method.

 

[mdlsbridge]

bridgebuster,

I agree there can't be two systems and that tracking items that may lead to failures is crucial. I guess I am just a little confused as to why lighting standards and utilities are included on the "worst of" list. I understand the logic for the other items.

Thanks again.

 

[cvg]

there could be two systems, they just choose not to do it that way. there is also no reason why the field inspection data can't be supplemented by a final report listing the overall bridge rating which makes adjustments for poor lighting, redundencies etc. with respect to the risk. This is a failure in the transportation departments, akin to the same type of failure in the levee industry to rate structures by deficiencies not by risk. The result is that bridges fail and levees are overtopped.

 

[bridgebuster]

Light standards and utilities are generally owned by an agency other than DOT. However, being on a DOT bridge presents a liabilty to DOT.

CVG - there's a standard format for inspection reports. No final/supplemental reports are used.

 

[cvg]

bridgebuster - I realize that there is a standard form and that is part of the problem. Nothing wrong with a form, it makes recording field data easier. But it is not suitable for ranking bridges, especially when the inspectors play games like - 1 bearing is in bad shape but the rest are ok and the bridge has multiple redundancies - the bridge still gets a low rating. Meanwhile another bridge with the same low rating has no redundancies. Which one gets repaired first? Without a summary report, how can the state bridge engineer rank all the bridges and decide which one gets repaired first?

 

[mdlsbridge]

It has been my experience that bridge inspection reports include repair recommendations, general bridge configuration information, SI&A data, and where appropriate, critical finding reports. Some states, such as NY, take the elements further by identifying sub-elements to rate and track their condition. With all the information that is captured, and presented to the state bridge engineers, there is certainly sufficient information for an experienced bridge engineer to place bridges on maintenance lists based on priority conditions.

If the case does exist that only SI&A data is collected for the inspection reports, then I would think the condition of the bridges would be hard to prioritize, as the BSR can be misleading.

 

[bridgebuster]

In NY, the DOT is divided into 11 regions, which are semi-autonomous from the main office.

Inspection data is entered into a state-wide data base and from there each region can prioritize things.