New Framework for Risk-Based Inspection of Highway Bridges
Publication: Journal of Bridge Engineering
Volume 21, Issue 4
Abstract
This paper presents a new methodology for determining bridge inspection intervals and procedures. The methodology was developed using established risk-based methodologies with the goals of improving bridge safety and serviceability and optimizing the use of resources for bridge inspection. Current inspection intervals are calendar based and generally require routine inspections at a maximum interval of 24 months. This uniform, calendar-based approach results in the same inspection interval for new bridges and aging and deteriorated bridges. The uniform inspection interval does not consider the inspection needs for a given bridge based on age, condition, materials, environment, etc., and as a result, inspection resources may not be utilized most effectively. Using the methodology described in this paper, a bridge owner performs a simple risk-based assessment of bridges in his or her inventory to identify those for which shorter inspection intervals are needed and those for which longer intervals are more appropriate. This assessment identifies likely damage modes and associated consequences in terms of safety and serviceability of a bridge. A simple risk matrix is used to identify the appropriate inspection interval for bridges. The new, risk-based approach represents a new paradigm for bridge inspection that could transform traditional, uniform, and calendar-based inspection approaches and improve the allocation of resources for bridge inspection to improve the reliability and safety of bridges.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This paper provides an overview of work completed under NCHRP 12-82, Developing Reliability-Based Bridge Inspection Practices. This investigation was sponsored by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) under the NCHRP program. Data reported are works in progress. The contents of this paper have not been reviewed by the project panel or NCHRP, nor do they constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board or its sponsors. This paper has not been reviewed or accepted by the Transportation Research Board’s Executive Committee or the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The research team for NCHRP 12-82 included the following individuals, each of whom made invaluable contributions to the research: Adrian Ciolko, KPFF Consulting Engineers, Evanston, IL; Phil Fish, Fish and Associates, Middleton, WI; Robert Kogler, Rampart, LLC, Arlington, VA; David Forsyth, Texas Research Institute, Austin, TX. The authors gratefully acknowledge their significant contributions.
References
ABS (American Bureau of Shipping). (2003). Surveys using risk-based inspection for the offshore industry, Houston, TX.
Agrawal, A., Kawaguchi, A., and Zheng, C. (2009). “Bridge element deterioration rates.” City College of New York, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Albany, NY, 105.
Akgül, F., and Frangopol, D. M. (2004). “Time-dependent interaction between load rating and reliability of deteriorating bridges.” Eng. Struct., 26(12), 1751–1765.
Alampalli, S., and Jalinoos, F. (2009). “Bridge NDT: Use of NDT technologies in US bridge inspection practice.” Mater. Eval., 67(11), 1237–1246.
Albrecht, P., and Hall, T., Jr. (2003). “Atmospheric corrosion resistance of structural steels.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 15(1), 2–24.
API (American Petroleum Institute). (2002). “API recommended practice 580, risk-based inspection.” Recommended practice API-580, Washington, DC, 45.
API (American Petroleum Institute). (2008). “Risk-based inspection technology.” API Recommended Practice API-581, Washington, DC.
ASME. (1998). “Risk-based inspection—Development of guidelines v2 p2 light water reactor (LWR) nuclear power plant components.” New York.
ASME. (2007). “Inspection planning using risk-based methods.” ASME PCC-3-2007, New York, 92.
Bowles, D. S., Anderson, L. R., Glover, T. F., and Chauhan, S. S. (1998). “Portfolio risk assessment: a tool for dam safety risk management.” 1998 USCOLD Annual Lecture, Buffalo, NY.
Chung, H. Y. (2004). “Fatigue reliability and optimal inspection strategies for steel bridges.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX.
Darmawan, M. S., and Stewart, M. G. (2007). “Spatial time-dependent reliability analysis of corroding pretensioned prestressed concrete bridge girders.” Struct. Saf., 29(1), 16–31.
Department for Transport (2012). “Risk based principle inspection intervals.” Highways Agency, London, 15.
Ehlen, M. A., Thomas, M. D. A., and Bentz, E. C. (2009). Life-365 Service Life Prediction Model Version 2.0.1 user's manual, Life-365 Consortium II.
Enright, M. P., and Frangopol, D. M. (1998). “Service-life prediction of deteriorating concrete bridges.” J. Struct. Eng., 309–317.
Estes, A. C., and Frangopol, D. M. (1999). “Repair optimization of highway bridges using system reliability approach.” J. Struct. Eng., 766–775.
Estes, A. C., and Frangopol, D. M. (2001). “Bridge lifetime system reliability under multiple limit states.” J. Bridge Eng., 523–528.
Estes, A. C., and Frangopol, D. M. (2003). “Updating bridge reliability based on bridge management systems visual inspection results.” J. Bridge Eng., 374–382.
Estes, A. C., Frangopol, D. M., and Foltz, S. D. (2004). “Updating reliability of steel miter gates on locks and dams using visual inspection results.” Eng. Struct., 26(3), 319–333.
Faber, M. H., Straub, D., Chakrabarti, P., Abu-Odeh, I., and de Dios de la Ramirez, J. (2005). “Fatigue analysis and risk based inspection planning for life extension of fixed offshore platforms.” ASME 2005 24th Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, New York, 511–519.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). (1988). “Revisions to the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS).” Technical Advisory 5140.21, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Washington, DC.
Goyet, J., Rouhan, A., and Faber, M. H. (2004). “Industrial implementation of risk based inspection planning lessons learnt from experience: Part 1—The case of FPSOs.” ASME 2005 24th Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, ASME, New York, 553–563.
Klinesmith, D. E., McCuen, R. H., and Albrecht, P. (2007). “Effect of environmental conditions on corrosion rates.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 121–129.
MAP-21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012), Pub. L. No. 112–141, Title 23, 23 U.S. Code, U.S.A.
Moore, M., Phares, B., Graybeal, B., Rolander, D., and Washer, G. (2001). Reliability of visual inspection for highway bridges, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA.
Nasrollahi, M., and Washer, G. (2014). “Estimating inspection intervals for bridges based on statistical analysis of national bridge inventory data.” J. Bridge Eng., 04014104.
NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). (2003). “Regulatory guide 1.178—An approach to plant-specific risk-informed decisionmaking for inservice inspection of piping.” Washington, DC, 15.
NSBA (National Steel Bridge Alliance). (2010). “Corrosion protection of steel bridges.” Chapter 23, Steel bridge design handbook, National Steel Bridge Alliance, Chicago.
NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board). (1971). “Highway accident report: Collapse of the U.S. 35 highway bridge, Point Pleasant, WV, December 15, 1967.” Highway Accident Rep. NTSB/HAR-71/01, Washington, DC, 142.
Parr, M. J., Connor, R. J., and Bowman, M. (2010). “Proposed method for determining the interval for hands-on inspection of steel bridges with fracture critical members.” J. Bridge Eng., 352–363.
Ramey, G. E., and Wright, R. L. (1997). “Bridge deterioration rates and durability/longevity performance.” Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 98–104.
Russell, H. G. (2004). NCHRP synthesis 333: Concrete bridge deck performance, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 188.
Sommer, A. M., Nowak, A. S., and Thoft-Christensen, P. (1993). “Probability-based bridge inspection strategy.” J. Struct. Eng., 3520–3536.
Sohanghpurwala, A. (2006). Manual on service life of corrosion-damaged reinforced concrete bridge superstructure elements, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Stewart, M. G., and Mullard, J. A. (2007). “Spatial time-dependent reliability analysis of corrosion damage and the timing of first repair for RC structures.” Eng. Struct., 29(7), 1457–1464.
Stewart, M. G., Rosowsky, D. V., and Val, D. V. (2001). “Reliability-based bridge assessment using risk-ranking decision analysis.” Struct. Saf., 23(4), 397–405.
Straub, D., and Faber, M. H. (2006). “Computational aspects of risk-based inspection planning.” Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng., 21(3), 179–192.
Straub, D., Goyet, J., Sorensen, J. D., and Faber, M. H. (2006). “Benefits of risk based inspection planning for offshore structures.” ASME 2005 24th Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, ASME, New York, 59–68.
Sun, X., Zhang, Z., Wang, R., Wang, X., and Chapman, J. (2004). “Analysis of past national bridge inventory ratings for predicting bridge system preservation needs.” Transportation Research Record, 1866, 36–43.
Vu, K. A. T., and Stewart, M. G. (2000). “Structural reliability of concrete bridges including improved chloride-induced corrosion models.” Struct. Saf., 22(4), 313–333.
Washer, G., Connor, R., Nasrollahi, M., and Reising, R. (2015). “Verification of the framework for risk-based inspection.” J. Bridge Eng.,.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Bridge Engineering
Volume 21 • Issue 4 • April 2016
Copyright
© 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Nov 20, 2014
Accepted: Jun 12, 2015
Published online: Jan 4, 2016
Published in print: Apr 1, 2016
Discussion open until: Jun 4, 2016
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.