Joshua with the kids of Panama

Author: Lorella Angelini, Angelini Consulting Services, LLC

Some time ago I published a post about the initiative taken by Joshua Sletten, Utah DOT, who traveled to Lura, Panama to help build a pedestrian suspension bridge with the “Bridges to Prosperity” organization.

I met Joshua at the recent AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures (SCOBS) annual meeting in Minneapolis, MN, where I live. Joshua, an expert on bridge preservation, sits on the AASHTO SCOBS technical committee T-9 “Bridge Preservation” that is chaired by Bruce Johnson with Oregon DOT.

I had a brief conversation with Joshua about his experience in Panama.

Was the goal accomplished? Did the construction of the suspended pedestrian bridge in Panama go as planned? 

Yes, the goal was fully accomplished. We actually completed the bridge a little faster than we had scheduled.  We had planned to complete the project in 12 days, and we finished after 8. We also finished under budget. I think everybody was pretty happy with it.

We worked well together as a team. We brought in local community members that helped us build the entire bridge. We had translators to help with language differences. Everybody played their part well.

What was your role in the project?

I was the logistic manager, in charge of getting everybody to the bridge at the scheduled time. I also managed transportation, arranging meals and lodging in Panama City.

 What stands out in your memory about this experience?

The biggest thing for me was connecting with people, the volunteers that traveled to Lura, Panama to help build the bridge and the local community. I also had a great time playing with the local children. After work, we played kickball, softball and football. I even taught the kids how to throw a Frisbee.

I will surely remember the inauguration day, when we played music during a traditional jam.

The other big thing that stands out to me is having been able to build a bridge that was desperately needed by the community. The bridge will serve the community for generations to come. This is what makes me proud to be an engineer. I am definitively going to remember this.

Would you recommend this experience to other engineers?

I learned a lot from this experience. I arrived to the bridge location, deep in the Panamanian jungle, got unplugged from all the technology and started working with a team that was motivated and like-minded to build a 150 ft. long suspension bridge  in a short amount of time.

It was a memorable, once in a lifetime experience that I highly recommend to anyone.

Obviously, one has to overcome some challenges, like staying in a tent, doing hard work and labor with your hands, and not being afraid of sun exposure or getting attacked by mosquitoes.

How long did you stay in Panama?

I was there for two weeks. When I got there the local community had already completed the foundation. The entire bridge, from inception to inauguration, took approximately three months to build.

Will there be any preservation activity for the bridge that you helped build?

We spoke at length with the local people, who are very proud of the bridge, about the importance of proper bridge maintenance.  We wanted to reinforce the concept that in order to keep the bridge in a state they can be proud of for years to come, it has to be well maintained. We talked to them about how to replace the planks when they begin to wear out. We showed them how to maintain or replace other critical elements of the bridge.

Author: Lorella Angelini, Angelini Consulting Services, LLC
Coating steel bridges is a key technical topic with bridge preservation. It comes as no surprise that there are ten TSP2 Working Groups addressing the different aspects of this practice, from spot painting to surface preparation.

One of the experts in this field is Jeff Pouliotte, State’s Structure Maintenance Engineer with Florida DOT (FDOT). Jeff is the chair of TSP2 “National Bridge Preservation Coatings” Working Group.

Where does your interest for protective coatings for steel bridges come from?
Having worked for FDOT in design, construction and maintenance for many years, I realized that steel bridges often require repaint after as little as 12 years, while these applications should last 20-25 years. For this reason, bridge owners have to repaint their steel bridges many more times than they should have to over their service life. I also realized that there is ample room for improvement with this technology, for example, using high performance coating systems or weathering steel.

In Florida, as default systems, we have adopted the use of weathering steel for environmentally suitable locations and an inorganic zinc single-coat paint system for more severe environments. For aesthetically sensitive locations, we opted to retain a 3-coat inorganic paint system with a clear top coat for color retention and gloss.

How did you take the lead in the national effort to improve the practice of steel bridge coating?
It started with sharing my experience with the protection of steel bridges in aggressive environment at the South East Bridge Preservation Partnership (SEBPP) in 2012 in Atlanta, where I gave a presentation.

After the presentation, I was asked to put together a list of recommendations for how owners could achieve improved service life for their steel bridges. I subsequently put together a group of volunteers from the SEBPP and the AASHTO National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP), which was comprised of a few State employees and Industry representatives, which became the SEBPP Paint Group.

The group’s first products were a Report entitled “A Rational Approach for Planning Bridge Repainting Projects”, a calculation methodology to compare recoating options, and the SEBPP survey to determine Best Practices for Coating Structural Steel. The Calculator focused on cost comparisons between spot painting, overcoating and the removal and replacement of the entire existing coating system. It also included a methodology to compare mobilization and construction costs, life-cycle costs, as well as maintenance and protection costs.

The Report identifies the significant aspects of recoating operations that affect quality, such as: engineering evaluations for in situ coating systems, surface preparation, coating application, specifications, contractor, CEI and owner training and qualifications. At the urging of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Maintenance (SCOM) we modified the Calculator and the Report to include user costs for people sitting in traffic awaiting construction to clear up. I presented results of both at National Bridge Preservation Partnership (NBPP) in Orlando in 2014.

After the meeting in Orlando a consensus was reached to take the program to the national level. The Group has been renamed the NBPP Coatings Group, to acknowledge our national status and to formally acknowledge our interest in coating systems other than paint. The makeup of the Group currently includes experts from other State DOTs, NTPEP, Consultants, Suppliers, Delegates to the AASHTO Subcommittees for Bridges and Structures, Maintenance and Materials, TRB, SSPC, NACE and Researchers. We focused on promoting an AASHTO Domestic Scan “Bridge Recoating Best Practices”, which got support and endorsement from AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures (SCOBS), SCOM, all four TSP-2 National Bridge Preservation Partnerships, and the Transportation Research Board (TRB). The goal of the Domestic Scan is to gather knowledge from DOTs across country on best practices for steel bridge coating protection. The Domestic Scan was subsequently accepted and is scheduled for completion in October 2016.

What is the short term goal for the NBPP Coating Group?
The goal is to promote knowledge that will allow Owners to improve the durability of coatings for steel bridge coatings. The report “A Rational Approach for Planning Bridge Repainting Projects” identifies the following as key aspects for having a successful bridge recoating project: performing an engineering evaluation of the existing coating system to determine if the substrate is suitable for overcoating; proper surface preparation; proper coating application; proper training for Contractors, Inspectors and Owners; and good specifications.

The Group is advocating the adoption of the Report’s conclusions, is focusing on finding ways to promote NACE or SSPC coatings training for inspectors and contractors, and is trying to involve the contracting community in our activities for their insight and knowledge.

And what is the long term goal for the Group?
The primary goal is to promote long lasting cost effective coating systems. In accordance with this goal, the Group recently endorsed a research project to collect technical data and develop design guidelines and specifications for duplex coating systems, consisting of a galvanized and/or metalized bottom coat with a high performance paint system top coat. We have already received support from SCOM for this research project. I also raised this issue during the midyear meeting of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures’ T-9 Technical Subcommittee for Bridge Preservation where I am the Vice Chair. As a result, T-9 will be asking SCOBS to also endorse this research project.

How does the Group plan to promote awareness of the financial benefits of supporting the use of best practices in steel bridge coatings?
We are planning to start a research project to help Owners develop methods to convince Legislators of the benefits of bridge preservation activities, and to free up more funding in this area. In parallel we should find a way of supporting those Owners who specify longer lasting more durable coating systems and have the courage to hold contractors accountable and reject insufficient work. Decision makers need to understand that longer lasting coating systems save money over time.

What challenges are the Group currently facing?
We need to create a liaison with all the stakeholders involved in the coating of structural steel bridges. We have reached out to the AASHTO Subcommittee on Maintenance, Construction and Materials, NTPEP, and the National Steel Bridge Alliance (NSBA). The more people are involved, the more we can identify and address problems to achieve better results.

There is a great need to assemble and transfer knowledge. For example DOT structural and maintenance engineers as well as design engineers are not necessarily steel coating experts, so a liaison with other stakeholders is essential to achieve better results.

It would also be helpful to solicit advice from contractors, who can assist in setting up contract requirements and specifications. If contracts and owners hold contractors accountable, good contractors will thrive, while contractors who perform subpar work will see a need to improve which should help avoid the financial strain of redoing work.

And so, are contractors going to be part of the Group?
I would love to have contractors in the Group, but unfortunately we have not been able to attract them. Contractors could greatly help the Group shape an innovative bid process that awards contracts based on the best value and not the lowest cost. In Florida we have experimented with warranties as a first attempt to try to achieve this goal.

What is your experience with product Manufacturers?
Since Owners are in general reluctant to try new products, a major challenge faced by Manufacturers is the release of new products that do not have a track record. Accelerated testing is good way to prove the durability of coatings as an alternative to the track record. However not all Owners have the same Lab capabilities as FDOT in carrying out this challenging test.

Any closing thoughts?
A steel bridge coating system that lasts longer saves money over time and extends the overall service life of the infrastructure. Future generations will reap the financial benefits of long lasting coating systems, due to reduced maintenance costs. The commitment of our Group is to raise awareness of different solutions and provide tools to help Owners make correct choices.

Links:
TSP2 Bridge Preservation Coating Working Groups:
https://tsp2bridge.pavementpreservation.org/technical/coatings/

Jeff Pouliotte’s Presentation at TSP2 National Meeting in Atlanta in 2012
https://pavementvideo.s3.amazonaws.com/2012_SEBPP/PDF/10%20-%20FDOT%20New%20Directions%20in%20FDOT%20Steel%20Corrosion%20Protection%20-%20Jeff%20Pouliotte.pdf

Jeff Pouliotte’s Presentation at TSP2 National Meeting in Orlando 2014
http://nbppc2014.org/opening-a- rational-approach- for-planning- bridge-repainting- projects-pouliotte/
https://pavementvideo.s3.amazonaws.com/2014_NBPPC/PDF/4A%20-%20SEBPP%20Paint%20Report%20Presentation%20-%20POULIOTTE.pdf

Paint & Coating TSP2 Video Library:
https://www.pavementpreservation.org/video_library/bridge/Paint_Coatings.html
SEBPP Paint Report Presentation – Pouliotte
Report – A Rational Approach for Planning Steel Bridge Repainting Projects
Bridge Cost Analysis – Calculator

Author: Lorella Angelini, Angelini Consulting Services, LLC

Perspective of: Peter DeNicola, Evonik Corporation

Peter DeNicola, Technical Marketing Manager with Evonik Corporation, is an expert with bridge preservation and maintenance, also having a deep expertise with concrete deck sealers.

Along with his many commitments, he chairs the International Concrete Repair Institute (ICRI) Committee 140 – “Life-Cycle Performance and Cost”.  I spoke with Peter about the activity of the Committee he chairs.

Could you tell us about yourself?

I graduated from Rutgers State University in New Jersey with a chemistry degree.  Shortly after graduation I started working for Evonik, which was Degussa at the time, based in New Jersey, where I live.

At first, I was part of the Research and Development team focusing on silane synthesis. I then moved to the application technology department where I put to use my R&D knowledge of silanes for the development of concrete protection applications. I have been in this position for 13 years.

I joined ICRI in 2005. I currently chair the ICRI Committee 140 – “Life-Cycle Performance and Cost”.

Can you introduce us to Committee 140?

We have a diverse group of professionals in the Committee. The group includes consulting engineers, manufacturers and contractors, who use products for repair and maintenance and also deal with the owners.  This diversity allows different perspectives and views of products and technologies, which are all taken into consideration in the Committee.

 What compelled you to take a leadership role with the Committee?

I had been working on several projects with Paul Tourney, who initiated the activity of this Committee in 2008. Like Paul, I strongly believe in the importance and the value of developing an analysis of products and technologies for concrete repair based on the criteria of cost and service life extension.

I wanted to help owners choose products and technologies based on an economic perspective including both cost of the application and its benefits over the years.

What is the mission of Committee 140?

To provide industry guidance for decisions that are based on service life extension of concrete structures as well the economic impact of the different repair strategies.

What are the Committee’s goals?

To develop a guideline document that will take a “cradle to grave” approach employing different maintenance and concrete repair strategies for extending service life of concrete structures. The document should allow an owner to formulate preventative maintenance plans, mapping out costs and actions to be taken in the short and long term with the objective of preventing major repairs.

Generally speaking, owners do not make a repair just because they have to fix something. They also take into consideration the long-term service life of their structures. For this reason they value tools that allow them to save money over time avoiding extensive repairs.

The guideline document that the Committee is preparing will include a net present value calculation tool that should allow owners to take the best repair decision for their budget. For example, by using the highest quality materials and best possible repair technologies an owner can spend additional $ 100 at the time of the repair to save $500 in 5 years. The guidelines will provide different net present value calculations related to different repair strategies.

You have mentioned repair strategies a number of times during this conversation. What about maintenance strategies?

Ultimately the guidelines will be focused on repair with a smaller section dedicated to maintenance.  It is true though that the guidelines reference existing codes, such as ACI (American Concrete institute), which include both inspection, repair and maintenance information.

When will the guidelines be competed?

We are planning to have a rough draft completed in one year.

There have been talks to combine the Life-Cycle Performance and Cost Committee with the ICRI Sustainability Committee to work on a joint document since the two Committees are working on a similar pathway.

What is your source of data for the guidelines?

For net present value calculation we basically rely on industry to provide service life data that are expected out of a certain product, technology and repair strategy.  For instance, repairs of delaminated and spalled areas of steel reinforced concrete usually have longer life expectancy when the repair material contains a corrosion inhibiting admixture.

The Committee also implements independent testing programs to verify statements from manufacturers. As an example, there are test data that allow predicting how long it will take for chloride to penetrate different types of concrete and start corroding the reinforcing steel.

Do you think the work of your Committee and the guidelines could be of interest to bridge preservation practitioners?

Yes, absolutely.  The ICRI guidelines will include a section dedicated to bridge decks and bridge substructures. Guidelines will cover several bridge preservation practices, such as deck washing.

I am looking forward to strengthening  the communication with DOTs and getting their feedback about the work of Committee 140.