Pi SOxsL-0296 97601983 The management of bridges in New York City Bojidar Yaney {New York Cry Depart of Trmporttion 2 Recor Si, New For, 1 1008, USA Colunbis Urverntsy, New York MP 1002, 18H The condition of bridges mar yed by New York City is examined. The adopted methods for rating bridge conditions ere reviewed. The factors significantly contributing to the deterioration and improvement of these conditions are sought. Conclusions about the optimal strategy for improving bridge conditions are drawn. © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: bridge, condition, management 1, Introduetion ‘The Annual Repost forthe eondlion of he bridges in New York Cit! liste 866 stuetaes with 4834 spans, Ineladed are the four Best River erosings, 25 movable bridges and five tunnels with an average age of appaximately 72 years, The les Wo decades nave revealed alaming ceteriotion i these nfrasiucture asics of the Cy. The resuking reconstruction and user costs have yet to be Fully assessed ‘The Bast Rivorbrdgos have undergone or are in the midst ‘of rohabiltstinne hich will exten beyond the year 2000 Aa cos in exces $1 Bllion, Toll replacement his been ‘covsidered fcr siratues sich asthe Willasburg bldg. “The erin the New York iy lage sonst th G faiond dic. in Novenber 198 Belcr Roads repre $91,208 bridges nationally of which 187-508 are ‘stander. There has bees litle change in this poaeral ‘ondion aver he ust deve, Recozniing the imperence fof ie infasiucure the Federal Goverament tuunched ‘couaprchersive bridge inspec program in 1978, A Bed= tally Funded bridge rehabiitaion program is also in pro [es nationwide, As a estl of the Intermodal Surface Transpertation rtcieney Act af Congress (1991) 4 8 c= seni recommended that dee prograns be cordiged by 2 Dridge manugerent progran which takes inte aesount life-eycie costs and dotrmincs optimal expenitures under the exiting constants. The essential information. for bridge management decivons in New York Cis. including Didge condition, maintenance and rehabilitation dats are Aieussed hercin 2. Bridge inventory and inspection Since it was extablshod in 1978 the Federal bridge inspe Vion program he underzone several mechcatons. Non theles it nas been consistent fora period suliciem to create a reiabe bridge inventory and condition assessnent data ‘se, The bridge inventory refsots the rac type and 1020 ein cen al nga. i cote a satan ane eat ua te ey gh Seu ohh Wee ELS SS ae SEC Fae ae src wo oe eh ar a Miller copending h nd tat oe meen Biliary mesa onde inept gg Be in ey sais sain rane ng meat ae, earache a Thai Soe ei Me a te ean ngs wn ot SSCS Sa ee er wag at veo acl SR wie lo ly a Sr nit Relea ee ted et rng iets SHES CNSR ante ey E Senay eee ste kc tags HeThe management of bridges in Now York City: B. Yanev seleted sound mesons such as te emphasize the impor tance of primary merihers and decks. Yet thay vary from fone system to anther, and Turermore, are subct 0 revision. Table 7 Ulsuaaes te compataion of de overall bridge condion rating according to New York State, In 1092 the New Vouk State bridge mnaeagement syecna™ inrocused «Spun Condition Index supplementing. the dpe Condition Rating. Hnidge element sich 3 Joins tpeaings, curbs. sidewalks and wearing surface art rope resented Li de overall Bridge Coudtion Ruins (by shee owes rating), but not inthe Span Condition Tndex. Thus the Bridge Condition Rating is Utter suited to assess na tenance needs while the Span Conilition Index determines rehattation priorities. The intratuction of 2 new mainte ‘ance orient Span Condition Index isin preparation The subjectivity of bride condiion ratings Is slated 1© «lack of quanication. Probabilistic techriques have been ‘oplied taking the view that “bridge carbon” i noe a terminstc orm. On tho level of speci bridge, how fever, the lack of gui! iso comin ratings mess in the following main deficiencies: ‘+ Ratings such as “S—Not Functioning as Designed” (NY State) define @ quality, bur they are astigned without a ceresponding caleultion, The leadbearing capacity of the bedge cannot he aseesed thrwgh the Canton Ra ings + Bridge condition ratings ae inconclusive in the quan ied asiesoment of the work needed for ridge rehab Despite the deficiencies dlscussed above however, bre ‘canton ratings are used inthe assessrent of the overall ‘Snow of lugs body oF stuctues sich a dhe Exiles fof Now York City in ender 19 ilustate tends and tow frmniend policies. Figure shows the average condition ‘ing forthe bridges of New York City front 1982 to the present ILS noteworthy thie during this period major bridge reconstructions as well as umerous ridge closures and emergencies, the overall averau> condition rainy bas femained csscaally consent, In an atempt 0 induce ‘other paremeters capable of reflocting ary existing tend the standard deviation, the sample yaranes, the skewness find the furtosis of the data are comsidored) As shown in Figure Ita later two paramsters Rave distinc trends: The physical sianificance of these tends is not immediately Sypucit and requires funber investsaion, A different type sf asiessment is achieved by counting all the bridges arma fly dowterated ae uprated ding the consiered peed Table 2 suromarizes this exereke for the City badges excluding Eas River and pedestrian crossings. The sum rary reflects a period of eontinally intensifying bridze inspection effort” Bridge ‘conditions ‘were investigated sccoring tthe new inspecten standards The inspection Standards themselves, a6 Well 2 the Bridge inspectors Wao 021 applied ther were understanding the bridges. As result there were cingular years sash as 1 during ‘which a large numberof srucures were doan-ated. Sub- jective influences sowithstanding. the neti balance of 54 downated bridges has to he viewed ay indicative of the actual bridge deterioration pattem over the considered 10 year period The slate of the bridges would be petir reveled it deterioration rates could he generted forthe bridges sad their components 3. Deterioration rates CObesining the rates of deterioration foe bridges and their ‘components appears posible wih he consisen ly avalaie ‘ridge inspecten dala. Cerin rests have been fepored bby Yanov et af Llawos eal”, Yanev" and Veshosky et al?, among ets. The linitations of the inspection daa profoundly influence these firdings. In addition, the rate F deterioration depends on the type of msinienance al fbaation setivties as well as te type of sage. Those have varied Signifieanly ever time witout adequate Uocu- ' disnoton i drawn hersin between the deserionation ‘rates faction of bridge maintenance and the bridge rt ing as fiction of time, The forse implies a relationship between bridge contin fatings and age under define! foonsuit Usige and maigenance while the Haver Simpy elas rating 1 a Tor the purposes of this study, the New York City bridges were divided into wel and conorete spans aad further separated ino spans with and without joints, Figace 2 shows the span condition rags as finetons of time, “The graphs are obined as an average for the pod 1982 1994, All aings are acconding w the New York State 1 to7 system. A number of obsrvalions can be made a fl Tow ‘There is no strongly pronounced ference between the ‘atlag/time relaenships for steel and concrete. It is oted that sect spans dominate in aurabers by & 4 ¥0 rato. + Bob stel seul cone spans decline Tinaaly betwsen the ratings of 7 (now) and 5 (in good service condition) fer pened of 20 years, 4 ab the annual rate of 0 pola ‘+ Between the aues of 20 and 80 years spans decline fom arating of 5 0 a tating of 4. Beyond that age ratings reflect primarily th effect of constructions. ‘© Spans With joints tend to sow a slightly lower rating ‘Beyond the age of $0 concrete spans with joints show Shayp improvements. This is atuibured to whabibtaion ‘work The convex polygons cbtained herein are consistent wi Sopot Won cee wa Seoonary Members 3022 The management of bridges in New York City: B. Yanev Mean of Bridge Condition Rating Cae aH of “| “ Sample Variance a / oa SM) _/ Degree of skewness 1 —~ oe Standard Deviation aa Kurtosis: be oa 04 es 06 or ae 09 so) ww MY mw he mw a oP me Figuco 1 Proptie ofthe average bridge conetion rising 1922-94 Table 2 Changes in iidge Cotion Ratings (1863-1855) Upates | 2 2 6 @ 6 7» » 9 27 8 2 oS Doomed’) 0 um mB ow! 8 8 2 & «2 je 3 » 2% Me results of most ter stubs sich as Vesbesky ef a? Con Sidetable speculaion hus been generated by the fat tat the polygon (or the ssstmned smooth carve) ate rt con ‘ve us might be exposted aa the basis of infortation about the non-linear and mostly accelerating nature of pysical DMenemien, ch as corrosion 4m steed alkalis Feaction in concrete, Veshosky et ef” atvibue dhe convex ccurvatwe te the subjectivity of the ratings. Inspectors are Sisposted of dawnrating new structs faster while being more lenient with acres In const, Llanos etal. ant Yaney ef of, followest the rating history of individual bridges. The observed rating improvements due to bridge rehabilitation were climinated in thoes stage, The resting deterioration mics were Smooth nearly straight lines. It therefore concluded that the reduction in the Yate of deeroration Aer the spans reach 20 yeas ofa is lagely de to the fe: of repair dnd rehabilitation work although the effect of subjectivity is not entirely excluded, Beyord the age of 80 yeers sorplete recanericions ton to upgrade the stustues even Mone Significant