International Bridge Study (IBS) Introduction and Overview

1. International Bridge Study (IBS) Introduction and Overview Jeffrey Weidner, Franklin Moon and A. Emin Aktan Intelligent Infrastructure Systems, LLC and Drexel University

2. U.S. Bridge Performance Research Long-term Bridge Performance Program International Bridge Study (CAIT) New Technologies Opportunity Projects New Facilities/Research Capabilities Synergistic Research (NCHRP, NSF, NIST, etc.) Create a comprehensive database of quantitative data related to bridge performance Underpin the next generation of bridge decision-making tools Improve bridge preservation and renewal practices

3. International Bridge Study (NJDOT) Test-bed for International Collaboration between the US, EU, and Asia • US (CAIT, IIS, Drexel, WMU, Inspecttech, Pennoni, GT, Olson Eng), EU (UK, Austria, Switzerland) and Asia (Japan, Korea, China) teams will… • Demonstrate their respective best practices related to • Bridge inspection • Structural identification by various experimental techniques. • Prognosis and load rating • Establish global and local baseline properties • Anticipated Outcomes • Development of International Guidelines for the Application of Technology to bridges • Submitted to FHWA and AASHTO for approval to serve as the basis for standards • NIST and ASCE will also be invited to participate • A facility for round-robin studies by technology providers and researchers

4. International Bridge Study (NJDOT) In addition to providing quantitative data associated with critical performances, the International Bridge Study will…. • Demonstrate and document the best-practices in bridge technology integration • Serve as classrooms and field laboratories for educating tomorrow’s • Bridge inspectors, Consultants, Technology providers, DOT, FHWA workforce • Serve as validation test-beds for the assessment of new and developing technologies • Serve as field calibration hubs (quality control, quality assurance) for bridge inspection and technology providers • Move technology application from diagnosis, to diagnosis and prognosisto address bridge-specific concerns.

5. Guidelines: Volume I This document will be aimed towards owners and will aide them in identifying appropriate applications of technology, selecting appropriate contractors, and overseeing the effort Some guiding questions… • How can mechanistic and quantitative assessment methods offered by technology be effectively merged with the current qualitative and heuristic-based practice? • What is the role of experimental and simulation technologies related to answering the questions of an owner – e.g. how do I keep this bridge in service for 50 years? • How can we promote moving beyond “technology-push” and “advertisement technology” applications to real value-added applications? • In what situations are the various technologies cost effective? How can one quantify their cost effectiveness?

7. Convincing Owners to Give a “Second Chance” Overly optimistic Overly pessimistic Reality??? “Bubble” fueled by excitement and over-selling (snake oil) Perception Benefit to Owner Steward “Backlash” fueled by lack of tangible benefits Conception of Paradigm (technology transfer) Experience Generated

8. Guidelines: Volume II and Volume III These documents will be far more technical in nature as they address technology vendors and structural engineers who lead technology efforts Some guiding questions… • What is an appropriate framework to identify and leverage technologies in an integrated and effective manner? • What emerging technologies exist that are mature enough to enter the market and offer benefits over both current practice and conventional technologies? • What are the best practices associated with the individual assessment approaches examined? • How consistent are the experimental results across different groups that employ different techniques? Should various testing approaches be employed in parallel? What is the trade-off between competing approaches (ambient vs. forced dynamic testing)?

9. Accel Accel Accel Structural Identification Actionable Information Height Above Tower Base (ft) Height Above Tower Base (ft) Height Above Tower Base (ft) Frequency Frequency Frequency

10. IBS Test Structure Selection Principle Criteria: “Necessity is the mother of invention” - Plato • The test bridge should display performance issues for which the path forward is unclear – if there aren’t any questions, there are no need for answers… Secondary Criteria: The test bridge should… • Belong to a common family so results may be extrapolated to other bridge • Provide for easy access for various technology applications • Pose challenges related to assessment and load rating • Have complete documentation

11. US 202/NJ 23 Bridge, Wayne, NJ Wayne 20 miles v GWB Northern NJ v

12. US 202/NJ 23 Bridge, Wayne, NJ

13. Quantitative Overview

14. Total Bridge Population (New Jersey) Multi-girder/ stringer Structural form Material/ Structural form Steel Sub-population: 2737 (43%) Placing the Structure in Context

15. US 202/NJ 23 Bridge, Wayne, NJ

16. US-202/NJ-23 Bridge – Condition Overview

17. International Research Collaborators Japan University of Tokyo Central Nippon Expressway Co. (NEXCO-W) Keisoku Research Consultant European Union Sheffield University (United Kingdom) Vienna Consulting Engineers (Austria) École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (Switzerland) South Korea KAIST Seoul National University INHA University Pyunghwa Engineering Consultants Korea Expressway Corporation SEJONG University China Southeast University

18. Domestic Research Collaborators Rutgers University, Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation (CAIT) Intelligent Infrastructure Solutions, LLC Parsons Brinckerhoff Utah State University Drexel University Princeton University Georgia Tech Western Michigan University Inspecttech Pennoni Associates Olsen Engineering Smart Structures University of New Hampshire

19. International Bridge Study (IBS) Introduction and Overview PRESENTED BY: Franklin Moon and A. Emin Aktan Intelligent Infrastructure Systems, LLC

20. Typical Performance Issues Fatigue cracking Bearing “walking”, cracked pintel, Cracked RC pier cap