Truss Bridge Rehabilitation Prioritization

https://doi.org/10.13023/ktc.rr.2018.132019PDFTech ReportKTC-18-13/SPR15-503-1FSPR 15-503Truss bridgesBridge management systemsHistoric preservationPreservationRehabilitation (Maintenance)historic importancerehabilitation prioritizationbridge conditionUnited StatesKentuckyUniversity of Kentucky Transportation CenterPeiris, AbheethaHarik, Issam E.University of Kentucky Transportation CenterKentucky Transportation CabinetUS Transportation CollectionKentucky\u2019s inventory of historic steel truss bridges is declining rapidly. There are more than 150 historic truss bridges in the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet\u2019s (KYTC) bridge inventory. Most of these bridges require maintenance to avoid replacement. However, prioritizing the rehabilitation of these bridges based on their historic importance is challenging. While AASHTO\u2019s Guidelines for Historic Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement contain guidance on selecting bridges for preservation, currently there is no guidance on how to prioritize those historic bridges selected for rehabilitation. Building on a previous study that identified historic truss bridges in Kentucky meriting preservation, the Kentucky Transportation Center (KTC) developed a truss bridge database listing the historic, geometric and other key features of the bridges. 108 candidate bridges were selected as being historically significant for preservation. Fourteen of the bridges were replaced during the course of the study, leaving 94 bridges for evaluation. KTC developed a ranking system for rehabilitation prioritization. Two levels of prioritization were considered in this study. The first level, Historical Importance, is the primary and most important level of prioritization. A historical importance factor, HIF, was calculated for each bridge based on its uniqueness, year of construction, and other factors. Bridges were then sorted based on their HIF to identify the ones for rehabilitation prioritization. When a number of bridges have the same HIF, a second level of prioritization, P2F, which accounts for Bridge Condition and Rehabilitation Potential, is deployed. A bridge condition factor, BCF, and rehabilitation potential factor, RPF, are calculated for each bridge. Eight of the bridges were identified as being of significant historical importance, receiving an HIF greater than 100. Of the remaining bridges, 30 had an HIF between 10 and 100, and the rest (56 bridges) earned an HIF less than 10.88