Introduction Objective Program Overview Achievements - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
introduction
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Introduction Objective Program Overview Achievements - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nov 27, 2023 192 likes •365 views

Cost-Effective Alternative Methods for Steel Bridge Paint System Maintenance Federal Highway Administration Contract No. DTFH61-97-C-00026 Robert Kogler - FHWA Christopher Farschon - Corrpro Brad Shaw - Corrpro Introduction

slide-1
SLIDE 1

“Cost-Effective Alternative Methods for Steel Bridge Paint System Maintenance”

Federal Highway Administration Contract No. DTFH61-97-C-00026 Robert Kogler - FHWA Christopher Farschon - Corrpro Brad Shaw - Corrpro

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Introduction

  • Objective
  • Program Overview
  • Achievements
  • Conclusions
  • Future Visits
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Objective

  • To identify methodologies and technologies that

will reduce the cost of bridge maintenance painting for steel bridge owners.

  • Compare these technologies and associated costs

to the current “state of the art” in bridge painting.

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Program Overview

Site Visits Productivity Observations Pricing Data Practical Observations Productivity and Cost Data Cost Model 9 Reports Objective Data

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Achievements

  • Investigated 9 technologies at over 25 job

sites

– gathered cost data – productivity data – made comparisons

  • Produced a separate report for each

technology

  • Developed Cost Model Spreadsheet and

User’s Guide

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Reports

  • ElectroStrip
  • Abrasive Injected Water

Blasting

  • Rapid Deployment
  • Recyclable Steel Grit
  • Torbo™ System
  • Lead Stabilizers (abrasive

additive and pre-applied coating)

  • Water Jetting
  • Metallizing
  • Adhesive Foil
slide-7
SLIDE 7

ElectroStrip

  • Applicable to “small” areas
  • No dust
  • Needs high-ampere DC electric source
  • Relatively slow production
  • Supplement with hand tool cleaning
slide-8
SLIDE 8

Abrasive Injected Water Blasting

  • Imparts profile unlike water blasting
  • No dust
  • Must contain water
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Rapid Deployment

  • No peak time traffic disruptions
  • All work cycles in one shift
  • Substantial coordination required
slide-10
SLIDE 10

Recyclable Steel Grit

  • Less dust than disposable abrasives
  • Larger equipment costs
  • Less waste generated
slide-11
SLIDE 11

Torbo™ System

  • Low dusting
  • Operator control of “mixture”
  • Must rinse surfaces after preparation
  • Collection of slurry
slide-12
SLIDE 12

Lead Stabilizers (abrasive additive and pre-applied coating)

  • Lower disposal costs
  • Possible extra application
  • Greater material costs
slide-13
SLIDE 13

Water Jetting

  • Higher Equipment costs
  • Water disposal required
  • Low dusting
  • No profile generation
slide-14
SLIDE 14

Metallizing

  • Higher Equipment Costs
  • Superior coating durability
  • Higher material costs
slide-15
SLIDE 15

Adhesive Foil

  • Relatively slow application rates
  • Requires primer coating
  • Higher material costs
  • Good “rust through” performance over SP-2

surfaces

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Cost Model

  • A Cost Comparison Tool

– Designed to provide activity-based cost estimates – Allows comparisons of alternative technologies by initial cost – Validated through field observations – Fully adjustable cost factors (e.g. for regional labor differences) – Default data based on this study

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Summary

  • Cost Oriented Project
  • Nine Technologies
  • Cost Model Developed
  • This Project Does Not Address Life Cycle

Economics or Durability of Painting Options