introduction
play

Introduction Objective Program Overview Achievements - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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


  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

  2. Introduction • Objective • Program Overview • Achievements • Conclusions • Future Visits

  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.

  4. Program Overview Practical Observations Site Visits Productivity 9 Reports Cost Model Observations Objective Data Pricing Data Productivity and Cost Data

  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

  6. Reports • ElectroStrip • Lead Stabilizers (abrasive additive and pre-applied • Abrasive Injected Water coating) Blasting • Water Jetting • Rapid Deployment • Metallizing • Recyclable Steel Grit • Adhesive Foil • Torbo™ System

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

  8. Abrasive Injected Water Blasting • Imparts profile unlike water blasting • No dust • Must contain water

  9. Rapid Deployment • No peak time traffic disruptions • All work cycles in one shift • Substantial coordination required

  10. Recyclable Steel Grit • Less dust than disposable abrasives • Larger equipment costs • Less waste generated

  11. Torbo™ System • Low dusting • Operator control of “mixture” • Must rinse surfaces after preparation • Collection of slurry

  12. Lead Stabilizers (abrasive additive and pre-applied coating) • Lower disposal costs • Possible extra application • Greater material costs

  13. Water Jetting • Higher Equipment costs • Water disposal required • Low dusting • No profile generation

  14. Metallizing • Higher Equipment Costs • Superior coating durability • Higher material costs

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

  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

  17. Summary • Cost Oriented Project • Nine Technologies • Cost Model Developed • This Project Does Not Address Life Cycle Economics or Durability of Painting Options

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend