Perceptions on Bridge Painting Costs: Update on FHWA Study

1
Perceptions on Bridge Painting Costs Update on
FHWA Study

• The 36th Annual Mid-Atlantic Quality Assurance
  Workshop
• Charleston, WV
• February 12, 2003
• Presented by
• Bill Shoup Bernard Appleman
• Executive Director Vice
  President
• SSPC KTA-Tator, Inc.

2
Outline of Topics

• Background
• Perceptions about painting
• Status of FHWA Cost Study
• Conclusion

3
Background

• Steel must compete with concrete
• 2 options for corrosion protection
• Painting
• Unpainted weathering steel

4
Perceptions About Painting

• Difficult to do correctly by shops
• Adds considerably to cost of fabrication
• Adds considerable to time of fabrication
• Causes environmental headaches
• Makes steel less competitive

5
Responding to perceptions

• Perception 1 Difficult to do correctly by shops
• Response 1 Improve effectiveness of shop
  painting
• Identify road blocks (e.g., unnecessary
  requirements by specifiers)
• Identify and disseminate best practice
  (guidelines, information sharing, benchmarking)
• Training of managers, operators, inspectors

6
Responding to Perceptions

• Perception 2 Adds considerably to cost of
  fabrication
• Response 2 Develop valid cost data
• Discussed later

7
Responding to Perceptions

• Perception 3 Adds considerably to time of
  fabrication
• Response 3 Identify fast thru-put coatings
• Modified polyurea metallic, powder
• Need to verify performance (e.g., NTPEP testing)

8
Centrifugal Wheel Blast Unit A large beam is
supported by an overhead crane and carried
through a centrifugal wheel blast unit.
9
A painter checks the wet film thickness of the
topcoat on the lower flange of a large beam
(foreground). Two painters apply a zinc-rich
primer to a similar beam (background).
10
Responding to Perceptions

• Perception 4 Causes environmental headaches
• Response 4 Develop zero VOC coatings
• 100 solids powder coatings, thermal spray
  metallic
• Low VOC and low HAP coatings as possible interim
  step

11
Responding to Perceptions

• Perception 5 Makes steel less competitive
• Response 5 Provide valid life cycle cost data
• Need good data on
• Fabrication and installation
• Coating lifetime
• Maintenance cost
• Alternatives (unpainted steel, concrete,
  composites)
• Cost models available (FHWA and others)

12
Status on FHWA Study on Painting Costs

• Objective
• Determine the costs for painting of new steel
  bridges

13
Status on Cost Study Expected Output

• Cost of painting as percent of total fabrication
  (range)
• Influence on these costs of
• Type of steel
• Type of structure
• Number of coats

14
Detailed Factors Investigated

• Type of steel
• A588 (painted and unpainted
• A572 (painted and unpainted)
• A36 (painted)
• Number of coats
• One coat (typically inorganic zinc)
• Two or three coats (e.g., inorganic zinc/ epoxy/
  polyurethane)

15
Applying coal tar epoxy to H-piling with airless
spray
16
Detailed Factors Investigated (continued)

• Types of structures
• Rolled bean girders
• Tub girders
• Curved girders
• Truss

17
Sources of Data

• Fabricating shops
• General contractors
• DOTs and FHWA
• Paint suppliers
• Design and engineering firms

18
Others Expressing Interest

• Associations (SSPC, AISC, NSBA)
• FHWA
• DOTs (KY, TX)
• Paint manufacturers

19
Status

• Data received from
• 2 fabricators
• 1 general contractor
• Offers of assistance from several others

20
Conclusion/Summary

• Preliminary data shows a very wide range of cost
  percentages
• Should be a useful tool in addressing perception
• Additional input sought (DOTs, fabricators,
  general contractors)

21
(No Transcript)