To: Michael McGinnis
From: Team 4
Re: Monitoring Michigan’s Highway Bridges
Date: 2/24/2013
Project: Bridge-sense
Introduction:
Michigan’s highway bridges are visually inspected once every 6-15 months, but a bridge can fall
into disrepair at any moment. Currently there are not enough inspectors to provide an adequate
inspection frequency. Since cracking and other structural problems can happen at any moment,
we are proposing a solution that provides continuous real time monitoring. Our team is
researching sensors that will provide real time continuous monitoring in a cost effective and
efficient way. Our research will include both primary and secondary research. The primary
research will consist mainly of interviews. We have already been in contact with MDOT,
specifically with the bridge inspection office. We plan to set up an interview with a current
bridge inspector. Our secondary research is being conducted online with our main source being
the MDOT website, www.michigan.gov/mdot. The MDOT website has provided us with public
documents including the most recent bridge inspection report as well as the checklist that the
current inspectors use.
Our goal to provide the most cost effective, practical, and efficient means of real time
continuous monitoring of highway bridges, the sensor systems that we will be considering will
be evaluated based on these terms. The remaining sections of this memo will address in detail
our objectives, audience, methods, project timetable, and our responsibilities and qualifications.
Objectives:
Our objective is to provide the most cost effective, practical and efficient means of monitoring
Michigan’s highway bridges. Currently, 279 bridges are structurally deficient and 852 are
functionally obsolete. The Michigan Department of Transportation performs limited inspections
on all highway bridges with a maximum of 15 months between inspections per bridge. If a
bridge meets certain criteria, a detailed inspection will be performed. During that 15 month
period, a bridge could go from bad to worse without anyone knowing, and although MDOT does
increase inspection frequency as needed, we don’t believe that it is enough. Our goal is not to
replace inspectors, but to increase their awareness of the state of Michigan’s bridges, and to
help them prioritize detailed inspections and repairs.
Audience:
We will address our audience as concerned citizens interested in the state of our infrastructure,
and qualified to research the topic to find alternative solutions to the problem of maintenance
and inspection of aging bridges. Our primary audience will consist of decision-makers, advisors
and implementers from the State government and MDOT.
 The decision-maker for MDOT projects is the State Transportation Director and is
responsible for allocating resources in the department.
o He will have questions such as:
o Why do we think there is a problem?
o
Why it is important that they consider the different alternatives and what do we
recommend?
o Has it been successfully implemented anywhere else?
o What is the cost associated with the proposed changes?
 The Michigan State Transportation commission serves as policy maker for all
transportation programs in the State of Michigan, and therefore will have more specific
questions such as:
o Are our criteria reasonable and appropriate?
o Are the facts reliable?
o What are the important features of the alternatives?
o What are the overall conclusions?
 The chief Operations Officer and the Chief Administrative Officer serve as advisors to
the Director and will have the same kind of questions as the commission.
 The bridge inspection office and the inspectors will serve as implementers and will have
questions about the functionality and special requirements if any for the new
technology that is being implemented.
 Our secondary audience will be the Michigan Transportation Research Board and
research groups at different universities and organizations throughout the State. They
will also be interested in the research method, and criteria and source selection used in
our report.
To answer all these different questions we will conduct primary and secondary research.
Methods:
Our team is going to research the problem stated above and our possible solutions to provide
the most cost effective, practical, and efficient solution. Our research will include both primary
and secondary research. The primary research will consist mainly of interviews. We have
already been in contact with MDOT specifically with the bridge inspection office. We plan to set
up an interview with a current bridge inspector. Some of the questions we will ask include the
following,






How many bridges do you inspect daily/annually?
What types of tests do you perform?
Do the tests vary depending on the classification of the bridge?
In your opinion what are the pros of the current inspection system in terms of
efficiency?
In your opinion what are the cons of the current inspection system in terms of
efficiency?
What are your initial thoughts on our proposed solution?
We will also be talking with employees from the company LORD Microstrain Monitoring
Systems, who currently make sensors to monitor the health of bridges. With the answers from
these questions and the feedback from Microstrain we will continue do to our secondary
research on the web with our main source being the MDOT website, www.michigan.gov/mdot.
The MDOT website will provide us with public documents including the most recent bridge
inspection report as well as the checklist that the current inspectors use. The main areas our
research will focus on are,






Tests ( Current tests vs. tests the sensors will perform )
Cost ( Current cost vs. proposed solution cost )
Efficiency ( Current vs. proposed solutions )
Implementation
Other states already using this system
Possible funding
With our goal being to provide the most cost effective, practical, and efficient means of real
time continuous monitoring of highway bridges, we will also use the research points listed
above as our criteria for evaluating sensor systems.
Responsibilities/Project Timeline:
Task Schedule Spreadsheet
Who
Deadline
Task
February 14
February 19
February 19
February 19
February 19
February 19
February 21
March 21
March 21
March 21
March 21
March 21
March 26
March 28
April 2
April 4
April 4
April 9
April 16
Team meeting
Cost of inspection
What happens to bad bridges
Current/Testing/Classification
Inspector interviews
Team meeting
P 3 Due
Budget/Funding
Types of sensors/Cost
Implementation
Interviews
Team meeting
Team meeting
P 4 Presentation
Team meeting
Construct P 5 ( Rehearse)
P 5 Rehearsal
P 5 Rehearsal
P 5 Final Presentation
All
OG
JW
BD
SK
All
All
Ola
Joe
BD
SK
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Contribution
Value
2
5
5
5
5
2
10
5
5
5
5
2
2
10
2
10
10
10
10
SK is the group leader. JW is the group computer science expert.
Team member: SK
Total contribution: 80
Team member: JW
Total contribution: 80
Team member: OG
Total contribution: 80
Team member: BD
Total contribution: 80
Accountability:



Informal.
Members will receive verbal warning for poor quality and late work.
Persistent delinquency will be brought to the instructor’s attention.
Status

The team member in question will receive a lower grade than the rest of the team.
Conclusion:
The mission of our team is to provide the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) with
the most cost effective, practical, and efficient means of real time continuous monitoring of
highway bridges. The current process does not provide an adequate inspection frequency,
especially for bridges which are functionally obsolete or in disrepair. We are currently looking
into installing sensors on the highway bridges so as to allow for real time continuous monitoring.
We will need to investigate this possible solution further by conducting both primary and
secondary research. We have already been in contact with the bridge inspection office at MDOT
and plan to conduct an interview with a current bridge inspector. We also hope to have an
interview with a representative at LORD Corporation, a company which focuses specifically on
sensors in bridges. Along with this primary research we will be conducting secondary research to
asses things such as cost, ease of implementation, efficiency, practicality, etc. when we have
concluded our research we will be able to give our final recommendations on providing the
most cost effective, practical, and efficient means of real time continuous monitoring.
Citations (Sources so far):
 MDOT - Bridge Operations Manuals and Guides. (n.d.). SOM - State of Michigan.
Retrieved February 24, 2013, from http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-1519625_24768_24773---,00.html
 Quick, D. (n.d.). Wireless sensor to monitor structural integrity of bridges. Gizmag |
New and Emerging Technology News. Retrieved February 24, 2013, from
http://www.gizmag.com/wireless-bridge-sensor/19380/
 Structural Health Monitoring (Bridges) | Microstrain Little Sensors. Big Ideas.. (n.d.).
Microstrain Little Sensors. Big Ideas. |. Retrieved February 24, 2013,