NCHRP Project 20-07/Task 335 UPDATING THE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR HIGHWAY BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES FINAL REPORT. Dennis R.

Transcription

1 NCHRP Project 20-07/Task 335 UPDATING THE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR HIGHWAY BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES BACKGROUND FINAL REPORT Dennis R. Mertz August 2013 The Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures (HSCOBS) of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has long recognized the benefit of research in helping its members meet their responsibility to design and manage the nation s highway infrastructure. Because of this recognition, HSCOBS strives to identify ways to fulfill the business needs of its members and, to that end, annually reviews research problem statements and recommends selected statements to the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research (SCOR) for consideration for funding under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). In addition, other research needs are addressed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), state, and industry-sponsored research and development programs. Because of this review and recommendation process, the subcommittee has been successful over the years in obtaining funding for various NCHRP projects that have benefited the bridge community. However, it became apparent to the subcommittee that a more structured procedure for prioritizing research was needed. Therefore, a workshop was conducted in 2000 to develop a strategic plan for bridge engineering. The product of this workshop was six thrust discussions. Each thrust focuses on a specific business need of the AASHTO bridge engineers. As the subcommittee is fully committed to maintaining and improving its strategic plan and to applying the contents to the identification and prioritization of research, a second workshop was conducted in 2005 to refine the 2000 Strategic Plan for Bridge Engineering. The products of this workshop are a focused set of critical problems called grand challenges. Since 2005 the subcommittee has required all proposed research to explicitly focus on addressing these grand challenges. Seven years have passed since the 2005 Strategic Plan for Bridge Engineering and as part of the subcommittee s commitment to maintaining and improving its strategic plan; it is time to once again re-assess the plan. OBJECTIVE The research objective is to refine and refocus the 2005 Strategic Plan for Bridge Engineering to meet the business needs of today s bridge industry by providing a structured procedure for prioritizing proposed research. In addition, the proposed strategic plan will help the bridge community in identify, prioritize, and conduct research in concert with the new transportation bill Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21). NCHRP 20-07/Task 335 Final Report Page 1

2 FINDINGS An electronic survey was developed to solicit potential ideas for the revsed strategic plan from state bridge engineers, FHWA, bridge and tunnel authorities, turnpike agencies, academics, and consultants. The survey was distributed via HSCOBS. The survey is included in Appendix 1. The survey responses are tabulated in Appendix 2. A workshop was conducted on March 19 and 20, 2013, in Washington, DC, to once reassess the plan. Participants included AASHTO State Bridge Engineers, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), consultants, industry representatives and an educator. The group included all of the available the Subcommittee technical committee chairs and the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Structures Section chair. A complete list of participants is found in the Strategic Plan in Appendix 3. The workshop produced a list of eight program objectives within five global focuses. The focuses are (in no particular order) to: improve safety and mobility, implement asset management, foster innovation, evaluate impact of practice and performance, and improve communication and collaboration. The objectives in prioritized order are to: 1 Extend Bridge Service Life, 2 Assess Bridge Condition, 3 Maintain and Enhance a Knowledgeable Workforce, 4 Maintain and Enhance the AASHTO Specifications, 5 Accelerate Bridge Delivery and Construction, 6 Optimize Structural Systems, 7 Model and Manage Information Intelligently, and 8 Contribute to National Policy. The focuses umbrella the prioritized objectives and represent the broad areas in which the Subcommittee wishes to concentrate their activities. In a revised Strategic Plan, the workshop participants defined each objective through a brief statement, the anticipated outcome, and discussions of importance. Finally, lists of important activities/research and performance measures are included. The performance measures are grouped by the time in which they should be accomplished: short term (in about 5 years) and long term (beyond 5 years.) The performance measures can also be viewed as a guide to implementation. The updated Strategic Plan is presented in Appendix 3. CONCLUSIONS Brief stand-alone implementation suggestions informally discussed during the workshop are included in Appendix 4. NCHRP 20-07/Task 335 Final Report Page 2

3 Appendix 1 SURVEY

4 NCHRP 20-07/Task 335 Updating the 2005 Strategic Plan for Bridge Engineering DRAFT QUESTIONNAIRE Dr David Hilbert introduced the first grand challenges over a century ago at the International Congress of Mathematicians in Paris in His 23 Problems of Hilbert are thought to be the most deeply considered compilation of open problems ever to be produced by an individual mathematician. Some of his 23 problems were solved in the short term. Others are being discussed into the 21 st century, with a few now considered unsuitably open-ended to come to closure. Some continue today to remain a challenge for mathematicians. The grand challenges in bridge engineering bring focus and energy to defining and addressing bridge-engineering problems. Please answer the following questions: 1. What are the greatest challenges to bridge owners in 2013? Try to name at least three. (Try not to look at the list of 2005 grand challenges before answering.) Briefly explain each. 2. After reviewing the prioritized 2005 grand challenges on the last page, do you believe any of the challenges have been sufficiently accomplished and can be removed from the list? If so, which ones. Briefly explain why. 3. Should any of the challenges be removed from the 2005 list because they do not rise to the level of grand challenge any more, if ever? If so, which? Briefly explain. 1

5 2005 Prioritized Grand Challenges 1 Extending Service Life To understand the processes that decrease the serviceability of existing bridges and highway structures, and to develop approaches to preserve (maintain and rehabilitate) the existing system by managing these processes. 2 Optimizing Structural Systems To understand the advantages and limitations of traditional, newer and emerging materials in terms of safety, durability and economy; and to develop structural systems (optimized materials, details, components, structures and foundations) for bridges and highway structures that efficiently employ these and even newer optimized materials to assure a safe, minimum 75-year service life requiring minimal maintenance. 3 Accelerating Bridge Construction To understand the time-restraints, durability and economy of traditional bridge systems and their construction methods, and the possibilities and limitations of newer accelerated methods, and to develop enhanced systems and accelerated methods overcoming traditional time-restraints while maintaining, or enhancing, safety, durability and economy. 4 Advancing the AASHTO Specifications To understand the limit states required for safe, serviceable and economical bridges and highway structures, and to develop enhanced reliability-based provisions addressing these limit states in a manner relatively consistent with traditional design practice and effort. 5 Monitoring Bridge Condition To understand what information should be collected from which structural components to characterize the condition, or health, of the structure (both superstructure and substructure), and to develop systems to capture this information and approaches to use it to extend the service life of bridges and highway structures through efficient asset management. 6 Contributing to National Policy To understand the functioning and decision-making consequences affecting transportation systems, and to develop approaches to enhance the bridge engineer s contribution to political and social policy development, and to develop contributions to policy decisions. 7 Managing Knowledge To understand the existing approaches to management and dissemination of bridge engineering knowledge, and to develop new more-effective approaches consistent with the evolving bridge-engineering community and emerging technology. 2

6 Appendix 2 SURVEY RESPONSES

7 1. What are the greatest challenges to bridge owners in 2013? Try to name at least three. (Try not to look at the list of 2005 grand challenges before answering.) Briefly explain each. RESPONSES 1 Shifting design, construction and maintenance paradigms and our ability to adapt. At one time "least weight is least cost" was an applicable design paradigm. With increasing labor costs, the shift in this design philosophy would be better stated as "least labor is least cost." We should examine our current design basis and ask relevant questions about their validity. For example, there is a movement to design for a 100-year bridge life. Experience suggest that many bridges are frequently replaced prior to the end of their intended design life for non-structural reasons. Questioning these fundamental assumptions may result in more appropriately designed and presumably cost-effective structures. 2 We are not often delivering our construction projects as quickly as the public would prefer. Nonstructural design criteria appear to consume a great deal of the pre-construction effort. The acquisition of permits is a time consuming process that is often on the critical path. Perhaps streamlining or consolidating these permits and their stipulations may be one way of greatly improving project delivery time. 3 Not really "greatest" challenges but current hurdles: FHWA metrics and a one-size-fits-all mindset, ever-changing LRFD code provisions, loss of experience and expertise without mentoring the next generation, construction quality, etc. 4 Extending the useful life of existing and new bridges by identifying and integrating new technologies and materials into bridge design, construction, inspection, maintenance, and management. Materials with improved performance (corrosion resistant, less permeable, tougher, etc...) are available and their use in bridges has the potential to extend their useful life. New technologies such as structural health monitoring and NDE techniques can be used to evaluate in-service bridge performance to ensure public safety and identify appropriate timing for rehabilitation and replacement actions. 5 Securing sufficient funds to address bridge needs. MAP-21 eliminated dedicated Federal bridge funds and bridges now compete with roads and other assets for limited funding. It is important to use available management tools (and look for improved tools/strategies) to better position bridge projects for these limited funds. RESPONDENT Alaska Page 1

8 6 Attracting and retaining people with the appropriate skills needed to design, construct, inspect, maintain, and manage bridges. As new technologies and materials are integrated into bridges it may be necessary to hire personnel with skills not typically associated with bridges/civil engineering. Examples include: Programmers to develop applications and manage ever increasing data requirements (Pontis, Overload Program update, Chulitna health monitoring); Chemists to provide guidance on non-traditional materials; Financial personnel to manage funds and identify alternative funding sources and strategies. 7 (Perhaps unique to Alaska?) Large state, remote bridges, and challenging travel/weather logistics. Travel to Alaska bridges often requires hours of air and land travel, and weather may prevent access. This can delay our response to calls for immediate on-site inspections. Travel is also expensive. 8 Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and NEPA. For better or for worse, EPA's (every increasing) assertion of regulatory authority over physical, chemical, and biological qualities of waterways represents a challenge and cost to bridge owners. Where ESA-protections apply, NOAA- NMFS requirements can also be very costly. The NEPA process can delay project delivery and add substantial costs, sometimes with limited value added. 9 Long term maintenance costs. I suspect that states with heavily (federally) subsidized infrastructure will be challenged over time by the state-funded maintenance burdens/costs. This will be especially true if/when federal funds decrease and state revenues drop. 10 Federal Accountability and Transparency Initiatives. Without increasing staff resources at the technical level, these initiatives with their associated reporting/data management requirements take doers away from the doing. This is a jobs program for mid-level managers. 11 Lowest bidder is often not lowest cost. We should put more effort into all ways to reduce claims and litigation without sacrificing quality of product and finding other methods of choosing a contractor such as Contract Management/General Contractor (CMGC). 12 Foster atmosphere for more innovation. Some countries and private companies have programs where brainstorming between disciplines brings out ideas that takes the synergy of differences to bring out the best. I ve heard of one company that cuts employees loose for about a week. This is encouraged with incentives, small monetary amounts and recognition for the team. This boosts morale which in itself is payback for everyone. 13 Without enviously looking at the share of the infrastructure pie other agencies get, I would like to see a larger pie. There is no good reason for not tying the gasoline tax to inflation. 14 Making decisions in an integrated way that will ensure bridges and structures last the longest period possible at the least lifecycle cost. Many decisions are made in our functional stovepipes that do not reflect the overall goal of cost effective, long lastings bridges and structures. California Page 2

9 15 Consistent collection of accurate data and information for effective decision making. Good decisions are always tied to good information. 16 Streamlining the complicated and sometime exhaustive effort to design, construct, and maintain bridges and structures. We need to reduce the cost and time of project development & asset management support. 17 Adapting to the many procurement methods and needs of the various stakeholders while addressing stakeholder expectations, addressing risk and maintaining quality of product or asset. 18 Succession and sustainability of our industry (meaning all those involved) talents and capacity for the long term. Will we have the people to do the great work we do in the future? Will they have the skill sets? Will our tools be adequate for the new generation's abilities and way of thinking? 19 Maintaining the creditability of the bridge profession, specifically with the public. After I-35W we are constantly questioned about bridge safety anytime some failure occurs even if not catastrophic. Somehow we as a profession need to communicate a message of the nature of engineering, it's limitations and dependence of the numerous factors Simplify the LRFD Code for typical bridge designs. Engineers report getting lost in the code and losing the intuitive feel since it is seemingly difficult to do back of the envelope verification of the results. Perhaps seemingly contrary to the first bullet, develop a performance based design specification that will optimize capital and life cycle costs, particularly when a higher level of service performance is desired. There is a need to better define the correlation between design decisions and service life performance, and improve the decision-making process for all entire bridge life cycle. 22 As ABC techniques mature, develop ABC bridge design specifications. High seismic regions may need supplemental requirements to meet seismic performance requirements. 23 Related to optimizing structural systems, develop pre-engineered or partially engineered modular bridge components, to increase consistency, reduce errors, and improve efficiency in design. 24 Develop the means to quantify road user delay costs for consideration of ABC alternatives 25 Alternative contracting methods: without the Owner at the helm, lifecycle costs (future maintenance) aren t always considered; construction schedule rather than quality can drive decisions. 26 Maintaining the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications in years and decades to come: As many States shrink their bridge technical staff or put more responsibilities under each manager, HSCOBS will become less equipped to edit, discuss, and vote responsibly on proposed changes. I contend that this has contributed to the growth from 900 to 1700 pages, and occasional departure from the true to the definition of Specs and Article 1.1 Scope of the Specifications. California California Page 3

10 27 Staff development: State resources often don t accommodate on-the-job-training of those just out of school with a BS or those more versed in building design rather than bridge design. NHI Training is also costly and not always timely. Excess verbiage in the Specs needs to be put into some sort of written document. 28 Implementing Lifecycle Cost Analysis: new bridges as well as rehabilitation and hazard retrofit. 29 Marketing our profession: engineers are under-valued. This leads to pressure from influential but not necessarily technical leaders to use technology or products that have yet to be thoroughly vetted by bridge engineers. 30 Technology: Refined analysis tools are often understood by the rookies who don t have a feel for especially aging structures; veteran engineers don t always have a feel for the analysis. 31 Overload enforcement: as structures age and their load-carrying capacity is limited; as more advanced analysis methods lead us closer to the load-carrying capacity cliff ; as truck volume and truck weight increase; Bridge Owners (not necessarily the engineers) will need to better enforce permit truck load limits. 32 Improve nondestructive evaluation (NDE) techniques (especially for post tensioning internal and external and suspension and stay cables). Recently discovered problems with post tensioning highlight the needs for better NDE methods. 33 Improve post tensioning design details and specifications. If design, detailing and specifications are improved, we might see better performance of our post tensioning systems. 34 Maintain quality of final product while using innovative products, innovative design construction contracts, accelerated construction, etc. The need to do more with less due to limited budgets and the need to develop and use innovative methods may result in lower quality or lower service life of new bridges. We need to innovate without sacrificing quality of the finished product. 35 Advancing bridge engineering education 36 Innovative design using innovative materials (such as composites) as well as traditional materials 37 Preserving the existing inventory of bridges 38 Funding 39 Environmental considerations and compliance 40 Continued lack of trained personnel 41 Maintain knowledgeable efficient staff- Increasing pressure on state governments to reduce personnel budgets and size of government seem to continue to be a challenge. 42 Answer the following question: How much money should be spent on bridges? - It is a challenge when competing with other assets like pavement, safety, and enhancements to adequately respond with data to this question. 43 Ensure the safety of our bridges for the travelling public while encouraging mobility and economic benefit- Ever increasing overloads to benefit the state as a whole can become a challenge. Florida Florida Georgia Idaho Page 4

11 44 Maintaining institutional knowledge given the ongoing downsizing of state agency staff. 45 Maintaining all bridge related government functions given the ongoing downsizing of state agency staff. This problem is exacerbated by increased federal and public pressures. One recent demonstration of this is the implementation and results of FHWA's 23 metrics. 46 Developing and maintaining technical knowledge of in-house staff with minimal bridge design being performed in-house (due to efforts to maintain all other bridge related government functions) given the ongoing downsizing of state agency staff. 47 Increased demands on bridge service life given funding constraints. 48 Employing new technologies and materials (note this is essentially #2 on the 2005 list of Prioritized Grand Challenges, but I felt it was on our list and should be mentioned). 49 Effective Asset Management: maintaining bridges in a cost effective way that keeps them from becoming deficient. It is difficult to determine what percentage of the bridge budget should be spent on maintenance, preservation and rehabilitation. Maintenance and small preservation projects present logistics challenges such as design, contracts, inspection and traffic control due to the large number of structures needing this type of work. 50 Deployment of the Accelerated Bridge Construction Program: develop deployment policies that take into consideration the availability of construction funding. Some of the biggest challenges associated with ABC are a) funding to offset user cost, b) unknown long term durability of new details, c) affordability. 51 Incorporating new materials and design techniques: the effect of new and innovative design can be difficult to assess until bridges have been in service for many years. Also, repair of these bridges will require different procedures and techniques than we have used in the past. 52 Managing data for structures: states are moving towards more sophisticated systems to store bridge records/ data to allow new functions and control. FHWA has implemented a new risk-based approach to provide oversight and compliance with the National Bridge Insepction Standards using the 23 Metrics. The current discussion to replace structurally deficient with Good/Fair/Poor as a Performance Measure using NBI data will need to be developed using the new core elements in the future. 53 Research -- Research is not always coordinated well between research agencies. 54 Research -- Research is not always implemented well. 55 Fesearch -- Sometimes there appears to be ill will between the research agencies. 56 Research -- The number of research areas should change from many good to fewer best. 57 Research -- More emphasis should be placed on finding good projects within those areas. 58 Research -- Project selection should be elevated from T-11 to the Executive Committee. 59 Research -- Panel selections for NCHRP should be taken more seriously Illinois Iowa Kansas Page 5

12 60 Maintaining the Bridge Inventory with Inadequate Funding -- A database of details that states use. This does not require a large research project that develops a best set. Rather a database that allows a designer to easily search for existing state details. Powerful search tools would be necessary. Maintenance would be crucial. 61 Maintaining the Bridge Inventory with Inadequate Funding -- Practicing bridge designers must stay true to the basic engineering principals and develops details that will last 75 plus years regardless of new demands or perhaps trends. 62 Maintaining the Bridge Inventory with Inadequate Funding -- Use best practice when practical but use standard methods that have been successful in the past if they are the most economical. 63 Maintaining the Bridge Inventory with Inadequate Funding -- Relief from onerous environmental requirements. 64 Implementation of New Materials -- There are new materials in many areas of the bridge industry. High-strength reinforcement and concrete, UHPC, light weight aggregates, and fiber-reinforced plastics (FRP). Prefabricated bridge elements and systems may be considered new materials in one sense. These materials are used in new construction, repairs and widening and in ABC. Research, testing, maintaining and development of the specifications, and communicating how other transportation agencies have used these materials is critical. 65 Maintaining an aging bridge inventory with shrinking resources. 66 Balancing traditional bridge construction materials and methods against the use of new materials and technologies that offer promises of longer life and faster construction, but don t have years of field testing to back research data. 67 Dealing with environmental permitting agencies and federal regulations has become cumbersome and challenging and greatly reduces what we can accomplish in any given year. Environmental concerns are important, however, there needs to be a stream lined process that is consistent from state to state. Maryland Page 6

13 Money. There is just not enough money to go around to adequately address the needs of an aging bridge population in terms of replacements, preservation and maintenance. This is especially the case of eastern states whose bridge populations go back to the early 20th century and who were among the earliest to develop a highway system and interstate system. As a result, the challenge is to have available funds go farther. To do this, bridge owners need to be able to better assess the condition of their bridges. This will help owners better plan which bridges need to be replaced, which need preservation and which need systematic maintenance to extend their lives. By understanding when a bridge needs intervention, money can be more economically spent to prevent a bridge from reaching a tipping point where the deterioration rates begins to accelerate. This also includes the use of longer lasting materials and protection systems for bridges that will slow the deterioration rate. Improved materials or fabrication methods that reduce construction costs and are more durable for the long run should also be considered so that a dollar spent goes farther. Finally, a better structural assessment to determine if the bridge can continue to carry its current load demands and be able to carry increased demands by strengthening rather than replacement. Responding to the expectations of the population. As congestion increases, people do not want to be inconvenienced by construction or maintenance activities. People have been hearing about the successes of rapid bridge replacements and are expecting short construction durations as opposed to those that last for years. As a result, owners need to look at alternate designs and construction delivery methods that reduce public inconvenience to a minimum while improving the condition of their bridges and extending their lives by reducing deterioration rates. Some projects, especially on congested urban expressways, can only be done in rapid fashion, such as Massachusetts Fast 14. Streamlining the adoption of new technologies, especially those that will enhance the performance of structures under extreme events. West coast states have always been cognizant of earthquakes and their effect on infrastructure. Now east coast states are experiencing a similar effect on their transportation infrastructure due to coastal storms and hurricanes. Last year, I participated in a Domestic Scan tour of ABC connections under extreme and multi-hazard loads. Some of the research that was occurring was to use Prefabricated Bridge Elements in non-emulative designs which would provide better performance under extreme events than could be achieved by emulative designs. However, in addition to the research to establish the design methodologies for such systems, the Bridge Design Specifications need to stay current to adopt these new designs. For example, designs for innovative earthquake resistant structures need to make use of the non-linear response of the structure to earthquakes. To adopt these designs, the code needs to move to a displacement based design rather than the conventional force based approach in order to make use of these innovative designs. Massachusetts Page 7

14 71 How to build durable bridges (100 year service life) and limit impact to the traveling public, community, business, and emergency services as little as possible 72 How to evaluate risk when developing bridge management strategy 73 Include risk assessment in the ASHTO LRFD bridge design and evaluation codes, while coming to term with the limitations and inadequacy of the reliability based provisions. SIMPLIFY! 74 Creation of consistent and adequate funding to preserve bridges and assure public safety. 75 How to balance bridge preservation with modernization of the highway system when funding is limited. 76 Bridge asset management: Effectively planning bridge investments with unstable funding levels lowlevels of stable funding and surges in the program from special funding programs 77 Bridge asset management: Bridge life-cycle analysis better predictive models, including more accurate deterioration modeling and the ability to account for investments in Preservation, Rehabilitation and Replacement. 78 Development of durable details for ABC components the hope is we can utilize SHRP2 products and refine them for use in our state, but at this point we do not have experience with maintenance concerns that will come out of their use long-term. 79 Historic bridges working through the NEPA process to come to agreement with federal agencies on a preferred alternative that is prudent and feasible. In Minnesota, we are working with the FHWA to define a process for this but each project has its individual challenges and needs different consideration. 80 Preserving our investment (selling preservation) 81 Securing funding 82 Accelerated bridge design (not just construction) 83 Fostering use of new technologies and material 84 I have no specific challenges to add at this time, but wish to offer some comment. Initial construction quality is a key factor affecting the service life of a structure. This is particularly important to bridge decks, and is a factor in other structure elements as well. I believe it can affect challenges 1-4. Towards that end, I believe that some discussion is warranted. 85 Additionally, key stakeholders including contractors, material suppliers and fabricators should be partners in this effort, yet there is no mention of their participation in these Grand Challenges. I respectfully submit that some consideration should be made as to how to incorporate the necessary cooperative efforts into these Grand Challenges. 86 Doing more with less -- reduce a steadily increasing inventory of SD and aging bridges with ever increasing restrictions/regulations/funding constraints Michigan Minnesota Missouri Nevada North Carolina Page 8

15 87 Doing more with less -- ii. mandated element level inspections increase demands on inspection and inventory personnel, yet there is little flexibility with regard to the state s implementation of reliability based inspection intervals 88 Confidently determining the safe load carrying capacity of existing, deteriorated and legacy-type structures 89 Utilizing inventory data to determine optimal funding for maintenance, preservation, rehabilitation and replacement activities 90 Future Funding on a federal and state level is a concern. We have made a lot of good progress in PA on reducing our SD bridges. Funding bridge projects at previous levels ( ) will continue to improve the SD metric 91 Providing funding for repairs of non-bridge assets- Sign Structures, retaining walls, light poles, tunnels, etc 92 Finding ways to justify the using of ABC- What incentives should be used? 93 I have to reiterate the concern expressed by Lou Ruzzi regarding Funding on a federal and state level. Although, funding is not truly a bridge engineering technical issue, it is a real constraint in managing a bridge inventory. 94 Attached is PennDOT's strategic plan for bridge inspection. It has goals. objectives and strategies that could be expanded to bridge design. Some of the objectives do apply to all facets of bridge engineering such as: Communication, Developing and training staff, Defined Policy and procedures, Asset Management, data management, information intelligence for bridges, QA/QC, and Subcommittee being a responsive organization. 95 Another key issue we are facing involve succession planning, loss of knowledgeable staff to retirement or private industry. The loss of staff occurs with all facets, design, construction and bridge inspection. There is substantial training available, but it takes more than just training to develop the skills and knowledge. The approach under taken by Purdue University has some advantages, but it does not address all aspects faced by DOT staff, for example thermoplastic pipe test failures, reinforcing steel issues, etc. Also, the idea of an expert centers may not be able to provide the on-demand resources needed, such as for most construction issues where an answer is needed immediately. 96 Advanced Structural Analysis: Some tools are available for advanced work including Response2000 for concrete, UTBridge for stability analysis. For curved girder analysis, the various structural analysis packages are available, but very few perform the complete analysis and code checking. Even in those few that have the code checking feature, the live load modeling may not be in line with the AASHTO specification to apply the live load to lanes and shoulders of the bridge and not just to the striped lane locations. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Page 9

16 97 Funding availability for bridge infrastructure needs and employing sound investment strategies for best utilization of those funds over the long term Effective bridge management. 98 Development of effective overall cross-asset management methods/procedures that ensure bridge assets receive due attention based on risks/needs now and into the future Effective asset management plan. 99 Research should be executed to articulate the impacts of heavier truck weight on the owner s inventory of bridges. This needs to be quantified in loss of service life, accelerated deterioration, posting of bridges, and cost to replace. Communication strategies should be developed and models must be generated that could be used to constantly update the impacts when legislator s request modifications. This should be portable on structures for both the current inventory and future inventories. 100 Consistent definitions of preventative maintenance actions and methodologies to ensure investment that will prolong structural members. Life cycle assessment and product enhancements should be emphasized. 101 Data and technology advancements to ensure 3 d modeling and life cycle data flow is essential. The transportation structure industry trails other structural industries in information modeling, construction sequencing, clash detection, refined analysis, operational analysis and asset integration to the transportation system. 102 Importance should be placed on determining clear and consistent definitions of fracture critical members and inspection criterion. There needs to be research in determination of 2 box girders steel (4 webs) as not being fracture critical. The fabrication methodology and the material properties have advanced, yet, FHWA and AASHTO have not evolved in this thinking. Clearly, a project 3d failure analysis if extremely cost prohibitive. Also, traffic control and operational needs pose real problems and pose greater and greater expenses. 103 The transportation bridge and structure industry should place heavy emphasis on improving construction techniques and systems that ensure mitigating traffic delays. Operation of State transportation systems is a vital to provide economic and safety benefits for the citizens of the states and the country. 104 Performance management methodologies of structure operation and condition should be evaluated and implemented for best practices for the Nation s bridges. Each state is entering this with the MAP 21 requirements and providing useful measures with analysis tools is very important as the industry builds its historical performance data. 105 New technology and innovations in delivering quality transportation structures is extremely important. Research should continue to enhance and invent new ways of delivering our projects, improved materials, or products to maintain the owner s assets. South Dakota Wiscoinsin Page 10

17 106 Keeping bridges in service longer - we need to do more with less$, need to use new materials and process to keep bridges open and lasting longer. Need better methods to assess brideg deck condition 107 Using asset management to prioritize bridge work - With the new highway bill, a certified asset management system is needed. This needs to be able prioritize and maximize possible bridge work to help extend the bridge life. 108 Sustainable Funding Congress recognizes the need to invest in the transportation infrastructure to maintain it in a State of Good Repair. Yet the funding has continuously been uncertain and way short of needs. 109 Managing a population of aging bridges and tunnels the condition and performance of the aging bridges and tunnels are deteriorating and urgently needing investment in maintenance and preservation to keep them functioning safely and efficiently. 110 Managing a population of aging bridges and tunnels the condition and performance of the aging bridges and tunnels are deteriorating and urgently needing investment in maintenance and preservation to keep them functioning safely and efficiently. 111 However, many of the greatest challenges are not under the control of the bridge and tunnel community. We must try to influence the decision makers to help meet the challenges. Meanwhile, the bridge and tunnel community will continue to capture the opportunities to fulfill our obligation in assuring the safety, reliability, security, efficiency and sustainability of the Nation s bridges and tunnels. 112 Maximizing the development and implementation of innovations for bridge design, fabrication, and construction 113 Maximizing the use of computer technologies to gain deeper understanding of bridge behavior and performance, and to improve economy and durability and safety of bridges Wyoming 2. After reviewing the prioritized 2005 grand challenges on the last page, do you believe any of the challenges have been sufficiently accomplished and can be removed from the list? If so, which ones. Briefly explain why. FHWA FHWA RESPONSES 1 I don t think any of the 2005 challenges can be completely removed, but I believe some could / should be modified. 2 Extending Service Life We need to have quantifiable means of evaluating strategies for extending service life. The Long Term Bridge Program is probably a good place to start. RESPONDENT Alaska Page 11

18 3 Advancing AASHTO Specifications Recent revisions are generally cumbersome without adding a lot of benefit. It seems like the specification development process is being driven by academia rather than practitioners. Other issues with AASHTO LRFD and other AASHTO publications: Should consider developing a unified seismic design specification similar to the old Division IA. Some have treated LRFD Specifications as if they need to be a text book. This approach makes the book unwieldy and frequently doesn t adequately address issues the way a true text book or manual would. AASHTO SCOBS should take a look at the various specifications, guide specifications, reports, manuals, etc. that it publishes, and decide if they are appropriate. I ve always felt that a bridge properly designed based on a the LRFD Bridge Design Specifications should be safe, but I m not sure we can say the same thing about all of the other documents AASHTO is being asked to put forward. 4 I do not believe any should be removed. They should be reviewed, modified, and updated. There have been many developments that will affect each one. I believe that a determination of specific strategies with actions plan should be developed and then prioritized. Each strategy should be assigned to a technical committee to lead the effort. Also method of measuring progress and success need to be identified for each objective. 5 All seven begin with To understand, and except for #2--end with and to develop In most cases, we now understand but still need to develop. None should be removed, but all should be refocused as follows: 6 (Extending Service Life) Lifecycle cost determination and application 7 (Optimizing Structural Systems) Sensible implementation of vetted products for ALL limit states; uniformity of the Service Limit State in evaluating existing structures. 8 (Accelerated Bridge Construction) Testing of systems for seismic and other hazards 9 (Advancing the AASHTO Specs) Maintenance of the Specs 10 (Monitoring Bridge Condition--no change?) 11 (Contributing to National Policy) Marketing the expertise of bridge engineers 12 (Managing Knowledge) Development of textbook-like content parallel to the Specs 13 All are of equal importance i.e. the order above is random. 14 I do not think any of the existing challenges have been sufficiently met to be removed from the list. 15 Accelerated Bridge Construction has advanced enough. it has become an accepted practice at the same time this does not rise to the grand challenge level. California California Florida Florida 16 All the 2005 Grand Challenges are still relevant Georgia 17 We have seen improvements in all areas of the 2005 Grand Challenges it seems to me. Not sure that Idaho we have put any completely to bed. Page 12

19 18 I feel all of the 2005 Grand Challenges should remain on the list except #4 Advancing the AASHTO Specifications. While there will always be some amount of work needed on the code, I think the LRFD code has reached the point that we could argue that challenge has been met. 19 No, all the existing challenges still exist. Iowa Illinois 20 None have been accomplished. Kansas 21 None Maryland 22 I wrote my response to Question 1 as requested, without looking at the 2005 grand challenges and based purely on what I have been experiencing in terms of needs and demands. When I reviewed the 2005 Grand Challenges, I found that all of them are still valid and are reflected in what I see as the greatest challenges that bridge owners face today. Perhaps what is needed is a re-assessment of the priorities and goals, fine tuning them to what we face today and based on the responses to this survey. 23 I believe there has been much progress on many of the 2005 challenges, especially, optimizing structural systems, ABC, advancing AASHTO specifications, and monitoring bridges, but there is further work in all of these areas so they should not be removed from the list. 24 Of the 2005 challenges, we do not consider them accomplished to the point that any of them should be removed from the list. They are still relevant and represent ongoing issues that continue to need discussion. Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota 25 No Missouri 26 The current list is adequate. Nevada 27 Re GC 3: While it remains important to minimize impact to the traveling public there has been a tremendous amount of research and deployment in this arena. Continued efforts by FHWA may be all that is needed to promote further implementation. Recommend that status can be acknowledged as sufficiently accomplished and removed from list. North Carolina 28 (With that said, maybe GC 5 should be broadened to capture the need to minimize the impact to traffic during inspection.) 29 No opinion Pennsylvania 30 Item 3. Accelerated Bridge Construction should be eliminated considering the work of FHWA EDC Pennsylvania PBESS plus SHRP2 R In brief look at the 2005 grand challenges, I believe that they are by and large still valid. South Dakota 32 No suggestions to remove as none are finished. Wisconsin 33 I think the accelerated bridge construction can be removed due to the number and types of projects Wyoming completed Page 13

20 34 The Grand Challenges are very broad and overarching. Over the years we have accomplished a lot through research, deployment and education. Research problem statements in the past dozen years have been focused on meeting the Grand Challenges. We still have much to accomplish in meeting the challenges. 35 This brings up a point for consideration in the Strategic Plan Meeting to establish quantifiable and achievable objectives with targeted and scheduled outcomes. This way we can report on progress on an annual basis, and answer the above question when a challenge has been sufficiently accomplished. 3. Should any of the challenges be removed from the 2005 list because they do not rise to the level of grand challenge any more, if ever? If so, which? Briefly explain. RESPONSES RESPONDENT 1 See 2 above. Alaska 2 Before I could sufficient answer this question I would need to understand how a grand challenge is California defined (as opposed to challenge that is not grand?) 3 While very important, I think consideration should be given as to whether Contributing to National Policy or Managing Knowledge is achieved most effectively through AASHTO focused efforts. Perhaps there is a better forum or process than using the AASHTO Grand Challenges. California 4 I think all of the existing grand challenges should remain. Florida 5 See answer to 2 above. Florida 6 Contributing to National Policy may no longer be a grand challenge for the bridge committee. Georgia Usually the discussions on this item take place above the Bridge Committee. 7 Perhaps we should reexamine number 6. Still not sure what we were after with this one. Idaho 8 I do not feel any of the items from the 2005 Grand Challenge list should be removed for the reason that they don t rise to the level of a Grand Challenge any more (however, see response to #2 above). 9 Just one comment. Number 1 Extending Service Life and Number 5 Monitoring Bridge Condition are somewhat overlapping. For number 5, Asset Management is probably a broader topic that includes "Monitoring Bridge Condition". Maybe Number 5 is the challenge where there could be some discussion of performance measures. 10 There are no items to be removed because they are completed. However, the list should be pruned so the bridge community can focus on the two or three challenges that are most important. Illinois Iowa Kansas 11 None Maryland FHWA Page 14

21 12 Based on my assessment of the challenges that bridge owners face today, I believe that none of the challenges from the 2005 list should be removed because they do not rise to the level of a grand challenge. Perhaps what is needed, in addition to the re-assessment of the priorities and goals, is a strategic roadmap for undertaking the grand challenges. Massachusetts 13 None Michigan 14 I consider them all still grand challenges, but realize we will need to prioritize. Being invited to participate in the workshop, I look forward to discussions on which rise to the top as being most grand. Minnesota 15 Items 4, 6, & 7 are more like activities rather than challenges. We don't think they would ever be "complete" Missouri 16 The current list is adequate. Nevada 17 Re GC 5: While it is clear that AASHTO Specifications will always need updating, they are complete, comprehensive and uniform in approach. Four of five respondents that I surveyed independently stated that this no longer rose to the level of a grand challenge. North Carolina 18 No opinion Pennsylvania 19 Item 5. Monitoring Bridge Condition the present write up implies health monitoring of bridges. The monitoring of bridges through systems and capturing data will not be widely used due to the cost of the systems and the resources needed to try interpreting the data into useful information, if it is even possible to take the data and transform into information to make decisions about bridge management. So, I strongly recommend this item 5 be removed. Pennsylvania 20 In brief look at the 2005 grand challenges, I believe that they are by and large still valid. South Dakota 21 4 Advancing the AASHTO specifications (Also note these specifications are not just design) Need to move towards a life cycle creation and assessment. A suggestion would be to remove this as every other item might produce a byproduct of this. As well as, a thought would be to call it: Advance consistent reliability and safety in design and operation of transportation structures Manage knowledge Discussion should be given towards improving, fostering leadership, policy, and retention of industry professionals? This may be lacking. 23 After review of 2005 comments are as follows: Innovation??? We need to provide avenues to improve and accelerate this??? 24 Performance management asset management life cycle assessment and transportation system integration. 25 3d design, modeling, and data flow - needs to become more of an emphasis??? Wisconsin 26 Specifically Truck Weights?? Or communication strategies to policy makers?? 27 None Wyoming Page 15

22 28 There does not seem to be a need to remove any of the Grand Challenges, except there may be need to re-title the Grand Challenges in meeting the greatest challenges of today and tomorrow identified by the bridge owners. An example may be in Grand Challenge 1, the title may be changed to read: Bridge and Tunnel Preservation and Performance Management. This conveys the message that bridge owners are actively pursuing in developing Bridge Preservation Programs and Performance Management Plans to assure wise investment decisions to keep the highway infrastructure in a State of Good Repair. 29 Another example may be in Grand Challenge 5, the title may be modified to include assessment in the title, such as, Monitoring and Assessing Bridge and Tunnel Condition. Monitoring implies the inspection and monitoring of the physical condition of bridges and tunnels. An assessment must be made of the condition discovered from inspection and monitoring to determine the load carrying capacity of a structure to remain open, load posted or closed. FHWA Page 16