bridge fabrication systems

Fal l 2004 • Number 8

NCHRP Project 20-36 • Highway Research and Technology—International Information Sharing

Number 8, Fall 2004

Bridge Fabrication Systems:Bridges on the Move

“We wanted to see techniquesfor moving major elements ofprefabricated bridges intoservice, something that ties

our prefabricated designs with high-speed con-struction operations,” says Prefabricated BridgeElements and Systems Scan Co-Chair Mary LouRalls, state bridge engineer for the TexasDepartment of Transportation (DOT). “We sawwhat we came for, that’s for sure.”

In April 2004, an international scanning teamrepresenting the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA), state DOTs, universities, and industrytraveled to Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium,Germany, and France. They visited active con-struction sites and captured some excitingmove-in/move-out video footage for the rest ofthe country to see.

“With an aging bridge infrastructure andincreasing traffic volumes, any innovation thatpromises to accommodate traffic quickly andsafely will be considered,” says Ralls, “and statebridge engineers will really look at what wefound.”

Scan Objective and Team GoalsThe objectives of the scanning study were toidentify innovative applications of prefabricated

bridge elements and systems focusing on thosefactors that impact construction. They includeminimizing traffic disruption, improving workzone safety, improving constructability, improv-ing final product quality, minimizing environmen-tal impact, and lowering life cycle costs.

“These were some pretty lofty objectives, butthe technologies we saw met nearly all of them,”says Ben Tang, scan co-chair and senior struc-tural engineer at FHWA.

Move-In/Move-Out InnovationsThe team observed some innovative techniquesto remove existing bridges and bridge compo-nents and install new ones. The principleinvolves building the new bridge near the exist-ing structure, quickly removing the old bridge or

Inside:Quiet Pavement Systems 5

Construction Management Practices 7

PIARC 10

Continued on page 2

Skidding a bridge into position is one time-savinginstallation method used in Europe.(Photo courtesy Mammoet Corporation)

2 • T r a n S c a n

Number 8 • Fal l 2004

Bridge Fabrication Systemscontinued from page 1

embankment, and moving the newbridge into its final location.

“We have moved a couple of U.S.bridges this way, but have literally thou-sands of future candidates,” says HarryCapers, state bridge engineer for theNew Jersey DOT. “In western Europe,they average a bridge roll-in once aweek using these innovative tech-niques.”

The countries the scan team visitedpresented many projects that wereaccomplished in 48-to-72-hour win-dows for different sizes of bridges. InEurope, the technology actually is a

crossover, transferred from the seaportfreight-handling industry.

Self-Propelled ModularTransportersIn Europe, large bridge components,even complete bridges weighing sever-al thousand metric tons, have beenbuilt at one location and then lifted andtransported to their final location. Thetechnique employs a series of vehiclesknown as self-propelled modular trans-porters (SPMTs). These multi-axle,computer-controlled vehicles are capa-ble of moving in any horizontal direc-tion with equal axle loads without dis-torting the bridge geometry.

Two companies do most of the

movement work in Europe and areestablishing bases in the United States.They both urge a systems approach,not just a construction approach.

“You need to consider these tech-niques early in the design phase, notwait until construction,” says scanreporter and consultant Henry Russell.“The bridges are uniquely designed formovement, and the transport compa-nies will only participate if they arebrought in early to integrate the designwith the movement. Bridge engineersreally need to get construction person-nel involved as early as possible in thedesign phase.”

Other Bridge Installation SystemsIn addition to SPMTs, the team identi-fied other methods countries are usingto move bridge components. Theyinclude skidding or sliding bridges intoplace horizontally, launching bridgeslongitudinally across valleys or aboveexisting highways, floating bridges intoplace using barges or a temporary drydock, building bridges alongside anexisting roadway and rotating them intoplace, and lifting bridges vertically. Allof these systems have resulted ininstallation times between 3 and 48hours.

The BenefitsThe benefit of using these techniques isthat construction can take place in anenvironment where operations arecompletely separated from the travelingpublic.

“These techniques clearly reducetraffic disruption from months to daysor hours, improve work zone safety,minimize environmental impact,improve product quality, improve con-structability, and lower life cycle costs,”says Dan Dorgan, state bridge engineerfor the Minnesota DOT.

“The controlled environment for bothbuilding the new structure and disman-tling the old are both off the criticalpath of your typical bridge project. Wereally want to see this as a standardoption in the United States within thenext 10 years.”

Large bridge components are moved into place with self-propelled modular transporters, orSPMTs. (Photos courtesy Mammoet Corporation and Sarens Group)

T r a n S c a n • 3


Bridge ComponentsThe team also looked at other aspectsof the bridge fabrication process thathave promise in the United States.

Full-Depth PrefabricatedConcrete DecksThe use of full-depth prefabricatedconcrete decks in Japan and Francereduces construction time by eliminat-ing deck formwork. The deck panelsare connected to steel beams by studslocated in pockets in the concrete deckslab. The benefits include higher quali-ty, faster construction, less trafficimpact, and greater workforce safety.

Deck Joint Closure DetailsPrefabricated deck systems require thatjoints be provided to make the deckcontinuous to distribute the traffic loadand resist seismic movements. Theteam discovered special loop bar rein-forcement details in the joints that willbe evaluated for use in the UnitedStates to facilitate the use of prefabri-cated full-depth deck systems.

Superstructure Systems“Our typical sequence of erectingbridge superstructures in the UnitedStates is to erect the concrete or steelbeams, place either temporary form-work or stay-in-place formwork such assteel or concrete panels, place deckreinforcement, cast deck concrete, andremove formwork if necessary,” notesWilliam Nickas, state structures designengineer for the Florida DOT. “Elimina-tion of formwork for the deck after thebeams are erected can accelerate on-site construction and improve safety.Two systems we saw really satisfiedthis objective.”

Poutre Dalle SystemOne method to eliminate formwork andprovide a working surface is providedby the French Poutre Dalle system. Inthis system, shallow, inverted tee-beams are placed adjacent to eachother. They are then made compositewith cast-in-place concrete placedbetween the webs of the tees and over

the tops of the stems to form a solidmember.

Partial-Depth Concrete Decks Another system from Germany involvedcasting partial-depth concrete deckson steel or concrete beams beforeerecting the beams. After the beamsare erected, the edges of each deckunit abut the adjacent member, elimi-nating the need to place additionalformwork for the cast-in-place con-crete.

This process speeds constructionand reduces the potential danger ofequipment falling onto the roadwaybelow, since a safe working surface isavailable immediately after beam erec-tion.

To reduce the weight of precast con-crete segments, the Japanese use asegment in which the traditional topslab is replaced with a transverse pre-stressed concrete rib. After the seg-ments are erected, precast, prestressedconcrete panels are placed longitudi-nally between the transverse ribs. Aftera topping is cast on top of the panels,the deck is post-tensioned transversely.

Substructure SystemsThe team also observed a number ofsubstructure systems that have poten-tial application in the United States.One is the SPER system, a Japanesemethod of rapid construction of bridgepiers using stay-in-place, precast con-crete panels as both structural ele-ments and formwork for cast-in-placeconcrete. Short, solid piers have panelsfor outer formwork, while tall, hollowpiers have panels for both the innerand outer formwork.

Segments are stacked on top of eachother using epoxy joints, and filled withcast-in-place concrete to form a com-posite section. Research in Japan hasdemonstrated that these piers haveseismic performance similar to conven-tional cast-in-place reinforced concretepiers. The system has the advantage ofreduced construction time and resultsin a high-quality, durable external finish. Continued on page 4

The French Poutre Dalle sytem eliminatesthe need for formwork in bridge construction.

Japan’s SPER system for rapid constructionof bridge piers uses precast concrete panelsas structural elements and formwork.(Photo courtesy Sumitomo MitsuiConstruction Co.)

SCAN FACTOIDS

Did you know?

• More than 675 public- and private-sector professionals havebeen involved in nearly 60 scanssince 1990 and have visited 27countries.

• Six Federal agencies, 43 DOTsand 35 associations have sent representatives.

• The most visited country isGermany, followed by the UnitedKingdom and the Netherlands.



Implementation ActivitiesThe scan team has already startedmany implementation activities. Theyinclude numerous written papers andtechnical presentations at national andlocal meetings and conferences on theoverall results of the scanning studyand details on specific technologies.

The team has also prepared a com-

prehensive Scanning TechnologyImplementation Plan for these andother technologies it observed. Thestrategies involve obtaining more tech-nical details on technologies from thehost countries, seeking demonstrationor pilot projects for the move-in/move-out technologies, and holding manyworkshops and seminars to get theword out on the technologies that havepotential for U.S. use. Several researchstatements have been developed toestablish design details.

The Future“We have made great inroads in theUnited States on prefabrication overthe last five years or so,” says Ralls.“With the new techniques we found,the construction of prefabricatedbridges will be faster and of higherquality. And this, I am sure, will pleasethe motoring public.”

For the latest information on bridgeprefabrication systems and techniques,visit www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/prefab/index.htm. Z

Bridge Fabrication Systemscontinued from page 3

Mary Lou RallsTexas DOT, Co-Chair

Ben TangFHWA, Co-Chair

Dr. Shrinivas BhidePortland Cement Association

Barry BrectoFHWA

Eugene CalvertCollier County, FL

Harry CapersNew Jersey DOT

Dan DorganMinnesota DOT

Dr. Eric MatsumotoCalifornia State University atSacramento

Claude S. Napier, Jr.FHWA

William NickasFlorida DOT

George YamamotoCalifornia DOT

Dr. Henry G. RussellHGR, Inc., Scan Reporter

Note: affiliations were current as ofthe time of the scanning tour

Prefabricated Bridge Scan Team

Abbreviation Key:

AASHTO American Association ofState Highway andTransportation Officials

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

NCHRP National CooperativeHighway Research Program

TRB Transportation ResearchBoard

DOT Department ofTransportation

PIARC World Road Association

OECD Organization for EconomicCooperation andDevelopment

IRF International RoadFederation

AROUND THE WORLD

November 24-26, 20041st European Road CongressLisbon, Portugalwww.europeanroadcongress.com/

January 9-13, 2004Transportation Research Board84th Annual MeetingWashington, DCwww.trb.org/meeting/

February 9-19, 2005 Road Safety & Traffic Management2005Intercontinental HotelCairo, Egyptwww.i-ep.com/en/index.asp

May 22–25, 2005National Roundabout Conference Vail, Coloradowww.trb.org/Conferences/Roundabout

June 14-18, 200515th International Road Federation(IRF) World Meeting/ExhibitionBangkok, Thailandwww.irf2005.com

March 27–30, 2006XII International Winter RoadCongressTorino–Sestriere (Italia)www.aipcr2006.it

September 16-22, 2007PIARC World CongressParis, France www.piarc.org

For copies of all international scanreports, visit http://international.fhwa.dot.gov/and click on publications.



In cities, suburbs, and even manyrural areas across America, resi-dents can step out of their homesjust about any time of the day or

night and hear the unmistakable hum ofhighway noise.

“Highway noise is probably the mostsignificant noise impact that we have inour lives,” says Robert Bernhard, co-director of the Institute for Safe, Quietand Durable Highways and mechanicalengineering professor at PurdueUniversity.

Bernhard was part of a team ofexperts that participated in a May 2004scanning study—sponsored by theFederal Highway Administration(FHWA) and the American Associationof State Highway and TransportationOfficials (AASHTO)—to investigate howEuropean highway agencies use quietpavement systems to limit roadwaynoise.

“The Europeans have been workingon this problem for many years, so wewere hoping to identify some newdirections for our noise mitigation pro-grams in the United States,” Bernhardsays.

“Highway noise is a growing problemin states like California,” says RandellIwasaki, scan co-chair and interimdirector of the California Department of

Transportation (Caltrans).U.S. highway agencies have relied

mainly on sound walls to mitigate high-way noise over the years, Iwasaki says,but they can cost more than $1 milliona mile to build. Since Caltrans erectedits first one in 1968, the agency hasspent more than $500 million on soundwalls.

In addition to being expensive, soundwalls can have limited noise benefits,often to less than 400 meters from theroadway.

Multifaceted Approach“The Europeans use a multifacetedapproach to dealing with noise,” saysIwasaki. That approach includes suchtactics as designing housing develop-ments so that backyards don’t facenoisy roadways, and developing quietpavements to mitigate noise at thesource.

The scanning team learned thatreducing highway noise has been acritical issue in Europe for more thantwo decades. All of the countries theteam visited—Denmark, France, Italy,the Netherlands, and the UnitedKingdom—have policies requiring con-sideration of quiet pavement wherenoise is expected to be a concern.

In addition, a noise directive adopted

by the European Union (EU) requiresmember countries to develop environ-mental noise maps identifying criticalareas and create action plans forreducing noise by 2007. Under itsHarmonoise project, the EU is develop-ing a highway noise prediction modelthat will incorporate pavement type,along with other parameters such asmeteorological effects.

The scanning team found that theEuropeans are focusing on three majorquiet pavement technologies: thin-sur-faced, negatively textured gap-gradedasphalt mixes; single- and double-layerhighly porous asphalt mixes; andexposed aggregate concrete mixes.

The emerging trend, the teamobserved, is to use thin-surfaced gap-graded mixes with small aggregate inurban areas and areas subject to signif-icant snow and ice accumulations.

More porous gap-graded asphalt sur-faces are used on rural and high-speedroadways with moderate winter condi-tions. Exposed aggregate concrete isused where concrete pavement surfac-ing is allowed.

Building Quiet PavementsThe scanning team learned that nospecial construction equipment ortraining is required to build the quietpavement systems used in Europe,although the underlying structure of theroadway must be sound before any ofthe systems are applied.

“The quiet pavement technologiesused in Europe are not that much dif-ferent than the standard pavementtechnologies in the United States,”Bernhard says.

Reducing vehicle spray and improv-ing skid resistance were the main rea-sons porous surfaces were first used inthe countries the team visited, butnoise reduction proved to be a sidebenefit to efforts to produce saferpavement for wet weather conditions.

The Europeans find maintenance achallenge on some quiet pavements.They use pre-wetted salt to fight forma-tion of black ice on highly porous

Continued on page 6

Quiet Pavement Systems:

Attacking Road Noise at its Source

Double Porous Asphalt Pavement Netherlands Roads to the Future



Quiet Pavement Systemscontinued from page 5

pavements, which can increase wintermaintenance costs as much as 50 per-cent. Some countries have switched tostone matrix asphalt pavement withsmall aggregate in icy and snowyregions.

In addition to what the Europeanshave put into practice, the team dis-covered an extensive amount ofresearch on quiet pavement technologyunderway in Europe. “We wereimpressed by how much research effortthey are putting into this problem,”says Bernhard.

Much of the research involves part-nerships between government andindustry. For the Netherlands’ Roads tothe Future program, for example, thegovernment invited contractors todevelop innovative concepts for tomor-row’s road surface and chose severalfor demonstration projects. Theyinclude a prefabricated, noise-reducingpavement that can be rolled out likecarpeting.

“Projects like the rollable road aresimply amazing,” says Iwasaki. “Thegovernment looked out 20 years andchallenged industry to see if it couldmeet that vision today.”

Proposals for U.S. UseBased on what it observed during thescan, the team developed short- andlong-term recommendations on quietpavement systems that could be bene-ficial in the United States. Among theirshort-term proposals are the following:

• Evaluate the use of double-layerporous asphalt mixes to reducenoise on high-speed roadways.Porous mixes should not be placed inurban areas where traffic speeds dropbelow 45 miles per hour, the teamnotes, since they tend to clog in slowertraffic.

• Consider reducing the size of theaggregate used in mixes applied tothe wearing surface. Quiet surfacingmixes used in Europe have aggregatesizes ranging from 4 to 10 millimeters,while most highway agencies in theUnited States use aggregate gradationsof 9.5 to 19 millimeters.

“In California, we’re looking at using

smaller aggregate sizes in our wearingsurfaces to reduce noise,” saysIwasaki. “We’re concerned about thedurability of the surface using smalleraggregate, so we’re looking at thatalso.”

• Try thin-textured surfacing usinga small aggregate in urban and otherareas with lower traffic speeds. Toachieve noise reduction, the team rec-ommends that the texture should benegative, because pavements with pos-itive textures, such as chip seals,increase noise.

• Investigate the role of diamondgrinding—a process used to smoothconcrete surfaces—in reducingpavement noise. Caltrans, for exam-ple, is working with the grooving andgrinding industry to come up with bet-ter grinding specifications for noisereduction, according to Iwasaki.

• Put together a team of acousticalexperts and pavement engineers todevelop AASHTO protocols formeasuring the acoustical perform-ance of quiet pavements. “That way,when we’re building a roadway ordoing rehabilitation, we can factor inthe noise component as well as safety,durability, and other factors,” saysIwasaki.

To Learn MoreThe team is working on an implementa-tion plan for carrying out its recommen-dations.

Meanwhile, Iwasaki encourages high-way professionals dealing with roadnoise issues to contact the team tolearn more. “It’s a diverse team repre-senting academia, industry, and stateand federal agencies—all workingtogether to find ways to build roadwaysquieter,” he says.

For information on the scan, contactthe co-chairs: David Gibbs, (801)963–0182, [email protected];and Randell Iwasaki, (916) 654–6130,[email protected]. Z

Reducing highway noise is a key issue inEurope, where new quiet pavement tech-nologies are being developed to address theproblem at the source.

SCAN BENEFIT SNAPSHOT

Stone Matrix Asphalt.

Considered by many as the premi-um asphalt pavement surface,stone matrix asphalt (SMA) wasintroduced in the United States in1991 after the very first scan. Sincethen, more than 10 million tonshave been used on U.S. roadways.In 12 short years, national research,implementation, standard setting,conferences, mix procedures, andtraining courses all have been putinto place. The Maryland DOTreports nearly doubling the timebetween maintenance cycles onInterstate 495 Beltway projects fora product that is within 10 percentof the normal product price. TheNational Center for AsphaltTechnology calculated that with justa 25 percent increase in the life of apavement surface, SMA would savemore than $50 million annually.



Continued on page 8

Construction ManagementPractices:

Rethinking Effective HighwayProject Delivery

Highway agencies and theirindustry partners are rethink-ing the basic ways highwayconstruction projects are

designed and delivered in the UnitedStates, according to a scan team look-ing at alternative construction manage-ment practices.

Traditional U.S. practices—such aslow-bid and unit-price contracting—have served the public well in construc-tion of the country’s highway systems,the team says in a report on its May2004 scan of international practices.

But U.S. practices tend to diminishtrust between agencies and contractorsand inhibit efficiency and innovation. Insome cases, they contribute to costand schedule overruns.

“Projects are much more complexthan they were even 10 years ago andpublic expectations are greater,” saysSteven DeWitt, scan co-chair anddirector of construction for the NorthCarolina Department of Transportation(DOT).

To learn about alternatives othercountries are using, the FederalHighway Administration (FHWA) andthe American Association of StateHighway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO) sponsored the 10-memberteam’s scanning study of Europe andCanada.

“We went over to see what kinds ofmanagement practices and ideasthey’ve developed that we could use inthe United States to better manage ourprograms and produce better quality,more cost-effective products,” saysTucker Ferguson, scan team memberand chief of the Pennsylvania DOTContract Management Division.

Finding the Best ValueThe team observed that, just as in theUnited States, highway agencies inEurope and Canada face the challengeof operating an aging infrastructureunder tight funding constraints, grow-ing environmental challenges, and lean-er staffs.

The international agencies are devel-oping innovative solutions to this chal-lenge. While the low-bid system com-mon in the United States is usedabroad, most of the countries the teamvisited have adopted a best-value pro-curement system as standard proce-dure.

In addition to price, best-value meth-ods base procurement decisions onfactors such as team qualifications,past performance, and design alterna-tives. The Ministry of Transportation inOntario, Canada, for example, devel-oped a Registry Appraisal and QualitySystem to rate contractors on past per-formance.

Procurements based solely on qualifi-cations—not price—are also used.England’s Highways Agency developeda Capability Assessment Toolkit to helpthe agency in qualification-based selec-tion of designers and contractors formajor projects.

An overriding objective of these pro-curement systems, the team found, isto create trust and long-term partner-ships between agencies and industry.“We saw a lot of evidence of teamwork,of contractors and agencies workingtogether to reach a common goal,”says Ferguson.

Another contrast the scan teamobserved is in contract payment meth-ods. While unit pricing based on

David C. GibbsFHWA, Co-Chair

Randell H. IwasakiCalifornia DOT, Co-Chair

Robert J. BernhardPurdue University

James F. (Jay) BledsoeMissouri DOT

Douglas D. CarlsonRubber Pavements Association

Christopher CorbisierFHWA

Kenneth W. FultsUniversity of Texas at Austin

Thomas M. Hearne, Jr.North Carolina DOT

Kevin W. McMullenWisconsin Concrete PavementAssociation

David NewcombNational Asphalt Pavement Association

John RobertsInternational Grooving and GrindingAssociation

Judith L. RochatUSDOT

Larry A. ScofieldArizona DOT

Mark E. SwanlundFHWA

Note: affiliations were current as of thetime of the scanning tour

Quiet Pavement Systems Scan Team



quantities produced is the most-usedmethod in the United States, othercountries are having success withlump-sum payments. The ScottishExecutive, for example, makes pay-ments when project milestones arecompleted to minimize its administra-tive burdens and give contractorsincentives to work efficiently.

“From a state agency perspective, it’sa better process because we don’thave the task of measuring quantitiesand tracking hundreds of pay items,”says DeWitt. “We’ve tried it here inNorth Carolina, and I see us headingmore in that direction in the comingyears.”

In most of the countries the scanteam visited, highway agencies withtrimmed-down staffs have turned to theprivate sector to perform functions theyused to do themselves, such as design,construction management, and mainte-nance. Agency focus has shifted fromcontract compliance for individual serv-ices to network management throughintegrated service contracts.

“They do more long-term operate-and-maintain types of contracts, inwhich they turn over a section of ahighway to a contractor to design,build, and maintain for 20 or 30 years,”says Ferguson. “That’s something wedon’t generally do in the UnitedStates.”

The agencies also use risk analysisand allocation techniques to help themquantify project risk and choose con-tracting strategies to mitigate thoserisks. In England, the Highways AgencyRisk Management tool helps officialsselect the most effective contractingmethods early in the project life cycle.In the Netherlands, Public SectorComparator and the Public-PrivateComparator tools help the Ministry ofTransport make the same decisions.

Ideas for InnovationsBased on its observations in Europeand Canada, the scanning team

Construction Management Practicescontinued from page 7

The Scottish Executive is using a design, build, finance, and operate contract to build theM77 Motorway project southwest of Glasgow, Scotland.

FAST-TRACKING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION

“You know, it would really be great if we could include internationalexperiences on best value contracting in the current NCHRP 10-61 BestValue Procurement Project,” said Steve Dewitt, NCDOT and Co-Chair ofthe Construction Management Scan. “We learned so much about howthe European countries align project goals and customer objectives withmeasurable evaluation criteria, setting a framework for project success.”

A call to NCHRP’s Project Manager Tim Hess, his quick polling of thepanel, the selling of the idea, the allocating of funds and, well, it wasdone. “This was just the right time, as we were about to close out theproject. This will add a lot to the overall value of the project,” said Hess.

The scope of work involves collecting evaluation plans from interna-tional agencies involved in the scan, analyzing the data for applicationto the NCHRP 10-61 best value framework, and producing a revised finalreport. This will leverage both the Construction Management Scan find-ings and the original NCHRP research by incorporating significant inter-national experience into this evolving procurement method in the U.S.

“This is a culture change for theUnited States,” says Ferguson. “It’s anew way of doing business. We in gov-ernment need to work with industry toshow the benefits for us and the con-tractors.”

The goal is to take the best ofEuropean and Canadian constructionmanagement practices and moldprocesses that will work in a differentU.S. environment, says DeWitt. TheUnited States has many more contrac-tors than Europe, for example, andmany of them are small businesses.

“Small contractors built America—theinterstate highway system and thefarm-to-market roads—and helpedmake it what it is today,” he says. “Wedon’t want to create a system thatshuts them out. They’re important toour history and our future. We have tobe careful to not take the Europeanmodel and throw it into the middle ofthe United States.”

For a summary of the scan, visithttp://construction.colorado.edu. Formore information on the scan, contactthe co-chairs: Gerald Yakowenko, (202)366–1562, [email protected]. Steven DeWitt, (919)715–4458, [email protected]. Z



European highway agencies are developinginnovative ways to deliver constructionjobs, such as the Aubing tunnel project onHighway A99 near Munich, Germany.

developed recommendations on con-struction management practices agen-cies in the United States should con-sider trying. They include the following:

• Develop procurement and con-struction management methods thatbetter align the goals of the customers,owner, and contractors.

• Devise more effective processes fordetermining risks and assigning themto the party best able to manage them.

• Evolve from a traditional one-size-fits-all project delivery method, andstrategically apply alternative methodsthat promote early industry involvementand life cycle design solutions.

• Create consistent rating processesto facilitate quality-based selection ofcontractors.

• Use alternative payment methodssuch as milestone and lump-sum pay-ments to promote efficiency.

• Consider long-term warranties oncritical components of projects to

produce better products and allow formore innovation.

The recommendations “offer a chal-lenge to highway construction profes-sionals to change the current construc-tion management practices that createadversarial relationships,” according tothe team’s scan report. “We mustdevelop new practices that promotetrust, create teamwork, and align allparticipants towards customer-focusedobjectives of quality, safety, anddependable transportation risks.”

The team’s plan for implementing itsrecommendations includes conductingpilot studies to test their feasibility inthe United States. “One I’d like to try inPennsylvania is expanding the use ofpavement warranty specifications,”says Ferguson. “We’ve done a few forasphalt, but we’re looking at doingmore and expanding them to con-crete.”

Adapting to U.S. NeedsThe implementation plan also calls formaking presentations on the team’sfindings and recommendations at con-ferences and workshops, and gettingfeedback from highway constructionprofessionals in the public and privatesectors.

Steven D. DeWittNorth Carolina DOT, co-chair

Gerald YakowenkoFHWA, co-chair

Thomas R. BohuslavTexas DOT

Harold (Tucker) FergusonPennsylvania DOT

Eugene HoelkerFHWA

Keith R. MolenaarUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Greg L. SchiessFHWA

John M. SmytheIowa DOT

James E. TriplettUnited Contractors, Inc.

Richard WagmanG.A. & F.C. Wagman, Inc.

Note: affiliations were current as of thetime of the scanning tour

Construction Management Practices Scan Team



PIARC/AIPCR—World Road Association

Exchanging a World ofTransportation Knowledge

By Martine Micozzi, NCHRP SeniorProgram Officer

You may have heard the terms“PIARC” or “AIPCR” men-tioned before and wonderedwhether they were one in the

same. This quick primer is designed toprovide a better understanding ofPIARC/AIPCR and U.S. transportationofficials’ involvement in it.

PIARC/AIPCR: The “French”ConnectionWhat is the connection between PIARCand AIPCR? These acronyms describea single international organization intwo languages. In French, the acronym“AIPCR” stands for the “AssociationMondiale de la Route.” Its Englishacronym, PIARC, translates as: “TheWorld Road Association.” This interna-tional association based in Paris,France, was established in 1909 as anonpolitical, and nonprofit association.As of September 2004, PIARC membercountries included 108 national govern-ments from around the world.Approximately two-thirds of the mem-ber countries are developing countriesand countries in transition. There areapproximately 2000 other members(about half of which are individualmembers) from nearly 130 countries.The three official languages of theassociation are French, English, andSpanish.

PIARC’s vision is to be the worldleader in the exchange of knowledgeon roads and transport policy andpractices within an integrated, sustain-able context. The association’s goalsare to provide universal, quality servicein an open, objective, and impartialway. Moreover, PIARC seeks to pro-

mote sustainable and sound economicsolutions; recognize road transport inan integrated transport and land usecontext; be customer driven; andrespect differing international roadtransport needs.

To achieve this vision, PIARC createsand coordinates technical committees,organizes a quadrennial World RoadCongress and Winter Road Congress,offers various technical seminars, andpublishes a large number of docu-ments, including a quarterly magazine,Routes/Roads.

As a PIARC member, the U.S. is rep-resented by delegates from the U.S.Department of Transportation’s(USDOT), Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA), and state DOTswho serve on technical committees.Under NCHRP 20-36, funds are provid-ed to support state DOT delegates’

travel to attend PIARC Committeemeetings while FHWA funds USDOTdelegates’ travel.

Every four years, PIARC sponsorstwo types of congresses: the WorldRoad Congress and the InternationalWinter Road Congress. BothCongresses meet in a member countryto enable members to share techniquesand experiences in the field of roadinfrastructures and road transport. Thenext World Road Congress (XXIIIrd) willbe held in Paris, France, in September17-21, 2007, celebrating the associa-tion’s 100th anniversary.

As a complement to the World RoadCongresses, PIARC also organizes aninternational congress dedicated towinter road maintenance. The Italiancities of Turin and Sestriere will host thenext International Winter RoadCongress scheduled for March 27-30,2006.

Strategic Themes andTechnical CommitteesPIARC operates on a four-year cyclewith a strategic plan comprised of upto four theme areas. Each cycle con-cludes with an international conferenceshowcasing the key accomplishmentsand findings of its technical commit-tees. The most recent PIARC WorldCongress was held in 2003 in Durban,South Africa. The new strategic planfor 2004-2007 sets the organizationalstructure and the terms of reference forall technical committees. The technicalwork of PIARC is divided into fourstrategic themes of governance, out-puts, operations, and inputs. Underthese themes, 18 technical committeeswork on various subjects in the trans-portation field.

These technical committees, consist-ing of distinguished engineers andtransportation experts appointed bymember countries, are tasked with pro-ducing reports, and conducting semi-nars in developing countries and coun-tries in transition on best practices andrecommendations in their respectivefields.

JAMES WRIGHT, MINNESOTA DOTC16 COMMITTEE, NETWORK OPERATIONS

This has been an extraordinarylearning experience. The experi-ence provided opportunities tosee what other countries aredoing in operations, what policiesare driving their programs, and afirst-hand experience actually see-ing specific transportation opera-tions. It has had an impact on mythinking in transportation, animpact on how I see governmentand business working together,and a greater appreciation ofwhat we have in the UnitedStates.



Strategic Theme 3—Safetyand Road OperationsThe goal of Strategic Theme 3 is toimprove the safe and efficient use ofthe road system, including the move-ment of people and goods on the roadnetwork, while efficiently managing therisks associated with road transportoperations and the natural environment.The emphasis is on improvements tosafety assessments, mechanisms,designs, and procedures consistentwith efficient and effective operationsthat meet customer and user expecta-tions, with particular emphasis on infor-mation systems and information shar-ing. Technical committees under thistheme include Road Safety, RoadTunnel Operations, WinterMaintenance, and Risk Managementfor Roads.

Strategic Theme 4—Quality ofRoad InfrastructureTheme 4 focuses on providing an effi-cient management of road assets. Thisrequires implementing managementsystems capable of integrating all com-ponents of infrastructure, based onindicators reflecting functionalities andtaking into account the expectations ofthe users and residents.

Under this theme, approaches towork design and techniques thatincrease the durability of infrastructureelements are reviewed. Emphasis isplaced on reviewing progress made inmaintenance techniques that canreduce the nuisance to users and resi-dents, and the impact on the environ-ment.

Technical committees under thistheme include Management of RoadInfrastructure Assets, Road/VehicleInteraction, Road Pavement, and RoadBridges, Related Structures, andEarthworks, Drainage and Subgrade.

Projects and EventsFrom its inception, PIARC’s commit-ment to technology transfer has beenthe foundation of its philosophy and

Strategic Theme 2—SustainedMobilityThe scope of work for Strategic Theme2 unites the themes of sustainabilityand integration of different transportmodes in urban and rural areas indeveloped and developing countriesand those in transition. Particular atten-tion is paid to extreme situations inmega cities and isolated rural commu-nities.

A growing concern is balancing thedemands of environmental manage-ment and development pressures toachieve sustainable and beneficialcommunity outcomes, taking intoaccount mobility needs and the eco-nomic imperative of moving goods effi-ciently and effectively.

Technical committees under thistheme include Sustainable Developmentand Road Transport, Urban Areas andIntegrated Urban Transport, RuralRoads and Accessibility, and FreightTransport and Intermodality.

Strategic Theme 1—Governance and Managementof the Road System

Strategic Theme 1 investigates the nec-essary measures to improve the gover-nance and management of the roadadministration in the provision of roadsystems in accordance with interna-tional best practices.

This includes road system econom-ics, effects of road pricing, effectiveand efficient management measures,and new ideas for network-wide man-agement operations with an emphasison customers in the provision of servic-es, and appropriate use of intelligenttransportation systems (ITS) technologyfor an integrated transport system.

The four technical committees underthis theme include Road SystemEconomics, Financing Road SystemInvestment, Performance of RoadAdministrations, and Management ofNetwork Operations.

Continued on page 12

PIARC 2004-2007 PROGRAM

PIARC Committee U.S. Delegate1.1 Road System Economics Jim March, FHWA1.2 Financing Road System Investment Sherri Alston, FHWA1.3 Performance of Road Administrations Randy Halvorson, MN DOT1.4 Management of Infrastructure Assets Wayne Berman, FHWA2.1 Sustainable Development and Road Gloria Shepard, FHWA

Transport2.2 Interurban Roads and Integrated Ysela Llort, FL DOT

Interurban Transport2.3 Urban Areas and Integrated Urban Raj Ghaman, FHWA

Transport2.4 Freight Transport and Intermodality Gloria Jeff, MI DOT2.5 Rural Transport Needs Norm Roush, WV DOT 3.3 Road Tunnel Operations Tony Caserta, FHWA3.1 Road Safety Beth Alicandri, FHWA3.4 Winter Maintenance Patrick Hughes, MN DOT

Paul Pisano, FHWA4.1 Management of Road Infrastructure Timothy J. Gilchrist, NY

Assets DOT4.2 Road/Vehicle Interaction Mark Swanlund, FHWA4.3 Road Pavements Monte Symons, FHWA4.4 Road Bridges and Related Structures Mal Kerley, VA DOT



TranScan (ISSN 1095-5593), pub-lished periodically by theTransportation Research Board,reports news and information result-ing from National CooperativeHighway Research Program Project20-36, Highway Research andTechnology—International InformationSharing. This publication is also avail-able through the Internet(www.nas.edu/trb).

The Transportation ResearchBoard is a unit of the NationalResearch Council, a private, nonprofitinstitution that is the principal operat-ing agency of the National Academyof Sciences and the NationalAcademy of Engineering. Under acongressional charter granted to theNational Academy of Sciences, theNational Research Council providesscientific and technical advice to thegovernment, the public, and the sci-entific and engineering communities.

Editor: Ted Ferragut (703) 836-1671email:[email protected]

Staff: Donna FerragutEllen SchweppeRicci Communications

Send comments, questions, andaddress changes to:

Martine MicozziNCHRP Program OfficerTransportation ResearchBoard500 Fifth St. NWWashington, DC 20001email: [email protected]

Notice: The opinions expressed inarticles appearing in TranScan do notnecessarily reflect the views of theTransportation Research Board. TheTransportation Research Board andTranScan do not endorse products ormanufacturers. Trade and manufac-turers’ names appear in an articleonly because they are consideredessential to the object of the article.

TranScanmission. That commitment has evolvedfrom information sharing betweendeveloped industrialized countries toinclude developing countries andnations in transition.

At the 1987 World Road Congress inBrussels, PIARC passed a resolutionaffirming commitment to technologytransfer. The 1995 and 1999 congress-es in Montreal and Kuala Lumpur reaf-firmed those goals in the PIARC strate-gic plan. Projects in support of thiscommitment have since been launched,including Technology Transfer Centers;seminars by technical committees;HDM-4, a software system for investi-gating choices in investing in roads androad transport information; and theSpecial Fund, designed to facilitateparticipation of developing countries inPIARC activities.

World Interchange NetworkA popular PIARC program is the WorldInterchange Network (WIN). It was cre-ated in 1995 to connect people withquestions about road technology andtransport with experts who can providethe information they need.

WIN is not intended as a source offree engineering services, but rather asa means of transferring readily availableknowledge between countries. Themain beneficiaries are expected to bedeveloping countries and countries intransition, but WIN will also be valuableto developed countries for establishingand enhancing contacts with other roadorganizations.

PIARC plans to establish a WIN con-tact person in each member country.The information provided on the WINWeb site may be viewed by anyone.PIARC members have the extra benefitof being able to email a request forinformation via an online form. Z

PIARC/AIPCRcontinued from page 11 CALL FOR SCAN PROPOSALS—

2006-2007 CYCLE

FHWA and AASHTO are accept-ing scan proposals for the FiscalYear 2006-2007 cycle of the JointAASHTO/FHWA InternationalTechnology Scanning Program.

How to Submit IdeasFHWA Scan proposals may besubmitted by FHWA programoffices and Resource Centerswith appropriate endorsementsfrom the various program officersand associate administrators.Cross-cutting scans should beendorsed by all appropriateoffices. Contact Hana Maier,FHWA’s Office of InternationalPrograms at (202) 366–0111 [email protected] formore information.

AASHTO Scan proposals maybe submitted by any AASHTOcommittee or subcommitteedealing with road transportationwith appropriate endorsementsby the relevant committee orsubcommittee chairman. Again,cross-cutting scan should beendorsed by all appropriateoffices. Contact CameronKergaye at (202) 624-7826 [email protected] for moreinformation.

NCHRP Project Panel 20-36.Other non-AASHTO or FHWAscan proposals (such as thosefrom transportation industryassociations or academia) maybe submitted to NCHRP ProjectPanel 20-36. Project Panel 20-36will evaluate such proposals andforward promising ones to therelevant AASHTO committee forconsideration in making scanproposals. Contact MartineMicozzi, NCHRP’s SeniorProgram Manager at (202)334–3972 or [email protected].

Due Date:The deadline for submitting scanproposals is March 15, 2005.

bridge fabrication systems

Documents