NCHRP 20-07/Task 335 Final Report Page 1

NCHRP Project 20-07/Task 335

UPDATING THE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR HIGHWAY BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES

FINAL REPORT

Dennis R. Mertz

August 2013

BACKGROUND

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 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 re-

assess 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.

Appendix 1

SURVEY

1

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 1900. 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 21st 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.

2

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.

Appendix 2

SURVEY RESPONSES

RESPONDENT

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. Non-

structural 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.

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

Alaska

Page 1

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

Alaska

Page 2

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

20

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.  

21

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

California

Page 3

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.

California

Idaho

Florida

Florida

Georgia

Page 4

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

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. 

Kansas

Maryland

Page 6

68

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.

69

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.

70Streamlining 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

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.

75How 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 – low-

levels 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

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 (2008-2012) 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.

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania

Page 9

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

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  

RESPONDENT

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. 

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.

RESPONSES

Wyoming

FHWA

FHWA

Alaska

Page 11

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.

California

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.

14I do not think any of the existing challenges have been sufficiently met to be removed from the list.

Florida

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.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

we have put any completely to bed.Idaho

California

Alaska

Page 12

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.

Illinois

19 No, all the existing challenges still exist. Iowa

20 None have been accomplished. Kansas

21 None Maryland

22I 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.

Massachusetts

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.

Michigan

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.

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.

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

PBESS plus SHRP2 R04.Pennsylvania

31 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

completedWyoming

North Carolina

Page 13

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.

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

defined (as opposed to challenge that is not grand?)California

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.

 Usually the discussions on this item take place above the Bridge Committee. Georgia

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).

Illinois

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.

Iowa

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.

Kansas

11 None Maryland

FHWA

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.

Page 14

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.

22 7 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???

26 Specifically Truck Weights?? Or communication strategies to policy makers??

27 None Wyoming

Wisconsin

Page 15

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

Appendix 3

REVISED STRATEGIC PLAN

A Strategic Plan for Bridges and Structures

FINAL

AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on

Bridges and Structures

August 2013

1

INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND

The Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures (HSCOBS/Subcommittee) 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, the

Subcommittee 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 Federal, State and industry-sponsored research and

development programs. 2000 WORKSHOP

Because of this review and recommendation process, the Subcommittee has obtained

funding for various NCHRP projects that have benefited the bridge community. It became

apparent to the Subcommittee that a more structured procedure for prioritizing research

was needed. A workshop was conducted February 14-16, 2000 in Irvine, California to

develop a strategic plan for bridge engineering. Participants included AASHTO State Bridge

Engineers, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), academics, consultants, and

industry representatives. The information developed in the workshop represented a

consensus of the participating bridge engineering professionals. The strategic plan assisted

the Subcommittee in identifying and prioritizing the major themes for a coordinated national

bridge engineering agenda. The Subcommittee has used the resulting agenda to evaluate

and prioritize research problem suggestions ensuring a quality-based research program

aligned with the Subcommittee’s needs. The product of the original workshop is six “thrust” discussions. Each thrust focuses on a

specific business need of the AASHTO bridge engineers. The unprioritized thrusts are as

follows: • Enhanced Materials, Structural Systems, and Technologies;

• Efficient Maintenance, Rehabilitation, and Construction;

• Bridge Management;

• Enhanced Specifications for Improved Structural Performance;

• Computer-Aided Design, Construction, and Maintenance; and

• Leadership.

Each thrust discussion starts with a paragraph giving general background on the thrust. A

brief statement of the “business need” that would be satisfied with accomplishment of the

thrust follows. After listing the thrust’s objective, the thrust discussion concludes with a list

of “building blocks” (i.e., products or processes that must be available to satisfy the

business need).

At their 2000 annual meeting in Charleston, South Carolina, the Subcommittee adopted

the report of the workshop as the “Thrust Areas/Business Needs for Bridge Engineering.”

2

2005 WORKSHOP The strategic plan is a working document. Thrusts and business needs are dynamic—they

must be continually reviewed and revised to reflect the ever-changing societal and technical

environment within which the highway system exists. The Subcommittee is fully committed

to the continued maintenance and improvement of this document and to applying the

contents to the identification and prioritization of research. As such, a second workshop

was conducted April 18-20, 2005, in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, to refine the 2000

strategic plan. Participants included AASHTO State Bridge Engineers, the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), academics, and consultants. The group included the Transportation

Research Board (TRB) Structures Section chairs. The products of this workshop are a focused set of critical problems extracted from the 2000 strategic plan that, if solved, would lead to significant advances in bridge engineering,

called “grand challenges” that build upon the thrusts of the 2000 plan. The prioritized grand

challenges are:

• Extending Service Life,

• Optimizing Structural Systems,

• Accelerating Bridge Construction,

• Advancing the AASHTO Specifications,

• Monitoring Bridge Condition,

• Contributing to National Policy, and

• Managing Knowledge

Each “grand challenge” is defined through a brief statement of the challenge and anticipated

outcome, and discussions of the practical importance, the technical importance, and the

readiness of the challenge to be solved. Finally, lists of important activities/research areas

and minimum measures of success, called benchmarks, are included. The benchmarks are

grouped by the time in which they should be accomplished to insure the solving of the

challenge: short term (in 2-3 years), mid-term (in 4-5 years) and long term (beyond 5

years.) The benchmarks can also be viewed as a guide to implementation. At their 2005 annual meeting in Newport, Rhode Island, the Subcommittee adopted the

report of the workshop as their strategic plan for bridge engineering.

2013 WORKSHOP

Eight years passed since the adoption of the 2005 Strategic Plan for Bridge Engineering. As

part of the Subcommittee’s commitment to maintaining and improving its strategic plan, a

third workshop was conducted March 19 and 20, 2013, in Washington, DC, to once again

re-assess 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 Appendix.

3

This 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. For each objective, primary and

secondary focuses were established through much discussion and compromise. Though

some objectives could logically be argued to encompass all of the focuses, the participants

decided to limit the primary focuses. The relationships between the prioritized objectives

and focuses are shown in Table 1.

4

Table 1 – The Relationships between the Objectives and the Focuses (P = primary focus, S = secondary focus)

prioritized

objectives

focuses

Improve

Safety &

Mobility

Implement

Asset

Management

Foster

Innovation

Evaluate

Impact on

Practice &

Performance

Improve

Communication

and

Collaboration

1 -- Extend Bridge

Service Life S P S S P

2 -- Assess Bridge

Condition P P S S P

3 -- Maintain and

Enhance a

Knowledgeable

Workforce

P S S S S

4 -- Maintain and

Enhance the

AASHTO

Specifications

P S S P S

5 -- Accelerate

Bridge Delivery

and Construction

P S P S P

6 -- Optimize

Structural

Systems

S S P P P

7 -- Model and

Manage

Information

Intelligently

P P P S P

8 -- Contribute to

National Policy S S S S P

Each objective is defined 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.

Comparing the order of prioritization of these objectives with the prioritization of the 2005

Grand Challenges (many of which are common) illustrates the continued need to re-evaluate

the strategic plan as the practice of bridge engineering evolves.

At the 2013 annual meeting in Portland, Oregon, the strategic plan was presented to the

Subcommittee along with suggestions on implementation during their executive session.

5

The Strategic Plan for Bridges and Structures

PRIORTIZED OBJECTIVE 1: EXTEND BRIDGE 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 and extend the life expectancy of new bridges by managing these

processes. Anticipated Outcome

Strategies to extend the service life of new and existing bridges and highway structures.

Importance

Our nation’s bridges are aging and the increasing traffic volumes and loads that bridges

experience result in a reduction of service life. Due to already strained construction and

maintenance budgets, investing in preservation at optimal times during the life of the bridge

must be pursued. The resulting necessary rehabilitation and replacement results in

reduction in the public’s mobility. In addition, quantifying and determining the most cost-

effective means to extend the expected life of new bridges is necessary. Owners

sometimes employ methods to solve problems in the short term in response to the public’s

increasing demand for uninterrupted mobility which prove to be detrimental to their

structures in the long term (For example, the application of de-icing agents to facilitate

mobility resulting in reduced service life.). It is imperative to better understand the

processes which reduce service life and employ innovative methods to extend the life of

these structures. Guidance should be provided to the engineer to provide cost-effective

preventive maintenance and rehabilitation strategies for existing bridges and highway

structures and improved materials and protective measures for new bridges. Important Activities/Research

Investigate processes that decrease the serviceability of new and existing bridges and

highway structures, and develop cost effective means of preserving the bridge inventory

by prescribing appropriate cost-effective preventive maintenance measures and

rehabilitation methods for using durable materials:

• BRIDGE DECKS – quantify the impact of increased traffic volume and loads,

nondestructive tests, methods for protection against and extraction of chloride ion

intrusion, and new materials and techniques for deck construction and repairs

• MAIN LOAD CARRYING MEMBERS – develop girder/main member repair and

strengthening methods, methods to eliminate expansion joints and bearings, and

corrosion mitigation techniques including coatings • SUBSTRUCTURES – develop methods for corrosion protection and strengthening of piers and

abutments • FOUNDATIONS – develop methods to monitor foundations and detect scour, to

protect and/or strengthen foundations against scour, earthquake and impact

damage, to modify soil (including liquefaction mitigation), to protect salt-water foundations against corrosion (including identification of aggressive

environments), and to determine the suitability of existing foundations for

proposed rehabilitation or widening in terms of geometry, integrity and

response

6

Performance Measures SHORT TERM:

• identify the processes which decrease service life, and

• subsequently identify the most effective existing and most promising emerging

materials and preservation (maintenance and rehabilitation) methods to address

the identified processes (including identifying methods to determine the optimum

time to apply the preservation methods). LONG TERM:

• implement specifications, guidelines and trial applications resulting in deployment of

the most effective existing materials and methods, and

• develop the most promising emerging materials and preservation methods.

7

PRIORITIZED OBJECTIVE 2: ASSESS BRIDGE CONDITION To collect appropriate information necessary to characterize the condition of the structure

(both superstructure and substructure), to understand the impact on condition from

maintenance and preservation actions and to develop systems to enable owners to

efficiently manage assets. Anticipated Outcome

Information systems to collect, model and manage bridge and

maintenance/preservation action information to more efficiently characterize and

project condition and assist in managing our existing inventory of bridges and highway structures.

Importance

Cost savings can be achieved through efficiently managing existing bridges by implementing

better methods to characterize and project bridge condition through deterioration modeling.

For certain structures, the present biennial bridge inspection interval could be transitioned to

longer periods through the use of more rational criteria. Implementation of effective

systems to collect, model and manage bridge information can result in the development of

optimum inspection, maintenance, repair and replacement schedules. Bridge information

systems can help inform investmemt decisions which result in increased service life,

increased structural reliability and reduced life-cycle costs. Effective bridge information systems can:

• improve the credibility of inspections and subsequent condition and load ratings through less subjective data,

• improve uniformity of data enabling the development of better decision-

making tools,

• evaluate existing inspection, maintenance, and repair techniques,

• assess long-term performance,

• result in modifications and enhancements to specifications and inspection standards, and optimization of inspection schedules

• allow more rational maintenance and repair scheduling resulting in

the optimization of maintenance and repair dollars

Important Activities/Research

• identify the useful data and information to be collected • identify the types of structures/parts of structures and various protective measures

where information is needed

• develop techniques to model this information in a manner most beneficial to

condition assessment (including an enhanced measure of condition) • deploy the most promising materials and technologies as

demonstrations (databases, managememt systems and condition prediction tools)

• develop recommended revisions to the AASHTO condition evaluation manuals • development protocols and deterioration models using the modeled information

• Evaluation of cost/benefit of inspection, maintenance and repair techniques

• identify of the most effective condition assessment tools

8

Performance Measures

SHORT TERM:

• identify promising cost-effective information modeling and manage technologies

for bridge-condition assessment, and

• develop a consistent national data format for maintenance and preservation action

data. LONG TERM:

• implement and evaluate prototype technologies,

• recommend actions based upon the evaluations, and

• deploy multiple information systems to collect, model and manage bridge-condition

information.

9

PRIORITIZED OBJECTIVE 3: MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE A KNOWLEDGEABLE

WORKFORCE

To understand the existing approaches to acquisition, management and dissemination of

bridge design, repair, maintenance and preservation knowledge, and to develop new or

more effective approaches consistent with the evolving bridge engineering community and

emerging technology. Anticipated Outcome

Strategies to cultivate and support a knowledgeable workforce and effective leaders in

bridge engineering. Importance

The quality of the technical workforce must be maintained to address the rapid development

of new technology and the preservation of existing technology. This workforce quality is also

being challenged by the loss of institutional memory due to downsizing and retirements. At

the same time, the current workforce needs to be trained in succession planning and

leadership development. Improvement in relationships between the various bridge industry

sectors (including owners, consultants, industry and academe) can assist in maintaining a

quality workforce. Important Activities/Research

• determine the quality of existing professional training (including practices,

materials and policies)

• develop educational materials (materials appropriate to undergraduate and

graduate education as opposed to available professional education materials)

to assist universities in developing and maintaining a curriculum consistent with current needs, including planning and political activities

• identify undergraduate and professional curricula in other countries for

implementation in the US

• develop of e-learning tools

• develop a bridge-engineering database to preserve knowledge and improve access

to knowledge (A complete database will also eliminate unnecessary research

duplication) • identify knowledge networks both within and across specialties

• assess current and development of enhanced mentoring strategies • assessment current succession planning strategies and develop enhanced

succession planning strategies for leadership and professional development

• develop training courses and knowledge networks targeted at contractors and

construction personnel with the National Highway Institute (NHI)

• assess the level of current collaboration between academe and the bridge

engineering community

• develop strategies and a plan to establish and promote long term

relationships between academe and the bridge engineering community

• encourage University Transportation Centers (UTC’s) to participate in facilitating the

development of academe/bridge engineering community relationships

• foster respect for bridge engineering as a profession and encouraging owners to

provide salaries commensurate with other professions (for example, computer

industry, law, business, etc.)

10

Performance Measures SHORT TERM:

identify:

• good professional and undergraduate training strategies,

• strategies for the establishment of a bridge-engineering knowledge database,

assessment of the current level of collaboration between academe and the rest of the

community, and

• successful mentoring and succession planning strategies. LONG TERM:

develop and deploy:

• enhanced professional and undergraduate training strategies (including traditional

curriculum and e-learning tools),

• a bridge-engineering knowledge database,

• a national program for guiding the training of bridge engineers,

• fruitful collaboration between academe and the bridge- engineering community, and

• mentoring and succession planning strategies.

11

PRIORITIZED OBJECTIVE 4: MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE THE AASHTO

SPECIFICATIONS To provide clear, concise technical guidance to the practicing bridge engineer, to

understand the limit states required for safe, serviceable and economical bridges and

highway structures, and to develop enhanced reliability-based design and evaluation

provisions addressing these limit states in a clear and concise manner relatively consistent

with traditional highway-bridge practice and effort while incorporating new or enhanced

construction materials and processes. Anticipated Outcome

Stable, yet ever-evolving and comprehensive design and evaluation specifications that

address applicable limit states. Importance

The LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and the Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE) represent

a revolutionary change for the highway bridge design community. To complete the change

of the specifications to a comprehensive probability-based set of provisions, the

serviceability provisions should also be calibrated to produce uniform reliability (The service

limit states were originally calibrated to produce member proportions comparable with the

Standard Specifications, not based upon reliability.). Further simplification of some of the

more complex provisions is warranted. There is a need to improve the design, construction and durability of transportation

structures within the context of LRFD and the MBE. Specifically, there is a need for further

work and clarification in the following areas:

• identify and maintain consistent reliability indices within LRFD for all bridge and

highway structure elements, including calibration to reflect local materials and

practices

• identify and calibrate the service limit states • begin transition to a performance-based specification, with an accompanying design

manual • integrate information from maintenance and operations into code development and

vice versa (poor maintenance procedures should not result in degrading the code provisions)

• identify load distribution for foundation elements

• develop and incorporate security performance standards • incorporate contemporary seismic design provisions into LRFD

• continue development of LRFR provisions

• incorporate service life design guidance for new bridges and structures

• incorporate multi-hazard recommendations considering level of risk, exposure, and

route importance

Important Activities/Research • explore enhanced formats, media and delivery methods for the

specifications

• develop a framework for a performance-based specification, and

accompanying design manual

12

• develop probability-based service limit-states to achieve durability

performance goals

• develop statistical databases for LRFD calibration, e.g. maintenance, operations and geotechnical databases

• develop performance standards for security

• complete and adopt state-of-the-art seismic design provisions for probabilistic and

deterministic hazards

• identify load distribution methods for foundations

Performance Measures SHORT TERM:

• define all of the limit states (including the service limit states) and their associated

performance requirements,

• complete calibration of the design specifications utilizing existing or developed

databases for maintenance and operation (including geotechnical issues), and

• develop performance standards for security design of major bridges. LONG TERM:

• deploy performance standards for security design of major bridges, and

• develop a performance-based specification and accompanying design manual.

13

PRIORITIZED OBJECTIVE 5: ACCELERATE BRIDGE DELIVERY AND CONSTRUCTION To understand the time-restraints, durability and economy of traditional bridge systems and

their delivery and 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. Anticipated Outcome

Strategies to accelerate the construction of safe, durable and economical bridges; both the

construction of new bridges and highway structures, and the rehabilitation of existing

bridges. Importance

A quarter of our nation’s 590,000 bridges are currently classified as structurally deficient or

functionally obsolete. Compounding the problem of an aging bridge infrastructure are

increasing construction activities leading to traffic congestion, delays, and work-zone

accidents. The public has lost patience with the many construction projects, especially

when interruptions interfere with their ability to reliably plan their travel time. Innovative

construction methods, materials and systems are needed that reduce on-site construction

time, while ensuring long-lasting facilities. With available funding that covers only a

fraction of the current rehabilitation and replacement needs, strategies are urgently needed

to accelerate bridge construction projects to more economically and effectively address the

public’s demand to "get in, stay in, get out, and stay out.” Projects can also be completed

while maintaining traffic capacity, including in some cases no impact to peak traffic.

Accelerated bridge construction results in projects being completed more quickly and

therefore impact to users may be lessened. Nevertheless, the benefits of accelerated

construction must be weighed against the costs. Finally, recent natural disasters and the

increasing threat of terrorism highlight the need for effective hardening and for rapid

recovery of the use of our bridges and highway structures. Accelerated bridge design and construction research advance technology by developing

improved prefabricated structural systems using enhanced details, materials and foundation

systems. The more controlled environment inherent with prefabrication operations facilitates

improved quality for more long-lasting systems. Resulting industry advancements include

transportation and erection technology (including new ways of precasting/prefabricating

component units) that allows complete bridges to be installed within hours. Specification

developments will ensure increased consistency and quality assurance with reduced

construction timelines. Research will also result in improved construction work-zone safety

strategies and contracting strategies such as incentives/disincentives that ensure the

reduced construction timelines while allowing greater flexibility in construction.

Important Activities/Research

• identify technical and cultural barriers, both real and perceived • establish a database to track accelerated bridge and highway structures and

substructures construction to demonstrate and document successes, including costs • implement and further develop rapidly assembled connection details and joints that are

constructible, durable and repairable • develop prefabricated seismically resistant systems, including substructures

• develop more efficient modular sections

14

• develop maintenance needs, accessibility, repairability, and inspection criteria • identify transportation and erection issues including loads and equipment • implement and further develop innovative construction methods, including total bridge

movement systems, such as Self Propelled Modular Transporter (SPMT), launching,

etc.

• implement and further develop cost analysis and risk assessment • develop quality assurance measures for accelerated techniques for

superstructure and substructure construction • implement advanced materials and continue materials research, e.g., high performance

materials, materials durability, lightweight concrete to provide lower self-weight for larger components, etc.

• implement and further develop design considerations for hardening of existing

structures and rapid recovery after disasters (natural and manmade)

• implement and further develop contracting strategies that encourage speed and

quality

• disseminate information on available technologies including development of

decision-making tools and successful accelerated bridge construction projects to

both decision-makers and designers

• identify methods to accelerate construction of bridge foundations and earthwork, demonstrated sources of construction delays

Performance Measures

SHORT TERM:

identify:

• barriers (both technical and cultural) to the application of accelerated bridge

construction techniques,

• the most effective existing techniques,

• the most promising emerging techniques, and

• benefit/cost parameters to indicate when accelerated construction is appropriate with

the goal of at least one bridge project in each appropriate state installed within 72 hours, in five years.

LONG TERM:

• develop strategies to overcome the barriers identified in the short-term,

• develop the most promising emerging techniques into viable options, and

• deploy the most effective existing accelerated bridge construction techniques (with

success measured through a baseline database populated with completed

accelerated bridge construction projects with the goal of routine bridge projects in

each appropriate state installed within 72 hours, in ten years).

15

PRIORITIZED OBJECTIVE 6: OPTIMIZE STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS To understand the advantages and limitations of traditional 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 materials to assure a safe, minimum 75-year

service life requiring minimal maintenance. Anticipate Outcome

Structural systems which utilize existing and new materials more efficiently in terms of

safety, durability and economy. Importance The use of high-performance structural systems in transportation structures has been

demonstrated to result in initial and long-term cost savings, and more efficient construction

resulting in less traffic disruption. Nevertheless, to achieve these and additional efficiencies,

design and construction standards based on optimized materials, details, components,

structures and foundations must be developed to take advantage of the benefits that can be

obtained from these systems. Further, the public funding of bridges and highway structures

represents a significant investment, and maintenance activities to mitigate deterioration of

bridges are absorbing an increasing share of this funding. Development of new materials,

details, components, structures, foundations and construction procedures aimed at safety,

durability and economy will help achieve safe, cost-effective, low-maintenance, long-life

structures. Existing high performance materials, like high performance concrete and steel, and fiber

reinforced polymer composites, are now being more routinely used in bridge and highway

structures for new construction, rehabilitation, and repair. Optimized structural systems can

increase their efficiency. Meanwhile, some of the high performance materials and systems,

like ultra high performance concrete for superstructures and ground improvement techniques

for improved foundation performance, are now maturing and will soon be ready for

widespread use. However, to use all of these materials and systems in a structurally

efficient, durable and cost effective manner, research is needed to better characterize

properties and optimize use, and develop efficient design and construction systems,

standards and details.

Important Activities/Research

• characterize and optimize material properties (including life-cycle

performance) for both existing and newer materials including: - Traditional, high and ultrahigh performance concretes - Traditional, high and ultrahigh performance steels (including weld

consumables and corrosion-resistant steels) - Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite materials

- Geomaterials (including more accurate characterization on in situ soil

conditions), geosynthetic products and ground improvement techniques - Protective systems performance

• optimize geotechnical and structural systems for safety, durability and cost based

on optimized materials and systems • develop appropriate limit state criteria for the use of these materials, details,

components, and structures for adoption into the LRFD Specifications • develop reliability-based engineering design properties for soil and rock

16

• study costs/benefits of these optimized structural systems (materials, details,

components, structures and foundations)

• assess of real and perceived barriers to deployment of the various elements of

optimized structural systems

Performance Measures

SHORT TERM:

identify:

• beneficial and achievable material properties (For example, the high performance

steels exhibit greater toughness than traditional bridge steels, yet the level of

toughness required to reduce fracture-critical member requirements has not yet

been adequately characterized.),

• beneficial and achievable structural characteristics for optimized safe, durable and

cost-effective structural systems (For example, jointless bridges systems result in

more durable bridges.), and

• barriers to deployment.

LONG TERM:

• develop optimized structural systems with these properties and

characteristics

• deploy the same, and

• mitigate efforts the identified barriers.

17

PRIORITIZED OBJECTIVE 7: MODEL AND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION

INTELLIGENTLY

To understand the complex systems of information that bridges represent, in terms of

geometry, load-carrying capacity, condition and history, and to better characterize these

systems and future needs through modeling and management of the information.

Anticipated Outcome

Collection, organization and analysis of all pertinent bridge information for future planning

resulting in better performing and more cost-effective bridges.

Importance

Currently, duplicate information is being developed during the delivery, design and

construction of highway bridges. For example, designers generate bridge geometry and steel-

bridge fabricators subsequently re-develop the geometry for their computer numerically

controlled (CNC) equipment, and in-service bridges are rated several times over their service

lives with the rating factors saved, but many times, the rating-specific analysis is uncaptured.

Typically, the original design model analysis is lost after construction. Costs and human error

can be minimized through better modeling and management of information.

Also, the operation of in-service bridges goes relatively undocumented in terms of a database

of actions (including routine maintenance and preservation), costs, condition, load-carrying

capacity and remaining life, all over time. A database of intelligently modeled and managed

data for all highway bridges can be used to compare alternatives to better manage our bridge

assets.

Important Activities/Research

• explore collaborations with others (such as software vendors and FHWA’s Long-term

Bridge Performance [LTBP] program) already pursuing this objective

• identify and sample information modeling and management technologies

• critically assess modeling and management technologies to identify the most promising

• identify research needs to move promising modeling and management technologies

into practice

• develop tactics to address cultural and technological barriers to implementation

• develop guidelines, guide specifications or specifications, as appropriate, to allow

implementation

• implement intelligent information modeling and management

• develop protocol for utilizing element level inspection data, inspector recommended

maintenance activities, etc.

The FHWA’s Long-term Bridge Performance (LTBP) program is beginning the development of a

bridge portal which could act as a repository of this information.

18

Performance Measures

SHORT TERM:

• identify and assess information modeling and management techniques viable for

highway bridge practice,

• develop tactics to overcome barriers to deployment, and

• develop protocols for these techniques.

LONG TERM:

• develop guidelines, guide specifications or specifications as appropriate, and

• implement these techniques.

19

PRIORITIZED OBJECTIVE 8: CONTRIBUTE 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 implement national bridge performance

measures. Anticipated Outcome

Strategies in which bridge engineers more effectively contribute to transportation-policy

decisions. Importance

Project decisions affecting technical, cultural and cost issues are being made without

receiving adequate input from bridge engineers. Expanded input will provide additional

balance to the social and policy development decisions and development of cost-effective

solutions by incorporating the bridge engineer into the early decision process. Thus, there

is a need to expand the role of the bridge engineer in transportation development, and in

social and policy development. Enhanced contributions of bridge engineers to transportation-policy decisions can result in:

• Improved reliability at reduced costs through cost-effective selection of structure

types resulting in more realistic estimate of final project costs. • More practical input to context-sensitive design approaches.

• Enhanced utilization of transportation systems through nationwide uniformity in size

and weight restrictions • A balanced view on environmental project requirements (i.e., sustainable projects)

• A clear view of the overall condition of bridge infrastructure and consequences of

funding allocations to bridge condition and system performance. Important Activities/Research

• develop a nationwide policy on oversize/overweight vehicles • develop training in communication and public involvement for bridge

engineers

• develop a “common sense” approach to decision making through more involvement

from the bridge engineering community in the national-policy decision making

processes • develop more rational mitigation options for environmentally sensitive structural

situations (including assessments of the observed long-term impacts of construction on the environment)

• determine costs/benefits to implementing spec/code/policy changes

• improve interaction with related disciplines (e.g., environmental,

foundations, hydraulic) by examining how other disciplines deal with issues

• synthesize project delivery systems

• implement national measures that clearly represent the condition and trends in

transportation system performance.

20

Performance Measures SHORT TERM:

• initiate studies of project delivery systems, oversize/overweight vehicles and long-term

impact of construction on the environment;

• develop strategies to enhance public involvement of bridge engineers (including

outreach to all stakeholders) and

• develop bridge performance measures. LONG TERM:

• deploy strategies enhancing public involvement of bridge engineers, and

• develop recommendations to AASHTO on oversize/overweight vehicle issues

(including outreach to trucking associations), and project delivery systems.

21

APPENDIX

Workshop Participants

22

Workshop

Participants

name affiliation comment

Anderson, Scott FHWA

Bailey, Greg West Virginia T-13 chair

Bardow, Alex Massachusetts T-17 chair

Becker, Scot Wisconsin T-19 chair

Daubenberger, Nancy Minnesota panel member

Dekelbab, Waseem TRB program officer

Farrar, Matt Idaho T-18 chair

Frank, Karl Hirschfeld Industries

Fredrick, Gregg Wyoming HSCOBS chair

Freeby, Gregg Texas panel member

Friedland, Ian FHWA

Hartmann, Joey FHWA

Hida, Susan California T-5 chair

Johnson, Bruce Oregon panel member, T-9 chair

Kapur, Jugesh Washington

Kerley, Mal Virginia (retired) panel member, past HSCOBS chair

Kulicki, John Modjeski and Masters group leader

Liles, Paul Georgia T-6 chair

Lwin, Myint FHWA panel member

Macioce, Tom Pennsylvania T-16 chair

Maher, Stephen TRB

McDonald, Norm Iowa T-12 chair

Mertz, Dennis University of Delaware report writer

Newton, Barton California

Nickas, William PCI

Pagan, Jorge FHWA

Perfetti, Greg North Carolina panel member, T-14 chair

Pratt, Rich Alaska T-3 chair

Ralls, Mary Lou Ralls Neuman group leader

Rehm, Kelley AASHTO panel member

Reno, Mark Quincy Engineering TRB Structures Section chair

Risch, Loren Kansas panel member, T-10 chair

Sletten, Josh Utah panel member

Appendix 4

IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTIONS

1

A Strategic Plan for Bridges and Structures

IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTIONS

August 2013

SUGGESTIONS FOR THE HIGHWAY SUBCOMMITTEE ON BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES

The Subcommittee should identify champions for each of the eight prioritized objectives:

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.

During the workshop, the participants initially discussed the idea of assigning each objective

to one of the technical committees. One problem with this idea is that the technical

committees and their activities are not aligned with the very broad objectives which span all

limit states, materials and structure types. Finally, the participants dismissed the idea of

assigning responsibility to the technical committees as less than ideal as assigning

champions is contrary to the concept of a true champion.

The Subcommittee should solicit volunteers from among the technical committees to

champion the eight prioritized objectives.

SUGGESTIONS FOR THE CHAMPIONS

Annually, the Champion should:

• prepare research problem statements addressing items in the “Important

Actitivities/Research” lists,

(Earlier strategic plans called these “Important Actitivities/Research” building blocks.

Larger research efforts could combine items in the “Important Actitivities/Research”

list building toward the “Performance Measures.”)

• review the “Important Activities/Research” items under each objective to determine

which are underway or completed to see if the more global “Performance Measures”

are being advanced,

(Activities or research initiated by others should not be taken as achievements of the

Subcommittee unless the research was initiated based upon its appearance in the

AASHTO SCOBS strategic plan. The “Performance Measures” are a moving target

2

and will never be achieved.)

• review the lists of “Important Activities/Research” to see if new items should be

added or old ones deleted based upon the passage of time.

Every 5-10 years, the Champion should review the focuses and objectives (as in 2005 and

2013).

SUGGESTIONS FOR TECHNICAL COMMITTEE, T-11 RESEARCH

In general, technical committee, T-11, should only consider proposed research that

accomplishes one of the “Important Activities/Research” bullets (building blocks) under one

of the eight prioritized objectives.

The technical committee should give higher priority to proposed research supporting higher

prioritized objectives above research supporting lower prioritized objectives as indicated in

the above prioritized list of objectives.

Of course, the technical committee should use their collective judgment to deviate from

these suggestions where an exceptional and needed research problem statement does not

meet this criterion.