FHWA Resource Center
SCEF Meeting - Holiday Inn, Manassas, VA
November 1, 2001
Self-introductions by all attendees.
Minutes of the June 4, 2002 meeting in Pittsburgh were approved as
Item 3a - Regional Welder Certification Program
Implementation of this program has been slow since the SCEF adopted a process
for SMAW at the last meeting. In a related issue, many of the mid-Atlantic State
DOTs are concerned with the high cost for AWS certification and re-certification
of welding inspectors, and how this continues to escalate at a higher rate than
inflation. Lou Triandafilou will try to set up a meeting with AWS to address the
SCEF group and discuss the cost issues.
Item 3b - AISC Task Force on Minor Bridge Component Certification
Per recent message from Tom Schlafly, he has briefed AISC management
regarding the progress of SCEF task force on this subject. They support the
concept of the new program and have directed the AISC Certification organization
to establish a task group to carry this effort further. (Followup Note: Ms. Anna
Petroski of the Quality Management Company will be leading this effort for AISC.
She will be contacting members of the SCEF task force for further assistance).
Tom has been asked to present the progress of the new program to the North
Central States Consortium in the near future. AISC targets June 2002, for the
first audit of small fabricators of minor bridge components. The initial list of
components developed by the SCEF task force, and agreed upon by all members
attending today's meeting, is as follows: sign supports, light poles, traffic
signals, expansion joints, bridge railings, bearings, drainage items/scuppers,
grid decks and inspection walkways.
Item 3c - Standardization of Overhead Sign Supports, Light Poles and Traffic
The task group chaired by Tom Macioce of PA has thus far received survey
responses from VA. VA allows contractor-designed sign supports based on the 1994
AASHTO specifications, typically from MO fabricators. Others who responded at
the meeting included PA (using Sigma from MD); DE and NJ, also using the 1994
specifications. NJ has recently completed standard drawings, commonly supplied
by Lehigh Utility). DE has inspected 600 structures, and found 12 bolts sheared
off of cantilevered structures.
The Task Group plans to meet before the next full SCEF meeting in order to
provide a progress report to the group.
Item 4 -- Implementation of electronic shop drawings submissions.
WV has not officially adopted electronic shop drawings, but has been working
with High Steel to use them, possibly on a value engineering project. DC, DE and
VA are interested and have the capacity to implement, but have not done so yet.
PA is waiting for the right project. MD has had a presentation by High Steel on
the subject. MA is using the process on a design/build project, and NY and ME
have also had experience. Art Miles has had experience on a major Latin America
project, as well as a CA project.
The question was raised as to whether other fabricators are interested in
doing this. Some fabricators do not do shop drawings and are not concerned about
this issue. High Steel stated that shop drawings are the critical path in the
fabrication process and the owners have to be willing to buy into the process.
The question also arose as to what format is being used to develop shop
drawings electronically. Standard files should be used; TIF or PDF. In a related
issue, Mike Engestrom noted that there is an industry task force working on
standardizing shipping labels and advanced shipping notices.
Item 5 - State DOT Status Report on High Performance Steel Projects
NJ - an initial project is under construction at the I-95 interchange with
Scotch Road, and 2 others are under design.
PA - recently completed Ford City bridge project won an award. Winter Green
Gorge Bridge will be advertised with HPS for 25% of steel in bridge. Also,
Lehigh University has completed fatigue testing on HPS corrugated steel webs and
is now conducting shear tests, with a June project scheduled for letting.
DE - Churchman's Road Bridge is under design with HPS.
VA - Three bridges are currently in fabrication with HPS. Some minor problems
have occurred with flange plates curling. SSPI, Banker Steel and Carolina Steel
WV - Buffalo Creek Bridge is complete and four other projects are under
construction. Consultants have been directed to look at using HPS wherever
The question was asked if FCM endorsement is necessary when fabricating HPS.
Most states responded that only AISC certification is required. Lou can furnish
copies of HPS Designer's Guide developed by the FHWA Western Resource Center.
Item 6a -- Large Movement Expansion Joints
John Brunell reported on the work of his subcommittee in developing a draft
of an SCEF Standard Specification for Tooth Dam Expansion Joints w/Drainage
Troughs. Copies were distributed to attendees. John requested comments from the
entire committee so that his group can revise the specification and distribute
it in time for voting at the spring meeting. Implementation of the final
specifications could then occur within 1 year.
John pointed out that States are not using the same materials or coatings for
the drainage troughs. His group is attempting to make this more uniform, and to
avoid plan note and detail irregularities. We need consensus on what the
materials should be, and then the details can be figured out.
Item 6b -- Bearings
Barrie Atkinson reported on a 10/15/01 response received from the AASHTO
Bridge Subcommittee chairman of the T-2 Technical Committee on Joints and
Bearings. The response addressed in the affirmative all 13 comments raised by
Barrie's group on the HLMRB specifications. Issues such as design rotation
requirements, maximum filler content, stainless steel thickness, ring diameters,
elastomeric disk tolerances, stress levels for bronze alloys and hardness tests
were addressed. References to D1457 were replaced with D4894 or D4895. Also,
Method A for designing elastomeric bearings will eventually be added back into
the specifications, prior to Method B.
Information on a disk bearing supplier known as Kinedyne was requested. No
one at the meeting was familiar with this company. WV does not have enough
information on this type of bearing, so they have not adopted the entire SCEF
specification. MD uses them if specifically requested by design, not allowing a
general contractor option.
Regarding the general use of HLMRB's, some States noted that they use the
AASHTO specification instead of SCEF's.
In a related issue, Lou solicited the states on the status of their
implementation of LRFD specifications. WV, PA and NJ are regularly using the
concept in all designs. All States were strongly encouraged to formalize an
implementation program which would be consistent with the October 2007 date
agreed to by AASHTO and FHWA
Lou also noted that several of the SCEF standards are dated from 1994, and
charged each subcommittee chairman with re-evaluating those pertaining to their
respective groups. Revisions should either be made in order to update the
standards, or they should be deleted. Each chairman was also asked to present a
draft of any appropriate revisions at the Spring 2002 meeting. Any revisions
should be reflected in LRFD format, as applicable.
Items 7 & 8 - AASHTO/NSBA Collaboration Documents
The Collaboration has approved and forwarded to AASHTO T-14 for balloting the
following four standards:
Guide for Coating Systems with Inorganic Zinc-Rich Primer
Shop Detail Drawing Presentation
Steel Bridge Fabrication Guide
Steel Bride Fabrication QC/QA Guide Specification
States should comment on the proposed standards as they are getting balloted
through the Collaboration web site. Mid-Atlantic states were strongly encouraged
to participate in these ballots.
The status of all collaboration documents is available on the web site for
review and comment..
Item 9 - NCHRP Project 20-7, Task 149
The 3-D modeling portion of this project has been funded by AASHTO.
Item 10 - Southern States SCEF
Lou reported on Southern States Steel Bridge Fabrication Showcase. It was
well received by the 25 attendees and the need was seen to continue to get
together on a regular basis. The group is similar to our SCEF group, the
Northeast States Steel Bridge Collaboration, and the North Central States
Item 11 -- Update on Heat Straightening Pooled Fund Study
An updated Demo Project is now available for those states who wish to host
it. Further updates are being handled under a pooled fund study, for which
States are being solicited for their interest.
Item 12 - Other Issues
a) Bolted Spice Details:
George Crosland of High Steel Structures
distributed a set of details developed for PennDOT which he is proposing for
SCEF adoption. Comments were requested on the details by the end of December. He
will make any revisions in time to be distributed before the Spring 2002 SCEF
b) Shop Painting:
Mr. Russ Panico of High Steel Structures
presented the results of an informal investigation he performed on the impact
resistance of three coat systems with inorganic zinc and organic zinc primer.
The testing consisted of subjecting coated steel plates having either inorganic
or organic zinc as a primer to the same impact loads. The results showed the
coating with the inorganic primer chipped down to the base metal while the
plates coated with the organic primer had only the topcoat chipped.
Mr. Panico also reported that coating systems containing both inorganic and
organic zinc primers have been tested by NEPCOAT with passing results in the
5000 hr. salt-fog test. He also pointed out other advantages to using organic
primers including: more surface tolerance, does not need humidity to cure,
faster drying times and less touch up required after erection. It was also
pointed out the VOC's between the two are about the same. Mr. Panico requested
that the States consider using organic zinc as a primer instead of the inorganic
c) Hot-dip Galvanizing Problems:
Lou Triandafilou noted that
Illinois DOT has reported a warping problem with Hot Dipped Galvanized plate
girders. Information was requested on Steel Bridge Collaboration web page.
Anyone with similar experiences on plate girder members was asked to contact Lou
d) OSHA Requirements for Stud Welding:
Bill Via, VADOT, brought up
the new OSHA requirement that studs be welded in the field after erection and
placement of deck pans. Virginia has asked for specifications from other states
that currently do field installation of studs. OSHA has been asked by an
ARTBA/NSBA task group to establish the implementation of the new regulations for
bridge projects as the project bid date or award date, after January 18, 2002.
It is unsure if this will be granted, however, OSHA will notify NSBA and NSBA
will post the decision on their web site. The topic of the fall protection under
the new OSHA requirements may have also changed and should be reviewed by all
e) Partial Payment of Structural Steel
Steve Bussanmas of High
Steel Structures gave a product delivery presentation from NSBA requesting
standardization of payment for raw plate based on paid invoices. Bill McEleney
of NSBA and Steve will meet with various state bridge engineers making the same
presentation in the coming months. It was pointed out that FHWA has no
regulations restricting this; to the contrary, they endorse it. It was also
pointed out that the fabricator orders and purchases plate based on the delivery
schedule. Any delays, frequently not under the fabricator's control, result in
the fabricator having to absorb the cost of the plate until the material is
shipped to the project. The presentation is attached.
f) Next Meeting
Set for late March or early April 2002, possibly in
g) 25 attendees participated in a very interesting tour of the Williams
Bridge Company steel fabrication shop. We viewed girder storage and various