| << Previous | Contents |
2007 ABC Workshop Follow up
Archived: Appendix H - Populated Issue Templates
Accelerated Bridge Construction Workshop
San Diego, Ca.
October 11, 2007
Group Number: 1
Idea Title: Post-Earthquake Accelerated Column Repair/Replacement
Idea Number: B2
Group Leader: Mary Lou Ralls
| A. | Provide a brief description of the idea. Where might it be implemented? What would it look like?
Develop accelerated methods to restore bridge to service after an event. Methods are both for temporary and permanent restoration. Implemented in moderate and high seismic zones. Would look aesthetically similar to existing columns. |
|---|---|
| B. | Where/who/when was the idea used previously, if at all?
Steel jackets and carbon fiber jackets (wraps) have been researched. |
| C. | Will this require additional work: research, legislation, policy change (circle appropriate choices)? Others (please specify)?
Requires additional research on specifications for design and implementation. |
| D. | If this idea is implemented, what is the desired outcome?
Product: post-earthquake rapid column repair/replacement procedures. Reliable/accepted design specifications and example. Established procedures result in quicker decision-making, which itself is an accelerated construction method. Widespread acceptance and use. |
| E. | Are there any performance measurement(s) you can suggest for this outcome? If so, please describe them.
See D above. Restored faster than conventional methods. Ability to resist aftershocks/new earthquakes. |
| F. | Preliminary action plan for subsequent consideration by the Steering Committee. Identify up to five steps or activities necessary for implementation (include details and be as specific as time will allow). |
| # | Planned Activities & Deliverables |
|---|---|
| 1 | Review past work on (accelerated) repair/replacement (ARR) (not retrofit) methods. |
| 2 | Develop new ARR methods. |
| 3 | Select the most promising methods and investigate. Include construction industry. |
| 4 | Perform actual testing and evaluation. |
| 5 | Develop design specifications and procedure manual. |
| G. | Identify and recommend resources: organizations and individuals. Identify who needs to be involved in subsequent activity (Industry, FHWA, Universities, TRB, DOT's, AASHTO, others)? |
|---|
Accelerated Bridge Construction Workshop
San Diego, Ca.
October 11, 2007
Group Number: 1
Idea Title: Investigation of Column Seismic Connections for ABC
Idea Number: C6/C8/C10 (combined)
Group Leader: Mary Lou Ralls
| A. | Provide a brief description of the idea. Where might it be implemented? What would it look like?
Develop reliable connections that have not been researched previously for both cap-to-column and column-to-footing connections in moderate-to-high seismic zones. Include those identified in NCHRP-12-74; e.g., grouted splice couplers and re-centering techniques. Also consider the FHWA Connections Manual. |
|---|---|
| B. | Where/who/when was the idea used previously, if at all?
Grouted couplers: tested by four states for bridge applications, but not considering high seismic concerns (NH, NY, MA, FL). Already used extensively in vertical construction. Other details identified in various states. Re-centering technology is in research stage for bridge construction. Other details in FHWA Connections Manual. |
| C. | Will this require additional work: research, legislation, policy change (circle appropriate choices)? Others (please specify)? Research and design specifications (stress, strain, etc); worked examples. Verify coupler ability to develop ultimate strength and strain. Policy change: required for mechanical couplers and grouted splices (eg. Caltrans standard spec's permits only certain couplers) entails a policy change in the AASHTO LRFD specifications addressing staggered couplers. |
| D. | If this idea is implemented, what is the desired outcome?
Products: connection details resulting in more options for designers; design specifications and examples. Widespread acceptance and use. |
| E. | Are there any performance measurement(s) you can suggest for this outcome? If so, please describe them.
Details meet accepted seismic performance requirements demonstrated by testing; eg. CA vs SC. Results in a construction process faster than conventional construction. |
| F. | Preliminary action plan for subsequent consideration by the Steering Committee. Identify up to five steps or activities necessary for implementation (include details and be as specific as time will allow). |
| # | Planned Activities & Deliverables |
|---|---|
| 1 | Review past work including performance of existing details for these connections (e.g. NCHRP 12-54 and 12-74) under moderate and high seismic conditions. NCHRP 12-54 (steel integral cap with concrete column connection details). NCHRP 12-74 (precast concrete integral cap with concrete column connection details).
Investigate technology transfer (vertical construction; welded caps used in railroad bridges). |
| 2 | Prioritize and further develop. |
| 3 | Select most promising methods. |
| 4 | Perform testing and evaluation. |
| 5 | Develop final product: design specs. |
| G. | Identify and recommend resources: organizations and individuals. Identify who needs to be involved in subsequent activity (Industry, FHWA, Universities, TRB, DOT's, AASHTO, others)?
Include construction industry. |
|---|
Accelerated Bridge Construction Workshop
San Diego, Ca.
October 11, 2007
Group Number: 2
Idea Title: Response of Segmental Systems
Idea Number: C4a, b, & c and B5
Group Leader: Mike Keever
| A. | Provide a brief description of the idea. Where might it be implemented? What would it look like?
Begin to look at a continuum on a case of connections where joints can open. Especially relevant to segmental construction. It should be looked as a continuum between purely jointed to monolithic. |
|---|---|
| B. | Where/who/when was the idea used previously, if at all?
Has been done on individual columns, but not implemented on an actual bridge yet (for columns). Caltrans inverted-T design is allowed to open. Caltrans precast segmental so far designed to work as emulative. |
| C. | Will this require additional work: research, legislation, policy change (circle appropriate choices)? Others (please specify)? Additional research: inspection, removal of tendons, research needs to be done to solve long-term issues. Corrosion protection needed. Develop inspection guidelines. Identify examples where such jointed construction is likely to be used. |
| D. | If this idea is implemented, what is the desired outcome?
For certain structures, joint opening can be very attractive. It depends on the performance level desired. |
| E. | Are there any performance measurement(s) you can suggest for this outcome? If so, please describe them. |
| F. | Preliminary action plan for subsequent consideration by the Steering Committee. Identify up to five steps or activities necessary for implementation (include details and be as specific as time will allow). |
| # | Planned Activities & Deliverables |
|---|---|
| 1 | Workshop to address rocking/jointed systems and provide harmonized guidelines. |
| 2 | Workshop and presentation that addresses fundamental behavioral issues of jointed systems and compares with monolithic behavior. |
| 3 | Shake table testing of jointed systems and comparison with monolithic system. |
| 4 | Assess response of existing jointed/segmental bridges in past large earthquake events. |
| 5 | Monitor long-term performance of jointed systems for corrosion, maintenance needs; e.g., unbonded tendons. |
| G. | Identify and recommend resources: organizations and individuals. Identify who needs to be involved in subsequent activity (Industry, FHWA, Universities, TRB, DOT's, AASHTO, others)? |
|---|
Accelerated Bridge Construction Workshop
San Diego, Ca.
October 11, 2007
Group Number: 2
Idea Title: Connections - Ductile, Constructible, Rapid
Idea Number: C1b, D2, E13
Group Leader: Mike Keever
| A. | Provide a brief description of the idea. Where might it be implemented? What would it look like?
Tolerances become tighter from the ground up. Tight tolerances are an obstacle. Details need flexibility so field corrections can be made easily. Details need to be as simple as possible and tested (lab tested). GPS instrumentation may be a potential tool to measure displacements. Connections must be constructible by field personnel. Connections must be able to be field verified. Performance, reliability, durability. |
|---|---|
| B. | Where/who/when was the idea used previously, if at all?
WSDOT bends and hooks strands into bent cap - untested. NCHRP 12-57, Report 517, Example 2, "Plastic hinge in columns" - low tolerance (tested) NCHRP 12-74 Jose Restrepo |
| C. | Will this require additional work: research, legislation, policy change (circle appropriate choices)? Some level of research required (see F6) Others (please specify)? DOTs, researchers, contractors, industry need to work together for everyone's satisfaction. Physical testing would provide confidence that the connection serves its desired purpose. NCHRP 12-74 has a very well-rounded team that balances performance and constructability. |
| D. | If this idea is implemented, what is the desired outcome?
Dependable, constructible, ductile, durable, inspectable, verifiable connections. Development of integral cap/column connections allowing huge savings in foundation costs. |
| E. | Are there any performance measurement(s) you can suggest for this outcome? If so, please describe them. |
| F. | Preliminary action plan for subsequent consideration by the Steering Committee. Identify up to five steps or activities necessary for implementation (include details and be as specific as time will allow). Subcommittee - DOTs, researchers, PCI, contractors form a work group. |
| # | Planned Activities & Deliverables |
|---|---|
| 1 | Develop a comprehensive list of viable ductile connections; determine which connections merit further investigation. Consider existing databases. |
| 2 | Physical testing . . .
|
| 3 | Official guidance material, including connection details, must be comprehensive, and include design examples where applicable. Develop design guidelines to be approved by AASHTO. |
| 4 | Develop a ductile design that contractors cannot CRIP. Evaluate both short- and long-term performance. |
| 5 | Develop some demonstration projects in high seismic regions . . . contractors work together to develop trial designs. Close evaluation and feedback from all parties is essential. Seek Federal demonstration project funding. |
| 6 | Bring contractor on board early for the demonstration project. Compile comments from contractors before and during bid process. Conduct design charrette and compensate contractor for participation. Design-build contracts require legislation in some states. Not appropriate for demonstration projects since DOT's not directly involved - can't abdicate development work to design-build team. Design sequencing method allows DOT staff to work with contractor and academia on a demonstration project; may require legislation. |
| G. | Identify and recommend resources: organizations and individuals. Identify who needs to be involved in subsequent activity (Industry, FHWA, Universities, TRB, DOT's, AASHTO, others)?
Consider pooled funds (Western States?) |
|---|
Accelerated Bridge Construction Workshop
San Diego, Ca.
October 11, 2007
Group Number: 3
Idea Title: Segmental Post-tensioned Columns (Connections)
Idea Number: B6
Group Leader: Stephen Maher
| A. | Provide a brief description of the idea. Where might it be implemented? What would it look like?
Precast post-tensioned connections using segmented columns. Same, with seismic isolation bearings. |
|---|---|
| B. | Where/who/when was the idea used previously, if at all? TX, NJ Puerto Rico - square columns FL - Sunshine Skyway segmental columns Circular post-tensioned columns tested at UCSD. Tests by S. Mahin at UC Berkeley. |
| C. | Will this require additional work: research, legislation, policy change (circle appropriate choices)? Others (please specify)? Research: Performance of round vs. rectangularpost-tensioned columns. Confinement/armoring details at ends; round vs. rectangular. Policy: change |
| D. | If this idea is implemented, what is the desired outcome? Fabrication of circularpost-tensioned segmental columns with performance/ductility properties equal to or better than conventional columns. |
| E. | Are there any performance measurement(s) you can suggest for this outcome? If so, please describe them.
|
| F. | Preliminary action plan for subsequent consideration by the Steering Committee. Identify up to five steps or activities necessary for implementation (include details and be as specific as time will allow). |
| # | Planned Activities & Deliverables |
|---|---|
| 1 | Review  on post-tensioned segmental concrete |
| 2 | Identify what can be extended from non-seismic to seismic applications with minor modifications. |
| 3 | Prepare research needs statement; include testing. |
| 4 | Integrate seismic requirements for post-tensioned segmental construction into specs |
| 5 | Develop construction details and inspection guidelines |
| G. | Identify and recommend resources: organizations and individuals. Identify who needs to be involved in subsequent activity (Industry, FHWA, Universities, TRB, DOT's, AASHTO, others)? Especially contractors, precasters, and post-tensioning specialists |
|---|
Accelerated Bridge Construction Workshop
San Diego, Ca.
October 11, 2007
Group Number: 3
Idea Title: Footing-to-Column and Column-to-Foundation Connections
Idea Number: F1/F2
Group Leader: Stephen Maher
| A. | Provide a brief description of the idea. Where might it be implemented? What would it look like?
Column to foundation connections. Many configurations are possible. Considered three: precast column to cast-in-drilled-shaft, column to precast pile cap to precast driven piles, precast pile extension to precast cap. See diagrams below. Used in CA, WA. |
|---|---|
| B. | Where/who/when was the idea used previously, if at all?
Used previously for non-seismic applications in TX, NJ, GA, etc. |
| C. | Will this require additional work: research, legislation, policy change (circle appropriate choices)? Others (please specify)? Research: definitely Policy Change: possibly, depends on state |
| D. | If this idea is implemented, what is the desired outcome?
A simple connection that is robust, repeatable, economical, constructible, and inspectable. |
| E. | Are there any performance measurement(s) you can suggest for this outcome? If so, please describe them. |
| F. | Preliminary action plan for subsequent consideration by the Steering Committee. Identify up to five steps or activities necessary for implementation (include details and be as specific as time will allow). |
| # | Planned Activities & Deliverables |
|---|---|
| 1 | Obtain information from states about similar or related concepts presently used in non-seismic applications.
Do a synthesis (to obtain information) |
| 2 | Develop research needs statement for new project, or add to existing project (12-74?) |
| 3 | NCHRP 20-7 task |
| 4 | Coordinate with industry in developing details. |
| 5 |
| G. | Identify and recommend resources: organizations and individuals. Identify who needs to be involved in subsequent activity (Industry, FHWA, Universities, TRB, DOT's, AASHTO, others)? |
|---|
Accelerated Bridge Construction Workshop
San Diego, Ca.
October 11, 2007
Group Number: 3
Idea Title: Rocking Columns
Idea Number: F6
Group Leader: Stephen Maher
| A. | Provide a brief description of the idea. Where might it be implemented? What would it look like?
Energy dissipation from jacketed segmental column through foundation. Include self-centering characteristics. |
|---|---|
| B. | Where/who/when was the idea used previously, if at all?
New Zealand bridge and rocking wall research Tipping Mar + Associates building design Arup used rocking technology on the La Maison Hermes building in Tokyo |
| C. | Will this require additional work: research, legislation, policy change (circle appropriate choices)? Others (please specify)? Perceptions and concerns of engineering community with a new idea |
| D. | If this idea is implemented, what is the desired outcome?
Economical approach with sound engineering characteristics that will permit adoption of ABC. |
| E. | Are there any performance measurement(s) you can suggest for this outcome? If so, please describe them.
Post-event damage evaluation (especially corners of rocking element). (expected to provide easy assessment and minimal repair needs). |
| F. | Preliminary action plan for subsequent consideration by the Steering Committee. Identify up to five steps or activities necessary for implementation (include details and be as specific as time will allow). |
| # | Planned Activities & Deliverables |
|---|---|
| 1 | Look at applications in buildings and bridges in NZ to see what is possible, and synthesize findings. |
| 2 | Develop problem statement for applicability in US |
| 3 | Test scale models Run computer simulations |
| 4 | Report findings to AASHTO T-3 |
| 5 | Note that this project shares many characteristics (e.g. rocking) with Idea B6 (Precast/Post-tensioned columns) |
| G. | Identify and recommend resources: organizations and individuals. Identify who needs to be involved in subsequent activity (Industry, FHWA, Universities, TRB, DOT's, AASHTO, others)?
MCEER, PEER, MAE Centers |
|---|
Accelerated Bridge Construction Workshop
San Diego, Ca.
October 11, 2007
Group Number: 4
Idea Title: Employ Connection Concepts From Other Segmentally Constructed Structures
Idea Number: C3
Group Leader: Ray Wolfe
| A. | Provide a brief description of the idea. Where might it be implemented? What would it look like?
Learn from others how they develop connections for segmentally constructed structures Look to building industry as well as internationally |
|---|---|
| B. | Where/who/when was the idea used previously, if at all?
|
| C. | Will this require additional work: research, legislation, policy change (circle appropriate choices)? Others (please specify)? Hopefully we can simply implement ideas from others, but some research might be required specific to bridges. |
| D. | If this idea is implemented, what is the desired outcome?
Cost effective designs, etc. |
| E. | Are there any performance measurement(s) you can suggest for this outcome? If so, please describe them.
Define performance measures based on the idea "adopted" from others. |
| F. | Preliminary action plan for subsequent consideration by the Steering Committee. Identify up to five steps or activities necessary for implementation (include details and be as specific as time will allow). |
| # | Planned Activities & Deliverables |
|---|---|
| 1 | Synthesis study thru NCHRP - define available materials and properties, and recommend possible applications. |
| 2 | Define research needs - NCHRP problem statement
Others (pooled fund, FHWA, DOTs, Transportation Research Center, etc.) |
| 3 | Perform research / provide application recommendations |
| 4 | Trial implementation |
| 5 | Standardization (See code idea) |
| G. | Identify and recommend resources: organizations and individuals. Identify who needs to be involved in subsequent activity (Industry, FHWA, Universities, TRB, DOT's, AASHTO, others)?
See Section F |
|---|
Accelerated Bridge Construction Workshop
San Diego, Ca.
October 11, 2007
Group Number: 4
Idea Title: Innovative Materials
Idea Number: G1
Group Leader: Ray Wolfe
| A. | Provide a brief description of the idea. Where might it be implemented? What would it look like?
Do not overlook possible advantages of new materials for ABC; such as shape memory alloys (SMA) and FRP. If implementable in any arena, could work for bridges. |
|---|---|
| B. | Where/who/when was the idea used previously, if at all?
|
| C. | Will this require additional work: research, legislation, policy change (circle appropriate choices)? Others (please specify)? Anything and everything to become cost effective |
| D. | If this idea is implemented, what is the desired outcome?
Efficient, durable, reliable, constructible, economical and maintainable structures. Paradigm shift: serviceability design for structures beyond simply life safety (reduce down time after extreme design event). |
| E. | Are there any performance measurement(s) you can suggest for this outcome? If so, please describe them.
Emulative response until research okay's alternate approaches Jointed construction replication See "D" above |
| F. | Preliminary action plan for subsequent consideration by the Steering Committee. Identify up to five steps or activities necessary for implementation (include details and be as specific as time will allow). |
| # | Planned Activities & Deliverables |
|---|---|
| 1 | Synthesis study thru NCHRP - define available materials and properties, and recommend possible applications. |
| 2 | Define research needs - NCHRP problem statement
Others (pooled fund, FHWA, DOTs, Transp. Research Center,etc.) |
| 3 | Perform research / provide application recommendations |
| 4 | Trial implementation |
| 5 | Standardization (See code idea) |
| G. | Identify and recommend resources: organizations and individuals. Identify who needs to be involved in subsequent activity (Industry, FHWA, Universities, TRB, DOT's, AASHTO, others)?
AASHTO T6 See "F" above |
|---|
Construction Workshop
San Diego, Ca.
October 11, 2007
Group Number: 4
Idea Title: Long-term Performance of SABC Connections
Idea Number: G2
Group Leader: Ray Wolfe
| A. | Provide a brief description of the idea. Where might it be implemented? What would it look like?
|
|---|---|
| B. | Where/who/when was the idea used previously, if at all?
Look at other industries and applications |
| C. | Will this require additional work: research, legislation, policy change (circle appropriate choices)? Others (please specify)?
Must focus on cost reduction Support long-term performance specs; Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) |
| D. | If this idea is implemented, what is the desired outcome?
Important to garner support and confidence in industry to provide long-term in-situ non-destructive evaluation tools Improve predictable performance of bridges |
| E. | Are there any performance measurement(s) you can suggest for this outcome? If so, please describe them. The idea itself quantifies the performance measure of the specification |
| F. | Preliminary action plan for subsequent consideration by the Steering Committee. Identify up to five steps or activities necessary for implementation (include details and be as specific as time will allow). |
| # | Planned Activities & Deliverables |
|---|---|
| 1 | This should not delay implementation of ABC: Look for SHM ideas ready to implement with previous full-scale (in-situ) test data |
| 2 | Perform synthesis study to identify SHM Tools for long-term performance validation - propose or recommend ideas
Link to long-term bridge performance program (LTBPP) |
| 3 | Develop research problem statement to further studies on those ideas deemed cost effective and reliable alternatives from the synthesis study. |
| 4 | |
| 5 |
| G. | Identify and recommend resources: organizations and individuals. Identify who needs to be involved in subsequent activity (Industry, FHWA, Universities, TRB, DOT's, AASHTO, others)?
AASHTO T18 |
|---|
Accelerated Bridge Construction Workshop
San Diego, Ca.
October 11, 2007
Group Number: 4
Idea Title: Code Recommendations for SABC
Idea Number: H6
Group Leader: Ray Wolfe
| A. | Provide a brief description of the idea. Where might it be implemented? What would it look like?
|
|---|---|
| B. | Where/who/when was the idea used previously, if at all?
Guide Specs (Seismic LRFD) "Quicker Structures" in the steel industry (railroad, buildings, & off-shore industries) - look at how construction is accelerated elsewhere |
| C. | Will this require additional work: research, legislation, policy change (circle appropriate choices)? Others (please specify)?
AASHTO T3, T6, T10, T15 (walls, abutments) |
| D. | If this idea is implemented, what is the desired outcome?
Detailed SABC guidelines promoting implementation of ABC in moderate-to-high seismic zones. Provide safe, reliable, consistent engineering. |
| E. | Are there any performance measurement(s) you can suggest for this outcome? If so, please describe them.
Minimize complaints to AASHTO T3 Details employed are repeatable, biddable, and constructible and reduce or preclude maintenance issues. |
| F. | Preliminary action plan for subsequent consideration by the Steering Committee. Identify up to five steps or activities necessary for implementation (include details and be as specific as time will allow). |
| # | Planned Activities & Deliverables |
|---|---|
| 1 | Securing funding sources - T3 should take the lead
Pooled funds with FHWA and States |
| 2 | Identify research needs (TRB)/FHWA seismic research; perhaps coordinate internationally |
| 3 | Conduct appropriate research and manage properly to complete |
| 4 | Draft new chapters for AASHTO Guide Specs. |
| 5 |
| G. | Identify and recommend resources: organizations and individuals. Identify who needs to be involved in subsequent activity (Industry, FHWA, Universities, TRB, DOT's, AASHTO, others)? |
|---|
| << Previous | Contents |