SCEF Meeting Minutes
August 25, 2010
8:30 AM: Lou Triandafilou called the meeting to order.
8:40 AM: Minutes of the February 10, 2009.
Dan Beck motioned to approve the minutes and Bruce Nelson seconded. Motion passed.
8:45 AM: Fabricator Certification Program
Recommendations have been made by a task group consisting of representatives from State DOTs, steel bridge fabricators and an NDT company. A draft of the program was distributed for a 45-day public review comment period. Comments were received and incorporated into an updated version dated July 21, 2010. This version has been sent to the full AISC Certification Committee for official ballot. Votes are due in early September. Current schedule is for completion and implementation by mid- 2011.
Component certification program is now available and states are encouraged to review and adopt the program into their specifications. States are in transition at this time as not all fabricators have component certification. This will take some time for fabricators to convert.
MD is evaluating the program in order to incorporate it into their standard specifications. VA is challenged with developing a generic specification for component certification. They encourage new companies to apply for this program. PA noted that some companies have both simple bridge and component certifications. AISC is encouraging companies that currently have simple bridge certification to obtain component status as well. They noted that more companies are shifting from building certification to component.
8:55 AM: SSPC Update
Michael Damiano provided an update of the SSPC organization and the initiative between AISC and SSPC for joint shop coating application.
AISC has approved the standard while the SSPC Board of Directors is in the process of approving it. The qualification process under the joint standard will be tested in November and be fully implemented in early 2011.
He also initiated much debate among attendees as to how much training is necessary for inspectors to obtain certification. One alternative is to force inspectors to become NACE/SSPC-certified. Another alternative is to qualify inspectors through local training. Resolution of the discussion was that SSPC needs to develop more appropriate delivery mechanisms for training shop paint inspectors.
9:35 AM Structural Coatings Subcommittee Discussion
Wayne Fleming gave a summary discussing acrylic coatings and their acceptance by various states. He will be working with the SEPCOAT group (similar to NEPCOAT), as those states continue to explore using this material. So far it has been a difficult venture, because production of the methyl methacrylate material used in acrylics has been rolled back. Also, there is a titanium dioxide shortage that may affect the cost of the coating.
Bruce Nelson discussed Maryland's position regarding coated guide rail. Maryland will adopt galvanizing with powder coating (duplex) for aesthetic purposes. VA has developed a similar draft specification. Most guide rail will require only galvanizing.
There was a general discussion of weathering steel and experiences with significant section loss, especially on 10-year old structures and on guardrail. Based on a statewide study, MDSHA no longer allows weathering steel guardrail. They have had good performance with coating the ends of weathering steel girders, and bad performance when the ends are not coated (i.e. the Paper Mill Bridge, where 1/8" to ¼" delaminations formed on fascia steel ends that were not coated). Brian Kozy of FHWA is working on an update to the 20-year old FHWA technical advisory on uncoated weathering steel.
(Note: the interest generated in this topic has led to its inclusion as an agenda item at next year's Quality Assurance Workshop-Metals Session breakout).
Action Item #1 -- We are in need of a new Chair for this subcommittee. Anyone interested in volunteering should contact the SCEF chair as soon as possible.
10:15 AM Bearings Subcommittee
Patti Kiehl provided a summary of the Subcommittee activities, which currently include evaluating the use of Method A and Method B in the standard vs. LRFD specifications. Some states are using method B for laminated bearings while others are using method A. Currently, the use of method A or B does not appear to be consistent across the country, as evidenced by the following verbal survey taken at the meeting:
FL -- B
DE -- A
VA -- A
NJ -- A & B
PA -- A from the standard specifications, evaluating LRFD
WV -- A & B for unreinforced pads and LRFD for reinforced pads
MD -- A & B, according to design program developed by the U of MD.
The subcommittee will be updating the HLMRB provisions to be consistent with current LRFD specifications; and will be updating the elastomeric pad design examples completed back in the 1990s.
10:30 AM SHRP2 Presentation
Dr. Monica Starnes of the TRB provided a presentation regarding an overview of the SHRP 2 program. This research program addresses Highway Safety, Highway Capacity, Highway Reliability and Highway Renewal. Renewal studies include durability criteria for 100-year bridges, using life-cycle cost analysis; NDT & E (hand-held or portable spectroscopy for materials evaluation); high-speed NDE for tunnel linings; independent evaluation of NDT for decks, a web-based tool. Worker fatigue guides developed for the nuclear industry will be translated for transportation use.
11:00 AM SHRP2 R07 Workshop on Performance Specifications.
Dr. Monica Starnes filled in for Mike Mance to provide this presentation regarding goals and methods to measure performance of bridge decks. This will be mostly a materials and construction specification.
11:15 AM: Ancillary Structures Subcommittee Report
Karl Larson of VDOT provided an update of issues regarding ancillary structures such as the built-up box and bridge-mounted sign structures, Adhesive anchors are currently a problem but most states do not use.
This subcommittee has generated 2 details for mast arm-to-column connections and balloted each after the last meeting. Detail 1 for a built-up box connection was approved with comments. Detail 2 for a clamp connection was rejected by PA and will be re-evaluated by the subcommittee.
It was noted later in the meeting that an NCHRP task was underway to convert the AASHTO design specifications for overhead sign structures, luminaires and traffic signals from standard specification to LRFD format.
11:25 AM: Presentation on FHWA"Every Day Counts" (EDC) Initiative.
Lou Triandafilou provided a presentation about the program which is designed to identify and deploy innovation aimed at shortening project delivery; enhancing the safety of our roadways; protecting the environment; and accelerating the deployment of market-ready technologies such as prefabricated bridge elements and systems.
1:05 PM: 2011 Mid-Atlantic States' QA Workshop Update
Robert Horwhat provided an update to the QA Workshop. The workshop will tentatively take place 2/8 through 2/10 or 2/9 through 2/11 in PA. Bob was discussing several issues that are being addressed. The next planning committee meeting is scheduled for September 9th.
The committee is considering the Hershey Lodge in Hershey or the Holiday Inn in Granville, PA near the casino. No contract is in place at this time.
Website is updated except for the registration form. Cost will be approximately $175.00. PCEF meeting will take place the afternoon before the QAW and the SCEF meeting the morning of the QAW.
Bob would like everyone's help in advertising the Workshop. He would like to see 500 people attend.
Metals planning committee will meet tomorrow at the MDSHA building in Hanover.
(Note: final schedule for the QAW is February 9-11, 2011 at the Hershey Lodge in Hershey, PA. SCEF will meet on the morning of February 9th from 8:00 until noon.
1:15 PM: SCEF Welder Certification Program Update
Bruce Abernathy gave a brief summary of recent activities. A"Passport" system is being developed to identify current certified welders with associated qualifications. This process will combine maintenance records with original certifications in order to prevent bogus documentation. Bruce expects the program to be fully implemented by the next SCEF meeting. This program is designed to be dual certified with AWS; AWS will designate it with a SECF logo.
The committee will review the new requirements for FCAW, GMAW, SMAW in order to incorporate ASAP.
Other AWS information was provided, such as 70 ATFs now listed on their website; the time from ATF testing to card issuance is 8 weeks; CWIs can now do bolting inspection; QC-4 and QC-7 documents are being combined; the CWI exam is being revised; there will be new procedures for 9-year card renewal; new D1.5-2010 will be distributed this month, and will not include tubing for pedestrian bridges.
Action Item #2 -- Passport procedures for the 3 processes noted above will be available for balloting at the next SCEF meeting.
1:45 PM AISI Short Span Modular Steel Bridge Concepts.
Dan Snyder of AISI could not be present. Lou Triandafilou presented information from Mr. Snyder.
Based on input received from a series of workshops to develop cost-effective short span modular steel bridges, an AISI technical working group was formed in March 2010, consisting of private industry, public and academia members. Their charge was to further develop the most promising concepts, which included modular beam/decks orthotropic decks, sheet pile abutments, and other systems. A report was prepared with descriptions, illustrations and evaluations of each method, along with identified research needs.
From the report, a grading system will be developed that incorporates the goals of the FHWA Highways for LIFE program. County engineers and the AASHTO T-14 steel design committee will provide input to the task group as they rank the most promising concepts.
2:00 PM: Bolting Subcommittee Report
Joe Bracken reported that the goal of the committee is to develop a bolting manual detailing the proper method(s) to install bolting systems. Most states have their own specifications for bolting. This committee will attempt to develop method(s) acceptable to the various states. Most states are using turn-of-the-nut method. DTI's are often too expensive. Recap as follows:
MD -- prefers turn-of-nut; allows DTIs in movable spans; would like a
procedure for calibrated wrench.
PA -- has their own spec, with rotational capacity test; snug-tight; turn-of-
nut and calibrated wrench; allow DTIs and pin and lock on a case-by-
VA -- turn-of-nut; allow DTIs; no calibrated wrench.
DE -- snug-tight; turn-of-nut.
WV -- prefer turn-of-nut
TX -- allows turn-of-nut and calibrated wrench; removed provisions for
alternates; no DTI provisions; allow twist-off bolts only in
NJ -- allow DTIs only
Action Item #3 -- Subcommittee will complete the best practices manual and report at the next full SCEF meeting.
2:05 PM: Presentation on Non-Fracture Critical Bridge
Bill Wright of Virginia Tech provided a presentation on non-fracture critical bridges that would normally be considered fracture critical (FC). Bill believes that bridges using HPS steel can sometimes be considered non-FC even if they are 2-girder systems.
Based upon modern design techniques, HPS steel and distortional fatigue analysis, structures may be designed conservative enough to be considered as non-FC.
The plan would be to fabricate to FCM standards but not to maintain the FCM level of inspection for the entire life of the bridge.
Higher impact criteria would also be implemented. He discussed a 3-year FHWA transportation pooled fund study which is in the proposal stage that would address this paradigm shift. Interested states include ID, NC, VA, IN, WI, MN, IA, OR and the AISI.
Bill also mentioned that he needs help with fire hazard assessment on bridge structures, as part of NCHRP Project 12-85. He desires to develop a guide specification outlining necessary steps to evaluate a bridge after a fire occurs, such as the effect it has on a structure and how it affects bridge life. Bill would like help from states who have experience with these items and what they may have done. His project will address the following areas:
a) Risk of exposure to fire
b) Guide specification for evaluating bridges exposed to fire damage --long term performance of girders exposed to fire
c) Assess statistics
d) Isolate events that cause damage to members
e) Fire simulation
3:15 PM Expansion Joint Subcommittee Report
Dan Beck provided drawing details on suggested expansion joints. These were approved by ballot of all 7 states participating on the SCEF. The subcommittee identified no other tasks at this time. Dan moved to dissolve the group but no second was made. More tasks may be coming.
Dan asked if the committee should review modular expansion joints or possible other types. Modular joints are not often used in the participating states so no interest was expressed. Joe Bracken felt that modular joints may be proprietary.
Lou asked that the committee review the AASHTO LRFD specifications for modular joints, to determine if the criteria might relieve some of the concerns the States have with previous negative performance history.
Action Item #4 -- The subcommittee will review the AASHTO LRFD specifications for modular joints to determine if DOT comfort levels can be increased. As a follow-up, it is suggested that the group review draft documents that were prepared several years ago related to design and fabrication specifications. A report out at the next full SCEF meeting will be on the agenda.
3:30 PM: Standard Diaphragm Details for Curved Girders
Jeff Hill of VDOT discussed Virginia's standard practice. He is asking for additional information from other states specifically regarding any concerns or issues that may be addressed, not only with curved girder bridges but also with skewed bridges, as they relate to constructability and stability (erection and deflection). A University of Texas computer program that evaluates curved girder stresses during construction will be very helpful.
Jeff's committee will be reviewing various designs and would like to take into consideration: ease of fabrication, simplicity, effective use of diagonals and chords, and center of gravity. He will review previously-adopted SCEF details, and information from AISI and the AASHTO/NSBA steel collaboration documents.
Action Item #5 -- Heather Gilmer, formerly of TX DOT and now with PDM Bridge in Wisconsin, will provide contact information for the University of TX study of tubular cross frame members.
Action Item #6 -- State DOTs will provide Jeff with the feedback requested above.
3:45 PM: Design Detailing Subcommittee Report
1. Lou Triandafilou asked if there were any other details to be reviewed.
2. Joe Bracken asked if other states had seen gaps in spliced truss connections on overhead sign structures and if anyone felt there were fatigue issues.
Action Item #7 -- We are in need of a volunteer to chair this
subcommittee. Anyone interested should contact the SCEF chair as
soon as possible. The previous topic on curved/skewed girder
diaphragms will be brought under this group.
Action Item #8 -- Fatigue design issues related to Item #2 above will
be brought to the attention of the AASHTO T-12 technical committee
on overhead sign structures for further evaluation.
4:00 PM: Presentation on FHWA Pilot Demo Project: Integration Through
Automation -- by Dr. Stuart Chen
Dr. Chen was unable to join the meeting, so we will look for a future opportunity to hear the presentation.
4:05 PM: Lou Triandafilou adjourned meeting.