U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

37–641PS 2008

BRIDGE SAFETY: NEXT STEPS

TO PROTECT THE NATION’S

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 19, 2007

Serial No. 110–53

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

LAURA RICHARDSON, California

PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

(III)

C O N T E N T S

September 19, 2007

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on Science

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 7

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7

Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority Ranking Member,

Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ......... 8

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9

Statement by Representative David Wu, Chairman, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 10

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11

Statement by Representative Phil Gingrey, Minority Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 11

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member, Committee

on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................. 13

Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member, Committee

on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................. 14

Prepared Statement by Representative Charlie Melancon, Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................. 14

Prepared Statement by Representative Harry E. Mitchell, Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................. 15

Witnesses:

Mr. Dennis C. Judycki, Associate Administrator, Research, Development, and

Technology, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation; Accompanied by Mr. Benjamin Tang, Principal Bridge Engineer/

Team Leader, Office of Bridge Technology, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17

Biography for Dennis C. Judycki .................................................................... 23

Biography for Benjamin Tang ......................................................................... 24

Mr. Harry Lee James, Deputy Executive Director and Chief Engineer, Mississippi Department of Transportation; Member, Standing Committee on

Highways, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 25

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 26

Biography .......................................................................................................... 37

Dr. Kevin C. Womack, Director, Utah Transportation Center; Professor of

Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 38

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 39

Page

IV

Dr. Kevin C. Womack, Director, Utah Transportation Center; Professor of

Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University—Continued

Biography .......................................................................................................... 46

Mr. Mark E. Bernhardt, Director, Facility Inspection, Burgess & Niple, Inc.

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 46

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 48

Biography .......................................................................................................... 50

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 54

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Mr. Dennis C. Judycki, Associate Administrator, Research, Development, and

Technology, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation ................................................................................................................ 70

Mr. Harry Lee James, Deputy Executive Director and Chief Engineer, Mississippi Department of Transportation; Member, Standing Committee on

Highways, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ....................................................................................................................... 76

Dr. Kevin C. Womack, Director, Utah Transportation Center; Professor of

Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University ........................ 78

Mr. Mark E. Bernhardt, Director, Facility Inspection, Burgess & Niple, Inc. ... 82

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

Statement of Christopher C. Higgins, Oregon State University College of

Engineering .......................................................................................................... 86

Statement of Michael Todd, Associate Professor of Structural Engineering,

University of California–San Diego, and Charles Farrar, Leader, The Engineering Institute, Los Alamos National Laboratory ......................................... 88

Statement of Larry W. Frevert, President, American Public Works Association ........................................................................................................................ 95

(1)

BRIDGE SAFETY: NEXT STEPS TO PROTECT

THE NATION’S CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Bridge Safety: Next Steps

to Protect the Nation’s

Critical Infrastructure

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2007

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

I. Purpose

On Wednesday, September 19, 2007, the Committee on Science and Technology

will hold a hearing entitled ‘‘Bridge Safety: Next Steps to Protect the Nation’s Critical Infrastructure’’ to examine research and development activities to improve the

safety of the Nation’s bridges. The hearing will explore the current state of bridgerelated research, including government and academic research into materials, design elements, and testing and inspection technologies. Witnesses will also discuss

future research priorities for building improved bridge infrastructure and maintaining current bridges to avoid catastrophic failure.

II. Witnesses

Mr. Dennis Judycki is the Associate Administrator for Research, Development,

and Technology at the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) and Director of U.S. DOT’s Turner-Fairbank

Highway Research Center (TFHRC).

Mr. Benjamin Tang is a Principal Bridge Engineer for the Office of Bridge Technology at the Federal Highway Administration of the U.S. DOT.

Dr. Kevin Womack is the Director of the Utah Transportation Center and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Utah State University.

Mr. Harry Lee James is the Deputy Executive Director and Chief Engineer for

the Mississippi Department of Transportation.

Mr. Mark Bernhardt is the Director of Facility Inspection for Burgess & Niple,

an engineering firm.

III. Brief Overview

• Structural problems, both major and minor, plague a significant portion of

bridges in the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Bridge Inventory, 73,764 bridges around the U.S. (12.4 percent of all bridges) were classified as ‘‘structurally deficient’’ in 2006, including the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in 2005 gave the Nation’s bridge infrastructure a ‘‘C’’ grade

in its Report Card for America’s Infrastructure because of the large number

of deficient bridges. However, the definition of structural deficiency is broad,

and can cover everything from non-structural paving issues to serious flaws.

State and local inspectors are responsible for determining which bridges need

the most immediate attention.

• The challenge for policy-makers at the State, local, and federal level is to determine which bridges are the highest priority for repairs given limited funding. ASCE estimates that repairing every deficient bridge across the Nation

would cost $9.4 billion per year for 20 years. Inspectors use a variety of methods to determine if a bridge has immediate need of repair, including visual

inspection, sensors, and other non-destructive testing technologies. The existing methods are imperfect, however, and additional research is needed to develop methods that will provide better quality data on which bridges are in

greatest need of immediate repair.

4

• The Federal Highway Administration, State highway administrations, and

universities are sponsoring and carrying out research to improve bridge design, maintenance, and inspections. Current research covers a variety of

fields, including materials, engineering design, technology development, and

modeling. However, transferring successful technologies to end-users such as

state highway administration officials is challenging because of cost concerns

and training issues for advanced technology.

• Additional research is needed to better understand the current and future demands on bridges. Traffic loads are significantly higher than when many of

the country’s bridges were built, especially from truck traffic. FHWA is supporting research to design the ‘‘Bridge of the Future’’ with the goal of a century-long lifespan. This and similar projects should include projections for

bridge usage throughout the intended lifespan to ensure that the bridge

meets users’ needs.

IV. Issues and Concerns

How are bridges currently tested for safety, and how effective are current

testing methods and technologies? What technologies and techniques currently exist to improve bridges’ structural integrity? States are currently responsible for all bridge inspections, which must be carried out biennially under the

National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS), which are enforced by FHWA. If a

bridge is deemed potentially problematic, inspectors can increase the frequency of

evaluations. Approximately twelve percent of bridges are inspected annually. Inspectors examine the bridge deck (primary travel surface), superstructure (which supports the deck), and substructure (which supports the superstructure). Each component is given a rating based on its current condition, ranging from excellent to failed

or out of service. If the bridge gets less than 50 points in its overall rating, it can

be classified as structurally deficient. For reference, before it collapsed, the I–35W

bridge in Minneapolis received a score of 50.

Some technology is currently in use to aid inspectors in their assessments of

bridges, but generally bridge inspectors depend on visual observations to determine

if a bridge is deficient in any category. Bridge inspectors are trained through university programs and also must complete required courses through FHWA’s National

Highway Institute (NHI). These courses are also used to deliver information about

new technologies emerging from the U.S. DOT.

What future research is needed in the overall field of bridge safety, and

how can engineers insure that new technologies are an improvement on

the current state-of-the-art? Current bridge research covers three general fields:

structural engineering, materials, and inspection technologies. Within these research areas, many different projects are carried out or funded by universities, State

departments of transportation, and the Federal Government. Some private research,

especially in the area of technology design and development, is also carried out by

industry. Research priorities are generally guided by end-user needs, and the transportation research community has a strong, centralized structure for sharing both

research results and technology needs. The Transportation Research Board (TRB),

part of the National Research Council (NRC), hosts an annual meeting and other

smaller events to facilitate collaboration among researchers and end users that is

a primary source of information on research priorities. Following the bridge collapse

in Minnesota, TRB put a greater focus on the specific field of bridge safety and announced that its 2008 annual meeting would highlight the issue of aging infrastructure. AASHTO also convenes a bridge committee comprised of State highway officials who are able to discuss needs specific to their states.

FHWA is also working on their Bridge of the Future project, which aims to use

innovative designs and materials to build a bridge that will have a lifespan of at

least a century (compared to current 25- to 50-year lifespans). However, the new designs, materials, and technologies that are developed through these research

projects will only be useful if they are able to meet the long-term needs of users.

Many current bridges—81,257 in 2007—are functionally obsolete because engineers

were unable to accurately predict the types of traffic loads throughout the bridge’s

intended lifespan.

How can non-destructive testing of existing bridges and lessons from the

Minnesota collapse be used to determine which bridges are the most susceptible to catastrophic failure? Currently, bridge inspectors rely primarily on

visual inspections to determine whether bridges are in need of repair. While these

inspectors go through rigorous training and take regular refresher courses to keep

their skills up to date, there are obvious limits to inspections which cover only surVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:07 Jan 20, 2008 Jkt 037641 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL07\091907\37641 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
5

face features of the bridges. New technologies are being introduced to help inspectors see into the structural elements of bridges so that they may better determine

the overall strength and integrity. But there are barriers to adoption of these new

technologies. Many are expensive and well outside the budget of state highway administrations. Others take highly technical training to operate effectively and are

too difficult for busy bridge inspectors to learn to use. Some technologies also require near continuous monitoring or modeling to identify potential problems. Additional research is needed to develop technologies for non-destructive testing of

bridges that are effective and efficient for bridge inspectors so that catastrophic failures can be predicted before they happen.

What technology transfer programs exist at FHWA and university transportation research centers, and how effective are those programs? In transportation fields, technology transfer is a special challenge because no solution works

well for everyone. Differences in traffic loads, climate, size and shape, and other

bridge characteristics mean that new engineering designs, materials, and technologies may work well for a bridge engineer in California but not in New York or

Florida. Thus, technology transfer efforts must include both determining the customer’s unique needs and transferring the appropriate technology. For the former,

FHWA and the University Transportation Centers depend on organizations of endusers, including TRB and AASHTO, to facilitate discussions of technology needs.

The strong participation in these groups means that end-users are making their

needs known to the appropriate people, but technology adoption remains slow.

FHWA programs to encourage the adoption of new technology include seminars and

discussions at TRB events and courses offered at the National Highway Institute

(NHI) to train engineers and inspectors in the use of new technology.

V. Background

The collapse of the I–35W bridge in Minnesota was, unfortunately, not the first

of its kind. In 1967, a bridge from West Virginia to Ohio collapsed, killing dozens

of people and spurring the Federal Highway Administration to standardize inspections of bridges to avoid future tragedies. The National Bridge Inspection System

now uses a point system to help state inspectors and the Federal Government determine which bridges are in greatest need of repair. On a 100 point scale, bridges that

score less than 50 points are described as ‘‘structurally deficient.’’ Some bridges are

also classified as ‘‘functionally obsolete’’ meaning that they are unable to perform

to the current necessary traffic capacity. These bridges limit the size of vehicles allowed to cross. Neither designation means that the bridge is in imminent danger

of collapse. Points are awarded based on the condition of the substructure, superstructure, and surface; thus, a low scoring bridge may merely need repaving to bring

it back from structural deficiency.

The sheer number of structurally deficient bridges around the country is cause for

concern, though, because many do have underlying structural problems. In 2006,

FHWA found that 73,764 bridges were structurally deficient, including the one that

collapsed in Minnesota. There is not a centralized system that the Federal Government uses to further classify structurally deficient bridges as suffering from dangerous structural (as opposed to cosmetic or less urgent) conditions. This makes it

far more difficult to determine the true vulnerability of the bridges in the United

States. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has carried out their own

assessment of the Nation’s bridges, and found that the Nation’s urban bridges,

which carry much larger than average numbers of vehicles daily, are classified as

structurally deficient at a much higher percentage than rural bridges, making the

situation more dangerous than the number suggest on their own. ASCE has called

for stronger investment in repairing infrastructure and long-term research efforts.

Repairs, however, are an enormous financial challenge. ASCE anticipates a total

cost of $188 billion to repair all current structurally deficient bridges around the

country.

While the issue of bridge structural problems is not new, changing patterns in the

U.S. transportation sector have made fixing deficient bridges much more pressing.

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) found that the number of vehicles

on roads and bridges has increased from 156 million to 235 million since 1980, and

economic growth has spurred the long haul trucking industry to put more and heavier trucks on the road. These traffic loads are far higher than those originally anticipated by bridges’ engineers, and may accelerate deterioration of already crumbling

infrastructure.

Because it is financially and logistically unfeasible to repair all problematic

bridges around the country in the short-term, State highway administrations, bridge

inspectors, and the public rely on the results of research and technology developVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:07 Jan 20, 2008 Jkt 037641 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL07\091907\37641 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
6

ment to avoid catastrophic and deadly collapses. The research community has recognized bridges as a priority, and is putting available resources into both short- and

long-term research to improve safety. However, funding for this research is extremely limited. FHWA has only approximately $22 million available for bridge related research, and must leverage research carried out by universities, states, and

private industry to move forward.

7

Chairman GORDON. I want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing on Bridge Safety: Next Steps to Protect the Nation’s Critical Infrastructure. We were all horrified by the images of I–35W bridge

collapse in Minneapolis last month, and the Congress has begun

moving to address the serious problem of deteriorating bridges.

Infrastructure in the United States, and in my own home State

of Tennessee, 37 bridges were found to be deficient by Road Improvement Survey in 2005, and I am sure that my colleagues on

the Committee could all share similar statistics. Clearly the disaster that struck Minnesota could have happened anywhere. This

is a wakeup call that we need to be doing more to strengthen and

secure our bridges now and for the long-term. And while funding

bridges is important and necessary, we cannot keep on with business as usual if we are to maintain a safe, national inventory of

nearly 600,000 bridges. In the American Society of Civil Engineers’

2005 Infrastructure Report card, they reported that it would cost

upwards to $188 billion just to fix the Nation’s current structurally

deficient bridges. There has to be a better, more efficient way. I am

hoping our witnesses today can shed some light on what that better way is.

The witnesses here today represent the Federal Government,

State government, academia, and industry. Each of these groups is

working hard on the innovative research and development that will

hopefully help us to prevent these types of tragedies in the future.

They are developing new materials for stronger decks, new engineering techniques for more resilient bridges, new technologies to

help inspectors more accurately assess the conditions of a bridge,

and of course, new technologies are only useful insofar as they are

adopted by builders and inspectors. So, I hope to hear more about

technological transfer programs and what we can do to make innovative technology more accessible to hardworking engineers and to

inspectors that need them.

Investing our resources wisely is the first step to ensuring the

American public crosses the Nation’s bridges confidently.

Before I recognize my friend and colleague, Ranking Member,

Mr. Hall, let me say that we are going to allow both—have two additional opening statements by our Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Technology Innovation which covers

this area, I am going to have to briefly step across the hall. I have

a bill concerning 9–1–1 that is important for all of us, and so I am

going to turn to Mr. Wu and recognize Mr. Hall for his opening

statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

I want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing on Bridge Safety: Next Steps to Protect the Nation’s Critical Infrastructure. We were all horrified by the images of the

I–35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis last month, and Congress has begun moving

to address the serious problems of deteriorating bridge infrastructure in the United

States. In my home State of Tennessee, 37 bridges were found to be deficient by

a Road Improvement Survey in 2005. My colleagues on the Committee could all

share similar statistics. Clearly, the disaster that struck Minnesota could have happened anywhere. This is a wakeup call that we need to be doing more to strengthen

and secure our bridges now and for the long-term.

While funding repairs is important and necessary, we cannot keep on with business as usual if we are to maintain a safe national inventory of nearly 600,000

8

bridges. In the American Society of Civil Engineers’ 2005 Infrastructure Report

Card, they reported that it would cost upwards of $188 billion just to fix our nation’s

current structurally deficient bridges. There has to be a better, more efficient way.

I’m hoping our witnesses today can shed some light on what that better way is.

The witnesses here today represent the Federal Government, State government,

academia and industry. Each of these groups is working hard on the innovative research and development that will hopefully help us prevent these types of tragedies

in the future. They are developing new materials for stronger decks, new engineering techniques for more resilient bridges, new technologies to help inspectors more

accurately assess the condition of a bridge. Of course, new technologies are only useful insofar as they are adopted by builders and inspectors. I hope to hear more

about technology transfer programs, and what we can all do to make innovative

technologies more accessible to the hardworking engineers and inspectors that need

them.

Investing our resources wisely is the first step to ensuring that the American public crosses the Nation’s bridges confidently.

I’d now like to recognize my colleague, the Ranking Member from Texas, Mr. Hall,

for an opening statement. We’ll then allow two additional opening statements from

the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, which covers surface transportation R&D for the Committee.

Mr. HALL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I say good morning

to you gentlemen. Thank you for the time you are giving us today,

the time you have given us in preparation and your trip home. We

appreciate you being here because your input is what we really

look to in order to write our legislation because you know more

about what we are talking about than we do, and you are very kind

and gracious to give us your time.

We are a nation of infrastructure. It is kind of funny. I have had

a lot of advice from a lot of people about these bridges and everything. Every time I get up on one when I look way down there and

see little people in small cars I have some kind of an eerie feeling,

you know, thinking that some day that the thing is going to fall

if we don’t do something about it and don’t keep checking it. One

guy suggested to me that—my district goes several hundred miles

from Dallas County to the end of Texarkana, Bowie County, over

to the Arkansas border, about 300 miles. He said, if you can stay

on them farm-to-market roads, you will be a lot safer. I don’t know

if that is true or not, but maybe you folks are going to be able to

help us.

More than any other country in the world, we do rely on a massive, interconnected web of power lines and power plants, telecommunications facilities, train tracks, roadways, and bridges to,

you know, go about our everyday lives; and that is why tragedies

like the I–35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis strike each of us so

personally. During our own, everyday lives since August the 1st we

have all thought of the 185 people on the I–35 bridge when it collapsed and the 13 who perished. Perhaps as we drive across

bridges in our hometowns on the way to work or to the school or

to the shopping center down the road we think about it, and it

causes concern. Clearly the loss of life is unacceptable, and then

what to do about it, what we can do about it, and how practical

it is to do what we ought to do about it and whether or not we will

do what we ought to do is something that we just have to work out

together. And we have to listen to you and try to adapt our ability

to respond to what your recommendations are.

Ensuring the safety of our basic infrastructure has to be the top

priority of Federal, State, and local governments. This is a core

principle of public policy and the reason the Committee is meeting

9

here today. Sadly, this is not the first time that a major bridge has

failed. In 1967, 46 people died from the collapse of the Silver

Bridge in Point Pleasant, West Virginia. The following year, the

Federal Government began a nationwide bridge inspection program. Today the National Bridge Inventory including almost

600,000 bridges, almost 25 percent of these are over 50 years old.

Of the 49,518 bridges on the inventory in my home State of Texas,

2,219 or five percent are considered structurally deficient. I live in

the smallest county in Texas. There are 254 counties. Mine is the

smallest geographically. I have bridges that I am very fearful of,

bridges that I have pictures of my wife and me standing, leaning

up against the banister the day they were poured; and that is 50

or 60 years ago. Those bridges are probably very dangerous. This

designation of structurally deficient doesn’t mean that these

bridges are in immediate danger of collapse; it does, however, mean

that signs of fatigue and stress are beginning to show and that the

bridge requires close monitoring. The I–35 bridge was one such

structurally deficient bridge, however, and was inspected a year

prior to the collapse.

So today we have a panel before us who can tell us what we are

doing as a nation to improve the monitoring and inspection of

bridges. What are the technologies and the skills that will allow us

to better assess and monitor the health of these critical pieces of

infrastructure? What can be done in the next five or 10 years to

improve the data we have on bridges and our ability to correct interpret that data? And can we do this while also attending to the

other challenges facing transportation officials such as growing

congestion and deteriorating roadways?

I don’t know. We would like to hear that from you all. I wrote

a bill about the drought that we have and how to address it later

and how to have quicker response for the ranchers and farmers before it is too late; and of course, you know what the first question

was when I was back in my district, telling them about how I had

offered the drought bill. And one old farmer said, well, Congressman, can you make it rain? And I had just admitted that I couldn’t

and we would do something about that at a later time. And sure

enough we had too damn much rain about three weeks ago and

Texoma Lake overran and drowned out the rice farmers down

below. Now if I go back to that same place and make that speech,

he will say, Congressman, can you make it stop raining? So we can

only do what you guys and ladies and gentlemen point out to us

and help us give your best judgment on it. We appreciate your

being here.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Good morning Mr. Chairman.

We are a nation of infrastructure. More than any other country in the world we

rely on a massive, interconnected web of power lines and power plants, telecommunications facilities, and train tracks, roadways, and bridges to go about our

everyday lives.

This is why tragedies like the I–35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis strike each of

us so personally. During our own everyday lives since August 1st we have all

thought of the 185 people on the I–35 bridge when it collapsed and the thirteen who

10

perished, perhaps as we drove across bridges in our home towns on the way to work,

or to school, or to the shopping center down the road.

Clearly this loss of life is unacceptable.

Ensuring the safety of our basic infrastructure must be the top priority of our

Federal, State, and local governments. This is a core principle of public service and

the reason this committee is meeting today.

Sadly, this is not the first time that a major bridge has failed. In 1967, forty-six

people died from the collapse of the Silver Bridge in Point Pleasant, West Virginia.

The following year the Federal Government began a nationwide bridge inspection

program. Today, the National Bridge Inventory, includes almost 600,000 bridges. Almost twenty-five percent of those are over fifty years old. Of the 49,518 bridges on

the inventory in my home State of Texas, 2,219 or five percent are considered

‘‘structurally deficient.’’

This designation, ‘‘structurally deficient,’’ does not mean these bridges are in immediate danger of collapsing. It does, however, mean that signs of fatigue and stress

are beginning to show and that the bridge requires close monitoring. The I–35

bridge was one such ‘‘structurally deficient’’ bridge, however, and was inspected a

year prior to the collapse.

So, today, we have a panel before us who can tell us what we’re doing as a nation

to improve the monitoring and inspections of bridges. What are the technologies and

skills that will allow us to better assess and monitor the health of these critical

pieces of infrastructure? What can be done in the next five or ten years to improve

the data we have on bridges and our ability to correctly interpret that data? And

can we do this while also attending to the other challenges facing transportation officials such as growing congestion and deteriorating roadways?

I look forward to hearing your answers and thank you for testifying today.

I yield back.

Mr. WU. [Presiding] Thank you very much, Mr. Hall. As Chairman Gordon referred, on the 1st of August, the whole country was

shocked by the collapse of the I–35 bridge across Mississippi at

Minneapolis, and our condolences and prayers to all those who

were directly affected by that bridge collapse. But for everybody

else around the country, I think that one thought that must be on

folks’ minds is, ‘‘What about the bridges that I drive over? What

about my commute to work or from work?’’ These appropriate concerns highlight how much we have taken our national infrastructure system for granted. Of the 116,000 or so bridges in the National Highway System, over 6,000 are rated structurally deficient,

80 of these are in my home State of Oregon, and eight are in my

congressional district. After the I–35 bridge collapse, Congress

moved quickly to offer federal help, and we are now left with a

long-term need to better address how to constantly and consistently

evaluate and repair our national infrastructure. Investing in research to develop new building materials, new engineering techniques, and a sufficient technologic toolbox for bridge inspectors

will be critical to our ability to accurately assess the structural condition of our nation’s bridges and to develop bridge infrastructure

that will last for decades and perhaps even a century with minimal

repairs.

The Federal Highway Administration, State highway administrations, and universities have long been engaged in surface transportation research in a wide variety of applications from bridge design

to construction to inspection. However, the transfer of these technologies to end-users has faced barriers such as the cost of technologies, engineering, and modeling.

I hope that our witnesses can address these issues.

Also, I hope that our witnesses will discuss the research and the

design capabilities the Federal Government can provide for State

inspectors to accurately rank repair needs. While inspectors use a

11

variety of methods to determine if a bridge has an immediate need

of repair, the existing methods are imperfect, and additional research is needed to develop methods that will provide better quality data on which bridges require immediate attention.

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and their expertise to help guide this committee in addressing the research needs

to protect our aging infrastructure and what the Federal Government can do to make sure our citizens do not question whether or

not their daily commute is safe.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Wu follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DAVID WU

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, on August 1, the country was astonished by the collapse of the

I–35 bridge in Minneapolis, and what was more certain than the thoughts and prayers on the American people to those affected was the thought ‘‘What about the

bridges I drive over? What about my commute?’’

These are penetrating questions, and these questions highlight that we take our

national infrastructure system for granted.

Of the 116,172 bridges on the National Highway System, 6,175 bridges are rated

as structurally deficient. There are 80 of these bridges in my home state of Oregon

are rated as structurally deficient, and eight are in my district.

In the aftermath of the I–35 bridge collapse Congress moved immediately with

federal dollars. We are now left with the immediate need to evaluate and repair our

national infrastructure. The overwhelming number of bridges in need of repair, and

the associated cost requires the prioritization of federal and State resources.

Investing in research to develop new building materials, new engineering techniques and a sufficient toolbox for bridge inspectors will be critical in our ability

to accurately assess the structural condition of our nation’s bridges.

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and their expertise to help guide

this committee address the needs of our aging infrastructure and what the Federal

Government can provide to make sure our citizens do not need to question whether

or not their daily commute is safe.

Mr. WU. And now I would like to recognize the Ranking Member

of our subcommittee, Dr. Gingrey for his opening statement.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Chairman Wu, and Ranking Member

Hall. I have some prepared remarks. I can’t resist the urge like

most Members to ad lib a little bit here.

I will start out by saying I am certainly proud to be here with

the Rainmaker. I didn’t realize that movie was based on the legislative life of Ralph Hall. That was a very interesting little bit of

information.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I do thank you, and I would like to start

by reiterating as we all have the deep felt sorrow and concern that

we all have for the family members and the loved ones of those

who died in the collapse of the Interstate 35 West bridge in Minneapolis. I believe it was on August 1st of this year. Our thoughts

and prayers continue to go out to the families of those who lost

their lives.

Bridge safety is a growing problem across the country and includes not just the National Highway System but of course the

many more bridges and the state and local roadways. In my State

of Georgia, as an example, there are 14,500 bridge, 14,500 just in

the State of Georgia, population about 9.4 million people. One thousand one hundred of these bridges, that is about eight percent of

the total, are ‘‘structurally deficient;’’ and nationally, 12 percent of

bridges have received that rating and in some states it goes up as

high as 25 percent structurally deficient.

12

Structurally deficient bridges can be found in every part of the

country in the midst of sprawling cities but also out in the remote

areas as Ranking Member Hall indicated and stated in his remarks. Repairing them will take an enormous effort that will need

the aid of science and technology; and hopefully we can build advanced structures that are more robust, that are more reliable, and

that will have the ability to detect potential problems and warn officials electronically.

On the ad lib part, let me just say that 42 years ago, I was working as a co-op student. I was attending Georgia Tech as a chemistry major, and I was working at a nuclear plant in South Carolina. And my job, one quarter, was to run a probe through a heat

exchanger, and I think there were 25 different channels in that

heat exchanger. And you could literally take these heat exchangers

off of the reactor and inspect with this probe any deterioration or

corrosion of the metal, and that was 42 years ago I was doing that.

You think about today and walk in any bathroom almost anywhere,

in any city, in any country, and electronically the commode flushes

and the water turns on and off. So you know, I think it probably

is the time, as I continue with my prepared remarks, that we will

be able to do that in regard to the safety of these bridges and not

have to rely just on physical inspection on a periodic basis. I know

reaching the goal will not be easy. Replacing aging bridges with

new technology, advanced designs, is going to require time and

money that the federal and the State transportation departments,

they don’t have it. They don’t have it readily at hand today. We

have a strong need for research and development of low-cost approaches to inspect or rehabilitate bridges.

I am particularly concerned about our current visual inspection

techniques and what can be done to improve this system in the

near future. In the near future. I would like to draw the panel’s

attention to this issue. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Technology such as embedded sensors clearly offers dramatically

more precise and accurate data. However, we are a long way from

a widespread use of such systems and will continue to rely on properly trained personnel to make those final safety determinations,

even though as Chairman Wu indicated or someone at the dais, a

year ago, a year before this tragic accident as I understand it, there

was this physical inspection. And maybe the panelists will be able

to tell us about the recent construction on that bridge to maybe determine if that had any effect, either.

But we need to have inspection processes and training that are

validated as effective and regularly improved. I am pleased that we

will hear today from Mark Bernhardt, a bridge inspector. His company has contracts in over 10 states, and he can give us a sense

of what a well-trained individual can do, but for that matter, what

a well-, best-trained individual just physically can’t do.

So I thank the panel for coming before us today, and I look forward to an enlightening discussion on research and development in

this area.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gingrey follows:]

13

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PHIL GINGREY

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I’d like to start by reiterating the deep-felt sorrow and

concern that we all have for the family members and loved-ones of those who died

in the collapse of the Interstate 35 West Bridge in Minneapolis on August 1st of

this year. Our thoughts and prayers are with them.

Bridge safety is a growing problem across the country and includes not just the

National Highway System, but State and local roadways as well. In my State of

Georgia, for example, there are 14,523 bridges. 1,113 of these bridges, or about eight

percent, are ‘‘structurally deficient.’’ Nationally, 12 percent of bridges have received

this rating and some states have as high as 25 percent of their bridges listed as

‘‘structurally deficient.’’

Structurally deficient bridges can be found in every part of the country, in the

middle of sprawling cities and in remote wildlands. Repairing them will take an

enormous effort that will need the aid of science and technology. Hopefully, we can

build advanced structures that are more robust, more reliable and that will have

the ability to detect potential problems and warn officials electronically. Reaching

this goal will not be easy, however. Replacing aging bridges with new, technologically enhanced designs will require time and money that federal and State

transportation departments DO NOT have readily at hand. We have a STRONG

need for research and development of low-cost approaches to inspect or rehabilitate

bridges.

I am particularly CONCERNED about our current visual inspection techniques

and what can be done to improve this system in the near future. I’d like draw the

panel’s attention to this issue and look forward to hearing your thoughts. Technology such as embedded sensors clearly offers dramatically more PRECISE and

ACCURATE data. However, we are a long way from widespread use of such systems

and will continue to rely on properly trained personnel to make final safety determinations. We need to have inspection processes and training that are validated as

effective and regularly improved. I’m pleased that we’ll hear today from Mark Bernhardt, a bridge inspector whose company has contracts in over 10 states and who

can give us a sense of what a well-trained individual can do and for that matter,

what a trained individual cannot do.

I thank the entire panel for coming before us today, and look forward to an enlightening discussion on Research & Development in this area. Thank you and I

yield back.

Mr. WU. Thank you, Dr. Gingrey. If there are Members who wish

to submit additional opening statements, your statement will be

added to the record at this point.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here today as we examine research

and development measures to address structurally deficient bridges in the United

States. I would like to welcome today’s witnesses.

The tragic bridge collapse that occurred on August 1, 2007, in Minneapolis, MN,

serves as a wake up call that we must properly invest in maintaining our infrastructure, which includes the tools needed to evaluate and monitor its condition.

While we have a first-class transportation system, it is in many instances nearing

the end of its life expectancy, and we have neglected to upgrade and modernize our

infrastructure over the years.

For example, our Interstate Highway System is almost 50 years old. Thirty-two

percent of our major roads are in poor or mediocre condition; one of every eight

bridges is structurally deficient; and 36 percent of the Nation’s urban rail vehicles

and maintenance facilities are in substandard or poor condition.

While the need for construction upgrades and renovations are apparent, we must

also recognize the vital need for technological advancements in tools and methods

to safely, accurately, and economically evaluate these structures.

We should not build our infrastructure and then walk away without maintaining,

evaluating, and modernizing it as it becomes unsafe. I supported a $375 billion

highway bill that was advocated by a 2002 Department of Transportation report because I strongly believe that our infrastructure must be a top priority. We were able

to pass a $286.4 billion bill; however, that is not enough to meet our needs. According to DOT, more than $65 billion could be invested immediately by all levels of

government, to replace or otherwise address existing bridge deficiencies.

14

While we have programs and money specifically established in the highway bill

for bridge improvements and repairs, money is allowed to be transferred and rescinded to other accounts. That inhibits completion of important projects, including

making sure our bridges are structurally sound.

We must find a way to make the necessary improvements to our roads and

bridges to make sure the highest level of safety is maintained and that the U.S.

economy remains strong. As we have not kept up with the maintenance and upkeep

of our bridges, it is even more vital to develop advanced technologies to evaluate

and monitor current bridge structures. I am interested in hearing the thoughts and

ideas of our witnesses on these topics.

I look forward to today’s hearing as we examine these important issues.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RUSS CARNAHAN

Mr. Chairman, thank you for hosting this hearing to examine research and development activities to improve bridge safety through enhanced structural engineering

and inspection technologies.

As increasing traffic loads take their toll on America’s transportation infrastructure, the Nation’s bridges are plagued by growing structural deficiencies that range

from paving issues to serious, life-threatening flaws. Numerous analysts over the

past few years have concluded that more than twelve percent of the country’s

bridges will require urgent repairs over the next several years, at a cost of nearly

$200 billion. The challenge facing policy-makers and inspectors is to determine how

to allocate limited funding to the bridges in greatest need of repair.

The tragic collapse of Interstate 35W in Minnesota brought our attention to a

widespread problem that affects every community. In my home State of Missouri,

nearly 8,000 bridges have been identified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, including 125 Interstate Highway bridges. The total average daily traffic over

structurally deficient interstate bridges in Missouri is 3,280,648 vehicles.

Moreover, the Federal Highway Administration has listed eight bridges on the

National Highway System in my district (MO–3) to be structurally deficient. These

bridges include: I–55 North at Hillsboro Road in Jefferson County, I–64 East at

Laclede Station Road in St. Louis County, I–64 East at Clayton Terrace in St. Louis

County, I–64 East at McCausland Ave in St. Louis City, I–44 West at Kingshighway

Blvd. in St. Louis City, I–55 North at 2nd Street in St. Louis City, I–64 West at

I–55 in St. Louis City and I–64 East at I–55 in St. Louis City.

Improving bridge safety is imperative. While I believe we must direct more resources towards our nation’s infrastructure, it is also crucial that we direct our attention to the subject of today’s hearing, improving technology for bridge design,

maintenance, and inspection, and reviewing current methods of collaboration and

technology transfer between the research community and State highway administrations. I am eager to hear our witnesses’ assessments of bridge-related innovation

and research priorities. Your first-hand experiences are vital to maintaining our nation’s infrastructure.

To all the witnesses—thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules to appear before us today. I look forward to hearing your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Melancon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE MELANCON

Thank you Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall for holding this important hearing on bridge safety. Since the collapse of the I–35 bridge in Minnesota,

many Americans have questioned the safety of the bridges they cross every day, but

this is only one part of a much larger issue. The tragedy in Minnesota emphasizes

the importance of not just bridge safety, but the safety of our entire public infrastructure system.

Americans depend on public infrastructure every day and they deserve to be confidant that their tax dollars are being used to make them safe during their commutes and in their communities. As their elected representatives in government, it

is our job to promote this security by ensuring that all elements of public infrastructure—bridges, roads, dams, and levees—are up to code.

These are needs—not wants. The United States cannot prosper and grow without

safe, reliable public infrastructure. We only have to look to our recent past for proof.

As we saw after Hurricane Katrina, the manmade disaster caused by the levee failures was more disastrous to New Orleans and south Louisiana than the damage inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:07 Jan 20, 2008 Jkt 037641 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL07\091907\37641 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
15

flicted by the hurricane. It was the levee failures that made Katrina the most costly,

and one of the most deadly, disasters in U.S. history.

I applaud this committee for its work to ensure that our bridges are safe. However, I hope that the work does not end there. Let us take this opportunity to begin

studying the safety of all the elements of our public infrastructure system—bridges,

roads, dams and, not least of all, levees. We owe it to the American public to make

sure they have reason to feel safe again.

Thank you and I yield back my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE HARRY E. MITCHELL

Mr. Chairman,

Thank you for convening this morning’s hearing.

All of us extend our deepest sympathies to the Minneapolis community and to the

loved ones who died or were injured in the I–35 West Bridge collapse.

This is the second hearing in which I have participated investigating this tragic

accident. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, on which I also serve,

held a hearing on the causes of the accident two weeks ago.

I am pleased that Chairman Gordon has called us here today to look at the issue

from a different perspective. . .that of the current state of bridge safety-related research.

Of the 600,000 bridges in the U.S., 73,764, or more than 12 percent, of them are

considered to be deficient. One of those bridges included the I–35 West Bridge in

Minneapolis. The American Society of Civil Engineers rates the Nation’s bridge infrastructure by the letter grade of ‘‘C.’’ I am glad to report that ASCE gave Arizona

an ‘‘Aminus’’ for highway bridge safety.

Arizona is a growing state and a good deal of our infrastructure is new. It is an

arid state, and as a result, our bridges are subject to fewer corrosive factors such

as moisture.

Of the 7,248 bridges in Arizona, 161 are considered deficient. Arizona residents

want assurances that the bridges they travel across are safe and sturdy structures.

Last month, I accompanied representatives of Arizona’s State Department of Transportation. We toured the Loop 202 bridge over 56th Street, and they walked me

through the inspection process. I came away from that tour with a better appreciation of the inspection process. The inspection protocols are both time consuming and

expensive.

We need to explore ways and techniques by which we can detect structural deficiencies earlier, more accurately and within reasonable costs. For the most part, the

inspection process provides engineers with only a ‘‘snapshot’’ of bridge conditions.

We look to research projects and technological developments that will enable us to

assess bridge conditions over a longer span of the infrastructure’s life cycle.

Today’s hearing will provide us with some ideas on the appropriate methods to

conduct relevant research and development into infrastructure research and innovation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WU. I am deeply pleased to have such an expert group of

witnesses before the Committee today to discuss this very important topic. Mr. Dennis Judycki is the Associate Administrator for

Research, Development, and Technology at the Federal Highway

Administration and Director of the U.S. DOT’s Turner-Fairbank

Highway Research Center. With him is Mr. Benjamin Tang, Principal Bridge Engineer for the Office of Bridge Technology at the

FHA. Mr. Harry Lee James is the Deputy Executive Director and

Chief Engineer for the Mississippi Department of Transportation.

Dr. Kevin Womack is a Director of the Utah Transportation Center

and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Utah

State University. Finally, we have Mr. Mark Bernhardt, Director

of Facility Inspection for Burgess & Niple, an engineering firm in

Ohio. Thank you all for being here.

As our witnesses already know, spoken testimony is to be limited

to five minutes each. Your written statements will be entered into

16

the record, and after this period, Members of the Committee will

have five minutes each to ask questions. And we will begin with

Mr. Judycki. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF MR. DENNIS C. JUDYCKI, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND TECHNOLOGY,

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION; ACCOMPANIED BY MR. BENJAMIN

TANG, PRINCIPAL BRIDGE ENGINEER/TEAM LEADER, OFFICE OF BRIDGE TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Mr. JUDYCKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, it is a pleasure to be here. I am pleased to report today on Federal Highway’s

research, development, and technology activities that enhance our

highway bridges. And as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, joining me

today is Benjamin Tang, the Principal Bridge Engineer with the

Federal Highway Administration.

As you have mentioned, America was stunned by the collapse of

the I–35 bridge in Minneapolis. The cause of the failure is still unknown, and Federal Highways is assisting the National Transportation Safety Board in their investigation of the collapse.

Several Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center experts are,

as we speak, on site helping with the forensic work. Others are developing a computer model to evaluate the behavior of the bridge.

Although examination of the physical members of the bridge being

recovered from the site provides the best evidence of why the

bridge collapsed, the computer allows simulation and evaluation of

multiple failure scenarios, which can be evaluated against the actual bridge failure and physical forensic evidence.

We are committed to helping the NTSB complete its work as

quickly as possible, but certainly, as you can appreciate, must take

the time to fully understand what happened so that we can be sure

that this tragedy will not happen again.

Federal, State, and local transportation agencies consider the inspection of the Nation’s nearly 600,000 bridges to be of vital importance and invest significant funds in bridge inspection technologies

and techniques for which have been evolving for the last 30 years

since the establishment of the National Bridge Inspection Standards. Commonly used methods for evaluating concrete members

during ‘‘routine’’ inspections include mechanical sounding to identify areas of delamination and degradation. Similarly for steel

members, routine methods include cleaning and scraping, and the

use of various tests to identify cracking and areas of significant corrosion. More state-of-the art methods utilized during in-depth inspections for concrete and steel bridges include impact echo, infrared thermology, ground-penetrating radar, and ultrasonic methods.

There are numerous other technologies under development that

have the potential to substantially advance the practice of bridge

inspection. Unfortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all approach for

use of non-destructive evaluation testing. Each technology is designed for a specific purpose and for a specific function. Federal

highways, state DOTs, university transportation centers, and industries continue to investigate and improve the practicality in advancing these technologies.

17

There are also a number of monitoring systems that can be used

to provide real-time data and alert bridge owners to such things as

threshold stresses in load-carrying members, excessive movement,

crack growth, or scour around a bridge pier. However, monitoring

systems don’t eliminate the need for regular visual inspections, nor

do they ensure that failure of a bridge component will not occur.

Federal Highways is actively coordinating a National Bridge Research Program with our partners and stakeholders, and our research and development efforts include not only promising advanced non-destructive evaluation technologies for inspection, but

also long-term bridge performance and high performance structures

and innovative materials.

The current Federal Highway Bridge Research Program is focused on effective stewardship and management of bridge infrastructure, assuring of a high level of safety and security for highway bridges, and thirdly, developing the ‘‘Bridge of the Future.’’

FHWA’s responsibility for research and technology encompasses

not only managing and conducting research and sharing the result

but certainly supporting and facilitating technology and innovation

deployment. This includes working with University Transportation

Centers, others in academia, the State DOTs, industry, and the

Transportation Research Board.

FHWA also utilizes its Local Technical Assistance Program as a

mechanism for transferring technologies to State and local agencies, and education and training programs provided through our

National Highway Institute help introduce new technologies and

raise the state of the practice. Ultimately, though, a key measure

of success for any highway technology innovation depends on the

acceptance and adoption by stakeholders.

It is Federal Highway’s ongoing responsibility to continue to advance the state-of-the-art through research and development and to

work with our partners to raise the state-of-the-practice in bridge

engineering.

I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to testify and

will be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Judycki and Mr. Tang follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENNIS JUDYCKI AND BENJAMIN TANG

Mr. Chairman and Members, we are pleased to appear before you today to report

on the Department of Transportation’s research, development, testing, and evaluation activities, as administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), to

ensure the safety of the Nation’s highway bridges. This is a very important hearing

topic in the wake of the tragic collapse of the Interstate 35 West (I–35W) bridge

over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, Minnesota. On behalf of the Department,

we extend our deepest sympathy to the loved ones of those who died and to the injured.

Minnesota Bridge Collapse

America was stunned by the collapse of the I–35W bridge at approximately 6:00

PM, Central Daylight Time, on Wednesday, August 1, 2007. Numerous vehicles

were on the bridge at the time and there were 13 fatalities and 123 people injured.

The I–35W bridge originally opened in November 1967 and became one of the critical facilities in a vital commercial and commuting corridor. The bridge was an

eight-lane, steel deck truss structure that rose 64 feet above the Mississippi River.

The main span extended to 456 feet in length to avoid putting piers in the water

which would have impeded river navigation. As of the 2004 count, an estimated

141,000 vehicles traveled per day on the bridge.

18

We do not yet know why the I–35W bridge failed, and the Department is working

closely with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) as it continues its

investigation to determine the cause or causes. In the interim, we are taking every

step to reassure the public that America’s infrastructure is safe. The Secretary of

Transportation has issued two advisories to States in response to what has been

learned so far, asking that States re-inspect their steel deck truss bridges and that

they be mindful of the added weight construction projects may bring to bear on

bridges.

The Federal Highway Administration is assisting the NTSB in a thorough investigation, which includes a structural analysis of the bridge. Within days of the collapse, development of a computer model based upon the original design drawings

for the bridge began at FHWA’s Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center in

McLean, Virginia. This model can perform simulations to determine the effect on

the bridge of removing or weakening certain elements to recreate, virtually, the actual condition of the bridge just prior to and during the bridge’s collapse.

By finding elements that, if weakened or removed, result in a bridge failure similar to the actual bridge failure, the investigators’ work is considerably shortened.

While examination of the physical members of the bridge being recovered from the

site provides the best evidence of why the bridge collapsed, the analytical model allows the evaluation of multiple scenarios which can then be validated against the

physical forensic evidence. We are committed to accomplishing this work as quickly

as possible, but it is expected to take several months. Our experts will continue to

be there, on the ground in Minneapolis, to provide assistance. We need to fully understand what happened so we can take every possible step to ensure that such a

tragedy does not happen again. Data collected at the accident scene, with the help

of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 3–D laser scanning technology, is being

used to assist in the investigation.

Federal, State, and local transportation agencies consider the inspection of our

nearly 600,000 bridges to be of vital importance and invest significant funds in

bridge inspection activities each year. We strive to ensure that the quality of our

bridge inspection program is maintained at the highest level and that our funds are

utilized as effectively as possible. On August 2, the day after the collapse, Secretary

of Transportation Mary E. Peters requested the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General to conduct a rigorous assessment of the federal-aid bridge program

and the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS).

National Bridge Inspection Program

The National Bridge Inspection Program was created in response to the collapse,

in 1967, of the Silver Bridge over the Ohio River between West Virginia and Ohio,

which killed 46 people. At the time of that collapse, the exact number of highway

bridges in the United States was unknown, and there was no systematic bridge inspection program to monitor the condition of existing bridges. In the Federal-aid

Highway Act of 1968, Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation in cooperation with State highway officials to establish: (1) NBIS for the proper safety inspection of bridges, and (2) a program to train employees involved in bridge inspection

to carry out the program. As a result, the NBIS regulation was developed, a bridge

inspector’s training manual was prepared, and a comprehensive training course,

based on the manual, was developed to provide specialized training. To address

varying needs and circumstances, State and local standards are often even more restrictive than the national standards.

The NBIS require safety inspections at least once every 24 months for highway

bridges that exceed 20 feet in total length located on public roads. Many bridges are

inspected more frequently. However, with the express approval by FHWA of Statespecific policies and criteria, some bridges can be inspected at intervals greater than

24 months. New or newly reconstructed bridges, for example, may qualify for less

frequent inspections. Approximately 83 percent of bridges are inspected once every

24 months, 12 percent are inspected annually, and five percent are inspected on a

48-month cycle.

The State transportation department (State DOT) must inspect, or cause to be inspected, all highway bridges on public roads that are fully or partially located within the State’s boundaries, except for bridges owned by federal agencies. States may

use their Highway Bridge Program funds for bridge inspection activities. Privately

owned bridges, including commercial railroad bridges and some international crossings, are not legally mandated to adhere to the NBIS requirements; however, many

privately owned bridges on public roads are being inspected in accordance with the

NBIS.

For bridges subject to NBIS requirements, information is collected on bridge composition and conditions and reported to FHWA, where the data is maintained in the

19

National Bridge Inventory (NBI) database. The NBI is essentially a database of

bridge information that is ‘‘frozen’’ at a given point in time. This information forms

the basis of, and provides the mechanism for, the determination of the formula factor used to apportion Highway Bridge Program funds to the states. A sufficiency

rating (SR) is calculated based on the NBI data items on structural condition, functional obsolescence, and essentiality for public use. The SR is then used programmatically to determine eligibility for rehabilitation or replacement using Highway

Bridge Program funds.

Bridge inspection techniques and technologies have been continuously evolving

since the NBIS were established over 30 years ago and the NBIS regulation has

been updated several times as Congress has revised the inspection program and its

companion program, the Highway Bridge Program (formerly Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program). The most recent NBIS revision took effect

in January 2005. The bridge inspector’s reference manual has been updated as well,

and we have developed, through our National Highway Institute (NHI), an array

of bridge inspection training courses.

There are five basic types of bridge inspections—initial, routine, in-depth, damage, and special. The first inspection to be completed on a bridge is the ‘‘initial’’ inspection. The purpose of this inspection is to provide all the structure inventory and

appraisal data, to establish baseline structural conditions, and to identify and list

any existing problems or any locations in the structure that may have potential

problems. The ‘‘routine’’ inspection is the most common type of inspection performed

and is generally required every two years. The purpose of ‘‘routine’’ inspections is

to determine the physical and functional condition of a bridge on a regularly scheduled basis. An ‘‘in-depth’’ inspection is a close-up, hands-on inspection of one or more

members above or below the water level to identify potential deficiencies not readily

detectable using routine inspection procedures. A ‘‘damage’’ inspection is an emergency inspection conducted to assess structural damage immediately following an

accident or resulting from unanticipated environmental factors or human actions.

Finally, a ‘‘special’’ inspection is used to monitor, on a regular basis, a known or

suspected deficiency.

Safety is enhanced through these inspections and by ‘‘rating’’ bridge components,

such as the deck, superstructure, and substructure, and by the use of non-destructive evaluation (NDE) methods and other advanced technologies. Visual inspection

is the primary method used to perform routine bridge inspections, and tools for

cleaning, probing, sounding, and measuring, and visual aids are typically used. On

occasion, destructive tests are conducted to evaluate specific areas or materials of

concern, or to help identify appropriate rehabilitative work. Type, location, accessibility, and condition of a bridge, as well as type of inspection, are some of the factors

that determine what methods of inspection practices are used. When problems are

detected, or during the inspection of critical areas, more advanced methods are employed.

Commonly used methods for evaluating concrete elements during ‘‘routine’’ inspections include mechanical sounding to identify areas of delamination (the separation

of a layer of concrete from the reinforcing steel in the concrete member) and other

forms of concrete degradation. Similarly, for the ‘‘routine’’ inspection of steel members, methods include cleaning and scraping, and the use of dye penetrant and magnetic particle testing to identify cracking and areas of significant corrosion.

State-of-the-art methods utilized during ‘‘in-depth,’’ ‘‘damage,’’ and ‘‘special’’ inspections include impact echo, infrared thermography, ground penetrating radar,

and strain gauges for concrete structures and elements, and ultrasonic, eddy current, radiography, acoustic emissions, strain gauges, and x-ray technology for steel

structures and elements.

There are numerous other technologies under development that have the potential

to substantially advance the practices used for bridge inspection. Some of these

technologies are also being developed or are in limited use by other industries, such

as the aerospace and nuclear industries. There is no one-size-fits-all approach in the

use of non-destructive evaluations and testing; each technology is designed for a

specific purpose and function. Although these developing technologies have the potential to augment and advance bridge inspection practice, the challenge is to find

a way to make them efficient, effective, and practical for field use. FHWA, industry,

academia, the Transportation Research Board (TRB), and State DOTs continue to

investigate and improve the practicality of many of these technologies. As a result

of these efforts, a number of systems have recently become available that can assist

an inspector in the identification and quantification of such things as reinforced concrete deterioration, steel tendon distress, and the displacement or rotation of critical

members in a bridge.

20

There are also a number of monitoring systems that can be used to provide real

time data and alert the bridge owner to such things as failure of load carrying members, excessive rotation or displacement of an element, overload in a member,

growth of a crack, or scour around a bridge pier. The type of information provided

by these systems is either very specific and provides detailed information on isolated

areas or members of the bridge, or rather generic and provides general bridge behavior information. The most practical of these systems are being used by owners

following an ‘‘in-depth’’ or ‘‘special’’ inspection, to monitor the performance of the

element or the bridge, when some specific concern has been raised but the concern

is not considered to be a short-term safety hazard. However, the effectiveness and

costs associated with monitoring systems must be weighed against the benefits

gained. Like any emerging technology, changes and updates in monitoring systems

can become a big challenge to maintain economically over the long haul. Today,

bridges are being built to last 75 to 100 years and installing any new monitoring

systems and expecting them to be durable and serviceable for such a long period

has never been done before. Monitoring systems that are available today require

routine maintenance and repair, and continuous assessment to ensure that they are

working correctly. In addition, they do not eliminate the need for regular visual inspections. In many circumstances, it is more effective to increase the inspection frequency, repair or retrofit areas of concern, or replace the structure.

Since 1994, the percentage of the Nation’s bridges that are classified as ‘‘structurally deficient’’ has declined from 18.7 percent to 12.1 percent. The term ‘‘structurally deficient’’ is a technical engineering term used to classify bridges according

to serviceability, safety, and essentiality for public use. Bridges are considered

‘‘structurally deficient’’ if significant load-carrying elements are found to be in poor

or worse condition due to deterioration or damage, or the adequacy of the waterway

opening provided by the bridge is determined to be extremely insufficient to the

point of causing intolerable traffic interruptions. The fact that a bridge is classified

as ‘‘structurally deficient’’ does not mean that it is unsafe for use by the public.

These infrastructure quality numbers for bridges should, and can, be improved,

but it is inaccurate to conclude that the Nation’s transportation infrastructure is unsafe. We have quality control systems that provide surveillance over the design and

construction of bridges. We have quality control systems that oversee the operations

and use of our bridges. And we have quality control over inspections of bridges to

keep track of the attention that a bridge will require to stay in safe operation. These

systems have been developed over the course of many decades and are the products

of the best professional judgment of many experts. We will ensure that any findings

and lessons that come out of the investigation into the I–35W bridge collapse are

quickly learned and appropriate corrective actions are institutionalized to prevent

any future occurrence.

Bridge Research and Technology Programs

The current FHWA bridge research program is focused on three areas: (1) the

‘‘Bridge of the Future,’’ (2) effective stewardship and management of the existing

bridge infrastructure in the United States, and (3) assuring a high level of safety,

security, and reliability for both new and existing highway bridges and other highway structures.

The ‘‘Bridge of the Future’’ is intended to be a bridge that can last for 100 years

or more, and require minimal maintenance and repair—while being adaptable to

changing conditions, such as increasing loads or traffic volumes. FHWA’s bridge research and technology (R&T) programs are focusing on improving the long-term performance of our nation’s highway infrastructure in an effective yet economical way.

In the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy

for Users (SAFETEA–LU), Congress authorized and funded research in five program

areas: long-term bridge performance, innovative bridge delivery, high performance

and innovative materials, nondestructive inspection technology, and seismic research. The specific programs authorized by SAFETEA–LU are summarized in the

following:

Long-Term Bridge Performance

Long-Term Bridge Performance Program (LTBPP)—The LTBPP has been designed as a 20-year effort that will include detailed inspections and periodic evaluations and testing on a representative sample of bridges throughout the United

States in order to monitor and measure their performance over an extended period

of time. The program will collect actual performance data on deterioration, corrosion, or other types of degradation; structural impacts from overloads; and the effectiveness of various maintenance and improvement strategies typically used to repair

or rehabilitate bridges. The resulting LTBPP database will provide high quality,

21

quantitative performance data for highway bridges that will support improved designs, improved predictive models, and better bridge management systems.

Innovative Bridge Delivery

Innovative Bridge Research and Deployment (IBRD) Program—The IBRD

program encourages highway agencies to more rapidly accept the use of new and

innovative materials and technologies or practices in highway structure construction

by promoting, demonstrating, evaluating, and documenting the application of innovative designs, materials, and construction methods in the construction, repair, and

rehabilitation of bridges and other structures. This will increase safety and durability and reduce construction time, traffic congestion, maintenance costs, and lifecycle costs of bridges.

High-Performance and Innovative Materials

High-Performance Concrete (HPC) Research and Deployment Program—

The HPC program is a subset of the IBRD program. It continues the advancement

of HPC applications through targeted research that addresses needed improvements

in design, fabrication, erection, and long-term performance in order to achieve the

Bridge Program strategic outcomes. HPC research focuses on material and casting

issues, including improved performance criteria, lightweight concrete, curing, and

test methods; structural performance concerns, including compression, shear, and

fatigue behavior for both seismic and non-seismic applications; and concepts related

to accelerated construction and bridge system design and performance.

High-Performing Steel (HPS) Research and Technology Program—The HPS

research and technology transfer program is focused on resolving a number of issues

and concerns with the design, fabrication, erection, and long-term performance of

both conventional and High Performance steels. The program focuses research and

technology transfer and education in the areas of materials and joining (for example, optimized welding processes and procedures); long-term performance (including

advanced knowledge on performance limitations of weathering steels and the potential development of a 100-year shop-applied permanent steel coating system); innovative design (including testing and deployment of modular steel bridge super- and

substructure systems); and fabrication and erection tools and processes.

Ultra-High-Performance Concrete (UHPC) Research and Technology—

UHPC is a unique material which is reinforced with short steel fibers, but requires

no conventional steel reinforcing. Prior FHWA research on UHPC focused on basic

material characterization, and the development of optimized structural systems

using this very high performance, but costly, material. Under the UHPC program,

additional work will be conducted to further understand the unique structural properties of this material and assess its corrosion-resistance properties, while addressing its use in other structural components including pre-cast bridge deck panels and

pre-stressed I- and bulb-tee girders.

Wood Composite Research—The University of Maine is conducting a research

program focused in the development and application of wood/fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composite materials for potential use as primary structural members in

highway bridges.

Non-destructive Inspection Technology

Steel Bridge Testing Program—This program is focused on the further development and deployment of advanced NDE tools that can be used to detect and quantify growing cracks in steel bridge members and welds. As described in SAFETEA–

LU, the NDE technology should ultimately be able to detect both surface and subsurface cracks, in a field environment, for flaws as small as 0.010 inches in length

or depth.

Seismic Research

Seismic Research Program—The University of Nevada, Reno, and the State University of New York at Buffalo are conducting a seismic research program intended

to increase the resilience of bridges and reduce earthquake-induced losses due to

highway damage.

FHWA is also conducting and managing a number of other important bridge research projects in conjunction with various partners and stakeholder groups, all focused on improving the performance and durability of our Nation’s highway

22

bridges—both those exposed to normal everyday traffic and use, and those exposed

to the damaging effects of extreme natural and man-made hazards.

In addition to FHWA, there are a number of other organizations that sponsor

bridge research, and a much larger group of agencies that conduct bridge R&T.

These include State DOTs, industry, other federal agencies, and academia. Other

transportation modes also conduct limited bridge research, including the railroad industry.

FHWA actively coordinates the National research program with our partners and

stakeholders for agenda-setting, and in the conduct of research and delivery of new

innovations. Our staff participates in numerous national and international organizations and serves on committees focused on bridge research, development, and technology transfer. We organize formal technical advisory groups and technical working

groups, comprised of federal, State, and local transportation officials; bridge engineering consultants and industry groups; and academia to assist in the design, conduct, and delivery of the program.

An important R&T partner for FHWA is the University Transportation Centers

(UTC) Program, managed by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA). FHWA works with the UTCs to identify opportunities for collaboration

that will increase knowledge and skills among State and local highway agencies.

FHWA holds periodic workshops that bring together researchers and practitioners

from FHWA, State DOTs, TRB, and UTCs to learn about each others’ interests and

capabilities, new research opportunities, and technologies under development.

FHWA held an infrastructure workshop for UTCs and State DOTs at TurnerFairbank Highway Research Center in March 2007. FHWA is working with a number of UTCs on transportation research, including the University of Tennessee, the

University of Minnesota, Utah State University, Rutgers, and the University of Missouri-Rolla. RITA also consolidates bridge technology information from all the Department’s modal administrations to assist us in having the best available technologies.

State and local highway agencies learn of new technologies developed by UTCs

through a variety of events sponsored by FHWA. These include annual workshops

show-casing the results of UTC research on particular topics, and numerous conferences, seminars and workshops co-sponsored with specific UTCs (for example, the

‘‘Self Consolidating Concrete Workshop’’ at South Dakota State University). FHWA

also utilizes its highly successful Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) as a

mechanism for transferring technologies developed through the UTC program to

State and local highway agencies, and tribal governments.

FHWA is also an active participant with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in technology transfer such as the

AASHTO Technology Implementation Group and the Joint AASHTO/FHWA/National Cooperative Highway Research Program International Technology Exchange

Program, more commonly known as the International Scanning Program. Recent

scans have included a scan on bridge management, and a follow-on scan in 2007

on Bridge Evaluation Quality Assurance. The 2007 scan identified and explored

bridge inspection processes in use in European countries.

Ultimately, a key measure of success of any highway technology depends on its

acceptance by stakeholders on a national scale. FHWA’s responsibilities for R&T include not only managing and conducting research, but also sharing the results of

completed research projects, and supporting and facilitating technology and innovation deployment. FHWA’s Resource Center is a central location for obtaining highway technology deployment assistance. (The multiple services offered by the Resource Center are listed at www.fhwa.dot.gov/resourcecenter/.) Education and training programs are provided through the FHWA NHI (www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov).

There are a number of barriers to technology deployment that may explain the

relatively slow adoption of highway technologies that appear cost effective. Lack of

information about new technologies is one barrier that may be overcome with information and outreach programs. Long-standing familiarity with existing technologies

gained through education or experience also may hamper the adoption of newer

technologies. Education and training programs provided through the NHI often help

to transcend these types of barriers.

It also may be difficult for stakeholders to envision the long-range benefits of a

new technology relative to initial investment costs, especially if the payback (breakeven) period is long. Even if stakeholders are aware of eventual cost savings from

a more efficient or effective highway technology, they may have confidence in traditional ways of, for example, assessing pavement performance. Demonstration

projects that provide hard quantitative data can help tip the scales so that stakeholders are more willing to try and eventually regularly use innovative technologies.

23

Despite these efforts, technology deployment is also slowed by residual uncertainties about performance, reliability, installation, and maintenance costs; availability

of the next generation of the technology; and the need for the necessary technical

and physical infrastructure to support the technology in question. These persistent

barriers can be addressed with outreach programs and collaborative efforts with

stakeholders—ranging from the TRB to researchers within State DOTs—as well as

other incentives to enhance the cost effectiveness of new technologies. Taken together, these initiatives often encourage earlier and broader adoption of highway

technologies by increasing stakeholder familiarity with new technologies.

One such program is FHWA’s Highways For LIFE. (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

hfl/hflfact.cfm). The purpose of Highways for LIFE is to advance long lasting highways using innovative technologies and practices to accomplish fast construction of

efficient and safe pavements and bridges, with the overall goal of improving the

driving experience for America. The program includes demonstration construction

projects, stakeholder input and involvement, technology transfer, technology partnerships, information dissemination, and monitoring and evaluation. The innovative

technologies that the Highways for LIFE program promotes include prefabricated

bridge elements and systems, road safety audits, and tools and techniques for ‘‘Making Work Zones Work Better.’’

Perhaps the main barrier to technology deployment is the general lack of incentive mechanisms to encourage the deployment of new technologies. We need to develop better incentive mechanisms in the way the program is designed, the way we

procure, and the extent to which we rely on the private sector.

The Missouri Safe and Sound Bridge Improvement Project provides an example

of a potentially innovative way to improve incentives and encourage innovation and

private sector participation. On May 25, 2007 the Department of Transportation approved a $600 million allocation of Private Activity Bonds to the Missouri DOT for the Missouri Safe and

Sound Bridge Improvement Project. The allocation will be made available to two

short-listed bidders who are competing for a contract to bring 802 of Missouri’s lowest rated bridges up to satisfactory condition by December 2012 and keep them in

that condition for at least 25 years. The contract will be awarded largely on the

basis of the lowest level of ‘‘availability payments’’ that the bidder will accept to improve and maintain the 802 bridges. Missouri DOT will use federal formula funds

to pay the availability payments.

SATETEA–LU authorized $15 billion in Private Activity Bonds. These bonds provide tax-exempt financing for private firms to carry out highway and surface freight

transfer projects. This innovative financing approach will allow Missouri to complete

these much needed bridge improvements more quickly and, it is hoped, at a lower

cost. Other States, including Pennsylvania and North Carolina, are also interested

in this innovative approach.

Through these and other mechanisms, FHWA supports the development and implementation of innovative technology deployment practices and processes throughout the highway community.

Conclusion

The I–35W bridge collapse was both a tragedy and wake-up call to the country.

The Department’s Inspector General will be monitoring all of the investigations into

the collapse and reviewing our inspection and funding programs to decide and advise us what short- and long-term actions we may need to take to improve the program. Though we will have to wait for the NTSB’s report before we really know the

cause of the collapse, a top-to-bottom review is underway to make sure that everything is being done to keep this kind of tragedy from occurring again. The public

deserves to know and trust that our Nation’s highways are safe.

We look forward to continuing to work with Congress to give the people of this

Nation the safe, efficient, and effective transportation system that they expect and

deserve.

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. We will be pleased to answer any

questions you may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR DENNIS C. JUDYCKI

Dennis Judycki is the Associate Administrator for Research, Development & Technology (RD&T), a position held since January 1999. In this position, he is Director

of FHWA’s Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC) in McLean, Virginia, and is responsible for leadership in the development and coordination of national research and technology partnerships, corporate facilitation and coordination

of the delivery of technology and innovation, and the formulation, conduct and evalVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:07 Jan 20, 2008 Jkt 037641 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL07\091907\37641 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
24

uation of research and development. Pending the appointment of an Executive Director, Mr. Judycki served as the FHWA Deputy Executive Director for two months

at the end of 2001.

Prior to his RD&T appointment, Mr. Judycki held the position of Associate Administrator for Safety & System Applications (SSA), responsible for the FHWA programs in technology and innovation application, highway safety, traffic management

and intelligent transportation system (ITS), and training through the National

Highway Institute.

Mr. Judycki earned a B.S. in Civil Engineering from New England College in

Henniker, New Hampshire and a M.S.C.E. with a specialty in Urban Transportation

Planning and Traffic Operations from West Virginia University. After college in

1968, he joined the FHWA’s 18-month Professional Development Program in Urban

Planning. His first permanent assignment with the FHWA was as the Urban Transportation Planning Specialist in the California Division Office. In 1994, Mr. Judycki

was selected for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) position of Senior Staff Assistant to the Region 5 DOT Secretarial Representative in Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Judycki’s first position in Washington, D.C., was as the Special Assistant

to the FHWA Executive Director, a position held for five years. He was appointed

to the Senior Executive Service (SES) in 1981 as the Chief of the Urban Planning

& Transportation Management Division. In 1985 he become the Director of the Office of Traffic Operations before becoming Associate Administrator for SSA in 1990.

Mr. Judycki is a member of several professional organizations, including the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the American Public Works Association. He

is the USDOT delegate to the Board of Directors of the ITS World Congress and

the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (DECD)/European

Council of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) Joint Transport Research Bureau and

Committee.

Mr. Judycki has been recognized with numerous Senior Executive Service Annual

Performance Awards, the Secretary’s Award for Meritorious Achievement, two team

National Partnership for Reinventing Government (Hammer) Awards, the Lester P.

Lamm Memorial Award, the Secretary of Transportation’s Team Award, and the

Presidential Meritorious Senior Executive Rank Award. In 1998, Mr. Judycki received the Presidential Distinguished Senior Executive Rank Award, the top honor

within the career civil service.

BIOGRAPHY FOR BENJAMIN TANG

Mr. Tang is the Principal Bridge Engineer and Team Leader for the U.S. DOT,

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) at the Office of Bridge Technology, Washington, D.C. He leads the long span major bridges and tunnels group. He has served

with great distinction as a structural engineer and program manager in several offices within the FHWA for the past 30 years.

He is a graduate of University of Maryland (B.S.C.E.) and University of Illinois

(M.S.C.E.). He is a licensed professional engineer in Maryland and serves on several

technical committees on the Transportation Research Board, AASHTO, State Transportation Agencies and private industry.

Benjamin is the technical expert and review authority for all bridge and structural matters for the federal-aid bridge program. He is responsible for drafting federal polices and regulations. He is also responsible for developing the bridge technology program under the SAFETEA–LU. He is championing the use of innovative

bridge technologies, such as accelerated bridge construction, high-performance materials and load resistance factor design.

Mr. Tang received numerous distinguished service awards and recognition

throughout his federal career. He shared the American Society of Civil Engineers,

2007 Pankow Award for Innovation in collaboration with the developer of a cradle

system for cable-stayed bridges.

Mr. LIPINSKI. [Presiding] Thank you, Mr. Judycki, right there on

time. Next we have Mr. Harry Lee James. Mr. James?

25

STATEMENT OF MR. HARRY LEE JAMES, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR AND CHIEF ENGINEER, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; MEMBER, STANDING COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE

HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS

Mr. JAMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to be here

today. Again, I am Harry Lee James. I am the Chief Engineer for

the Mississippi DOT. I am also the former State Bridge Engineer

for the Mississippi Department of Transportation. On behalf of

AASHTO, I would like to thank you for the focus of this committee

on transportation infrastructure needs and particularly bridges,

bridge safety, and preservation; and hopefully I can provide you

with some information and answers to the questions that you have

previously provided to us.

As far as bridge inspection, the techniques that are used by the

states today range from simple to complex; simple being the inspector going out, looking at the structure, touching it, feeling it, listening to it, and to the complex inspections that require ultrasound,

magnetic particle testing, monitoring devices that have been

imbedded in a bridge during its construction as well. Many times

though the basic is the best. Keep it simple so that we can minimize the inconvenience to the public, because many times you have

to close a bridge or, at least, some lanes of traffic when you are

performing an inspection, and also for the safety of the bridge inspector as well. Many times he is precariously dangling hundreds

of feet in the air trying to manage for his own safety as well as

a multitude of equipment that he might have to carry with him to

perform his tasks. Again, basic is best in most cases.

As far as research, there is always a greater need. We need to

continue our efforts to look for the next best thing. We continue to

use proven technologies in our design and our construction. However, we can’t give up the fight for looking for new technologies out

there to help us looking at this aging infrastructure that we have.

How do we prioritize our bridge repair and replacement needs at

the statewide level? There is no single approach, there is no magic

bullet. We just have to go out there and do what we can with the

resources that we have. It takes much diligence and stewardship

on the part of the DOTs and Federal Highway to maintain the systems that we have. We are very fortunate that bridge management

systems have been helped in development by Federal Highway, and

many states have adopted these in their use to look at prioritizing

these repair and replacement programs that we have to do.

As far as consequences of what could happen short-term, what

may happen long-term, the bridges that were designed and built

back in the ’30s and up to the ’50s, ’60s, and even into the ’70s,

and we have bridges of many ages on our system of some 16,000

in the State of Mississippi, those bridges, the ones particular on the

interstates, were designed back in the ’60s are not designed for the

loads that they carry today. Consequently, they deteriorate at a

faster level than what was originally anticipated. As far as longterm, things are not going to get any better. We can build something today a lot cheaper than we could build it five years ago with

the current increases of cost of construction and other issues that

26

we have to deal with as a State highway agency. More is always

needed to assist us.

One thing that could help us is getting projects entered into our

work program at a faster rate. It is unfortunate that we have to

wait until a tragedy such as what happened in Minnesota. And

also in Mississippi, we lost two major bridges on our coast from

Katrina; it takes something like that for us to basically suspend

the rules and be able to act fast to get something back in service

in a timely manner.

It is very challenging, my job, to look at a state-wide program

and maintain it. We have the traveling public that we have to see

to, we have our construction workers, as well as our contractors,

and safety is a big issue.

I really appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to

offer some information to you, and I will be glad to take any questions that you might have. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. James follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HARRY LEE JAMES

Introduction

Mr. Chairman, my name is Harry Lee James. I am the Deputy Executive Director

and Chief Engineer for the Mississippi Department of Transportation. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Highways of the American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and I am a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Mississippi.

On behalf of AASHTO, I want to express my appreciation for your focus on infrastructure needs in America. The State Departments of Transportation (State DOTs)

consider bridge safety and bridge preservation to be one of our highest priorities,

and we take this responsibility to preserve the safety and mobility of the traveling

public very seriously.

I am here to provide you and the public with the answers to some critical questions that have been posed by the House Committee on Science and Technology

since the tragic collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis.

Question 1

A) What technologies and techniques do state departments of transportation currently use to inspect bridges? What are the benefits and disadvantages?

27

Every state conducts a thorough and continual bridge inspection and rehabilitation program. America’s bridges are inspected every two years by trained and certified bridge inspectors, conditions are carefully monitored, and, where deterioration

is observed, corrective actions are taken.

The most common and widely used method of inspection is by far the visual inspections by teams led by Professional Engineers. These can be described as using

Sight, Sound and Touch for General Inspections. Sight is the normal visual inspection technique used by all states, Sound refers to the sounding technique (use of

hammer sounding and chain drag) on concrete to integrity of the concrete (does it

crumble), and Touch refers to the 100 percent hands on Fracture Critical Member

inspection included in every General Inspection. If needed, these inspections are

supplemented by other non-destructive testing methods.

The benefit of visual inspections is that we can collect a large volume of data on

the condition of the components of every bridge. The disadvantage is that inspections are costly and time consuming. In addition to qualitatively documenting visible damage, degradation, and distress in structural elements, visual inspection can

include quantitative measurements such as loss of steel due to corrosion or the size

of cracks in concrete.

Some other common Non-Destructive testing (NDT) techniques are Magnetic Particle method for detection of cracks in suspected areas, ground penetrating radar to

evaluate bridge decks with overlays, infrared thermography and ultrasonic testing

to identify cracks that are either too small to be seen, or are beneath the surface

of the metal and dye-penetrant tests which also detect cracks that are not visible

to the naked eye. Dye-penetrant tests are inexpensive and very simple to perform.

Mag-particle is fairly easy to perform. The disadvantages are that dye-penetrant

only identifies cracks that have broken the surface of the steel. Mag-particle testing

requires relatively flat and smooth surfaces. Almost all the common technologies are

applicable to steel, not concrete or timber. All the techniques require specialized

training and often times expensive equipment.

Some other innovative techniques include special ‘‘health monitoring’’ of bridges

using special gauges and sensors. Some of these include strain gauges,

inclinometers, load cells, weather stations, corrosion sensors, humidity sensors, and

accelerometers.

Oregon is out front when it comes to using advanced technology to assess the condition of bridges. Currently they have instruments on seven bridges and have installed a device that uses air pressure to measure scour at bridge foundations on

one other bridge.

28

B) What research is needed to improve inspections?

The National Bridge Inspection Standards are periodically reviewed and updated

to reflect the latest knowledge. The last update was implemented in January 2005.

The program was changed significantly in several areas:

• The fracture-critical inspection interval was shortened (not to exceed 24

months) and the qualifications for underwater inspectors were increased (80

hours of training are now required).

• The qualification requirements for Program Managers and Team Leaders

were increased. For example, non-licensed engineers must take a 10-day class

and have five years experience, with most of that experience taking place directly in field inspection, to become a Team Leader.

• States must have a quality control and assurance program in place for their

bridge inspection program. The program should include periodic field review

of inspection teams, periodic bridge inspection refresher training for program

managers and team leaders, and independent review of inspection reports and

computations.

These recent updates to the National Bridge Inspection Standards demonstrate

that the Federal Highway Administration is diligent in updating and advancing inspection standards based on input from the states. In addition, states frequently

supplement federal inspection requirements with more detailed data collection and

analysis. For example, 40 states currently employ an element-level inspection process that focuses on individual components of a structure.

In an informal AASHTO survey conducted on Sept. 1st to which 27 states and

the USDA Forest Service replied, several areas of research were determined to be

high priority. The one most often mentioned was the need for non-destructive testing technology/equipment that is inexpensive and easy to operate for a ‘‘typical’’ inspector. Also needed are ways to effectively manage and interpret the immense

amount of data that is produced by bridge monitoring systems. In addition, with all

of the pre-stressed and post-tensioned structures currently being built, it will be

necessary to inspect the strands in these structures to determine the operating

29

structural capacity of these bridges after they have been in service and exposed to

the environment for some time. An effective way to inspect this and deterioration

of pretensioned, pre-stressed strands in pre-cast beams and boxes is needed. Loss

of pre-stress concrete capacity can occur rapidly and lead to collapse such as the I–

70 bridge in Pennsylvania.

Additional research in is also needed in ways of yielding cost-effective, efficient

methodologies for the identification and monitoring of fatigue cracks in steel members. Lastly, many states would like to see the reinstatement of the HERMES

ground penetrating radar research now tabled at Turner-Fairbank.

C) How is FHWA helping to meet these research needs?

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has been a strong supporter of

bridge research and bridge inspection and evaluation standards. Due to small staff

and limited resources, many local governments do not have the expertise to use the

technologies or review the research that is generated.

FHWA works cooperatively with the American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to fund bridge related research projects through

30

the Transportation Research Board TRB and National Cooperative Highway Research Projects (NCHRP). They also fund bridge research projects through SHRP2.

FHWA funds have been used by the states and by AASHTO for software development projects to perform structural evaluation of existing bridges and to develop

bridge management tools. Most notably, FHWA funded a pilot project with Caltrans

in the early 1990’s to develop bridge management software that contains advanced

asset-management decision-making capabilities. This software is now funded by

AASHTO and is known as PONTIS. It is used nationally and internationally.

FHWA owns and operates the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, which

provides research and development related to new highway technologies. Current

bridge inspection technologies being developed include ground penetrating radar

(Hermes II), acoustic emission monitoring. Bridge technology programs operated

under this research center include Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE) Validation

Center, the Long-Term Bridge Performance Program and Paint and Corrosion Laboratories.

The NDE Validation Center is designed to act as a resource for state transportation agencies, industry, and academia concerned with the development and testing

of innovative nondestructive evaluation (NDE) technologies.

The Long-Term Bridge Performance Program (LTBP) was launched earlier this

year. It is 20-year research effort that is strategic in nature with specific short- and

long-term goals. The program will include detailed inspection, periodic evaluation

and testing, continuous monitoring, and forensic investigation of representative

samples of bridges throughout the United States to capture and document their performance. We feel this is an important program because it has the potential to provide a better understanding of bridge deterioration and to provide better deterioration models than are now used in Pontis.

FHWA sponsors studies to develop inspection techniques and remedies for common problems found in the Nation’s inventory of bridges such as arresting fatigue

cracks, detecting and preventing protecting bridge with chlorides in concrete, detecting and preventing development of reactive aggregate.

Recently, the Federal Highway Administration’s Transportation System Preservation program, an initiative of the Asset Management division, has added Bridge

Preservation to the program. Several workshops have been held in 2007 and these

workshops have helped to identify needed research in the area of bridge preventative maintenance.

Also, the International Activities office of FHWA has sponsored several international scan tours in the area of Bridge inspection and quality control. Most recently, a European Scan was undertaken in June 2007 in the area of Bridge Quality

Control and Quality Assurance. Additionally, FHWA works to help sponsor Transportation Pooled Funds which support specific research projects Federal Highways

also provides training through the National Highway Institute and helps to disseminate information through many publications, reports, memos and announcements.

While substantial funding has been devoted to bridge research, since the passage

of SAFETEA–LU research funding has been constrained. Two factors give rise to

that constraint. First, overall research funding was less than recommended by

AASHTO and second, earmarks exceeded the total dollars made available for FHWA

research and thus constrained overall discretionary research.

The pending SAFETEA–LU Technical Corrections bill that passed the House and

is pending in the Senate would free up additional funds for the FHWA research program with no need to increase the overall cost of SAFETEA–LU. AASHTO has

urged passage of this important legislation.

Bridge Research Under SHRP 2

Recent events have again demonstrated that America’s highways, once the envy

of the world, are deteriorating, sometimes disastrously so. Through age and overuse

their capacity to safely serve America’s transportation needs is being compromised.

The Renewal focus area of the Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP

2) seeks to develop the tools needed to systematically ‘‘renew’’ our highway infrastructure to serve the 21st century in ways that are rapid, minimally disruptive to

users, communities, and the environment and that yield much longer-lived bridges

and roadways.

Highway infrastructure largely comprises three basic elements: bridges, pavements and earthworks. All three elements are showing the deterioration of age and

over-use and all three are addressed in the SHRP 2 research plans. While all three

elements are vulnerable to deterioration that might compromise the physical safety

of highway users, bridges are, by far, the most vulnerable. This fact was not lost

on the committees of experts that guided the formulation of the SHRP 2 research,

and renewal of America’s highway bridges remains a key element of the SHRP 2

31

research, despite the dramatic reduction in funds actually authorized in the

SAFETEA–LU legislation. Unfortunately, some of the originally planned research—

directly applicable to safety assessment and the maintenance and repair of existing

structures—proved unaffordable.

Bridge Research Currently Included in SHRP 2

Three current projects, with total funding of $5 million, directly address bridge

renewal, including ‘‘Durable Bridges for Service Life beyond 100 Years: Innovative

Systems, Subsystems, and Components.’’

Two other projects, valued at $8 million, address bridge renewal in part, including

one project related to ‘‘A Plan for Developing High-Speed, Nondestructive Testing

Procedures for Both Design Evaluation and Construction Inspection.’’

Bridge Research Included in the Original SHRP 2 Research Plans

TEA–21 called for the Transportation Research Board (TRB) to conduct a study

to determine the goals, purposes, research agenda and projects, administrative

structure, and fiscal needs for a new strategic highway research program or a similar effort. Among the recommendations of the committee as detailed in TRB Special

Report 260, was that ‘‘Highway Renewal’’ be included as one of the four focus areas

of SHRP 2. A subsequent detailed analysis of highway renewal research needs alone

indicated a funding need of approximately $95 million.

However, the passage of SAFETEA–LU provided only $150 million for the entire

SHRP 2 research effort; thus serious cutbacks were made in all four research focus

areas. Funding available for highway renewal research was reduced to $30 million.

Efforts to optimize the research plans and combine projects were undertaken. Nonetheless, five important bridge research projects were dropped from the SHRP 2 program, including such topics as ‘‘Bridge Repair/Strengthening Systems,’’ ‘‘Techniques

for Retrofitting Bridges with Non-Redundant Structural Members,’’ and ‘‘Monitoring

and Design of Structures For Improved Maintenance and Security.’’

32

These projects would be as valuable to the safety assessment, maintenance management, and repair of existing bridges as they would be to a program of systematic

renewal. Statements of work have already been developed for these research

projects. The cost estimates shown are bare minimums and may require some upward adjustment.

TRB is ready to coordinate the SHRP 2 research with any program pursuing this

research. The research remains significant to the achievement of the overall SHRP

2 goals.

Question 2

A) For those bridges deemed structurally deficient, how do state and local

governments prioritize repairs and replacements?

The states use a number of different methods to prioritize their bridge needs.

While there is no ‘‘single approach’’ to prioritizing bridge program candidates, all

approaches consider safety, then preservation and serviceability. Many states use a

priority type of formula or a ranking system. These formulas and rankings taking

into effect a combination variables of many different types. Some of the common

considerations, in addition to the structurally condition ratings, are load ratings,

field conditions, available funding, importance (criticality) of the bridge, average

daily traffic, and alternate or detour route length. In addition to asset management

programs and rankings, projects are scrutinized and approved through the normal

STIP process that includes approvals from State and local transportation leaders

and the transportation commissions where applicable.

One example is Oregon’s project selection method. It integrates inspection data

from PONTIS with other bridge condition data, specifically non-deterioration based

needs, including, as examples; seismic, scour, and functional deficiencies. ODOT

links various data collections to identify projects in twelve categories. Data primarily from Pontis is used to select problem bridges in the substructure, superstructure, and deck condition categories. Data outside of Pontis is used to select

problem bridges in the seismic, scour, bridge rail, deck width, load capacity, vertical

clearance, paint, coastal bridge (cathodic protection), and movable bridge categories.

Many states are moving away from a strictly ‘‘worst first’’ project selection process. Increases in the costs of traffic mobility and project staging have also influenced

the move toward targeting route segments for repair and replacement projects.

However, several states are also still using a ‘‘worst first’’ selection method, sometimes with consideration for traffic load, social effects and politics. Overall, there is

no ‘‘norm’’ in the area of prioritization.

Michigan’s Well Developed Bridge Management System

Michigan DOT has a well developed asset management program that preserves

Michigan’s bridge through a balanced approach of doing capital preventive maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement. They use a forecasting tool called Bridge

Condition Forecast System to determine the best implementable strategy of the

three types of work. Today the mix of fixes is 18 percent Preventive Maintenance,

30 percent rehabilitation, and 48 percent replacement.

The department also uses AASHTO CoRe elements and Pontis smart flags to

make project level decisions, track deterioration rate of bridge elements (transition

probabilities). Progress is monitored each year towards defined condition state goals,

and strategy is modified as needed. By slowing the deterioration rate of fair bridges

33

(keeping them from becoming structurally deficient (SD) ) and concentrating on rehabilitating (first option) and replacement of SD bridges, the state has been able

to make good progress at eliminating Structurally deficient bridges. Local agencies

have reengineered their program (once called critical bridge program, but today

called local agency bridge program), following the lead of the state trunkline program, and they are now managing their network of local agency structures.

While doing this the state has found the federal regulations regarding the Highway Bridge Program (HBP) are still too restrictive (although improving). This has

resulted in several states transferring money out of the HBP program into other

less restrictive programs. This gives a false impression that bridge money is not

needed, which is very misleading. The HBP program is becoming more flexible with

the allowance to use HBP funds for painting bridges and preventive maintenance,

however, it is still built upon the framework of the 30 year old sufficiency rating

formula that assigns a rating based upon structural deficiency and functional obsolescence.

In the latest federal highway legislation, SAFETEA–LU, the name of the portion

of the act providing funding for bridge improvement and preservation was changed

from ‘‘Highway Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement Program’’ (HBRRP) to

‘‘Highway Bridge Program’’ (HBP). Along with the name change, came increased

flexibility for states, counties, and cities to fund a broader assortment of bridge preservation projects. For example, ‘‘systematic preventive maintenance’’ now qualifies

for HBP funds. With this change, it now appears that the three broad categories

of bridge preservation are covered; i.e., replacement, rehabilitation and preventive

maintenance. However, there remains at least one important exception that prevents the HBP program from becoming what it can and should be. As it currently

stands, HBP funds still cannot be used for rehabilitation or replacement of bridge

decks when only the deck is in poor condition. The reason for this is explained

below.

Bridges qualify for rehabilitation and replacement based upon the ‘‘Sufficiency

Rating Formula, as explained in Appendix B of the FHWA’s ‘‘Recording and Coding

Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges.’’ The sufficiency rating formula is a 100-point scale. A bridge in new condition, having no deficiencies, has 100 points, and each deficiency on a bridge reduces the structure’s sufficiency rating by a predetermined value. When a bridge’s sufficiency rating falls

below 80 points, the bridge qualifies for rehabilitation, and when the sufficiency rating falls below 50 points, the bridge qualifies for replacement.

The problem, as it relates to bridge decks, is the formula gives very little weight

to the condition of a bridge deck. The formula only lowers a bridge’s sufficiency rating three points when the deck condition (NBI Item #58) is four (poor). It only lowers the sufficiency rating five points when the deck condition is three (serious) or

below. In comparison, the formula lowers a Bridge’s sufficiency rating 25 points

when, either, the superstructure (NBI Item #59) or the substructure (NBI Item #60)

conditions are four (poor). The formula lowers a bridge’s sufficiency rating 40 points,

and 55 points, when the condition of the superstructure or substructure is three (serious) or two (critical), respectively. As a result, if only a bridge deck is rated poor,

the bridge does not qualify for HBP funds.

To qualify preventive maintenance activities for HBP funds, states must work

with their FHWA division office to demonstrate they have a ‘‘systematic plan’’ for

maintaining their bridges. Once a ‘‘systematic plan’’ is demonstrated, a list of HBP

eligible preventive maintenance activities can be developed. In Michigan, preventive

maintenance activities relating to bridge decks include deck patching, expansion

joint replacement, epoxy overlays, and hot mix asphalt overlays. Rigid overlays (i.e.

* concrete, latex modified concrete, or micro-silica concrete) are classified as rehabilitation projects, therefore a bridge must meet the more stringent sufficiency ratings as discussed above.

Rigid overlays are a well-proven cost effective preservation activity for bridge

decks, especially those that receive large traffic volumes. Likewise, it is easily

shown that it is cost effective to rehabilitate or replace structurally deficient bridge

decks before more extensive damage is done to the superstructure and substructure.

It simply does not make sense to exclude rehabilitation and replacement of bridges

decks from HBP funds when the rest of the structure is in fair to good condition.

This is like saying you should not replace or repair the shingles on your home’s roof

until moisture has been allowed to penetrate and destroy the drywall or crack the

foundation.

By definition, a bridge is ‘‘structurally deficient’’ if any one of the three major elements is rated four (poor) or below. Consequently, if only the bridge deck is rated

four (poor) or below, the bridge is structurally deficient. This is an important point

to be aware of because Section 1114 of SAFETEA–LU ‘‘declares that it is in the vital

34

interest of the United States that a highway bridge program be carried out to enable States to improve the condition of their highway bridges over waterways, other

topographical barriers, other highways, and railroads through replacement and rehabilitation of bridges that the States and the Secretary determine are structurally

deficient or functionally obsolete and through systematic preventative maintenance

of bridges’’. Therefore, allowing rehabilitation or replacement of structurally deficient bridge decks is consistent and directly supported by SAFETEA–LU.

It is also important that to remember and convey that bridges do not exist in a

vacuum. Bridges are always tied to the roads they connect. Many of the structurally

deficient bridges we have are located on major freeways that are tied up in longterm corridor improvement studies, or there simply is not enough money to do the

needed improvement to the corridor or interchange. The bridge may need replacement, but that must go along with a freeway widening (adding lanes), or redesign

of an interchange. In many cases, we can not just simply fix the bridges without

doing major road improvements also.

Bridge Management Software

Currently, 43 states plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, along with

several local agencies (including Los Angeles and Phoenix) and six international

agencies, use an AASHTO BRIDGEWare® software program called Pontis®. This is

a computer-based bridge management system developed to assist in the challenging

task of managing an agency’s structures. Pontis can store bridge inventory and inspection data, formulate network-wide preservation and improvement policies for

use in evaluating the needs of each bridge in a network, and make recommendations for what projects to include in an agency’s capital plan for deriving the maximum benefit from limited funds.

Once inspection data have been entered, Pontis can be used for maintenance

tracking and federal reporting. Pontis integrates the objectives of public safety and

risk reduction, user convenience, and preservation of investment to produce budgetary, maintenance, and program policies. Additionally, it provides a systematic procedure for the allocation of resources to the preservation and improvement of the

bridges in a network. Pontis accomplishes this by considering both the costs and

benefits of maintenance policies versus investments in improvements or replacements.

Responses from an informal August 2007 AASHTO survey11 found that 17 of 37

states use an in-house computerized bridge management system that allows for

prioritization and monitoring of elements in conjunction with either Pontis data collection or an in-house database. In some cases, Pontis is used by the states as a

data collection system only, but many states are also using the management capabilities of Pontis, which allow them to predict bridge element deterioration levels

and prioritize spending.

As noted, most states have some form of computerized bridge management system

in place; however, the complexity and abilities vary. The goal of this effort may be

to better define the abilities a state should have within its bridge management system and allow for flexibility within each state to accomplish these goals in the most

efficient manner possible.

B) What are the possible short- and long-term consequences of maintaining

the current level of bridge repair and replacement efforts (if no changes

are made to the current systems)?

Most states responding to the AASHTO informal survey cite that their systems

will not be affected greatly in the short-term if there are no changes made. However, most stated that long-term effects of an unchanging system would be significant. One example can be seen in Utah, where approximately five percent of the

State system is Structurally Deficient. UDOT has developed and maintains strategic

goals and performance measures for the overall health of its bridge system, as do

many other states. Historically, funding from the Federal Bridge Programs (HPRR)

is not adequate to address all of the needs. Therefore Utah’s program is supplemented with State funds for both bridge replacement and preventive programs.

Even with the supplemental State funds, resources are not adequate to address all

of the Structurally Deficient bridges.

The consequence of inadequate funding includes increased risk. Typically states

manage the risk of structurally deficient bridges with a variety of processes including; more frequent inspections, and consideration for load restrictions, shoring, and

possible closure of a bridge. There are a large number of bridges that were built

during the ‘‘Interstate Era.’’ Many of these bridges are already functionally obsolete,

and many more will become functionally obsolete as traffic volumes increase. More

importantly, the volume of freight is expected to double in the next 20 years, and

35

the long-term trend in the industry has been for increased vehicle weight and axle

loads. Improvements in tire technology will allow even greater axle loads, and the

expanded use of drop axles has resulted in vehicles with concentrated loading that

far exceeds the standard vehicles used for load rating.

There has been insufficient funding to replace bridges at a sustainable rate. If the

funding is maintained at current levels, this trend will continue and the average

bridge age will continue to increase, while the conditions continue to decrease.

Bridges will deteriorate faster than they can be repaired and/or replaced. This will

require load limiting (posting) of bridges and/or the closing of bridges. Thus limiting

the use of the existing transportation system—significantly impacting the Nation’s

economy.

A funding program is needed that will allow states to ‘‘sustain’’ an efficient transportation system for the distant future. Since bridges have a 50 to 100 year lifespan,

the results of a non-sustainable funding program are not immediately apparent, but

will nonetheless result in significant impacts to the economy if not dealt with at a

level that will ‘‘sustain’’ the efficiency needed for economic growth.

Some states report that, in the short-term, failure to maintain SD bridges will necessitate costly ‘‘emergency’’ repairs to allow routes to remain open at required functional levels. These emergency repairs reduce funds available for more permanent

and cost effective rehabilitations

Is Current Bridge Investment Adequate?

It should be noted that currently states are spending dramatically more money

on bridges than is provided under the federal Bridge Program. For example, in 2004

the federal Highway Bridge Program provided $5.1 billion to the states. That year,

states actually spent $6.6 billion in federal aid for bridge rehabilitation. State and

local funding added another $3.9 billion for bridge repairs. FHWA reports that in

2004 a total of $10.5 billion was invested in bridge improvements by all levels of

government.

Oregon’s 10-year state bonding program is providing $1.3 billion of state funding

for the rehabilitation of hundreds of deficient bridges. This is twice the amount received in federal bridge funding.

According to U.S. DOT’s 2006 Conditions and Performance Report, the backlog of

needed repairs on National Highway System bridges alone total over $32 billion,

which includes over $19 billion needed on Interstate Highway System bridges.

Structurally deficient bridges on the National Highway System only represent onetenth of the total number of structurally deficient bridges on the U.S. road network.

As wear and tear on our nation’s infrastructure continues, it will only continue to

increase the needs in coming years.

The Conditions and Performance report also states that maintaining the current

investment level of $10.5 billion annually would reduce the backlog of bridge needs

by half over the next 20 years. An increase in that investment level to $12.4 billion

per year for bridge system rehabilitation would eliminate the backlog by 2024, excluding any kind of necessary spending on expansion or enhancements.

In addition to providing needed additional funding, we recommend investigating

what can be done to streamline processes that delay the implementation of needed

repairs on our nation’s highway system, including reducing environmental red tape

and allowing the use of proprietary engineering-related products that could spur innovation in long-term solutions.

During the last reauthorization of the federal transportation bill, SAFETEA–LU

gradually increased annual funding levels for the Highway Bridge Program by six

percent over the life of the bill (from FY 2005 to FY 2009). However, far outpacing

that increased funding have been dramatic increases in materials costs for steel,

concrete, fuel, asphalt. States report that prices jumped 46 percent over the years

from 2003–2006. In addition, the Conditions and Performance report attributes increases in the ‘‘cost to maintain highways’’ to the rising cost of construction in large

urbanized areas due to environmental mitigation and construction strategies (such

as night work) intended to reduce the impacts of work zones on users.

Aside from the well-documented dramatic increases in construction costs, there

have been equally dramatic increases in traffic, especially heavy trucks, on the Nation’s major highways. Today, the average mile of Interstate highway carries 10,500

trucks per day. By 2035, that number is expected to more than double to 22,700

trucks per day.

The truck issue also extends to overweight vehicles. As an example, in Iowa, the

DOT’s Bridge Office issues an average of 50 permits per day for trucks weighing

over 156,000 pounds, or approximately 7,500 permits per year. These trucks are

roughly twice the standard ‘‘legal’’ weight limit, causing significant wear and tear

36

on the system, but are necessary for the economic health of our country. And these

numbers are only anticipated to increase.

Thus, we are left with a system that has challenges to meet, and a program that

does not have enough funding to overcome the current backlog.

Question 3

A) How do State and local governments use the results of research and

technology development by the Federal Government?

Many states work closely with the FHWA, AASHTO, and other groups to share

technology with local government agencies and consultants. In addition, training

programs such as the National Highway Institute, Library sessions, and Webinar’s,

are used to exchange information. Similar to any field, advances in highway infrastructure typically are the result of cumulative improvements over time from many

sources instead of major breakthroughs. The Departments of Defense, Energy, Commerce, and Transportation all contributed to the state-of-the-art in structural steels,

corrosion-resistant materials, Portland cement concrete, and asphaltic concrete that

are now routinely used for highways. In addition to the materials, designs, and

practice that are currently in use, reports and research papers stemming from Federal Government programs are routinely referenced by practitioners and researchers

at State and local DOTs to make decisions on using a new technology or pursuing

further research into a new technology.

There are many excellent reports that are produced through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, under the direction of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. These reports let states know what the

leaders in certain areas are doing. Taking the time to read reports and learn about

what others have done enables individual states to avoid the expense and time of

learning the lessons that have already been learned by others. For example, the

NCHRP ‘‘Manual for Bridge Rating Through Load Testing’’ has excellent guidance

for bridge owners to test older bridges that have low calculated load capacity yet

are not deteriorated and seem to be performing well.

The results of many federal research projects are used to implement changes to

design philosophies and inspection techniques. Recent examples include the migration of our design philosophy to LRFD, the addition of new SU type rating vehicles

to the current federal rating vehicles (Type 3, 3S2, 3–3), etc. States use the results

of research from sources such as NCHRP for the inspection, testing and analysis

of bridges, when the results of the projects are directly implemented into the

AASHTO bridge design, maintenance and analysis codes or when the results of the

research is published.

In addition, most states enroll DOT staff in National Highway Institute (NHI)

courses for technical training. NHI courses are developed with the help of Federal

Government and participate in federally sponsored conference and workshops to

seek information on new technologies.

B) How do federal technology transfer programs for bridge-related research and technology development help the states?

Technology transfer programs, such as organizing conferences and NHI courses,

assist states in being aware of the current state-of-the-practice. Peer exchange programs help peers to meet and discuss best practices and issues they face every day.

The states encourage FHWA to develop periodic bridge inspection/management peer

exchange programs and program peer reviews to facilitate more discussions and improvements.

The Technology Transfer (T2) program, National Highway Institute, and other

program are extremely helpful in sharing information. The T2 program is very beneficial in that it has a dedicated staff to administer the program, reducing workload

for DOT and FHWA personnel. More information on T2 can be found at: http://

www.federallabs.org/. The Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer

(FLC) is the nationwide network of federal laboratories that provides the forum to

develop strategies and opportunities for linking laboratory mission technologies and

expertise with the marketplace. The FLC was organized in 1974 and formally chartered by the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 to promote and strengthen

technology transfer nationwide. Today, more than 250 federal laboratories and centers and their parent departments and agencies are FLC members.

In many federally sponsored technology transfer events, individuals with many

years of experience are able to share what technology had worked for them, and

what technology had fallen short. This was an excellent forum to learn about the

research being done on a recently developed paint that holds promise for a significantly longer service life. Without technology transfer programs, individual states

would not benefit from the lessons of others and would have to rely exclusively on

37

vendor information. One example of these types of events were two Bridge Preservation Workshops held earlier this year. These workshops enabled engineers from all

states to gather together and discuss issues related to bridge management and

maintenance.

In addition, technology transfer and programs such as the Innovative Bridge Research and Deployment Program (IBRD) provide a means to disseminate information, experience and ‘‘lessons learned’’ that allow states to use new materials such

as high strength steel and high performance concrete more efficiently. More information on IBRD can be found at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/ibrd/

C) What technical assistance have state and local governments received

from the U.S. DOT for steel truss bridge inspections following the

bridge collapse in Minneapolis? Was this technical assistance helpful?

Since August 1, in compliance with federal requests, every state has reviewed or

is in the process of re-inspecting its steel deck truss bridges.

Most states noted that although their FHWA division office let them know they

were available to assist, no assistance from them was needed or solicited. However,

several states noted and appreciated the numerous forms of technical assistance

provided by FHWA ranging from Technical Advisories, copies of reports, updates on

emergency efforts, national teleconferences, and meetings with the local FHWA office. A few states also noted that the technical advisories did provide a basis for a

uniform national response in light of the I–35 collapse in Minnesota.

In Georgia, it was noted that the FHWA Division participated in the inspections

of GDOT’s two steel deck truss bridge structures and GDOT appreciated their participation in the inspections.

Conclusion

We continue to make progress in addressing bridge replacement and rehabilitation needs, but there just isn’t enough money to close the gap. Each year, as bridges

continue to age and deteriorate, it is an uphill battle to keep up with the demands.

AASHTO and the State DOTs stand ready to help Congress address the needs for

transportation infrastructure in America. The tragic Minneapolis bridge collapse

rightly raises concerns about the condition and needs of the Nation’s bridges.

AASHTO and the State DOTs continue to work with NTSB and others as they investigate the cause of this tragic event, and when a cause has been identified we

are committed to working jointly with Congress to address the issue head-on and

to correct the situation in the most expedient way possible. Until that time, it is

important to avoid premature speculations, and diligently obtain all relevant data

to arrive at the appropriate solution.

BIOGRAPHY FOR HARRY LEE JAMES

After having earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering (with honors) from Mississippi State University (MSU) in 1976, Harry Lee James worked in

the private construction industry and later for a consulting engineering firm before

joining the MDOT team as a bridge designer in 1982. Mr. James was appointed

State Bridge Engineer in 1999, and in February 2003 he was appointed to the position of Deputy Executive Director/Chief Engineer. Because of his focus on bridges

throughout his career, this appointment has given Mr. James the unique opportunity and obligation to promote better and safer bridges.

Mr. James is a licensed Professional Engineer and a licensed Professional Land

Surveyor in Mississippi. He serves on the American Association of State Highway

Officials’ (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Highways, he is a member of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 12–62 Panel, and he was

formerly on the AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures. Mr. James

serves as vice chair of the AASHTO Standing Committee on TRAC and is the committee’s newest member. Mr. James believes that top-down support of TRAC, or any

program is key to its success, and he plans to bring that message to the states within his southeast U.S. AASHTO district.

Mr. James is a native of Canton, Mississippi. He is the father of two young children, both girls. Together with his wife, who is also an engineer, they hope to inspire their children to careers in transportation.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. James. I feel right at home here

with all the engineers on the panel. Dr. Womack?

38

STATEMENT OF DR. KEVIN C. WOMACK, DIRECTOR, UTAH

TRANSPORTATION CENTER; PROFESSOR OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY

Dr. WOMACK. Thank you. I am here as the Chair of the Transportation Policy Committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers, but I am also a structural engineer by training and have

been involved in the area of bridge research for the past 15 years.

I am pleased to lend ASCE’s expertise to the problem of the Nation’s crumbling infrastructure that was highlighted by the collapse

of the I–35 West bridge in Minneapolis.

Like all bridges, all man-made structures deteriorate. Deferred

maintenance allows deterioration and causes bridges to be more

susceptible to failure. As with other critical infrastructure, a significant increase in investment is essential to maintain the benefits

and to assure the safety that society demands. Research is a critical effort that can reduce the existing investment gap between the

funding available and the funding needed to improve the condition

and performance of our highway infrastructure.

The Highway Trust Fund has been an essential source of funding

for surface transportation research and technology and SAFETEA–

LU, the Surface Transportation Research, Deployment and Development and the University Transportation Research sections were

both completely programmed or earmarked and over-authorized

creating a difficult environment within which FHWA and RITA

must allocate funds. An added result to this fact is that FHWA now

has no discretionary funds to maintain certain core research programs, which means that its Turner-Fairbank Highway Research

Laboratories are underutilized, its contract research program is

limited, and such critical efforts such as the biennial Conditions

and Performance Report may be in jeopardy. The practice of extreme programming and earmarking of the research title needs to

be eliminated in future transportation authorization bills.

When looking at research in bridges, the current university and

FHWA research activities do look at materials and process. Newer,

more efficient designs can now be made due to computer analyses,

which have been researched extensively. Design methods, the newest of which is the Load and Resistance Factor Design, have been

researched and must continue to be researched to determine the

performance of these lighter structures that use materials more efficiently.

There is a need to study long-term bridge life to develop a better

understanding of how bridges age and deteriorate. This will allow

us to better predict and model bridge behavior and could lead to

improved maintenance practices and better bridge management.

The FHWA’s Long-Term Bridge Performance Program, a planned

20-year research program, should lead the way in this effort.

Obviously, to maintain bridges, more funds are needed, and more

of those funds need to go into the maintenance of the structure, not

just the deck. It is our hope that the Long-Term Bridge Performance Program will help to provide answers as to how to properly

channel our nation’s bridge maintenance funds.

Once a bridge is safely and optimally designed, it is of most use

to the public if it can be built quickly and with the least disruption

to traffic. Accelerated bridge construction can help to accomplish

39

1 ASCE, founded in 1852, is the country’s oldest national civil engineering organization. It represents more than 140,000 civil engineers in private practice, government, industry, and academia who are dedicated to the advancement of the science and profession of civil engineering.

ASCE is a 501(c) (3) non-profit educational and professional society.

this goal. Prefabrication of bridge elements and new construction

techniques are being championed by states and the Federal Highway Administration. However, performance questions remain, particularly in the area of seismic performance of these types of structures. Research into these types of questions is essential.

In terms of safety, inspection is the crux of this issue. A more

clearly defined inspection protocol should be developed through research that goes beyond visual inspections to testing and monitoring that includes instrumentation. This new protocol must be as

objective as possible with no doubt as to what steps are to be taken

and when. One way to make visual inspection less subjective is to

have it done by licensed, professional engineers and not by technicians. This, however, will lead to an exacerbation of the workforce

issue and the current shortage of civil engineers, particularly in the

transportation area.

The objective of research is to develop beneficial new technologies

that will be better performing and more durable. Though the initial

cost of these new technologies may be higher, their efficiencies and

durability will, in the long run, reduce maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation costs in addition to creating longer service lives. This

is how research can assist in closing the current investment gap

that is so well-defined in the Conditions and Performance Report.

The Federal Government should do more to encourage states to use

new technologies without requiring the states to assume all the

risk. There is an FHWA program, the Innovative Bridge Research

and Deployment Program, that is designed to provide money to

states for the use of innovating materials or technologies. This program needs to be expanded and monitored to ensure that these

funds actually go toward proving new technologies. However, at the

end of the day, procurement and procedures must be changed to

count for life cycle costs, innovation, and contractor qualifications,

or there will be no motivation to use new technologies. Successfully

and efficiently addressing the Nation’s infrastructure issue, bridges

and highways included, will require long-term, comprehensive, nationwide strategy, one that includes research. For the safety and

security of our families, we as a nation can no longer afford to ignore this growing program. We must demand leadership from our

elected officials because without action, aging infrastructure represents a growing threat to public health, safety, and welfare, as

well as to the economic well-being of our nation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I will

be glad to answer any questions the Committee would have.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Womack follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEVIN C. WOMACK

Chairman Gordon, Congressman Hall and Members of the Committee:

Good morning. I am Kevin Womack, Chair of the Transportation Policy Committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).1 I am a Professor of Civil

and Environmental Engineering at Utah State University and Director of the Utah

Transportation Center, a federally funded University Transportation Center. I serve

on the National Academies’ Research and Technology Coordinating Committee, an

40

advisory committee to the Federal Highway Administration. I am a structural engineer by training and have been involved in the area of bridge research for the past

15 years.

Thank you for holding this hearing. As someone who has worked in this field for

many years, I can say that there are few infrastructure issues of greater importance

to Americans today than bridge safety.

I am pleased to appear today to lend ASCE’s expertise to the problem of the Nation’s crumbling infrastructure that was highlighted by the tragic events of August

1, 2007, when the I–35W Bridge in Minneapolis collapsed into the Mississippi River.

I. Bridge Conditions

More than four million vehicles cross bridges in the United States every day and,

like all man-made structures, bridges deteriorate. Deferred maintenance accelerates

deterioration, which may make bridges more susceptible to failure. As with other

critical infrastructure, a significant investment is essential to maintain the benefits

and to assure the safety that society demands.

In 2005, ASCE issued the latest in a series of assessments of the Nation’s infrastructure. Our 2005 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure found that as of 2003,

27.1 percent or 160,570 of the Nation’s 590,753 bridges were structurally deficient

or functionally obsolete, an improvement from 28.5 percent in 2000. In fact, over the

past 12 years, the number of deficient bridges, both structurally deficient and functionally obsolete categories, has steadily declined from 34.6 percent in 1992 to 25.8

percent in 2006.

However, this improvement is contrasted with the fact that one in three urban

bridges (31.2 percent or 43,189) were classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, much higher than the national average.

In 2005, the FHWA estimated that it would cost $9.4 billion a year for 20 years

to eliminate all bridge deficiencies. In 2007, FHWA estimated that $65 billion could

be invested immediately in a cost beneficial manner to address existing bridge deficiencies.

The 10-year improvement rate from 1994 to 2004 was a 5.8 percent (32.5 percent

- 26.7 percent) reduction in the number of deficient bridges. Projecting this rate forward from 2004 would require 46 years to remove all deficient bridges. Unfortunately, bridges are now deteriorating at a rate faster than we can maintain them,

so this 46 year projection has grown to 57 years to eliminate all deficient bridges.

This shows that progress has been made in the past in removing deficient bridges,

but our progress is now slipping or leveling off.

There is clearly a demonstrated need to invest additional resources in our nation’s

bridges. However, deficient bridges are not the sole problem with our nation’s infrastructure. The U.S. has significant infrastructure needs throughout the transportation sector including roads, public transportation, airports, ports, and waterways.

As a nation, we must begin to address the larger issues surrounding our infrastructure so that public safety and the economy will not suffer.

II. Bridge Inspection Program

The National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS), in place since the early 1970s,

require biennial safety inspections for bridges in excess of 20 feet in total length located on public roads. These inspections are to be performed by qualified inspectors.

Structures with advanced deterioration or other conditions warranting closer monitoring are to be inspected more frequently. Certain types of structures in very good

condition may receive an exemption from the two-year inspection cycle. These structures may be inspected once every four years. Qualification for this extended inspection cycle is reevaluated depending on the conditions of the bridge. Approximately

83 percent of bridges are inspected once every two years, 12 percent are inspected

annually, and five percent are inspected on a four-year cycle.

Information is collected documenting the conditions and composition of the structures. Baseline composition information is collected describing the functional characteristics, descriptions and location information, geometric data, ownership and

maintenance responsibilities, and other information. This information permits characterization of the system of bridges on a national level and permits classification

of the bridges. Safety, the primary purpose of the program, is ensured through periodic hands-on inspections and ratings of the primary components of the bridge, such

as the deck, superstructure, and substructure. This classification and condition information is warehoused in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) database maintained by FHWA. This database represents the most comprehensive source of information on bridges throughout the United States.

It is important to note, however, that the value of the NBI is limited, although

it is certainly a useful tool to evaluate the condition of public bridges. Among its

41

limitations, a user cannot tell the condition of a specific element of the bridge, i.e.,

a girder or diaphragm or bearing. The overall rating encompasses the superstructure, the substructure, and the deck which all have unique elements. Therefore, the NBI cannot offer the kind of information that may be required for in-depth

analysis.

Two documents, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials’ (AASHTO) Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges and the FHWA’s

Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges, provide guidelines for rating and documenting the condition and general attributes of bridges and define the scope of bridge inspections. Standard condition evaluations are documented for individual bridge components as well as ratings

for the functional aspects of the bridge. These ratings are weighted and combined

into an overall Sufficiency Rating for the bridge on a 0–100 scale. These ratings can

be used to make general observations on the condition of a bridge or an inventory

of bridges.

The factors considered in determining a sufficiency rating are: S1—Structural

Adequacy and Safety (55 percent maximum), S2—Serviceability and Functional Obsolescence (30 percent maximum), S3—Essentiality for Public Use (15 percent maximum), and S4—Special Reductions (detour length, traffic safety features, and structure type—13 percent maximum).

In addition to the sufficiency rating, these documents provide the following criteria to define a bridge as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, which triggers the need for remedial action. The structural capacity of a bridge is also determined and is used to decide if a bridge should be restricted to trucks of lower

weights.

Structurally Deficient—A structurally deficient bridge may be restricted to light

vehicles because of its deteriorated structural components. While not necessarily unsafe, these bridges usually have limits for speed and weight, and are approaching

the condition where replacement or rehabilitation will be necessary. A bridge is

structurally deficient if its deck, superstructure, or substructure is rated less than

or equal to 4 (poor) or if the overall structure evaluation for load capacity or waterway adequacy is less than or equal to 2 (critical). This is on a condition scale with

ratings between 9 (excellent) and 0 (representing a failed condition). In a worse case

scenario, a structurally deficient bridge may be closed to all traffic.

Functionally Obsolete—A bridge that is functionally obsolete is safe to carry traffic but has less than the desirable geometric conditions required by current standards. A bridge is functionally obsolete if the deck geometry, under-clearances, approach roadway alignment, overall structural evaluation for load capacity, or waterway adequacy is rated less than or equal to 3 (serious). A functionally obsolete

bridge has older design features and may not safely accommodate current traffic volumes and vehicle sizes. These restrictions not only contribute to traffic congestion,

but also pose such major inconveniences as lengthy detours for school buses or

emergency vehicles.

Structural Capacity—Components of bridges are structurally load-rated at inventory and operating levels of capacity. The inventory rating level generally corresponds to the design level loads but reflects the present bridge and material conditions with regard to deterioration and loss of section. Load ratings based on the inventory level allow comparisons with the capacities for new structures. The inventory level results in a live load which can safely utilize an existing structure for an

indefinite period of time. The operating rating level generally describes the maximum permissible live load to which the bridge may be subjected. This is intended

to tie into permits for infrequent passage of overweight vehicles. Allowing unlimited

numbers of vehicles to use a bridge at the operating level may shorten the life of

the bridge.

Bridge Engineers and Bridge Inspectors:

Bridge inspection services should not be considered a commodity. Currently, NBIS

regulations do not require bridge inspectors to be Professional Engineers, but do require individuals responsible for load rating the bridges to be Professional Engineers. ASCE believes that non-licensed bridge inspectors and technicians may be

used for routine inspection procedures and records, but the pre-inspection evaluation, the actual inspection, ratings, and condition evaluations should be performed

by licensed Professional Engineers experienced in bridge design and inspection.

They should know the load paths, critical members, fatigue prone details, and past

potential areas of distress in the particular type of structure being inspected. They

must evaluate not only the condition of individual bridge components, but how the

42

components fit into and affect the load paths of the entire structure. The bridge engineer may have to make immediate decisions to close a lane, close an entire bridge,

or take trucks off a bridge to protect the public safety.

A new inspection protocol must be developed. This will involve visual inspection,

load testing, and monitoring through instrumentation of bridges. The new protocol

must be as objective as possible, with no doubt as to what steps are to be taken

and when. One way to make the visual inspection less subjective is to have them

all done by licensed professional engineers and not by technicians. This, however,

will lead to an exacerbation of the workforce issue and the current shortage of civil

engineers, particularly in the transportation arena, that is only going to get worse.

III. Bridge Design and Research

The Highway Trust Fund has been an essential source of funding for surface

transportation research and technology (R&T) for decades. Research results have led

to many benefits including: materials that improve the performance and durability

of pavements and structures; design methods that reduce scour (and the consequent

threat of collapse) of bridges; intelligent transportation systems technologies that

improve safety and reduce travel delay; methods and materials that radically improve our ability to keep roads safely open in severe winter weather; innovative

management approaches that save time and money; and analytical and design approaches that reduce environmental impacts, support sustainable development and

improve the aesthetic and cultural aspects of transportation facilities.

These benefits are provided through several major transportation research programs. In the highway area these programs include the FHWA program, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), and State department of

transportation programs largely funded through State Planning and Research (SPR)

funds. In the transit area the main programs are that of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). The University Transportation Centers (UTC) program supports various transportation modes.

In SAFETEA–LU, the Surface Transportation Research, Deployment and Development and the University Transportation Research sections were both completely

programmed or earmarked and over-authorized, creating a difficult environment

within which FHWA and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration

(RITA) must allocate funds. An added result to this practice is that FHWA now has

no discretionary funds to maintain certain core research programs, which means

that its Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center laboratories are underutilized.

The Research Center’s contract research program is limited, as is its provision of

expert technical support for states when they encounter bridge and tunnel problems.

States are now made to prove they can pay for any FHWA technical support. Finally, such critical efforts as the biennial Conditions and Performance Report may

be in jeopardy. The practice of extreme programming and earmarking of the research title needs to be eliminated in future surface transportation authorization

bills. Competition and selection on qualifications, not special interest group influence is essential for an effective research program. And the FHWA must be left with

sufficient discretionary funds to maintain certain core programs.

When looking at research on bridges, the current university and FHWA research

agenda does look at materials and process. While materials and process are areas

for improvement, the design of bridges is a well-developed discipline. In fact, one

reason the bridges in this country have lasted so long is that those 30-, 40-, and

50-year-old, or even older bridges were typically designed very conservatively with

appropriate redundancy. Newer more efficient designs can now be made due to computer analyses (finite elements), improved materials, and construction advances,

which have been researched extensively. Design methods, the newest of which is the

Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) have been researched and must continue to be researched to determine the performance of these lighter structures that

use materials more efficiently.

Better performing concretes can be made with increased durability and, if needed,

increased strength. Evaluation of this concrete with new, high strength reinforcing

bars is needed, as well as research into the engineering properties and feasibility

of using lightweight high performance concrete for bridges.

Research is ongoing at NCHRP to evaluate the remaining fatigue life of existing

older steel bridges in America. This is an important study. However we also need

to continue the research, development, and deployment of high performance steel for

bridges, with its increased toughness and improved weldability.

Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites continue to hold promise for the future

for bridges. Research to develop guidelines for using FRP in bridge decks, as well

as using FRP externally-bonded sheets as a strengthening repair system for concrete girders and piers, is important.

43

Bridge and tunnel security is an area that demands our attention. Research into

blast resistant design for bridges and tunnels and development of specifications and

training materials for bridge engineers is important to our nation’s security.

Hurricane Katrina is most known to engineers for the damage that it did to New

Orleans and the levees. What isn’t as well known is the damage that it did to

bridges in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama due to wave action, storm surge,

and debris. Research being done through a joint AASHTO–FHWA–TRB transportation pooled-fund study to develop Guide Specification and a Handbook of Retrofit

Options for Bridges Vulnerable to Coastal Storms is critical work for the safety and

operability of our nation’s bridges during extreme events.

There is also a need to study long-term bridge life to develop a better understanding of how bridges age and deteriorate. This will allow us to better predict and

model bridge behavior and could lead to improved maintenance practices and better

bridge management. The FHWA’s Long-Term Bridge Performance Program, a

planned 20-year research program, should lead the way in this effort. At present,

this program is significantly under-funded.

As for maintenance, it is based on the funding available and which bridge is most

in need of repair. That usually means deck repair, not the structure of the bridge.

When the public notices problems, such as potholes and the like, these get attention.

The public rarely notices severe structural problems unless concrete is falling from

the bottom of an overpass bridge.

Obviously, to properly maintain bridges, more funds are needed, and more of

those funds need to go into the maintenance of the structure, not just the deck. It

is our hope that the Long-Term Bridge Performance Program will help to provide

answers as to how to properly channel our nation’s bridge maintenance funds.

Once the bridge is safely and optimally designed, it is of most use to the public

if it can be built quickly and with the least disruption to traffic. Accelerated bridge

construction can help to accomplish this goal. Prefabrication of bridge elements and

new construction techniques are being championed by states and the Federal Highway Administration. However, some questions remain concerning performance in

earthquake regions. Research into these questions is needed.

In short, how bridges are designed, withstand extreme events, age, and how construction techniques and materials for bridges can improve should continue to be

researched to look for more efficient practices.

In terms of safety, inspection is the crux of this issue. I firmly believe that a more

rigorous inspection and testing protocol should be developed and this should be a

significant research topic. This is where an issue arises with the I–35W bridge. It

was inspected appropriately, issues were discovered, and then there were no strict

guidelines as to what to do next. It was decided to more closely monitor and inspect

the bridge, but that was all done visually. If a better defined protocol were developed, the next step should have been instrumentation that could have been permanently placed on the bridge to monitor its condition constantly. The chances that

instrumentation would have picked up something critical in Minneapolis would have

been much greater than further visual inspections alone. Whether or not this would

have picked up the impending failure is something we cannot know, but chances

would have definitely been better.

A more clearly defined inspection protocol should be developed, through research,

which goes beyond visual inspections to include testing and monitoring with instrumentation.

Few states or their bridge contractors take advantage of new technologies due to

the current practice of selecting low-cost bids. There usually is no incentive for the

contractors to use new technology; it is often more expensive and may have increased risk. Until life cycle costs, along with the consideration of innovative materials or construction practices, are considered in awarding bids, then nothing is

going to happen. States are very wary of using new materials and technologies, because if the technology does not work, the state becomes legally liable.

The Federal Government should do more to allow states to use new technologies,

without requiring the states to assume all the risk. There is an FHWA program—

the Innovative Bridge Research and Deployment program, with a funding level of

$13.1 million available—that is designed to provide money to states for the use of

innovative material or technologies. However, I do not believe the funds are being

used by all the states in a manner that would result in proof of new technologies.

Again, until procurement procedures are changed to account for life cycle costs,

innovation, and contractor qualifications, there is little motivation or financial incentive to be innovative.

44

IV. Addressing the Current Bridge Deficiencies

We need to adopt a risk-management approach to determine our priorities for the

maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement of bridges. We must define the greatest risk, looking at the likelihood of bridge failure and the cost in lives and money

of such a failure. We must then determine where the funds should go to ensure the

greatest return in terms of public safety. This means that the bridges in the worst

shape do not necessarily get the money for repairs if they have a low potential loss

of life and economic impact. With limited funds, this is the most fiscally most responsible way to go.

The short-term consequences are what we have seen occur-periodic bridge failures

that result in loss of life and economic loss. The long-term consequences of doing

nothing more than we do now will be potentially disastrous. As the classic bridges

(unique designs that span major rivers) become older and the Interstate bridges

reach the end of their design life, bridge collapses may become more frequent with

time, as will the resulting loss of life, and the economic consequences of tying up

the country’s major shipping lanes.

V. ASCE’s Policies Regarding Bridges

In 1988, the National Council on Public Works Improvement estimated that a

doubling of the annual expenditure on infrastructure is needed to meet national

needs. Doubling of spending, even through the use of innovative financing techniques, is unlikely. To increase productivity and reduce costs through the development of innovative design, materials, construction methodologies, rehabilitation

technologies, maintenance procedures, and operation techniques are essential, to reducing the correct investment gap that exists in caring for our surface transportation infrastructure.

Currently, there are a number of obstacles which discourage innovation on a widespread scale. Civil engineers, for example, are under increasing pressure to eschew

innovation and to be conservative in their judgment because of lawsuits, rules, regulations, legislation, standards, budget expectations and restrictions, and a desire for

financial predictability.

Fragmentation of the design and construction industry limits the support of longterm research efforts that could result in technological gains and innovation. Appropriate technical innovation and support groups can contribute to improved disaster

resilience, cost effectiveness and improved productivity and quality throughout the

infrastructure industry.

The public demands that the operation, maintenance, expansion, rehabilitation

and new construction of the Nation’s infrastructure be performed to enhance economic vitality, disaster resilience and public safety, but with minimal impact on

their lives. The public requirement calls for innovative solutions to minimize costs

of delays, environmental costs and project costs. Establishing these innovative solutions requires coordination and sustained research and development.

INFRASTRUCTURE RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

ASCE supports efforts to foster research and development related to infrastructure facilities. The goal is to enhance support of economic vitality while assuring

public safety and disaster resilience through increased innovation, productivity and

security in design, materials, construction, rehabilitation, maintenance and operations as applied to America’s infrastructure facilities.

ASCE believes appropriate methods to implement infrastructure research, innovation and security include:

• Supporting legislation and policies that encourage development of new technology and processes;

• Supporting and encouraging, through appropriate incentives, research to accelerate the development of existing technology and develop new technology

in the fields of design, materials, construction, maintenance, rehabilitation,

and operation of the infrastructure with understanding of the need for disaster resilience;

• Supporting appropriate funding for infrastructure research at the federal

level in conjunction with State/local agencies, universities and private enterprise;

• Supporting efforts to identify and disseminate information on Federal, State,

and local governments, academia and private sector infrastructure research

and development activities;

• Supporting efforts to limit the risk and liability that would discourage innovative infrastructure technology;

45

• Focusing national attention on infrastructure needs through cooperative efforts;

• Providing opportunities for academia and practicing engineers to conduct research and development activities; and

• Supporting efforts that develop and implement new strategies and technologies to mitigate the impact of disasters on the Nation’s infrastructure in

a consistent manner.

The Role of the Federal Government in Civil Engineering Research and Development

Federal R&D funding currently provides a substantial percent of the total U.S.

civilian R&D investment. Federal leadership is essential to civil engineering research. With inadequate federal funding, the ability to maximize the leveraging of

R&D funds through government-university-industry partnerships would not be possible.

ASCE supports a focused federal civil engineering research and development

(R&D) program consistent with national goals. Programs should promote new U.S.

capabilities, improve efficiencies and advance the practice of civil engineering to improve the quality of life.

ASCE encourages coordinated and integrated basic and applied civil engineering

research that leverages federal R&D funds through government-university-industry

partnerships. Programs fostering basic research should focus on maintaining a

steady flow of talent and technology to U.S. industry and agencies. Programs focusing on higher risk research with the potential for high payoff should meet national

needs and improve the quality of life by:

• Enhancing public health and safety;

• Enhancing environmental quality;

• Supporting the goals of sustainable development;

• Improving public works infrastructure;

• Improving global competitiveness in U.S. civil engineering products and processes; and

• Enhancing national security.

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH FUNDING

ASCE supports the following general principles in the reauthorization of research

and technology programs in the Nation’s surface transportation legislation:

• Improvements resulting from research and technology (R&T) are critical to

achieving national transportation goals in safety, quality of life, economic

health, environmental impacts, sustainability, and security.

• Adequate funding should be dedicated to R&T activities.

• Research programs should be conducted according to the highest scientific

and engineering standards, from priority-setting to award of contracts and

grants to review and evaluation of research results for implementation.

• Research programs should be carried out with appropriate involvement from

stakeholders in the public, private, and academic sectors.

• Technology transfer activities are critical to successful implementation of research results and should be supported with R&T funds.

• Public-private partnerships should be fostered by identifying appropriate

roles for each partner and providing incentives for private investment.

Within the context of the general principles set out above, ASCE supports the following actions regarding specific surface transportation R&T programs.

• The research and technology portion of the State Planning and Research

(SPR) program should be maintained to help support state-specific activities

while continuing to encourage the states to pool these resources to address

matters of more general concern.

• University research should continue to be supported through the University

Transportation Centers (UTC) program using a competitive selection process

that guarantees quality participants and fairness in the allocation of funds.

The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) program should be strengthened by giving it sufficient funding and flexibility to implement the recommendations of TRB Special Report 261, The Federal Role in Highway Research and Technology: to focus on fundamental, long-term research; to perform research on emerging national issues and on areas not addressed by othVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:07 Jan 20, 2008 Jkt 037641 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL07\091907\37641 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
46

ers; to engage stakeholders more consistently in their program; and to employ

open competition, merit review, and systematic evaluation of outcomes.

• A continuation of the Strategic Highway Research Program SHRP II beyond

the life of SAFETEA–LU, ensuring that critical research will be continued in

key areas of surface transportation.

• The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) research program should be

given sufficient funding and flexibility to work with its stakeholders to develop and pursue national transit research priorities.

• The new Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) should

have a well-defined scope and responsibility and appropriate funding, in addition to currently authorized research funding, so that it may supplement and

support the R&T programs of the modal administrations.

VI. Conclusion

Successfully and efficiently addressing the Nation’s infrastructure issues, bridges

and highways included, will require a long-term, comprehensive nationwide strategy—one that includes research and identifying potential financing methods and investment requirements. For the safety and security of our families, we, as a nation,

can no longer afford to ignore this growing problem. We must demand leadership

from our elected officials, because without action, aging infrastructure represents a

growing threat to public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to the economic wellbeing of our nation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my statement. I would be pleased to

answer any questions that you may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR KEVIN C. WOMACK

Dr. Womack is currently Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at

Utah State University, and Director of the Utah Transportation Center, a Federally

funded University Transportation Center.

Dr. Womack received his Doctorate degree in Civil Engineering from Oregon State

University in 1989, his Masters of Science degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1985 and his Bachelors of Science degree from Oregon State University in

1980. He has been a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers for over

20 years and currently chairs their National Transportation Policy Committee. He

has also served as a past Chair of the Technical Committee on Structural Identification and Health Monitoring of Constructed Facilities; and as a member of the Technical Committee on the Performance of Structures During Construction.

Currently Dr. Womack is also serving on the National Academy’s Research and

Technology Coordinating Committee, an advisory committee to the Federal Highway

Administration.

In 2001–02 Dr. Womack worked as an AAAS/ASCE Congressional Fellow for the

Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, under then Chairman

Senator James Jeffords. He was responsible for writing much of the research title

contained in the Senate version of SAFETEA.

Dr. Womack is a registered professional engineer in the States of Oregon and

Utah, and has worked as a consulting engineer with the firm of Kramer, Chin and

Mayo, Inc. of Seattle, Washington. He is a structural engineer by training and has

been involved in the area of bridge research for the past 15 years.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Womack. I can tell you are all engineers because you are all almost sticking within the five-minute

limit which we don’t always see.

Mr. Bernhardt.

STATEMENT OF MR. MARK E. BERNHARDT, DIRECTOR,

FACILITY INSPECTION, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC.

Mr. BERNHARDT. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, honorable Members

of the Science and Technology Committee, good morning.

Again, my name is Mark Bernhardt, and I am the Director of Facility Inspection for Burgess & Niple in Columbus, Ohio. I have

been working in the bridge inspection field for over 10 years, and

in that time I have managed, reviewed, or performed more than

3,000 bridge inspections.

47

Burgess & Niple is also a member of ACEC, the American Council of Engineering Companies. ACEC is the business association of

America’s engineering industry representing over 5,500 member

firms from across the country. On behalf of ACEC and the industry, we appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today to discuss the research and technology that contributes to bridge safety.

In order for transportation agencies to make sound decisions regarding bridge maintenance and rehabilitation, they require comprehensive information on bridge conditions. Many factors control

the validity of the data being supplied to the decision-makers.

These factors are as varied as inspector training and experience, effective of bridge management systems, inspection methods, and

available funding. All of these factors play a role in ensuring bridge

safety.

Bridge inspections in the U.S. are generally visual, thus qualitative in nature. A comprehensive study of the reliability of visual

inspection was performed by the FHWA’s Non-Destructive Evaluation Center in 2001. This study suggested that visual-only inspections provide data that is often highly variable and influenced by

many factors such as the inspector’s comfort level with working at

height, structure accessibility, and duration of inspection. It is the

general consensus within the engineering community that visual

inspection practices must be supported by rigorous training, certification, and quality assurance programs and frequently supplemented with testing techniques to ensure reliable results.

The primary non-destructive evaluation techniques utilized during the inspection of steel bridges include magnetic particle, dye

penetrant, and ultrasonics. These tests are relatively low cost, and

proven protocols have been developed for their use and the interpretation of results. For concrete bridge decks, very simple procedures such as dragging a chain across the bridge deck can be a

very good indication of hidden deficiencies. Its modern counterpart,

ground penetrating radar, can do the same thing only more objectively and with repeatability. The Bridge Inspector’s Reference

Manual which forms the basis of bridge inspector training programs nationwide details these test methods as well as dozens of

other effective methods.

What these tests and visual inspection all have in common is

that they record conditions only at a single point in time. They are

a mere snapshot of bridge conditions. While this is generally adequate for relatively low-risk structures, structurally deficient or

complex structures that pose a greater risk to the traveling public

require more. The emerging field of structure health monitoring

holds much promise for real-time evaluation of structures and objective evaluation of bridge conditions. Structure health monitoring

involves the installation of sensors under bridge components that

allow for remote collection and observation of data at any time.

These can include strain gauges, weigh-in motion systems, fiber optics, cameras, corrosion sensors, and acoustic emission equipment,

all tied to data servers and digitally accessible in real time.

Funding for research and pilot projects in this area should continue to be a priority. Bridge engineers can be most effective by

providing the decision-makers in transportation agencies with objective, data-driven recommendations. This data, combined with

48

operational risk-based factors, can be used to determine optimum

prioritization of bridge repairs.

Underlying all of this, however, is the fact that simply collecting

more data and providing more frequent inspections will not improve overall bridge safety. Additional funding for bridge repair

and replacement is required to adequately keep pace with bridge

program needs.

Professional engineers benefit greatly from the results of research and technology programs funded by the Federal Government. The traveling public is the greatest beneficiary, however.

Lessons learned and the conclusions reached during NCHRP and

FHWA research projects are effectively disseminated to practicing

bridge engineers. They are immediately incorporated into improved

design, evaluation, and analysis methods.

In the weeks following the Minnesota I–35 bridge collapse, Burgess & Niple was asked by a number of State transportation agencies to assist with the inspection of steel deck truss bridges. This

work was performed in response to an FHWA Technical Advisory.

In general, the inspections were carried out in the same manner

as those completed prior to the I–35 collapse. Investigation into the

I–35 bridge collapse is still ongoing. It will likely be some time before the investigating engineers reach a definitive conclusion as to

the precise cause of the collapse. Even if the cause of the collapse

is found to be unrelated to bridge inspection practices, it is my

hope that the dialog that has resulted from this tragic event will

lead to improvements in the field of bridge inspection and result in

a safer infrastructure system. A better understanding of bridge

conditions through the expanded use of testing and structure

health monitoring can help to improve both the allocation of bridge

repair funds and bridge safety.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am happy to answer any questions you or the Committee Members may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bernhardt follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK E. BERNHARDT

Mr. Chairman, honorable Members of the Science and Technology Committee,

good morning.

My name is Mark Bernhardt and I am the Director of Facility Inspection for Burgess & Niple, Inc. in Columbus, Ohio. I have been working in the bridge inspection

field for over 10 years and in that time I have managed, reviewed, or performed

more than 3,000 bridge inspections and 160 load ratings.

Burgess & Niple is also a member of ACEC, the American Council of Engineering

Companies, the business association of America’s engineering industry representing

over 5,500 member firms across the country. On behalf of ACEC and the industry,

we appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today to discuss the research and

technology that contributes to bridge safety.

Bridge deterioration is a significant problem facing transportation agencies nationwide. This is evidenced by the more than 73,000 structurally deficient bridges

currently listed in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI). In order for federal, State,

and local agencies to make sound decisions regarding bridge maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement programs, they require comprehensive information on

bridge conditions. Many factors control the validity of the data being supplied to the

decision-makers in transportation agencies. These factors are as varied as inspector

training and experience; effectiveness of bridge management systems; inspection

methods; and available funding. All of these factors play a role in ensuring bridge

safety. In today’s testimony, I will focus my comments on just one of these areas—

inspection methods. Specifically, I will outline some common techniques and technologies employed during bridge inspection operations, the emerging field of Structure Health Monitoring, and the effectiveness of technology transfer programs.

49

BRIDGE INSPECTION TECHNIQUES

Bridge inspections in the U.S. are generally visual, thus qualitative in nature, and

follow the requirements outlined in the National Bridge Inspection Standards.

Bridge inspections are performed to determine if any immediate hazards exist that

would warrant reducing allowable loads on a structure or closing it entirely; to ascertain the extent of deficiencies or structural damage resulting from deterioration

or other causes; and to enable bridge maintenance, repair, or replacement to be programmed effectively through early detection of deficiencies.

The primary tool employed by bridge inspectors today is the eyes. A comprehensive study of the reliability of visual inspection was performed by the FHWA’s NonDestructive Evaluation Center in 2001. This study suggested that visual-only inspections provide data that is often highly variable and influenced by many factors

such as the inspector’s comfort level with working at height, structure accessibility,

and duration of inspection. With regard to localized defects in superstructure members, the study found that less than 8% of the inspectors successfully located weld

cracks and other implanted defects in test bridges. It is the general consensus within the engineering community that visual inspection practices must be supported by

rigorous training, certification and quality assurance programs, and supplemented

with testing techniques to ensure reliable results.

Many common and proven non-destructive and destructive testing techniques are

available to the inspector to supplement visual observations and provide more useful

quantitative data. Additionally, the emerging field of Structure Health Monitoring

holds much promise for real-time evaluation of structures and objective evaluation

of bridge conditions. Providing more quantitative data to bridge program managers

enables them to more effectively allocate bridge rehabilitation dollars. One current

challenge with these tests, however, is how to best integrate the results into existing

Bridge Management Systems.

The primary nondestructive evaluation techniques utilized during the inspection

of steel bridges include magnetic particle, dye penetrant, and ultrasonics. These

tests are relatively low cost, and proven protocols have been developed for their use

and the interpretation of results. For concrete bridge decks, very simple procedures

such as dragging a chain across a bridge deck can be a very good indication of hidden deficiencies. Its modern counterpart, Ground Penetrating Radar, can do the

same thing, only much more objectively and with repeatability. Electrical potential

can be measured to assess corrosion of embedded reinforcing steel, samples of concrete can be extracted for laboratory testing, and Impact Echo tests can be used to

locate voids in post-tensioning ducts. The Bridge Inspector’s Reference Manual,

which forms the basis of bridge inspector training programs nationwide, details

these test methods as well as dozens of other effective methods.

LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT PRACTICES

What these tests all have in common, as well as the federally mandated NBI inspections, is that they are often used to record conditions only at a single point in

time. They are a mere a snapshot of bridge conditions. While this is generally adequate for relatively low risk structures, structurally deficient or complex structures

that pose a greater risk to the traveling public require more. This is where Structure Health Monitoring holds the most promise. Structure Health Monitoring involves the installation of various sensors and monitors onto bridge components that

allow for remote collection and observation of data at anytime. These can include

strain gages, weigh-in-motion systems, fiber optics, cameras, corrosion sensors, and

acoustic emission equipment, all tied to data servers and digitally accessible in real

time. While a number of successful structure monitoring programs have been implemented, the technology is still emerging. Funding for research and ‘‘pilot projects’’

in this area should continue to be a priority. Bridge engineers can be most effective

by providing the decision-makers in transportation agencies with objective, data

driven recommendations. The structural condition data, combined with operational

‘‘risk-based’’ factors such as traffic counts, can be used to determine optimum

prioritization of bridge repairs.

Underlying all of this, however, is the fact that simply collecting more data and

providing more frequent inspections will not improve overall bridge safety. The engineering and scientific community can help to improve the relevance of the data by

further researching advanced testing techniques. Additional funding for bridge repair and replacement is required to adequately keep pace with bridge program

needs.

FHWA LONG-TERM BRIDGE PERFORMANCE PROGRAM

Presently, the FHWA is in the process of rolling out its Long-Term Bridge Performance Program. This proposed 20-year program will provide the funding and opVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:07 Jan 20, 2008 Jkt 037641 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL07\091907\37641 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
50

portunity to develop standard protocols for the myriad of nondestructive testing

methods, sensors, and monitoring systems available. The engineering community requires more knowledge in the areas of life cycle costs, deterioration models and

mechanisms, and validation of the effectiveness of repair and rehabilitation strategies to improve the practice of bridge management. Another goal of this long-term

program is to provide such data. I would encourage the Members of Congress to continue funding this essential program when its budget comes up for renewal.

FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

Professional Engineers benefit greatly from the results of research and technology

programs funded by the Federal Government. The traveling public is the greatest

beneficiary, however. Lessons learned and conclusions reached during NCHRP and

FHWA research projects are effectively disseminated to practicing bridge engineers.

They are immediately incorporated into improved design, evaluation and analysis

methods.

In the weeks following the Minnesota I–35 bridge collapse, Burgess & Niple was

asked by a number of State transportation agencies to assist with the inspection of

steel deck truss bridges. This work was performed in response to FHWA Technical

Advisory 5140.27—Immediate Inspection of Deck Truss Bridges Containing Fracture

Critical Members. In general, the inspections were carried out in the same manner

as those completed prior to the I–35 collapse. Some additional focus was placed on

the gusset plate connections between members due to speculation that this was an

area of concern on the I–35 bridge.

The investigation into the I–35 bridge collapse is still ongoing. It will likely be

some time before the investigating engineers reach a definitive conclusion as to the

precise cause of the collapse. Even if the cause of the collapse is found to be unrelated to bridge inspection practices, it is my hope that the dialogue that has resulted

from this tragic event will lead to improvements in the field of bridge inspection and

result in a safer and improved infrastructure system. A better understanding of

bridge conditions through expanded use of testing and Structure Health Monitoring

can help to improve both the allocation of bridge repair funds and bridge safety.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and I am happy to answer any questions you or the

Committee Members may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR MARK E. BERNHARDT

Education

Purdue University—BS, Civil Engineering, 1991

Registration

Professional Engineer—Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Montana, New York,

Ohio, Texas, Utah, Virginia

Summary

Mr. Bernhardt joined Burgess & Niple in 1997 and is Director of the Facility Inspection Section. In his present position he manages a staff of engineers who perform structural condition assessments of bridges, towers, dams, and buildings. Before joining B&N, Mr. Bernhardt gained experience performing forensic structural

inspections of various facilities nationwide. His professional work experience includes the following:

• Project management of large structural inspection projects

• Bridge inspection and load rating analysis

• Quality control/quality assurance reviews

• Performance of condition assessments of existing structures

• Structural evaluations in the wake of natural disasters such as fires, rock

slides, hurricanes, and earthquakes

• Use of high-angle rope access techniques to inspect large buildings, dams,

towers, and bridges

• Determination of the cause of structural failure

• Design of repairs for distressed and deteriorated structures

He has managed, reviewed, or performed more than 3,000 bridge inspections and

160 load ratings and climbed more than 100 bridges. Many of these inspections have

utilized both destructive and non-destructive testing techniques to evaluate conditions. Mr. Bernhardt has authored a number of papers on bridge inspection and is

51

a qualified NBI Team Leader experienced with AASHTO and FHWA inspection

manuals, PONTIS, and the use of computer equipment and software for inspection

and load rating. He is also a member of Ohio’s FEMA Urban Search and Rescue

Team in the position of Structural Specialist. Mr. Bernhardt holds a Bachelor of

Science degree in Civil Engineering from Purdue University and is a Registered Professional Engineer in 10 states.

Relevant Background

Bridge Inspection—Project Manager, QA/QC Manager, NBI Team Leader, or team

member on various bridge inspection projects, including a variety of bridge superstructure types such as arch, girder, suspension, and truss and involving various

materials including steel, concrete, and timber. Mr. Bernhardt has accessed more

than 100 large bridges by utilizing adapted rock climbing techniques. Representative bridge inspection projects include:

• FHWA Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division Federal Lands and

National Parks Bridge Inspections, Nationwide—Project Manager for

task orders that included NBI inspections of more than 600 bridges located

in Yellowstone National Park, the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Natchez Trace

Parkway, and Golden Gate National Park and other Federal Lands.

• Statewide Bridge Inspections, Arizona—Quality Control Engineer and

Project Manager for multiple projects that have included more than 1,000

NBI inspections, 160 bridge load ratings using GT–Strudl and VIRTIS, and

development of rehabilitation plans for more than 20 bridges.

• Bronx-Whitestone Bridge, New York, New York—Team Leader for NBI

inspection of the floor system of this major suspension bridge utilizing adapted rock climbing techniques.

• Brooklyn Bridge, New York, New York—Project Manager for installation

of accelerometers and other equipment on the bridge using industrial rope access techniques as part of a seismic study of the bridge.

• Statewide Fracture Critical Inspections, Alaska—Fracture critical inspections of 30+ steel truss and arch bridges located throughout the state.

NBI Team Leader and project Quality Control Engineer. Access to the structures was gained by the use of adapted rock climbing techniques.

• Local Agency Bridge Inspections, Oregon—NBI Team Leader and Quality Control Engineer for Local Agency NBI inspection projects completed in

Oregon that have included more than 1,500 bridges of a variety of sizes and

materials.

• Peace Bridge, Buffalo, New York/Fort Erie, Ontario, Canada—Quality

Control Engineer for the NBI inspection of this multinational bridge. Inspection reports completed for the NYSDOT, Peace Bridge Authority, and Ontario

Transportation Ministry.

• Concrete Bridge Deck Evaluations, Montana—Performed detailed condition assessments that included chloride ion sampling, concrete coring and

compression testing, half cell testing, and chain drag surveys for 14 interstate

bridges.

• Concrete Bridge Deck Evaluations, Arizona—Performed detailed condition assessments that included chloride ion sampling, concrete coring and

compression testing, half cell testing, ground penetrating radar, and chain

drag surveys for 133 bridges located throughout the state.

• Monroe Street Bridge, Spokane, Washington—Performed detailed condition assessment of this historic concrete arch bridge in conjunction with an

extensive bridge rehabilitation project.

• Dames Point Cable Stay Inspection, Jacksonville, Florida—Performed

the first ever, detailed hands-on condition assessment of the steel stay cables

using adapted rock climbing techniques.

• Hope Memorial Bridge, Cleveland, Ohio—NBI Team Leader on inspection

of steel truss bridge.

• Robert O. Norris Jr. Bridge, Williamstown, Virginia—NBI Team Leader

on inspection of steel truss bridge.

Structural Collapse/Disaster Response—Performed structural condition assessments and structural safety inspections in the aftermath of fires, hurricanes, earthVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:07 Jan 20, 2008 Jkt 037641 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL07\091907\37641 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
52

quakes, and other incidents. He is a Structural Specialist on the Department of

Homeland Security’s FEMA Urban Search & Rescue Team for the State of Ohio.

• Hurricane Katrina, Gulf Coast—Deployed to Gulfport and Pass Christian,

MS, in the aftermath of hurricane to perform structural assessments of damaged buildings in conjunction with search and rescue operations. The USAR

team searched more than 2,500 structures.

• Hurricane Andrew, South Florida—Evaluated structural damage at 100+

office buildings, warehouses, apartment complexes, homes, etc., and determined the scope of required repairs for damaged buildings. Also involved in

a research study for an insurance company that identified the parameters

which had a significant effect on the performance of residential structures

subjected to hurricane force winds.

• Deer Island Tunnel, Boston, Massachusetts—Deployed to construction

site in Boston Harbor following fire in a tunnel access shaft. Sewage outfall

tunnel was being bored 300 feet beneath harbor. Performed post-fire safety

inspection of access shaft and tunnel. Developed debris removal plan and supervised remediation efforts to ensure that the areas were safe for construction operations to resume.

• Northridge Earthquake, Northridge, California—Performed structural

evaluations of buildings damaged by earthquake. Developed repair scopes and

cost estimates.

• Post-Earthquake Evaluation of Tanana River Bridge, Tok, Alaska—

Deployed immediately following earthquake to perform structural safely evaluation of 1,000-foot truss bridge located on the Alaskan Highway. Industrial

rope access techniques were used to achieve hands-on inspection of all portions of structure and avoid the need for heavy mechanical access equipment

on the bridge.

• Taco Cabana Roof Collapse, Las Vegas, Nevada—Performed forensic

structural investigation following roof collapse in restaurant on opening night.

Structural Condition Assessment—Performed condition assessments of existing

structures, evaluation of building materials, assessment of integrity of building systems, determination of the cause of failures, and design of repairs for distressed and

deteriorated structures. Used computer programs to aid in the analysis of complex

structural systems. Some notable projects and structures investigated and assessed

include:

• Peterson v. Mission Viejo Corporation, Highlands Ranch, Colorado—

Evaluated foundation and slab movements for a builder involved in a classaction lawsuit. Over 1,000 single-family homes were involved in the suit. Developed a database to manage and analyze the data collected during inspection and survey work performed on approximately 200 of the homes. Developed foundation repair plans for the homes requiring repairs.

• Soldier Field, Chicago, Illinois—Performed a structural condition assessment of the stadium as part of a periodic monitoring program at the facility.

• Miller Park Baseball Stadium, Milwaukee, Wisconsin—Condition assessment of steel roof superstructure connections.

• Heritage Villas, Laughlin, Nevada—Condition assessment of walls and

roofs at 90+ unit condominium complex.

• Rhodes Tower, Cleveland, Ohio—Performed a condition assessment of the

pre-cast concrete fac ̧ade on 20-story building. Investigated moisture infiltration problems and used industrial rope access techniques to inspect the

fac ̧ade.

• Westin Hotel, Kansas City, Missouri—Performed a condition assessment

of specific components of the hotel complex and a structural analysis of a concrete canopy.

• Executive Tower Inn, Denver, Colorado—Investigation of masonry fac ̧ade

on 30-story building and structural analysis and rehabilitation of concrete

floor slabs.

• Hyatt Regency Tech Center, Denver, Colorado—Investigation of foundation movements. Developed parking garage rehabilitation details.

53

• Various Facilities—Performed condition assessments and structural analysis of components or entire buildings at the following facilities:

– North Star Steel—Youngstown, Ohio

– Jefferson at Greenwood Apartment Complex—Greenwood Village, Colorado

– Super Saver Cinema—Denver, Colorado

– Westminster City Hall—Westminster, Colorado

– Barton Fieldhouse—Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

– Proctor & Gamble 6th Street Parking Garage—Cincinnati, Ohio

– Northview Shopping Center—Westminster, Colorado

– Rainbow Shoppes—Westminster, Colorado

– Renaissance Apartments—Los Angeles, California

– Idlewild Condominiums—Reno, Nevada

– Westwood Westside Apartments—Iowa City, Iowa

– Metro Dade County Administration Building—Miami, Florida

– Cedar Cove Condominium Complex—Aurora, Colorado

– Cherry Creek Towers—Denver, Colorado

– Northside Assembly of God Church—Colorado Springs, Colorado

– Mt. Carmel West Medical Center Parking Garages—Columbus, Ohio

Material Testing—Experience evaluating and testing a wide range of structural

building materials including reinforced and pre-stressed concrete, masonry, steel,

and timber. Has utilized both destructive and nondestructive testing techniques including the following:

• Magnetic Particle Testing

• Impact Echo

• Ultrasonic Testing

• Concrete Coring

• Sampling for Chloride Ion in Concrete

• Dye (Liquid) Penetrant Testing

• Ground Penetrating Radar

• Half-Cell Potential Measurements in Concrete

• Timber Boring

• Ground Penetrating Radar

Training

Technical Rescue Awareness—Washington State Homeland Security Institute, 2007

Bridge Inspection Training—FHWA/NHI/Alaska Department of Transportation,

2006

Haz Mat First Responder Operations Level Training—Environmental Options, 2006

IS–200 Basic Incident Command System (I–200 for Federal Disaster)—FEMA/US

Fire Administration, 2005

IS–700 National Incident Management System (NIMS)—FEMA/US Fire Administration, 2005

Swiftwater/Surface Water Rescue—Ohio Region III Rescue Strike Team, 2005

WMD Terrorism Awareness for Emergency Responders—National Emergency Response & Rescue Training Center, 2005

Urban Search & Rescue Structures Specialist Training—FEMA/USACOE, 2004

Weapons of Mass Destruction Response Operations—FEMA/US Fire Administration,

2004

IS–100 Introduction to the Incident Command System (I–100 for Federal Disaster

Workers)—FEMA/US Fire Administration, 2004

Cold Regions Engineering—University of Alaska/University of Washington, 2003

Effective Bridge Rehabilitation—University of Wisconsin, 1999

NDT Techniques (Dye Penetrant, Magnetic Particle, Ultrasonics) Training—

Staveley Schools, 1998

54

Bridgeview Bridge Inspection Software Training—Oregon Department of Transportation, 1998

Confined Space Entry Training, 1997

Bridge Climbing/Industrial Rope Access Training—Burgess & Niple, Limited, 1997

Seismic Design Using the NEHRP Recommended Provisions—Structural Engineers

Association of Colorado, 1995

Wood Construction Seminar—Wood Products Council, 1993

Concrete Repair Basics Seminar—Rocky Mountain Chapter ACI, 1992

Papers and Presentations

‘‘Hurricane Katrina—Assessment of Structural Damage During FEMA USAR Operations,’’ Water One, Wilmington, Ohio, October 2005.

‘‘Post-Earthquake Evaluation of Tanana River Bridge at Tok, Alaska,’’ International

Bridge Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, June 2003.

‘‘Scanning the Spans,’’ Arizona Roads & Streets Conference, Tucson, Arizona, April

2003.

‘‘The Evolution of Bridge Inspection Techniques & Tools,’’ Transportation Systems

Center 2000 Workshop, San Antonio, Texas, February 2000, and Ohio Transportation Engineering Conference, Columbus, Ohio, 2001.

‘‘Statewide Bridge Deck Survey Using Ground Penetrating Radar,’’ Structural Materials Technology IV—An NDT Conference, Atlantic City, New Jersey, 2000.

‘‘Non-Destructive Testing of Bridge Decks Using Ground Penetrating Radar,’’ Midwest Bridge Maintenance Working Group, Ft. Mitchell, Kentucky, 2000.

‘‘Condition Assessment of Arizona’s Concrete Bridge Decks,’’ Western Bridge Engineers’ Seminar, Seattle, Washington, October 1999.

‘‘Bridge Inspection and Rehabilitation,’’ Arizona Public Works Association/Arizona

Society of Professional Engineers, 1999 Statewide Conference, Flagstaff, Arizona, August 1999.

‘‘In-Depth Inspection of Arizona’s Steel Bridges,’’ Arizona Department of Transportation 1998 Transportation Conference and Expo, Phoenix, Arizona, 1998, and

TRB International Bridge Management Conference, Denver, Colorado, 1999.

‘‘Forensic Engineering,’’ ASCE Student Chapter—Colorado School of Mines, Golden,

Colorado, 1996.

DISCUSSION

Mr. WU. [Presiding] Thank you very much, Mr. Bernhardt. The

witnesses and everyone in the room have been witness to what frequently goes on here. The Chairman has had to step away to introduce his bill in another committee. I apologize to the witnesses. I

have two other committee hearings going on right now and had to

step away quickly to cast a vote, and my apologies, but I hope I

haven’t missed too much of the context of your spoken statements

and from your written statements. And at this point, we enter into

the question phase, and the Chairman recognizes himself for five

minutes.

Mr. Bernhardt, you talked about a number of different testing

methods, and some of the other witnesses referred to them also in

their written testimony. Non-destructive testing has been commonplace in other industries, for example, in aviation for quite some

time. And Mr. Judycki and Mr. Tang, your research center has

worked on many of these testing methods, and yet bridge inspection continues to be primarily a visual process. Can you discuss for

us what some of the barriers to adoption are and not just in terms

of cost but also some of the non-cost barriers to adoption? And Mr.

Bernhardt, why don’t we begin with you, and then we will start at

the other end of the table for anyone else who has some input on

this.

55

Mr. BERNHARDT. That is an excellent question. I think some of

the primary barriers would be related to just the reluctance to

change. I think sometimes within human nature there is always a

reluctance to change, and people want to stick with what they are

comfortable with and don’t want to try new testing methods and

techniques; and I think that is part of it. Additionally, I think any

time a new testing technique is rolled out and introduced, there

has to be an infrastructure behind it to provide the training and

the support to the personnel on the field that are going to use that

system. If it is a computer-based system, certainly there has to be

the infrastructure there to keep pace over the years as the computer system gets updated or the technology gets updated. So it is

not just buying a testing tool once, there has to be the commitment

from the agency to continue using that into the future and provide

the training and resources necessary to make sure the personnel

are using it properly into the future, too. Many times an agency

will get a new tool or testing technique. They will use it for a little

bit, and then that person may move on, that is, the one person in

the agency that knows how to use that; and that knowledge will

be lost. So that maybe comes into play a little bit when agencies

are making a decision on what technology to adopt and what equipment to purchase.

Mr. WU. Mr. Judycki? Mr. Tang?

Mr. JUDYCKI. Let me just pick up on a couple of points, Mr.

Chairman. First of all, the Federal Highway Bridge Research and

Technology Program is about a $22 million program that is available, and part of that, as Dr. Womack mentioned, it is all designated, in fact over-designated, to the point that we were concerned about the flexibility, or the lack of flexibility, in putting a

program together. About $900,000 is available to us and is being

used effectively in our non-destructive evaluation laboratory and

for non-destructive work on new inspection technologies and techniques. And we can talk about that some more. But on the barriers

to innovation, which are critically important, certainly just sheer

inertia, is to new technologies. And adopting new technology is

very important, as was mentioned. There is also a resource issue,

and certainly new technology is very often more costly without

clear evidence of long-term benefits; and that is obviously a barrier,

as well as the natural unwillingness to accept risk.

So I think that some of the solutions certainly relate to more effective communication as we look to deployment as well as possibly

providing incentives, and providing incentives to advancing new

techniques, innovations, into the marketplace is something that we

think holds a great deal of potential.

Mr. TANG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Federal Highway

has adopted many of the innovative, non-destructive evaluations.

Over the past 20 years, we have supported a lot of research, and

many of the products are out there on the market as a result of

our research. And if you look at some of the non-destructive evaluation, we have different phases of these applications. For example,

when you go to visual inspection and you determine that you need

a little bit more in-depth look into a specific detail, then we will

bring in the non-destructive evaluation methods such as the ultrasonic testing or the acoustic emission. These are more advanced

56

than the non-destructive evaluation that we have used, and we

have offered in our training program to include techniques so that

we can train inspectors to use them.

Mr. WU. I am going to stretch my time just for a follow-up with

Dr. Womack. Dr. Womack, you suggested that perhaps requiring licensed professional engineers would be a step forward in bridge inspection. Would that help also the inertia problem in adoption of

new technologies?

Dr. WOMACK. I believe it would help, but one of the reasons that

you don’t go beyond visual inspection is a human resource issue.

How many trained engineers do you have that can go out and perform these inspections? And so it becomes a resource issue in terms

of trained engineers, and the number of trained civil engineers is

becoming less and less. So that is an issue. It would help, but it

is part of the problem. I think kind of following up on the rest of

the discussion, there is a convenience issue here as well. It is very

convenient and efficient to go out and do visual inspections. They

are quick, you get some data, you can put that into the database.

Non-destructive evaluation takes more time. Usually you have to

set up equipment. Oftentimes you have to have road closures. So

the states are a little bit wont to do that because of the inconvenience of it. I think as a follow-up to visual inspections where there

are issues, certainly NDE must be used, and I think that is part

of this protocol that has to be defined.

Mr. WU. Thank you, Dr. Womack. And with that, Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, this is just a

terrible problem of fear of people in the driving public. In our state,

we have a State engineer and we have 254 county engineers; and

we have direct access to them to ask them questions about it. I

could ask Mr. Bernhardt whether or not the current inspection

methods are sufficient. I would like for him to state yes. I doubt

seriously that he is going to, but you know, we even have—we have

all kinds of fears. We even have the fear of asteroids coming by,

and we did a study on asteroids about 15 years ago and found out

one had come within 15 minutes of the Earth in 1988 and nobody

knew it was here until it came and went by. And it is the size of

one of the states up in the northeastern part of this country.

This is the thing that can really be fearful for people. Every time

anybody drives up on one of those high arching areas like we have

near the big cities basically. I think it strikes some fear into their

heart, what can happen. So I guess when I ask you, Dr. Bernhardt,

if the current inspection methods are sufficient and you are going

to say the factors have a lot to do with it, I guess continuous use

of it, the stress of it, the weight at the time that the tragedy occurs,

the deterioration of the past, the force of wind or rains or your typical westward wind or your typical eastern wind that could affect

a particular bridge or movement of the underlying earth, it is so

many things that play into that. I don’t know how on Earth with

the number of bridges that we have that you can answer that with

any degree of finality, but you want to take a shot at it?

Mr. BERNHARDT. Yes, sure. Statistically speaking, with 600,000

bridges, I feel safe driving over a bridge; but on the other hand,

I wouldn’t be surprised if I read in the paper tomorrow that another bridge fell down. So certainly, like any programs, there are

57

improvements that can be made both in the training of inspectors,

the implementation of the program, and then what we do with the

data on the back end.

I think one of the larger issues is that we don’t have the mechanisms in place now from my perspective to address the deficiencies

the inspectors are currently finding. So I mean as an example, if

we doubled our inspection frequency and inspected bridges twice as

often and produced twice as many inspection reports and twice as

many recommendations, the ones——

Mr. HALL. And take twice as much tax money.

Mr. BERNHARDT. Yeah, the recommendations we make now often

aren’t addressed because the funding is not available. So certainly,

on the repair side, there needs to be some changes there to get that

caught up with the needs that the inspectors are currently finding

now. That being said, I think there are certainly improvements

that can be made in the bridge inspection process to make it more

uniform throughout the United States, improve the certification of

bridge inspectors, both PE’s and non-PE’s that help in the inspection process. A good example is, you know, in the current NBIS

regulations, the program manager position and the team leader position are the two positions that are required to have the 80-hour

comprehensive bridge inspection training. The rest of the inspection team is not required to have that training. Certain states have

more stringent requirements and require all members of the inspection team to have the inspection training, but according to the

federal guidelines, you could go be an inspector on a bridge under

the guidance of a team leader who has had the class, but it could

be your first day on the job, and you could be inspecting a bridge

with probably little or no knowledge about the performance of

structures. Errors like that can be addressed in the National

Bridge Inspection Standard to improve the quality of the inspections.

Mr. HALL. I guess asteroids are not as normal as Katrinas, but

we don’t even know when they are coming. How about Dr. Womack

if I have a little time left. In your testimony you said new inspection protocol ought to be developed; and I guess that is what Mr.

Bernhardt is talking about. Do you want to enlarge on that any?

Dr. WOMACK. Currently there is a standard for the frequency of

visual inspections, but beyond that, there is really no defined process. As Mr. Bernhardt said, you know, you can develop a lot of

data, but what does it mean and what do you do with it? So I think

we need to define a protocol where if the visual inspection shows

up issues, that there ought to be some sort of follow-up to that

rather than just more frequent visual inspections. Maybe there

should be some defined non-destructive evaluation that needs to be

performed or something else to be done that is a little more objective than just more frequent visual inspections.

Mr. HALL. Was that standard followed leading up to the I–35

tragedy collapse in Minneapolis?

Dr. WOMACK. From what I know of that situation, they were inspecting the bridge more frequently than required. They had some

options to do some things and they just chose to continue the more

frequent visual inspection. Now, that is not to say that if they had

done something different such as putting instrumentation on the

58

bridge that it wouldn’t have collapsed or that we wouldn’t have

known about it anyway; but perhaps with instrumentation, there

might have been some precursor information to some issues on the

bridge. And so that is what is not defined. When you do find bad

things with a bridge, what do you do next; and that is not at all

a well-defined process.

Mr. HALL. I may have to do it by mail later, but I would like to

kind of know what new processes are in place and whether or not

people are following them and whether or not they are making

records of the fact that they follow them and that we can rely on

the fact that they are following them and they are effective.

Mr. Chairman, you will leave open the opportunity for us to

write and seek answers from them if we don’t get to follow-up questions, will you not?

Mr. WU. Yes, I will do that.

Mr. HALL. I yield back the time I don’t have.

Mr. WU. Questions will be submitted in writing, and answers

will be returned in writing. Mr. Lipinski.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow-up. The

end of the answer to the last question there, when you find something wrong, what do you do next? What problems are we facing

right now? Is it a real need to have that type of protocol? It certainly makes sense that it would make sense. Is our bigger problem

just a lack of taking action because of a lack of funding to be able

to do anything when we do find that there is a problem? So is it

right now largely a money problem, or is it both a combination of

a money problem and where we just do not have the protocol in

place as to okay, we find a problem, what do we do next to try to

avoid a catastrophe? So who wants to start with that question? Dr.

Womack.

Dr. WOMACK. I am probably not the best person to answer that

question. I would guess it is somebody from the state who has a

better feel on the available dollars would be better put. But I think

it is a lack of knowing what to do next, but I think it is maybe an

issue in terms of determining how the available monies are spent.

And coming from that point of view, I think that you need to take

more of a risk assessment approach in terms of utilizing the funds.

Where is the highest risk, and inspections non-destructive evaluation can help you determine what the risk is. And then you need

to side on a more risk-assessment analysis, where to spend the limited amount of funds.

Mr. LIPINSKI. I will go to Mr. James since you are not the DOT.

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir. If you will think of a bridge very much like

a person, a bridge is born after many months and sometimes years

of development, thought and development. They are born, they

have a life expectancy when they are first put under traffic, 50, 75,

sometimes even 100 years. As the bridge ages due to just the natural deterioration, as we each do our own bodies: We go to a doctor;

we have a physical. We look at things. That is an analogy to the

bridge inspector out there. He looks, he finds something. If it is

something that can be arrested to stop deterioration or to even

keep it from becoming a chronic condition, that is what we look to

do to basically preserve what we have so that we can get the fullest

life expectancy of what we have out there. Many times funding,

59

though, drives those decisions. I think you have heard the term

worst first? Many times that is what we have to do because we

have no choice. That is not what we would like to do because many

times that is not the best of our resources that we have.

So each state is different. We have to look at it from our own perspective. We try to use low-cost construction, maintenance-friendly

details when we design and build our bridges. Again, it is one thing

if you are looking at an aircraft fuselage in a hanger using nondestructive testing and something else if you are out there 100 foot

in the air on the end of a bucket with a rope sling around you trying to manhandle some non-destructive equipment to figure out

whether you have got a problem or not.

So, the inspector develops a relationship with a bridge. He goes

and looks at it many times, and what he is looking for is change

to see what the difference is from what he saw the last time he

looked at it.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. Mr. Judycki, did you want to add something?

Mr. JUDYCKI. Yes, and then I will turn it over to Mr. Tang. I

asked him to mention fracture critical members in a moment. But

I would just make the observation that there are some process

issues here, and I think that one of the things that Federal Highways has very much as part of our culture, is to make improvements in processes and procedures as the need comes to light. We

did this after the 2001 NDE evaluation of inspection techniques

that really resulted very directly in quality control and quality assurance and additional training being required as well as the operating inspection certification. So, I think that the ability to learn

from these experiences and build it into national processes and certification standards in the NBIS program becomes very important.

With that though, I think that if I could turn it over to Mr. Tang,

I would.

Mr. TANG. Mr. Lipinski, I think you mentioned about the finding.

If an inspector finds something wrong with the bridge, what do you

do? In our National Bridge Inspection Standards, we do have a

term called critical finding. Then every inspector when they attend

training, the first thing they are told to do is if they see an unsafe

bridge, close it. That is the immediate action that they have to

take. After that, they would have to bring in their more experienced people to determine if they should keep the bridge open for

traffic or should they repair it immediately. So in terms of critical

finding, if there is such a critical finding on the bridge, they would

have to immediately repair it, fix it, or close the bridge. That is in

our regulations.

Mr. LIPINSKI. If the Chairman will let me just ask for a brief follow-up. How often does it happen? How often are bridges closed because it is a very difficult thing to do, to close a bridge because of

inconvenience in some locations? How often is that done? Do you

think—how bad does a bridge have to be and how often is it done?

Mr. TANG. First of all, even during inspection time, when you

have inspection equipment on the bridge, there may not be room

for opening to traffic; so sometimes they do close part of the bridge

to even get the inspection gear into position to inspect it. Now, how

often, this is the question that we don’t have the answer in the

60

sense of a broad answer for it. It is left up to the inspectors. They

are trained to determine that when they need to close a bridge,

they will close the bridge.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you very much.

Mr. WU. I would like to thank the gentleman. The gentleman

from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. James, I enjoyed

your analogy, as you know I would as a physician member. I would

say that a follow-on to Mr. Tang’s remarks in regard to Mr. Lipinski’s question about if you find something, when do you say, you

know, we are going to have to inconvenience the public. We are

going to have to shut this bridge down for long-term safety, maybe

a short time shutting it down. It is kind of like the individual patient. You can tell them that they need to do something, but you

can’t make them do it. But I think people at the state level, Mr.

James, certainly have the ability to say you are going to be inconvenienced. I was in New York a couple of weekends ago, and I had

the opportunity to drive through the Lincoln Tunnel and then later

on across the Brooklyn Bridge, both aging structures; and after this

Minnesota tragedy, I couldn’t help but think about when the last

time they had been inspected.

But my comments are getting to a question that I am going to

address to Mr. Bernhardt. But again, Mr. James, your analogy to

the human being, there is a test that is a little bit more than an

X-ray that looks for calcium in and around the heart. And I have

a good friend that had that test done, and the doctor said, oh, you

have got a tremendous amount of calcium showing up on this test.

Therefore you need to have an angiogram. You need to have a dye

study of your coronary arteries. It was completely normal. And that

test is expensive and not without some risk. So what I am saying

is, there are certain tests that show something, but it is not significant, though that calcium was all outside of the arteries. It wasn’t

inside the arteries.

So Mr. Bernhardt, the question is do you think that visual inspection, even though you are talking about professional engineers

and highly trained, motivated people, can get the job done? What

are the limitations of purely doing it that way, and do we need to

move quickly toward better testing? And if there is time, Mr.

Chairman, and maybe in the second round if there is not time, I

want to go back to Dr. Womack’s comments and his opening statement and also Mr. Judycki in regards to this issue of programming

or earmarking away a lot of funding in SAFETEA–LU that took

the ability out of your hands to use that money to do research programs. You know, I don’t want to get too political here. We all have

member initiatives, and I am one of them. I got these great programs in the State of Georgia that I want to see funded, but I

think we need to talk about that, Mr. Bernhardt.

Mr. BERNHARDT. Yeah, visual inspection, in and of itself, certainly isn’t going to give you enough information to gather the data

that you need to make effective decisions about bridge rehabilitation. It must be supplemented with testing, both non-destructive

and destructive testing; and in some cases the structural health

monitoring is what holds so much promise for the future, too, because the structural health monitoring can provide a continuous

61

data stream, whereas if I go out and do NDE, non-destructive evaluation on a bridge today, that is showing me what the conditions

are like today. If I have monitoring equipment installed on that

bridge that is giving me continual feedback, it can even be set up

to have alarms where it is monitoring the stresses in the members.

I am getting more of a continuous feed of data. So certainly that

is an advantage for that type of testing. Visual is only going to provide you with so much, and it is going to be very qualitative data.

It is going to be subjective. I am going to rate something a four,

somebody else is going to rate something a six; and I pass that information on to the decision-maker and policy-makers, and they are

like, well, what does this mean? I got two different answers coming. And that is because visual is very subjective. The more testing

and instrumentation we can do, that helps to make the whole process much more objective. So that is a big benefit for that, too.

Additionally, when you have hard data being supplied to you,

you can make more effective decisions about which bridges do I

need to direct my funding towards. You may have a condition rating on an element that says that this bridge is in poor condition.

Well, the actual stresses in the member may be okay. So by doing

some instrumentation and further analysis, you may be able to determine that the bridge doesn’t actually need repairs, and that

money can be directed somewhere else. And you wouldn’t be able

to tell that through visual alone, but only through testing and analysis and modeling would you get the answers to those questions.

Mr. GINGREY. I see my time is expired, and I guess the second

part of that question I will save to the second round, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from Texas,

Ms. Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I guess that

my question could be directed to the representatives. In

SAFETEA–LU there were a number of bridges designated because

the states had them on their critical list. However, I don’t know—

in Texas, I have over 50,000 bridges. And I–35, which had the collapse in Minnesota, is one of those bridges designated. And I did

earmark the money, and I will do it again; and I am never going

to stop earmarking, because if we don’t, my areas don’t get anything. And so I just want to know that when you decide through

examination what bridges are in critical condition, how do you handle it? Do you go to your Congress people or feud about it or what

happens?

Mr. JAMES. Ms. Johnson, we work within the resources that we

have. If we find a bridge with critical needs, then many times we

will direct the resources from one part of the program to that particular area so that we can make a rehabilitation or replacement

of that structure so that that problem goes away. It is a matter of

prioritization and taking into account many factors in those decision as to which bridges receive the critical treatment first. Of

course, if one is about to be closed or hopefully never reaches that

state, then obviously many more resources are directed toward it

to keep things open. They take into account the impact on the general public as well as the safety of the public as well.

62

Ms. JOHNSON. Well, you indicated that visual decisions after

bridges are inspected usually can be considered accurate. And what

other methods do you use to inspect the bridges?

Mr. BERNHARDT. I will take that one. Essentially, are you speaking specifically to what type of testing techniques?

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. BERNHARDT. There is a number of tried and true ones which

are commonly used by many state DOTs, magnetic particle,

ultrasonics, dye penetrant for steel bridges, ground-penetrating

radar, impact echo. Those are all concrete methods that work on

concrete bridges. FHWA has a Bridge Inspector’s Training Manual,

and it details more than a dozen common testing techniques; and

the bridge inspection training that team leaders and program managers take cover all these techniques. Additionally, State DOTs

have seminars where they train their people on how to use those.

So those are kind of the tried and true methods.

And then there is a whole host of emerging technologies. Some

work out, some are just a flash in the pan. But those are the main

ones.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. You know, the states had rescissions

even after the money was sent out the last time. So we still don’t

have any work going on on those so-called critical bridges, but

hopefully it will begin soon. There is no money in Washington, as

you know, and I don’t think there is very much in states because

my state just told me that they had no money for maintenance,

which is maintenance that was very important. And so, we have a

bipartisan committee out of our delegation. We are going to be getting together to see how we handle it. So if you don’t get any federal dollars any time soon for this, how would you handle a critical

bridge?

Mr. JAMES. Again, we work with the resources we have. If there

are needs of a bridge, we will direct state dollars for it to keep it

from being closed to take whatever actions are necessary for it to

remain safe and open to the public. Again, we use best management practices, we use details from our design and construction

that are maintenance friendly, proven to be very cost-effective during the construction as well as details having longevity and are

also friendly to bridge inspection. So you do whatever is appropriate as far as the inspection visual. It is by far, you know, the

easiest and the first place to start; and the more complex a bridge

structure becomes, you go from there using whatever technologies

are available to you. And the same thing would be with the repair,

whatever is appropriate. You take whatever actions are necessary.

Very similar to Dr. Gingrey’s comments about the, you know, a patient. Sometimes you look and you find something and it is there

but it is not a problem, so you just continue to monitor it.

Ms. JOHNSON. Unpredicted weather conditions that occurred,

have you known any bridges that might have checked okay and

then after that, some kind of catastrophe, you find it is in a different shape? I am sorry. I hope I am not giving a confusing——

Mr. JAMES. No, ma’am. I can’t speak for every state what each

state has found. I know in our state we have not found anything

that is, you know, weather related. Obviously the two bridges we

lost from Katrina were weather related, but I don’t think anybody

63

could have prevented some act of God like that. As far as something that we look at one year and then come back a year later,

nothing that has led to any catastrophe or tragedy within our state

boundaries.

Mr. BERNHARDT. In terms of weather related problems with

bridges, probably the greatest one is what is known as scour. Essentially when you have a bridge, you have a big rainstorm event,

the stream fills up with water, the velocity of the water increases,

and it will scour out around the foundations for the bridge; and

there have been bridge collapses that resulted from scour. So scour

is certainly one of those critical items that bridge inspectors pay attention to and monitor stream beds, and if there was one primary

weather related cause of bridge failures, it would have to be scour.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WU. Thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from Michigan,

Dr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much. My mother always told me

that scouring was good. It was a typical Dutch housewife.

When I went off to college, I started out in engineering, and I

went astray and became a nuclear physicist; and I have always

maintained a great interest in engineering and I have a huge

amount of respect for it. I was with Buckminster Fuller once who

is one of the more imaginative engineers in the history of the profession. He commented that the first time engineering ever really

had to develop as an engineering science was in the design of boats

because you had to design the boat very carefully using minimum

materials, minimum weight to carry maximum load, whereas before in building buildings, for example, you just kept piling the

bricks on until you were safe or even the Roman aqueducts which

have survived for 2,000 years. They used a lot more bricks, a lot

more material than they really needed to transport that small

amount of water. There wasn’t a lot of engineering then.

And you know, Buckminster is right in a number of ways. We

have really advanced. We have learned to build buildings using the

minimum amount of material, minimum amount of money, how to

accomplish the goal. I think airplanes are the epitome of success

and design in trying to use minimum weight, minimum dollars to

accomplish the task.

Bridges are another good example of that, and I am just awed

by what engineers have done in bridge design construction; but I

am not sure that we have kept up as a society in our examination

and inspection of those. And my question is first of all, is it a lack

of knowledge, and lack of technology? Aren’t we putting enough

into research for non-destructive testing techniques and so forth.

Or is it another case where we are simply as a society willing to

pay for the initial structure, whatever it may be; but we are not

willing to pay adequately for the maintenance. Can you give me

any comments indicating where we have gone wrong? Is it a lack

of resources or is it a lack of research in non-destructive testing

techniques? Any comments from anyone?

Dr. WOMACK. I guess I can go first. I don’t think it is due to a

lack of research. We have technologies, many testing methods that

have been mentioned at this table. So we have the ability to do it.

I think you are more right in terms of we are willing to pay the

64

first cost, although that first cost that we are willing to pay is the

lowest we can get, which isn’t always the best. But we are willing

to make that first cost. Then we are trying to catch up with other

new bridges and other repairs, so we tend not to go back and spend

the money that should be spent in terms of monitoring the infrastructure that we have. And so I think we need to continue to do

research to develop new technologies, but it is not a shortage of

technologies that is creating the problem.

Mr. EHLERS. Okay. So, Mr. Bernhardt. You advocated continuous

inspection. Is there much of an additional price tag to that compared to the periodic investigations?

Mr. BERNHARDT. Certainly. It is much more expensive to instrument a bridge up that initial time. Once the bridge is instrumented, then you get that continuous data stream. I will just make

clear too that I certainly don’t advocate that for every type of structure. Certainly focusing that on the more high-risk structures, the

structurally deficient bridges, the fracture critical bridges, I mean,

that is a good use of that type of technology. Certainly for a 20-

foot span that doesn’t see much traffic and it is very simple structurally, there is really no need to go to that kind of expense. It is

the more sophisticated structures that you want to use that technology on. And certainly as Dr. Womack indicated, technology exists now to do those things, so it is not on the research end. It is

getting the projects funded to put into practice where the shortfall

is.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. Mr. James, you were kind enough to

single out the State of Michigan as having an excellent bridge management system. Frankly I don’t know of any bridges that have collapsed recently in the State of Michigan, and we have built the Big

Mac which has stood firm for 50 years now this year. I appreciate

your comments. But again, this is another related question about

causes of bridge failure. You mentioned scouring. That applies to

any bridge. Michigan, as well as Minnesota, suffer a lot of damage

through the freeze-thaw cycle, Michigan much more than Minnesota because Minnesota, for better or for worse, freezes over in

November and doesn’t thaw until March sometimes. I used to live

there so I know. Whereas Michigan has probably 15 freeze-thaw cycles they go through in the course of a winter. Maybe that is extreme but doesn’t that cause a lot of damage to bridges? I know it

does to highways, but what about bridges? Is that a factor there,

too, the constant temperature changes?

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir, it is, and that is taken into account in the

design of bridges and their construction and the materials and the

properties of the concrete for instance in the deck when they are

constructed. There are many things that can be due to prescribe a

particular mix that will minimize or at least mitigate these temperature changes that you mentioned. We are fortunate in the

south that we don’t experience things like that. We typically don’t

use salt, either, because we don’t have the ice and snow to deal

with except, you know, those very few times within any season.

There are things that, you know, can be done. Again, it goes back

to doing what is appropriate, trying to narrow the focus of where

these technologies are needed to the high-risk bridge candidates as

much as possible using engineering—experience counts a lot for

65

what you are doing. Bridges again have lives 50, 75, even 100

years in some cases. Many times that is not by design but just by

necessity that bridges have to last longer than they were ever

thought to. With that, if you look at a bridge that is 50 to 75 years

old, I have been with the state DOT almost 26 years. That is nearly two careers for somebody in my position to see, you know, the

life of a bridge; and many times, it takes a structure that is, you

know, 30 to 40 years old before something comes up, very similar

again to the analogy with a person; and you do whatever is appropriate. You know, you find something that requires constant monitoring, you look at it until you get it arrested or corrected. If you

find something else that you need to look at, you look at it once

and then you don’t go back in there. You wouldn’t expect to find

it again for five to 10 more years. However you would still do the

routine physical so to speak, the visual inspection of the bridges.

Mr. EHLERS. And one last quick question on a slightly different

subject but same problem. Dams, and I am not talking now about

the huge dams, I am talking about the smaller dams that we have

dotting the landscape of our country that we used for power generation years ago. Is it as important to have a constant inspection

program for the dams? Is that as much of a problem or don’t they

suffer as much stress or as much failure as the bridges?

Mr. JAMES. While those are not under my purview as highway

engineer, in many cases we have dams adjacent to roadways, and

obviously we are concerned with them. Many states or most states

have monitoring procedures whereas dams have to be inspected on

some frequency, just similarly to bridges; and where appropriate,

they could be monitored and from that monitoring you could determine whether or not that you have an intrinsic or chronic problem

with a structure.

Mr. EHLERS. My time has expired. I yield back. Thank you.

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Dr. Ehlers. We have a floor vote

coming up fairly soon, so we are going to proceed with another

round of questions. We will probably proceed pretty quickly, and

the Chairman recognizes himself.

There are bridges in this country that have lasted 50 or 100

years. There are bridges elsewhere, the Roman aqueducts, bridges

in China, that have lasted 1,000 years; and the bridges that have

lasted a long time were both conservatively, perhaps over-engineered, they have lasted a long time. We have newer bridges that

are being built with the assistance of computer modeling and, you

know, just going if you will closer to the limits of what design and

materials can do. Do these new designs necessitate different approaches to bridge inspection and bridge safety?

Mr. BERNHARDT. Yeah, I would certainly answer yes to that

question. A good example would be the use of post-tensioning or

pre-stressing of concrete beams in bridges. You may have post-tensioning cables inside of a bridge to give it strength, but you could

never see through those cables. So certainly you constructed a

bridge where one of the primary structural elements you will never

be able to visually see. In that case, you must have some type of

sophisticated, non-destructive evaluation method to examine those

structural elements 25 years from now, 50 years from now as those

elements start to deteriorate inside the bridge itself.

66

Dr. WOMACK. Let me add a couple of words to that. This is where

I think the research in non-destructive evaluation can occur. We

have developed technologies to look at the bridges we have. Now,

with these newer bridges and newer construction methods, we don’t

necessarily have the technologies to assess those as in post-tension

or pre-tension bridges. So we need to develop through research concepts that we can use to non-destructively evaluate these newer

types of bridges. So along with the new design, we need to come

up with new ways of evaluating them through testing.

Mr. JUDYCKI. Let me just add a couple of things and then just

ask Mr. Tang to follow up. Quite a lot of the research investments

now are in new materials for bridges and it is critically important

that as we explore the application of new material, ultra-high-performance concrete, high-performance steels and so forth—that we

assure in advance that we build that into codes and standards and

specifications as we implement around the country. SAFETEA–LU

in fact directs quite a lot of resources into research into new materials that will lead to new designs as we conduct our research.

Also, I had mentioned earlier the Bridge of the Future. Much of

what we are talking about really needs to be put in the context of

where we should be looking for the future and where research can

bring us in the future. The Long-Term Bridge Performance Program was mentioned by a couple of people here at the table. And

it is critically important that we collect information and data over

a long-term so that we can develop predictive models on deterioration and impacts of maintenance on bridge systems. When we are

really talking about a bridge of the future, that we will have

bridges that are not only constructed with ultra-high-performance

materials but also sensing systems that will help us a great deal

in overcoming some of the barriers that we are now facing with inspection programs.

Mr. TANG. Mr. Chair, I believe when you mentioned about the

deterioration rate of different types of bridges, they indeed have

differences. Most of the damage comes from corrosion, and if you

look at the bridges that we built in the past, corrosion has been the

major contributor to bridge deficiency; and as a result, Federal

Highway has done a lot of research on corrosion aspect of it. If you

look at 20 years ago, 25 years ago, we didn’t have any corrosion

protection on our deck. Federal Highway went out and did the research, and using the results, we are now requiring, or we then

have required a corrosion protection system on our deck system to

make it last longer. And also, our corrosion research in our TurnerFairbank Facility has also looked at epoxy-coated rebar, and now

we are looking at galvanizing those rebar and stainless steel, which

we are implementing in our projects now. And in the design code,

the AASHTO LRFD code requires a 75-year design life, and they

actually have criteria specifying that design life to be considered in

the design.

Mr. WU. Thank you very much. My understanding is that Mr.

Hall has no further questions at this point. Dr. Gingrey?

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to state at the

outset when I made that comment about directed initiatives and

the concern that it might handcuff the bureaucrats as we like to

say sometimes, not meaning that in a pejorative way from making

67

decisions, certainly my colleague from Texas, if every Member’s

member initiatives were as good and honest and forthright as hers

are, we wouldn’t have a problem with earmarks I am sure. But I

just, you know, brought that up because I am concerned that

maybe there are certain areas in which member initiatives may not

be appropriate if it takes funding away from something that we

need to do.

But let me get to my question. I just wonder if there is some

technique other than visual inspection. We talked about that a lot

at this hearing, and we know that we have good visual inspectors.

But is there some technique non-destructive that can be used as a

retrofit for existing bridges? The bridge of the future, I think that

is probably easier to deal with in how we construct new bridges

and sensors and things that we can put. But is there something

that we can use in existing structures in a non-destructive way

that goes far beyond visual inspection?

Mr. BERNHARDT. I will take a stab at that one. Basically I think

what you are asking is—I mean, there is no magic bullet, first of

all. There are many different types of bridges, and what technique

works on one certain type of bridge will not work on another one.

So there are many specific types of testing that work on specific

bridges. I think what holds the greatest promise would be structural health monitoring. If you can instrument a bridge and thus

know day to day a little bit more about what is going on inside that

bridge, that reduces your level of risk. I mean, engineers tend to

be conservative by nature, and if I have to make a decision to close

a bridge or keep it open, I am going to typically be conservative.

But if I have hard data that I can look at each day that lets me

know how that bridge is behaving, then maybe I can stretch the

life of that bridge a little bit longer because I get a better comfort

level since I am getting that data. So instrumentation can give you

that.

Mr. GINGREY. Anybody else want to comment on that?

Mr. TANG. Yes, I believe some of the sensor technology is very

good, and some of the existing bridges we have used acoustic emission monitoring or ultrasonic type testing device and sensor technology on that now we are hoping to research to find ways to put

them into practice. For example, it is not like one-size-fits-all as

Mr. Judycki mentioned earlier. We have to look at the specific

problem and the nature of the needs of the bridge. I think there

are technologies out there that will be appropriate, and we just

need to further develop them because right now a lot of that information is available, but it is not proven. And as Mr. James mentioned earlier, we are looking at proven technology. And so it would

take time to develop some of these into usable results so that you

don’t just have a lot of data coming in and not knowing what to

do with those data.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. WU. Thank you. And as we bring this hearing to a close, I

want to thank our witnesses for coming, in some instances, very

long distances and for testifying before the Committee today. The

record will remain open for additional statements from Members

and for answers to any follow-up questions the Committee may ask

68

of witnesses. The witnesses are now excused, and the hearing is

adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(69)

Appendix 1:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

70

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dennis C. Judycki, Associate Administrator, Research, Development,

and Technology, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon

Q1. One of the major challenges facing the Nation’s bridges is significant growth in

traffic loads, including a greatly increased number of long haul trucks, which

stress bridges far beyond the loads engineers originally anticipated. In his testimony, Mr. James said that the volume of freight is actually expected to double

in the next 20 years. How do current research projects, such as the Bridge of

the Future project at FHWA, take into account the continuing growth in the

number of cars and trucks using bridges? Do we need additional research or

data to accurately model the types of loads bridges will be handling in 50 or

100 years?

A1. The issue of traffic growth impacts existing structures more so than newly designed structures. Today’s bridge codes and standards account for the current legal

weight of trucks, regardless of the number of vehicles. Assuming that truck weights

do not increase significantly, structures designed today should be able to accommodate the volume of, and growth in, the number of vehicles crossing a typical highway bridge in the United States.

However, traffic growth will impact existing structures, especially those that were

constructed in the 1940s through 1970s, more directly. Legal truck loads have increased over this time, resulting in a number of ‘‘load posted’’ bridges throughout

the United States. In addition, our knowledge of how certain types of steel and concrete members and details perform under repetitive loading has increased since

these structures were designed and constructed. Bridge owners are fully aware of

the potential impacts and solutions required to provide adequate levels of safety in

these existing structures under the current maximum legal vehicle weights. This is

typically done by limiting the maximum loading, inspecting important structural details with more advanced tools and on a more frequent basis, or by retrofitting these

structural details.

Two FHWA programs, the Bridge of the Future and the Long-Term Bridge Performance Program, are directly focused on providing better knowledge and tools for

ensuring long, reliable service of the Nation’s highway structures. The Bridge of the

Future project is focused on design, materials, and construction practices that will

make possible significantly longer performance for newly constructed (or reconstructed) bridges, so that they require less maintenance in the future, while also

being more readily adaptable to meet changes in demand (for example, simple methods to add additional lanes when traffic volumes increase significantly). The LongTerm Bridge Performance Program is focused on developing quantitative data on

the things that impact existing bridge performance, such as load, environment, and

typical maintenance practices. This program will result in better knowledge and

tools to more effectively and economically manage the hundreds of thousands of

highway structures in the future.

Q2. Many bridge inspection technologies are not adopted by State DOTs because inspectors simply find them too technical and difficult to use. How can we balance

the need for detailed, accurate information and user friendly design?

A2. The problems that bridge inspectors experience are similar to problems experienced in the inspection of other types of infrastructure, including buildings, pipelines, offshore oil platforms, and dams. There is therefore a significant amount of

effort ongoing throughout the United States and worldwide to develop new and improved infrastructure inspection tools and approaches. As a result, the state-of-theart in infrastructure inspection is changing and improving on a continuous basis

and we anticipate dramatic improvements in these inspections tools and their availability in the next five to ten years.

There are several impediments, however, to the adoption of these new tools and

technologies by bridge inspectors. As pointed out, some of the current tools are too

technical or difficult to use, especially in the harsh environments and difficult access

typically found at bridges. This is being overcome by continuous improvement in

these technologies—by making the information provided more readily understandable; by making the tools smaller, lighter, and more portable; and by decreasing the

cost so that bridge owners and inspectors can better afford these new tools. However, education and training on the use of these new tools is also required. Through

71

the training courses developed and delivered by our National Highway Institute,

FHWA educates inspectors on new technologies to overcome the issues of technical

complexity. FHWA is committed to working with industry and bridge owners to address each of the potential impediments.

Q3. Of the new technologies developed at Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

or in collaboration with FHWA, how many are currently in use by bridge inspectors? Which programs, such as the Local Technical Assistance Program or National Highway Institute courses, have been most effective for technology transfer? What have been the biggest barriers to adoption, and what has FHWA done

to try to overcome those barriers?

A3. Over the past 15 to 20 years, a number of bridge inspection and monitoring

technologies have been developed or supported through the efforts of FHWA’s Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC). Overall, we can identify approximately 15 specific sensors and system types, many of which have been commercialized or are currently being refined for use by the commercial sector.

Examples of these technologies include the following:

• FHWA developed a system to measure vertical and rotational stiffness of

bridge foundations using truck loads as a method to differentiate between

shallow and deep foundations on bridges where the foundation type is unknown. The methodology was subsequently commercialized and is currently

available from a firm located in Arlington, MA.

• FHWA developed three-dimensional imaging capabilities using ground penetrating radar (GPR) technology, enhancing the ability of GPR to detect deterioration in concrete bridge decks. The technology has been adopted by commercial GPR venders and is used for rapid evaluations of multiple bridge

decks, providing information for bridge management and asset management

decision-making.

• FHWA developed a sensor to passively measure the maximum strain experienced on a bridge to detect and quantify overloading. The sensor has been

commercialized and is currently available from a firm in Alpharetta, GA.

• In cooperation with Southwest Research Institute (San Antonio, TX), FHWA

developed and evaluated systems for testing large bridge cables using the

magnetic flux leakage principle. The technology has since been commercialized and is being marketed by several companies.

• FHWA developed methods and engineered systems for rapidly applying thermal imaging for the detection of defects in concrete bridge components. This

has since been commercialized and is marketed as Infrared Thermography,

and is used on a limited basis for bridge inspection.

FHWA continues to support the development of new bridge inspection and monitoring technologies and to assist in the improvement of existing technologies. We

also actively promote and provide assistance in the use of these systems. Ultimately,

however, a key measure of success of any highway technology depends on its acceptance by stakeholders on a national scale. FHWA’s responsibilities for research and

technology (R&T) include not only managing and conducting research, but also sharing the results of completed research projects, and supporting and facilitating technology and innovation deployment.

The FHWA Resource Center is a central location for obtaining highway technology

deployment assistance. Similarly, education and training programs are provided

through the FHWA National Highway Institute. These, along with the capabilities

provided by the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), Highways for LIFE,

and other similar DOT-sponsored programs and activities provide the basis for an

effective technology transfer program.

There are, however, a number of barriers to technology deployment that may explain the relatively slow adoption of highway technologies that appear cost effective.

Lack of information about new technologies is one barrier that may be overcome

with information and outreach programs. Long-standing familiarity with existing

technologies, gained through education or experience, also may hamper the adoption

of newer technologies, but the education and training programs provided by FHWA

and others often help to transcend these types of barriers.

It also may be difficult for stakeholders to envision the long-range benefits of a

new technology relative to initial investment costs, especially if the payback (breakeven) period is long. Even if stakeholders are aware of eventual cost savings from

a more efficient or effective highway technology, they may have confidence in traditional methods. Demonstration projects that provide hands-on experience can help

72

tip the scale so that stakeholders are willing to apply innovative technologies to

long-standing safety and asset measurement and protection problems.

Despite these efforts, technology deployment often is slowed by residual uncertainties about performance, reliability, installation, and maintenance costs; availability of the next generation of the technology; and the need for the necessary technical and physical infrastructure to support the technology in question.

Q4. In his testimony, Dr. Womack argues that the laboratories at Turner-Fairbank

Highway Research Center (TFHRC) are underutilized. At what percentage of capacity are the labs at TFHRC being used? What types of projects are being delayed or foregone because of budgetary and other limitations?

A4. Research and development work conducted by the Federal Highway Administration is managed and directed by FHWA technical experts, and is primarily

awarded through competitive contracts. Much of the work is done at the TFHRC—

the only national highway research center in the United States—or is managed by

FHWA research staff. In addition to competitive contracts, FHWA also works in

close collaboration with University Transportation Research Centers (UTCs), and

with other organizations in limited situations via cooperative agreements and research grants.

The FHWA bridge and structures R&T program is authorized in SAFETEA–LU

through the Surface Transportation Research, Development, and Deployment Program (STRDD). However, statutorily designated projects and programs in STRDD

actually exceed the authorized contract authority of $196.4 million for fiscal years

(FYs) 2006–2009. The over-earmarking of all authorized STRDD funding necessitates across-the-board funding reductions and results in FHWA being unable to

provide for any discretionary or flexible spending beyond those earmarks. This lack

of flexible funds severely limits FHWA’s ability to investigate and respond to current or emerging research needs that do not have specific statutory funding.

In addition, this lack of R&T funding flexibility within SAFETEA–LU does not

allow FHWA to carry out some critical programs and initiatives. For example, as

a result of the I–35W bridge collapse in Minnesota, the country recognizes the need

for a higher level of investment to improve bridge inspection and evaluation technology. The lack of flexibility and the full designation of all SAFETEA–LU R&T

funds, however, prevent FHWA from adjusting priorities as a result of tragedies like

I–35W.

Some TFHRC structures R&T program laboratories, including the main structures testing facility, are essentially at capacity as a result of programs authorized

in SAFETEA–LU and included in the annual FHWA appropriations. Other laboratories, such as the aerodynamics, hydraulics, and bridge management information

systems laboratories, have only marginal funding via SAFETEA–LU, but have effectively leveraged other sources of funding so they can continue to conduct important

research and technology studies. Leveraging funding from multiple States via the

Transportation Pooled Fund (TPF) program is an example. However, the lack of

flexibility noted above does impact FHWA’s ability to address national research

needs and priorities to which these laboratories could contribute.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. In 2004 the Federal Bridge Program provided $6.6 billion in aid in addition to

$3.9 billion in State and local funding yielding approximately $10.5 billion a

year in bridge rehabilitation and construction investments. Compared to this

amount, how much money is invested in bridge safety research and development? How does the funding for bridge related research compare to the total research investment in the transportation sector? Has the funding received by

Turner-Fairbank been sufficient to keep your experts working at full capacity?

A1. The Surface Transportation Research, Development, and Deployment Program

(STRDD) has contract authority of $196.4 million but, in FY 2007, was funded at

only $180.8 million due to the limitation on obligations. Of the $180.8 million, about

$22.4 million (12.4 percent) was designated for bridge and structures research and

technology.

For STRDD, statutory earmarks and statutorily designated programs authorized

in SAFETEA–LU total $228.8 million in FY 2007, which exceeds the authorized

funding level. With the cuts required to all STRDD programs in order to stay within

contract authority and those required to stay within the obligation ceiling, only

about 79 percent of the authorized funds were made available.

However, the designation and earmarking of all authorized STRDD funding for

FYs 2006–2009 created more of an issue than a funding cut. Over-designation and

73

over-earmarking also resulted in the inability to provide for any discretionary

spending. Thus, there is no funding for a number of programs that are authorized

by Congress, and FHWA believes are critical to delivering a sound R&T program,

but which do not have specific statutory funding. Annually, there are about $30 million in research and technology activities and programs that were funded in the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21), the authorizing legislation prior to SAFETEA–LU, that are not able to be funded in SAFETEA–LU because all STRDD funds are designated.

In addition to bridge and structures research being conducted by FHWA, a number of other organizations sponsor bridge research, and a much larger group of agencies conducts bridge R&T. Included among these are State DOTs, industry, other

federal agencies, and academia. FHWA actively coordinates the National research

program with our partners and stakeholders for agenda-setting, and in the conduct

of research and delivery of new innovations. FHWA staff participate in numerous

national and international organizations and serve on committees focused on bridge

research, development, and technology transfer. FHWA organizes formal technical

advisory groups and technical working groups, comprised of federal, State, and local

transportation officials; bridge engineering consultants and industry groups; and

academia. Further, numerous organizations in other countries also conduct bridge

research, and other transportation modes, including the railroad industry, conduct

a limited amount of bridge research.

FHWA technical staff at the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center fulfill

several important roles. In addition to the conduct of applied and advanced research, they support the deployment and transfer of new technologies, and also provide technical assistance to states, the National Transportation Safety Board, and

others. The range of needs, whether it be important research studies or technical

assistance requests, far exceed the time and resources available to address these

needs. FHWA staff therefore work on a continuous basis essentially at capacity.

Q2. How many privately owned bridges are part of the public roadway system? Since

these bridges are not required to be inspected as part of the National Bridge Inventory, do we have any data reflecting the structural health and safety of privately held bridges?

A2. The December 2006 National Bridge Inventory (NBI) identifies roughly 1,865

privately owned highway bridges. However, the actual total number of privately

owned highway bridges is unknown because the states are not required to report

them to the FHWA.

Condition information is available for those privately owned highway bridges that

are currently identified in the NBI.

Q3. In Mr. Bernhardt’s testimony, he aptly notes that, simply collecting more data

and providing more frequent inspections will not improve overall bridge safety:

and that eventually bridges must be rehabilitated or replaced. The age distribution for all U.S. bridges is remarkably flat, however. Twenty-five percent are

under 20 years old. Over half the bridges in the U.S. are under 40 years old,

and over eighty percent are under 55 years old. How much do we know now

about the rates of deterioration for bridges and how those rates change over

time? Are we confident that current levels of investment for bridge replacement

will not keep up with rehabilitation needs?

A3. Significant research has been conducted on the deterioration rates of bridges

and the individual elements comprising bridges. The rate of deterioration is influenced by many factors. These include the original design of the structure, the climate where the bridge is located, the load carried by the bridge over time, and the

type of maintenance activities performed on the bridge. The combination of this

wide number of factors complicates the prediction of the rate of deterioration for an

individual structure.

It is widely recognized by FHWA and others that the type of data currently collected and maintained in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) is not adequate for

developing sophisticated deterioration and life cycle cost models for bridge components and structures. That is why the Administration requested, and Congress authorized, the Long-Term Bridge Performance Program (LTBPP) in the surface transportation reauthorization legislation that ultimately became SAFETEA–LU. The

LTBPP is intended to collect much more detailed information and quantified data

on specific bridge elements for a small but representative population of bridges.

Much of this data will be obtained through advanced testing and analysis. This detailed data can then be used to enhance and improve existing deterioration models,

improve design and inspection practices, and identify cost-beneficial preservation activities.

74

While it is understood that the collection of more data will not in itself improve

overall bridge safety, the information gathered through such activities can be useful

in the selection and timing of maintenance procedures to be conducted on the

bridge. The application of properly timed and appropriate maintenance procedures

can significantly extend the normal service life of structures, allowing many older

bridges to function adequately well beyond their original estimated design life.

The 2006 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges and Transit: Conditions & Performance report to Congress had projected that the combined level of bridge reha- bilitation and replacement investment by all levels of government in 2004 of $10.5

billion would be adequate to reduce but not eliminate the current backlog of economically justifiable bridge investments, if this spending level were sustained in

constant dollar terms over 20 years. The Maximum Economic Investment scenario

presented in the report projected that an average annual investment of $12.4 billion

(in 2004 dollars) by all levels of government would be needed to eliminate the existing bridge investment backlog and correct other deficiencies that are expected to develop over the next 20 years.

Q4. Mr. Bernhardt testimony notes that a FHWA study in 2001 determined that less

than eight percent of inspectors could successfully locate certain defects in test

bridges. How confident are you in the current inspection regime’s ability to consistently identify potential safety hazards? How confident are you that they identify needed repairs before they become major reconstruction? How does FHWA

ensure that its training courses are up to date and effective in transferring

knowledge to the trainees?

A4. The 2001 FHWA report identified several concerns with the type and quality

of inspections at that time. However, it must be recognized that this was only a very

limited sample and did not completely represent actual bridge inspection practices.

The research methodology that was used had several important limitations, including the following:

• The inspectors involved in the project were not necessarily representative or

had the level of training required of those who conduct in-depth or fracture

critical member inspections, yet they were tasked to do so as part of this

study.

• The inspectors involved in the study were not provided with any history on

the sample bridges and were not able to take advantage of previous engineering analysis or information. Such information is typically reviewed by the inspector prior to conducting the next inspection on that same structure.

As a result of the study and its recommendations, a number of improvements

were made to the National Bridge Inspection Standards. Specifically, the regulations were revised to incorporate a requirement to establish quality control/quality

assurance procedures, along with additional training and refresher training requirements. Inspector training courses and certification requirements were also upgraded, providing for a higher level of inspector competency. And, a number of clarifications were provided to the definitions and descriptors that inspectors use in reporting the results of the inspections.

The results of this study were widely publicized by FHWA, thereby creating a

broad awareness of the issues and greater attention to the need for improved quality. This report certainly provided a wakeup call regarding some aspects of the national bridge inspection program, and spurred significant improvements in the program. However, it is important to note that for the current investigation on the I–

35W bridge in Minneapolis, there are no indications that the collapse occurred as

a result of deficiencies in the State’s inspection program.

Q5. Many of the witnesses mentioned the Long-Term Bridge Performance Program

in their testimony as particularly critical to bridge construction, inspection, and

rehabilitation research programs. As I understand it, the program is to provide

longitudinal data on the wear and tear on a variety of common bridge structures

in the U.S. How does this data differ from what’s been collected as part of the

National Bridge Inventory for the past 40 years? Why don’t we have records of

the actual performance data of all bridges in the NBI and why can’t those

records be used for statistical studies of the effects of deterioration and increased

use?

A5. The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) contains information at the bridge component level. For example, no matter how large a bridge, the overall condition of an

entire superstructure is represented by a single number on a scale of 0 to 9. While

the overall ratings contained in the NBI can be used to some extent to judge bridge

performance, they are limited in their level of detail and sophistication.

75

It is recognized that the NBI component ratings are based primarily on visual observations. Through the Long-Term Bridge Performance Program (LTBPP), the intent is to collect much more detailed information and quantified data on specific

bridge elements for a small but representative population of bridges. Much of this

data will be obtained through advanced testing and analysis. This detailed data can

then be used to enhance and improve existing deterioration models, improve design

and inspection practices, and identify cost-beneficial preservation activities.

76

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Harry Lee James, Deputy Executive Director and Chief Engineer, Mississippi Department of Transportation; Member, Standing Committee on Highways, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon

Q1. In his testimony, Dr. Womack argued that the bridge deficiencies which garner

the most public attention are usually fixed most quickly, which typically means

potholes are given greater priority than structural problems that are not part of

the deck or roadway. What can the Federal Government, State governments, academia, and the private sector do to better communicate about bridge dangers to

the public?

A1. While no one should intentionally hide any bridge deficiencies from the traveling public, deficiencies are generally of a technical nature such that the general

public may not understand the problem. Bridges carry loads across them and the

practice of load posting a bridge with a deficiency is the best way to communicate

with the public about this subject. A public awareness campaign to inform the public what load posting a bridge means would be most beneficial. When appropriate

precautions are taken on a bridge that has load restrictions the bridge is not dangerous. We as a SHA do not operate unsafe bridges—we close them before they becomes dangerous.

Q2. In your testimony, you mention that 40 states employ an element-level inspection

protocol that is beyond the federal requirements. How does this additional level

of detail help you prioritize repairs and rehabilitation for your state’s bridges?

Should this type of inspection be required for all National Highway System

bridges?

A2. The additional level of detail provided by the element-level inspection allows us

to further prioritize repairs that are needed and determine the urgency of making

those repairs. This level of inspection should be used where appropriate. It does not

provide any additional or useful information for certain type structures.

Q3. Has the Mississippi DOT adopted any new technologies for bridge inspection?

What kinds of technologies were most successful, and why? What sort of training

did your inspectors need to effectively use the new technology? For those technologies you decided NOT to adopt, what was your reasoning behind that decision?

A3. A few years ago MDOT purchased and received training for an ultrasound unit

that can detect material flaws in metal structures in certain instances. While this

is not new technology it was a new tool for us to have on hand. The training was

provided by the vendor and by a consultant whom we had contracted with in the

past to perform this type of work for us. It was helpful to have the capability inhouse to use an advanced technology of this type. However, it also takes almost constant use of the device to remain proficient with this technology. Consequently, we

still rely primarily on consultants to perform inspections using this technology.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. In 2004 the Federal Bridge Program provided $6.6 billion in aid in addition to

$3.9 billion in State and local funding yielding approximately $10.5 billion a

year in bridge rehabilitation and construction investments. Compared to this

amount, how much money is invested in bridge safety research and development? How does the funding for bridge related research compare to the total research investment in the transportation sector?

A1. From my experience 6–8 percent of total research dollars are spent on bridge

related research. This number is consistent with the expenditures for research that

is conducted at the State level in MS as well.

Q2. In your testimony you suggest that the State of Michigan has successfully developed an asset management system that is improving bridge safety in that state.

However, according to 2005 and 2006 National Bridge Inventories, Michigan

had approximately sixteen percent of its bridges listed as structurally deficient,

four percent above the national average. What metrics are not being captured

by the NBI that point towards Michigan’s success in this area?

77

A2. One would have to know what their percentage of structurally deficient bridges

was when an asset management system was implemented in MI and how long it

has been used. To see noticeable results after implementing an asset management

system may take eight to ten years or more as it would have to be worked into the

project development process with ongoing projects that were not prioritized under

an asset management system. It would not be prudent to stop work on a project

that has a large investment in it already and that may be on the verge of correcting

a deficiency or situation. Stopping work on a project just because it has not gone

through an asset management system just doesn’t make sense.

78

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Kevin C. Womack, Director, Utah Transportation Center; Professor of

Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon

Q1. In your testimony, you argue that the laboratories at Turner-Fairbank Highway

Research Center (TFHRC) are underutilized. How does this affect bridge safety?

If additional funds were available, what types of projects should be prioritized?

A1. The underutilization of laboratories at the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research

Center (TFHRC) has a significant impact on bridge safety. These laboratories are

state-of-the-art, and capable of being utilized to research new materials, designs, instrumentation, etc. Allowing these labs to sit idle delays the opportunities that the

country has of implementing new technologies that could close the infrastructure investment gap. As for the issue of safety, concerns for the structural safety of bridges

that should be researched may not be, due to the lack of funding to run the TFHRC

laboratories. These could be issues arising from the I–35W bridge collapse to the

falling of panels in the Ted Williams Tunnel in Boston.

If additional funds were made available, the types of projects that should be executed at TFHRC are of two types: First, the type that might be too large to do elsewhere. The main structures lab at TFHRC is quite large and can handle very large

structural elements that few other places can deal with. Second, special types of

projects; those that might relate to unique types of bridges. The I–35W is an example of this. It is of a fairly unique design, which raises unique types of issues. Other

bridges of this ‘‘unique’’ type could range from the Brooklyn Bridge to the Key

Bridge in Baltimore to the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Florida.

The Long-Term Bridge Performance (LTBP) Program will handle the most common types of bridges that are of similar designs, structural make-up and construction. The majority of Interstate bridges fall into this category. They are bridges with

simple steel or pre-cast concrete girders with cast-in-place decks. This type of bridge

probably occupies about 80 percent of the NHS bridge inventory. These bridges can

be well studied under the LTBP Program, and would not be good candidates for

work in the TFHRC laboratories.

Q2. In your testimony, you argue that a new inspection protocol needs to be developed for bridges. How would an updated inspection protocol differ from the current inspection protocol? What types of technology would be necessary to carry

out the updated inspections? Are these technologies currently available to inspectors, and if not, what are the barriers to their adoption?

A2. A new well defined inspection protocol would differ from the existing in that

a well defined existing protocol does not really exist, as far as I am aware. The I–

35W bridge is a good example of that. It was inspected, determined to be structurally deficient, but then there was a quandary about what to do next? More frequent inspections, repair, instrumentation, etc., what to do? In the end, the decision

to inspect annually, rather than biannually, was made. Did that work, in hindsight

and all fairness to the Minnesota DOT, no; but would other DOT’s done differently?

Probably not. The issue becomes one of cost. To instrument such a bridge in a way

that could provide real time data on its behavior could cost $500,000. To perform

one time types of tests, to check for cracks, etc., could cost upwards of $100,000.

To repair, possibly millions of dollars along with shutting bridge down and the inconvenience that would cause. To perform more frequent visual inspections, a few

thousand dollars. But in the end, the cost could near $1 billion in terms of reconstruction and costs to individuals (not to mention the indeterminable cost of the loss

of life). So are we being penny wise and pound foolish? Perhaps. This is not to say

that if things were done differently the I–35W Bridge would not still have collapsed,

you simply cannot cover all the possibilities, but a better chance of saving the

bridge, and the lives, might have existed had things been done otherwise.

The new protocol would indicate the next steps that should be taken after visual

inspection determines a bridge to be structural deficient. The precise reasons for

such a rating would be determined and the next steps would be based the causes

of the structural deficient rating. Should the next steps be one time testing of bridge

elements or an overall load rating test; or constant, real time monitoring through

instrumentation; or minor repairs; or immediate closing of the bridge; all of this

needs to be determined and developed through research that has the mandate of

developing such a protocol.

79

As for the technologies, they do exist, but can be expensive, thus they are not

readily available to inspectors today. They can also be technically sophisticated and

need trained personnel to operate. Again, this costs money. If a DOT wanted to instrument a bridge to provide real time performance data it can be done, and has

been done on a segment of an Interstate bridge in Utah, but it is expensive. Such

instrumentation could consist of accelerometers, velocity transducers (geophones),

strain gauges, cameras, etc. All of which is available.

Currently, NBIS regulations have the first option to have a Professional Engineer

with the requisite experience and training to perform bridge inspections but they

do have other lesser options which do not require bridge inspectors to be Professional Engineers. ASCE believes that non-licensed bridge inspectors and technicians

may be used for routine inspection procedures and records, but the pre-inspection

evaluation, the actual inspection, ratings, and condition evaluations should be performed by licensed Professional Engineers experienced in bridge design and inspection. The NBIS regulations should be changed to require just Professional Engineers

with appropriate experience such as the expertise to know the load paths, critical

members, fatigue prone details, and past potential areas of distress in the particular

type of structure being inspected as the lead bridge inspector. They must have the

ability to evaluate not only the condition of individual bridge components, but how

the components fit into and affect the load paths of the entire structure. The bridge

engineer may have to make immediate decisions to close a lane, close an entire

bridge, or to take trucks off a bridge to protect the public safety.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. In Mr. Bernhardt’s testimony, he aptly notes that, ‘‘simply collecting more data

and providing more frequent inspections will not improve overall bridge safety’’

and that eventually bridges must be rehabilitated or replaced. The age distribution for all U.S. bridges is remarkably flat, however. Twenty-five percent are

under 20 years old. Over half the bridges in the U.S. are under 40 years old,

and over eighty percent are under 55 years old. How much do we know now

about the rates of deterioration for bridges and how those rates change over

time? Are we confident that current levels of investment for bridge replacement

will not keep up with rehabilitation needs?

A1. We do not know a lot about the rates of deterioration of bridges and how those

rates change over time. This is one objective of the Long-Term Bridge Performance

(LTBP) Program, to provide data that will give an indication as to how deterioration

occurs, under what circumstances, and how it changes with time. I am very confident that the current levels of investment will not keep up with the future repair

and replacement needs.

One very simple reason for that is the increase in the cost of commodities that

have occurred over the past five years. Prices for steel, cement, aggregate, and last

but not least, oil have increased dramatically. Much of this is due to development

overseas, China chief among these countries. There is little evidence that these

countries are going to slow down their development in the near future.

You state in your question that over half the bridges in the country are less than

40 years old, looking at this a different way, then a number approaching half the

bridges in the country are more than 40 years old. This is a second reason I am

sure that we will continue to experience an investment gap. A typical design life

for a bridge is 50 years, as these bridges approach this age, they will need to be

repaired or replaced. This is an astronomical number of bridges, the likes of which

we have not had to deal with in the past, and we cannot even keep up with the

current surface transportation system investment needs.

Q2. Many of the witnesses mentioned the Long-Term Bridge Performance Program

in their testimony as particularly critical to bridge construction, inspection, and

rehabilitation research programs. As I understand it, the program is to provide

longitudinal data on the wear and tear on a variety of common bridge structures

in the U.S. How does this data differ from what’s been collected as part of the

National Bridge Inventory for the past 40 years? Why don’t we have records of

the actual performance data of all bridges in the NBI and why can’t those

records be used for statistical studies of the effects of deterioration and increased

use?

A2. The National Bridge Inventory does not have any of the type of data that would

be collected from the Long-Term Bridge Performance (LTBP) Program. The LTBP

data will be collected mainly through live load testing, instrumentation to provide

constant monitoring of bridge behaviors, and forensic testing of bridge elements that

80

will be taken from razed bridges. This will provide data outside the NBI, and will

help us to answer your first question about bridge deterioration.

We don’t have the records of performance data for bridges over the past 40 years

because the technologies in instrumentation and data collection that we have today

has not existed over that time period, and it is very expensive. Without a special

program like the LTBP Program, with funds dedicated to this purpose, this type of

data would still not be collected on a large scale.

Question submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski

Q1. In your written testimony, you reference a current shortage of civil engineers in

the United States, as well as a clear need for increased licensed professional engineers. How do you believe we can encourage more students to enter this field

of work?

A1. The shortage of civil engineers and civil engineering students directly impacts

the number of civil engineers that are currently licensed and will be licensed in the

future. Much of this problem is the fault of the civil engineering profession. We, as

a profession, have done a poor job of marketing civil engineering as a profession.

Engineering students have to go through an undergraduate curriculum that is harder than any other that exists on a college campus, more difficult than even those

that are used to enter MBA programs, law, medical or dental schools. Unless young

people are really set on going into civil engineering they do not see the point in

going through such a difficult curriculum to be a civil engineer when they can be

a doctor, lawyer, dentist, aerospace or computer engineer and make much more

money.

As a profession, we need to do more to attract young people to civil engineering.

We need to let them know of the dire need for civil engineers, particularly in transportation. We also need to make salaries that young civil engineers will get more

competitive with the aerospace and electrical engineers. When articles such as the

one in USA Today on October 12th (Engineers Step up Recruiting Efforts) appear

and show the salary disparity in the different types of engineering professions, with

civil engineers at the bottom, it is difficult to recruit civil engineers. The market

will take care of some of this difference, but by the time the market really does react

and the principal of supply and demand creates a rise in the salaries for civil engineers, the shortage of civil engineers will be extreme, and I believe harmful to the

infrastructure of this country due to the lack of properly trained engineers.

As for what the Congress might do to assist in this recruitment of civil engineers,

one thing that comes to mind is a loan forgiveness program as is done for educators.

If a person graduates in an accredited civil engineering program and goes to work

for a city, county, state or other type of governmental agency their students loans

could be forgiven based on some sort of schedule. In the short-term, this could alleviate some of the salary disparity. Another approach would be to encourage the

exposure of engineering (all types) to K–12 students. Right now they see the

sciences, and are exposed to other professions in their daily lives, but K–12 age kids

really have little exposure to civil engineers.

Ultimately, ASCE believes that it is critical to provide all students, no matter

what careers they ultimately pursue, with a strong background in basic mathematics and science to enable them to participate in our increasingly technical society. We must prepare those students who want to pursue careers based in mathematics and science with the necessary skills in these subjects. And finally, we must

encourage highly qualified students to pursue careers based in mathematics and

science and more specifically in civil engineering.

Over half of the economic growth today can be attributed directly to research and

development in science, engineering and technology. Our ability to maintain this

economic growth will be determined largely by our nation’s intellectual capital. The

only means to develop this resource is education.

Recent assessments by the U.S. Department of Education of the progress of students’ performance in various subject areas, including science, math, engineering

and technology education, have concluded that the grasp of science and math by

U.S. students is less than that of their international peers. It is also notable that

over half of U.S. graduate students in science and math are foreign-born.

For these and other reasons, the implementation of the recommendations of the

NSB in their report on math and science education is critical. The proposal to coordinate and facilitate STEM programs through a National Council for STEM Education has merit and should be supported by Congress. Other recommendations to

focus attention on STEM education in federal agencies also have merit.

81

Civil engineering professionals, however, hold the final responsibility of growing

the pool of civil engineers and civil engineering students that can become licensed

professional engineers. This needs to be a PR effort and a financial one by the consultants and government employers to increase the salaries of young civil engineers.

The American Society of Civil Engineers can, and has in the past, play a major role

in this effort and in working with Congress to improve the environment for young

people to enter the civil engineering profession.

82

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mark E. Bernhardt, Director, Facility Inspection, Burgess & Niple, Inc.

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon

Q1. You discuss your company’s involvement in the inspections of steel truss bridges

following the I–35W collapse in your testimony, but point out that ‘‘in general,

the inspections were carried out in the same manner as those completed prior

to the I–35 collapse.’’ In your opinion, what was the value of these new inspections? What sort of guidance or technical assistance could FHWA provide to

make these inspections more valuable? Did the re-inspection alert you to any new

problems, and how did you or the relevant state DOT deal with those problems?

A1. The primary value of the supplemental deck truss inspections performed in the

aftermath of the I–35W collapse was to help in reassuring the American public that

bridges are indeed safe. Since it has not yet been determined what caused the I–

35W bridge collapse; i.e., latent design defect, construction overload, ongoing deterioration of primary bridge members, etc., it would be premature to redefine NBIS

procedures at this time. It may turn out that the collapse is not something that

could have been prevented by enhanced bridge inspection practices. Once the cause

has been determined, the FHWA, along with the bridge engineering community, will

be able to determine if modifications to inspection procedures are indeed warranted.

The re-inspections of deck truss bridges performed by Burgess & Niple found no

new significant deficiencies that required immediate repairs. All findings were

transmitted immediately to the appropriate state transportation agency personnel.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. In your testimony, you note that, ‘‘simply collecting more data and providing

more frequent inspections will not improve overall bridge safety’’ and that eventually bridges must be rehabilitated or replaced. The age distribution for all

U.S. bridges is remarkably flat, however. Twenty-five percent are under 20 years

old. Over half the bridges in the U.S. are under 40 years old, and over eighty

percent are under 55 years old. How much do we know now about the rates of

deterioration for bridges and how those rates change over time? Are we confident

that current levels of investment for bridge replacement will not keep up with

rehabilitation needs?

A1. Many studies have been done with respect to methods by which to accurately

model bridge deterioration. In one accepted approach the condition of a bridge or

an element of a bridge is characterized in terms of a set of possible condition states.

The deterioration of that element is represented as the successive occurrence of

transitions from one state to another. The likelihood of these transitions occurring

during a certain time period is dependent on such factors as loading conditions, environmental effects, levels of maintenance and repair, etc. Markov process assumptions are used to estimate transition probabilities from one condition state to the

next with a key assumption being that transition probabilities are independent of

the element’s previous states. Another common approach uses statistical regression

to develop relationships between condition measures and parameters presumed to

have a causal influence on condition. More knowledge of the physical and chemical

deterioration mechanisms and further detailed study of bridge behavior would likely

improve the accuracy of these deterioration models. Although, the issue is not that

we do not know now when repairs should be made, it is that transportation agencies

lack the funding necessary to repair and maintain their bridge inventories to the

desired condition standard.

ASCE’s Report Card for America’s Infrastructure from 2005 concluded that $9.4

billion per year over the next 20 years is needed to eliminate bridge deficiencies and

an additional $7.3 billion annually is needed to prevent the bridge deficiency backlog from increasing further.

Q2. In your testimony you describe a ‘‘general consensus within the engineering community that visual inspection practices must be supported by rigorous training,

certification, and quality assurance programs.’’ In your opinion, how does the

current training regime offered by the National Highway Institute stack up in

these areas?

A2. The FHWA/NHI Bridge Inspection Training Program, namely the three-week

comprehensive training, is designed to bring individuals with at least a high school

diploma to entry level participation in bridge inspection related work, notably field

83

inspection activities. However, in 23 CFR 650 Sub Part C National Bridge Inspection Standards, sections 650.309 Qualifications of Personnel, only three classifications of bridge inspection staff, ‘‘Program Manager,’’ ‘‘Team Leader,’’ and ‘‘Underwater Bridge Inspection Diver,’’ have minimum qualification requirements. Each of

these classifications uses the comprehensive training as a baseline for qualification

but none of them are entry level positions. The current minimum specifications in

the NBIS for training and qualifications for Program Managers and Team Leaders

are somewhat sound, however clear statements should be added that address the

following recommended improvements:

• The current Team Leader classification title should be modified to Team

Leader I. The minimum qualifications in NBIS for this classification are adequate for bridge structures that are not deemed complex and for structures

that are not already classified as structurally deficient.

• A new classification for ‘‘Team Leader II’’ should be introduced for structures

deemed complex and for structures that are already classified as structurally

deficient. Minimum qualifications for this classification should include: A BS

in engineering from an ABET accredited institution, passing of the Fundamentals of Engineering exam, at least two years experience with bridge

safety inspections and completion of FHWA comprehensive training.

• Engineering judgment is frequently required to assign condition ratings to

important structural components of a bridge. Since the PE in responsible

charge may not personally inspect all items at arm’s length, he or she must

be able to rely on a person with sufficient understanding of structural systems to assist in the assignment of condition ratings to structural components. The Team Leader I and Team Leader II concept support this.

• State agencies across the United States have the ability to utilize personnel

other than licensed Professional Engineers to inspect bridge structures. This

is being done primarily because the National Bridge Inspection Standards

(NBIS) allows experience to substitute for a professional engineering license.

Under NBIS guidelines, a person without any formal educational training in

structural engineering can be a Program Manager or Team Leader with ten

and five years experience, respectively. This should be changed to mandate

professional licensing in addition to accumulated relevant experience for the

Program Manager position. The proposed Team Leader II classification addresses this issue with team leaders.

• Alternate specifications for comprehensive bridge inspection training for licensed engineers and persons with a secondary education that includes bridge

engineering.

• There should be a correlation between complexity of structure, and level of

training and experience. The Team Leader I and Team Leader II concept support this.

• Improvements can also be made to the certification process. See below.

Many State DOTs already have some form of bridge inspector certification process

in place to support qualification requirements. They review individual’s experience

and qualifications and issue a unique CBI (Certified Bridge Inspector) Number to

qualified inspectors (Florida and Oregon are examples). States that do not have a

formal process often request certificates of NHI training and PE licensure from consultants that they hire to perform inspection work as a way to verify credentials.

Also, in many states, consultants need to be ‘‘pre-certified’’ for bridge inspection

work, just like any other engineering service, prior to submitting on contracts.

Greater accountability demands a higher level of competency and this can be

achieved through a certification process that incorporates rigorous testing. The current FHWA/NHI training program provides the information necessary for competent

performance. However the testing in place primarily evaluates learning to satisfy

IACET requirements for continuing education eligibility. For the proposed entry

level ‘‘Bridge Inspector’’ and the proposed ‘‘Team Leader I,’’ this is adequate; however for the proposed ‘‘Team Leader II’’ classification, it is not.

The introduction of a Federal Certification process would normalize skill levels of

personnel performing bridge inspections nationwide and should include the following:

• Definition of inspector classifications based on skill levels (i.e., Bridge Inspector—1, Bridge Inspector —2, Team Leader I, Team Leader II, Bridge Inspection Diver, Program Manager).

• Documentation of background education.

84

• Documentation of completed bridge inspection training.

• Documentation of skill level proficiency test scores.

• Documentation of relevant experience.

• Assignment of a unique certification number/designation that reflects the

classification/skill level achieved.

• Issuance of a federal certificate that reflects the classification/skill level

achieved.

The NHI has the ability to track and maintain inspector certification on a national basis. State agencies could build on a federal certification process for specific

needs and applications within their state.

Q3. One method to push new promising technologies has been to widely disseminate

results from specific demonstrations. Are individual demonstration projects sufficient to jump-start a transportation technology, given the risk aversion and

conservative nature of the civil engineering profession?

A3. Demonstration projects provide the hard data that can demonstrate the viability of emerging technologies and weed out those that do not provide useful results.

Many of the newer technologies have higher initial costs than traditional visual inspection techniques, but are likely to result in more cost-effective bridge management over the life of a structure. Engineers are probably reluctant to adopt technologies if they are skeptical of the long-term cost benefits. Proposed projects such

as the FHWA’s Long-Term Bridge Performance Program will be structured to gather

the data necessary to answer questions related to the actual cost benefits of emerging bridge testing and monitoring technologies.

Q4. Mr. Bernhardt, you note in your testimony that a FHWA study in 2001 determined that less than eight percent of inspectors could successfully locate certain

defects in test bridges. How confident are you in the current inspection regime’s

ability to consistently identify potential safety hazards? How confident are you

that they identify needed repairs before they become major reconstruction?

A4. If an inspector is properly trained and certified; is focused on the job at hand;

understands the responsibility associated with bridge inspection; has had the opportunity to gain experience while working under the direction of more senior bridge

inspectors; is comfortable working within a particular bridge’s environment; has

adequate time allotted and equipment provided to permit the inspector to get within

arm’s length of all critical members; has at least a basic understanding of structural

mechanicals; and established quality control and quality assurance procedures are

followed, potential safety hazards, structure deficiencies, and needed repairs can be

successfully identified.

(85)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

86

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER C. HIGGINS

OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide this written testimony on

research needs and actions necessary to help ensure the safety of the Nation’s existing bridge inventory. On-going research at Oregon State University, funded through

the Oregon Department of Transportation, has focused on field and laboratory testing, nondestructive evaluation, analysis, rating, and evaluation of existing aging and

deteriorated bridges. We are also applying high-performance materials and techniques for repair and strengthening of existing bridges as well as developing tools

to more directly quantify risks associated with operational conditions thereby enabling better informed bridge management decisions. This testimony reflects these

experiences and addresses some of the current limitations in understanding aging

and deteriorated bridges and highlights some of the pressing research needs.

Bridges are a unique type of structure that must withstand a wide array of forces

including wind, earthquakes, floods, impacts, and traffic loads, among others. Further, they are exposed to variable seasonal climatic conditions and millions of repeated cycles of load with magnitude and volume that have continued to increase

over time. These combined influences can result in strength deterioration of the

bridge members and connections and without sufficient inspection, maintenance,

and intervention can result in collapse. Engineers have little information on the

combined influences of applied structural loading with variable environmental conditions such as freeze-thaw, chloride exposure, and extreme seasonal temperature

changes. Some of the new materials being developed for bridge strengthening rely

on bonding to the bridge surfaces that may be more susceptible to environmental

factors. Significant additional research on large-sized bridge members under combined structural and environmental loading are required to ensure performance of

new strengthening techniques and materials.

We must better address the large number of aging bridges that remain in the national inventory. These aging bridges contain materials and structural details that

are very different from our modern design and construction practice. Better quantifying the safety of these bridges is a national need. Engineers commonly apply design and rating tools developed for new bridges to older bridges often without sufficient data to know if these are applicable. As an example, engineers are now rating

some bridges for strength (collapse state) that were designed by an older method

called working stress design (service level state). We cannot now be certain how

some of these older designs will perform at the strength condition. There is a significant research need to better quantify the actual strength of older bridges that will

remain in the national bridge inventory. An important focus should be on in-situ

testing to failure of decommissioned bridges using realistic loading conditions. These

tests need to be supported with laboratory tests to make the best linkage with existing data. Research programs like this are very expensive, but can provide significant

savings if engineers can have confidence in the tools used to quantify remaining capacity of existing bridges and preclude unnecessary replacement or restrictions.

Bridges often sustain damage and deterioration over time. The most significant

contributor to deterioration is corrosion. Current data available to evaluate corrosion damaged bridge members is exceedingly limited and generally based on smallsized laboratory specimens. This lack of data leads to great uncertainty in predicting

remaining strength and ductility of corrosion damaged bridges. Current techniques

often assign crude reduction factors based on subjective visual inspection of overall

condition. These factors have no scientific basis. Research is needed to develop techniques for evaluation of corrosion damaged bridge members. This research must be

on large-size samples that realistically reflect actual bridge members and the combined influences of applied fatigue loading with impressed corrosion need to be considered. Additional investment in laboratory research facilities is required to adequately address this need.

Advancement generally relies on more sophisticated techniques and physical resources that may not be readily available within a transportation agency or

consultancy. These include more complicated analytical and computational methods

(nonlinear models, probabilistic methods, etc.), as well software and hardware resources such as finite element software and computing power. Having knowledgeable in-house technical staff that can understand and fairly evaluate advancements

are critical for research adoption/adaptation. We need to be able to educate the next

generation of engineers that can supply this technical competence and can better

handle the probabilistic nature of the problems we encounter, can understand and

apply the more sophisticated analytical techniques being developed, and can effectively communicate with public stakeholders and inform public policy.

87

Additional research funding or reallocation of existing resources between ‘‘research’’ and ‘‘planning,’’ as well as a greater focus on bridge infrastructure by University Transportation Centers is needed. A national research center focused on

safety evaluation of existing bridges that draws on expertise from across the country, as in the framework of the National Science Foundation’s Earthquake Engineering Research Center program, would be a logical and fruitful outcome. There is

much research to be done to enhance our understanding of bridge deterioration and

our ability to evaluate the safety of existing bridge members, connections, and systems. We need to develop new techniques for evaluation of bridge infrastructure deterioration, develop health monitoring and effective strengthening/rehabilitation approaches, consider more directly safety and risk (specifically quantify risks) for

bridges and operating conditions, and indeed look at system level performance to

facilitate ideal resource allocation. With such compelling research outcomes it is possible to transform the state-of-the-art to protect the safety of the Nation’s bridges.

Respectfully,

Christopher C. Higgins, Ph.D., P.E.

Associate Professor

Oregon State University

88

STATEMENT OF

MICHAEL TODD

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA–SAN DIEGO

AND

CHARLES FARRAR

LEADER, THE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE

LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY

First we wish to sincerely thank the Committee on Science and Technology for

holding this hearing, and for the opportunity to present this supplemental written

testimony. We hope to add a perspective that complements the very informative discussions provided during the live testimony by representatives of FHWA, AASHTO,

ASCE, and ACEC. It is encouraging that the Committee has taken up the very important issue of infrastructure (and specifically, bridge) condition and safety. Our

nation’s infrastructure safety has direct impact upon our country’s economy and security, and we agree that there is no better time than the present to investigate

the current state of infrastructure damage assessment technology to determine both

what is being done and what could be done for future improvements. While the engineering community of bridge experts does not yet know what led to the recent I–

35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis, this disaster nonetheless unfortunately brought

to popular consciousness the dramatic consequences of such a structural failure.

By way of introduction, we are mechanical (Michael Todd) and civil (Charles

Farrar) engineers who currently co-lead the Engineering Institute (http://

www.lanl.gov/projects/ei/index.shtml), a joint research and educational collaboration between the University of California–San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering

and the Los Alamos National Laboratory that focuses upon the fields of structural

health monitoring and damage prognosis. Prior to joining the University of California San Diego, Prof. Todd had a seven-year career in leading DOD research and

development programs at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, and Dr. Farrar has

spent 25 years in numerous forms of technology development, transition, and leadership at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Prof. Todd and Dr. Farrar together have

23 years experience in the structural health monitoring and damage prognosis

fields.

The process of implementing a damage detection strategy for aerospace, civil and

mechanical engineering infrastructure is referred to as structural health monitoring

(SHM). This process involves the observation of a structure or mechanical system

over time using periodically spaced dynamics response measurements, the extraction of damage-sensitive features from these measurements, and the statistical analysis of these features to determine the current state of system health. For long-term

SHM, the output of this process is periodically updated information regarding the

ability of the structure to continue to perform its intended function in light of the

inevitable aging and degradation resulting from its operational environments.

Under an extreme event, such as an earthquake or unanticipated blast loading,

SHM is used for rapid condition screening. This screening is intended to provide,

in near real time, reliable information about system performance during such extreme events and the subsequent integrity of the system. Damage prognosis (DP)

extends the SHM process by considering how such an assessment, when combined

with a probabilistic model of future environmental and operational loading conditions can be used to forecast metrics of system performance useful to the owners,

such as remaining system life and maintenance scheduling. The Engineering Institute is the only university/national laboratory collaboration, to the best of our

knowledge, in the United States that is promoting a focused research-driven graduate education in the SHM and DP fields, leading to next-generation engineers

trained in critical inter-disciplinary skills required to solve the complex SHM/DP

problems associated with long-term infrastructure life cycle engineering and management.

This testimony will pose five questions for consideration by the Committee. We

believe that these are among the important questions that both the engineering/

technical community and the policy-makers should be addressing as we jointly assess how the SHM/DP fields are being applied or could be applied to infrastructure

condition monitoring and remediation.

(1) What is the current state-of-the-art in damage detection strategies for

infrastructure such as bridges?

89

1Shirole, A.M. and R.C. Holt, 1991, ‘‘Planning for a Comprehensive Bridge Safety Assurance

Program,’’ Transportation Research Record, 1290, pp. 39–50. 2White, K.R., J. Minor, and K.N. Derucher, 1992, Bridge Maintenance, Inspection and Evaluation, Marcel Dekker, New York. 3Gates, J.H., 1976, ‘‘California’s Seismic Design Criteria for Bridges,’’ ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 102, pp. 2301–2313.

In 1992, an extensive survey of bridge failures in the United States since 1950

was presented by Shirole and Holt.1 These authors point out that at that time the

responses of engineers to bridge failures was reactive as is the case with most unanticipated failures of engineered systems. Bridge design modifications and inspection

program changes were made in response to catastrophic failures. The collapse of the

Tacoma Narrows Bridge more than a half century ago is a classic example of this

reactive approach because it led to the inspection and design modifications of other

suspension bridges. The widespread introduction of the current federally mandated

systematic bridge inspection program was directly attributed to the catastrophic

bridge collapse at Point Pleasant, WV, in 1967.2 Design modifications for seismic response of bridges have been made as a direct consequence of damage sustained by

these structures during the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake (Gates, 1976).3 Damage

leading to bridge collapse also occurs as a result of collisions and scour (the process

where increased fluid velocity usually associated with a flood removes supporting

soil from the base of a bridge pier). For example, the AMTRAK railroad bridge collapse near Mobile, Alabama, in 1993 resulted from the collision of a barge with the

bridge pier.

At present, bridges are required to be rated and monitored during biennial inspections, largely with the use of visual inspection techniques. As needed, these visual

inspections are augmented with traditional local nondestructive evaluation (NDE)

techniques. However, because these NDE techniques inspect only a very small area

of the structure, they require some a priori knowledge of the possible damage location before they can be used effectively. These techniques are not employed in a continuous manner and, in general, they require that the portion of the structure being

inspected is readily accessible. There is the possibility that damage can go undetected during the visual inspections or that damage in load-carrying members can

grow to critical levels between inspection intervals as the recent collapse of the I–

35 Bridge in Minneapolis has made all too clear.

In an effort to move from the current qualitative visual assessments to more continuous and more quantified structural health monitoring procedures, the civil engineering community has studied global vibration-based damage assessment of bridge

structures since the early 1980’s. The fundamental premise of these methods is that

the measured vibration response of the bridge is a function of the mass and stiffness

properties of that structure. Damage will alter the stiffness properties of the bridge

and these changes will be detected in the measured vibration response. To date,

these methods, which make use of off-the-shelf sensing technology, have only been

shown to be effective after significant damage had been sustained by the structure.

These damage levels are well beyond those that would be considered necessary to

safely shut the structure down before catastrophic failure. In addition, environmental and operating condition variability as well as the physical size of these

structures has presented significant challenges to the implementation of such bridge

monitoring approaches. Although numerous studies focused on the development of

more advanced structural health monitoring approaches have been undertaken,

none have been shown to be more effective than the current biannual visual inspection techniques currently in use by state highway departments.

(2) What new technologies are under development that could aid in infrastructure SHM/DP health management strategies?

SHM/DP technologies can roughly be categorized into sensing/networking, which

is the way various data are obtained from the structure and managed through networks of sensors and possibly actuators, and data interrogation, which are the algorithms used to extract meaningful damage-related information from the data and

then use that information to form robust assessments about the structure’s current

health state. Stated succinctly, SHM/DP has been enabled by the revolution in

microelectronics over the past few decades. These advances are making more ubiquitous sensing on large-scale structures economically feasible. Systems with greater

sensor density include traditional wired sensor networks and more recently, new

wireless sensor networking paradigms. Wireless sensor networks can potentially

better address the need for more continuous monitoring in the field, where the traditional design of wired sensors connecting to a centralized data acquisition and

storage hub is not always practical. Many bridges or other infrastructure simply do

90

4 A.T. Zimmerman and J.P. Lynch, ‘‘Automated Damage Estimation in Wireless Sensing Networks Using Parallelized Model Updating,’’ 6th International Workshop on Structural Health

Monitoring, Stanford, California, September 11–13, 2007. 5G. Park, C.R. Farrar, M.D. Todd, W. Hodgkiss and T. Rosing, ‘‘Power Harvesting for Embedded Structural Health Monitoring Sensing Systems,’’ Los Alamos National Laboratory report,

LA–14314–MS (2007). 6D. Mascarenas, M.D. Todd, G. Park, and C.R. Farrar, ‘‘A Low-Power Wireless Sensor Node

for Peak Displacement and Bolted Joint Preload Measurements,’’ 6th International Workshop

on Structural Health Monitoring, Stanford, California, September 11–13, 2007. 7M.D. Todd, D. Mascarenas, G. Park, C. Farrar, K. Farinholt, T. Overly, and M. Nothnagel,

‘‘A Different Approach to Sensor Networking for SHM: Remote Powering and Interrogation with

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,’’ 6th International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, Stanford, California, September 11–13, 2007.

not have a convenient AC power supply to which one can ‘‘plug in’’ their sensor network. Decentralized sensor network architectures rooted in wireless sensing and telemetry can address this issue by providing local sensing ‘‘nodes’’ where sensing,

control, computing, and telemetry are all integrated in relatively low-power platforms. These platforms can communicate with each other as needed to move information through the network using an energy efficient ‘‘hopping’’ protocol where data

are transmitted from node to node and eventually to a base station. While many

researchers have advanced (and continue to advance) such wireless sensor nodes in

the last 10 years (e.g., see the work by Lynch, et al.4 ), these nodes still have some

limitations in bandwidth (how much data or information can move around the network in time), local data storage (how much data or information can reside on the

node during local processing), and what types of specific sensors can interface with

them. These limitations are all related to the availability of power. Currently, the

majority of these sensor nodes use batteries as the local power source. Although the

nodes are designed to be extremely power efficient, the batteries represent a limited-life component that has to be periodically replaced. For large bridge structures,

the locations where one might need such a sensor node can make it very costly to

replace the batteries and can pose a safety concern for the technician who has to

perform this duty.

Consequently, researchers are also currently investigating strategies that employ

energy harvesting or an alternate ‘‘on demand’’ energy delivery system that makes

use of power supplied by autonomous vehicles such as small robotic helicopters or

cars.5 The Engineering Institute team recently demonstrated such a system for the

first time on an out-of-service bridge near Truth-or-Consequences, New Mexico.6,7

Here the term ‘‘energy harvesting’’ refers to the process of converting ambient energy sources available in the bridge’s operating environment to useful electric energy. Available energy sources include solar and the bridge’s own mechanical vibration energy from traffic loading. Small commercially available off-the-shelf solar

cells are readily available to power these sensor nodes. Mechanical energy typically

is transformed into electric energy by actuating a piezoelectric material that produces an electrical charge when strained.

From the sensing perspective another area of emerging technology is the use of

active sensing technology. Most earlier work on structural-health monitoring strategies for civil engineering infrastructure relied on the ambient loading environment

as an excitation source and, hence, are referred to as passive sensing systems. The

difficulty with using such excitation sources is that they are often variable and distributed over a wide area of the structure making these inputs almost impossible

to measure. The variable nature of these signals requires robust data normalization

procedures to be employed in an effort to determine that the change in the measured data is the result of damage as opposed to changing operational and environmental conditions. Also, there is no control over the excitation source, and it may

not excite the type of system response useful for identifying damage at an early

stage. As an alternative, a sensing system can be designed to provide a local excitation tailored to the damage detection process. Piezoelectric materials are being

used for such active sensing systems. Because these materials produce an electrical

charge when deformed, they can be used as dynamic strain gauges. Conversely, the

same materials can also be used as actuators because a mechanical strain is produced when an electrical field is applied to the patch. This material can exert small

predefined excitation forces into the structure on a local level. The use of a known

and repeatable input makes it much easier to process the measured response signal

for damage detection. For instance, by exciting the structure in an ultrasonic frequency range, the sensing system can focus on monitoring changes of structural

properties with minimum interference from variability in traffic loading, which tend

to be low-frequency in nature. Faculty and staff from the LANL/UCSD Engineering

Institute (Prof. Lanza di Scalea and Dr. Gyuhae Park, as well as the authors) are

91

among a small group of researchers in the U.S. leading the development of these

active sensing approaches for civil engineering infrastructure damage assessment.

From the data interrogation approach, researchers have recognized that the damage detection process is fundamentally a problem in statistical pattern recognition.

Basically, the damage detection process requires one to identify changes in the pattern of the sensor readings that result from damage. Therefore, the extensive sets

of machine learning and pattern recognition tools developed for applications such a

speech pattern recognition and credit card fraud detection are also directly applicable to the damage detection problem. The adaptation and further development of

such algorithms for the data interrogation part of the damage detection process has

been pioneered by researchers at the Engineering Institute (Prof. Hoon Sohn of the

Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology while a staff member at Los

Alamos) working in conjunction with faculty from the University of Sheffield in the

U.K. (Prof. Keith Worden). Such algorithms are now being embedded on the microprocessors that are integrated into the wireless sensing nodes in an effort to distribute the damage assessment process to the individual sensor nodes. The combination of this more ubiquitous sensing along with more robust data interrogation algorithms is giving engineers the hope that in the not too distant future continuous

monitoring of damage initiation and accumulation in civil infrastructure will one

day be a reality.

(3) What are the barriers to transitioning SHM/DP technologies from research to practice?

Other than in a very few areas such as the rotating machinery industry, SHM/

DP technologies are still largely confined to laboratory demonstrations and not to

industrial practice, despite the fact that SHM/DP technology traces its modern roots

to the 1970s and 1980s, when the offshore oil, civil engineering, and aerospace communities first began exploring it. These technologies grew out of the more mature

field of nondestructive evaluation and inspection, and it was motivated by engineers’

desire to detect damage in an online manner (i.e., while the structure is in operational service) on a more global scale. There are several reasons why SHM/DP has

not made the transition from research to practice, some technical and others not.

One of the primary technical difficulties in shaping an SHM/DP strategy for something as complex as a bridge is the wide range of length and time scales over which

different forms of damage can initiate and proceed. Fatigue cracking or stress corrosion cracking initiates on a very small (micrometer-level) length scale that is most

probably detected only by a nondestructive inspection technique like ultrasonic inspection, which is very difficult to implement in an online, cost-efficient manner for

large-scale structures. Also, depending upon loading and environmental conditions,

cracks grow on both very slow (initially; measured over months or years in many

cases) and very fast (near failure; measured over seconds) time scales. Furthermore,

complex structures such as bridges can have a great diversity of degradation mechanisms (e.g., steel fatigue, concrete cracking, scour of soil around bridge piers, corrosion) that may all be occurring simultaneously, each on its own length and time

scales. Such wide ranges in length and time demand very different sensing and data

interpretation strategies, all of which make any sort of ‘‘one size fits all’’ SHM/DP

strategy highly unlikely.

A second challenge is that most SHM/DP technologies are being developed in research-oriented environments (such as a university) where there is limited ability

to test the technologies on actual full-scale structures in the field. A consequence

of this limitation is that we in general have very little knowledge about the longterm durability of sensing networks that could be deployed as part of an SHM/DP

strategy. The only experience with long-term sensor system deployment and monitoring of bridges comes from the relatively few bridges that are instrumented for

seismic monitoring as part of the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program. These arrays have provided the community with bridge (and other

infrastructural) response to earthquake ground motion, which has served to significantly advance the fields of seismic retrofitting and new design paradigms. However, these arrays were not specifically designed or deployed for damage identification and monitoring studies. In addition, there are very few out-of-service bridges

still standing that can serve as test beds for destructive testing on which researchers can validate their SHM/DP strategies under realistic operational and environmental scenarios. However, we are greatly encouraged by the FHWA’s ‘‘Long-Term

Bridge Performance Program,’’ as described by Dr. Steven Chase in a keynote lecture at the 6tn International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring at Stanford

University, on September 11–13, 2007. This program plans to develop the necessary

long-term test beds needed to validate new SHM technology.

92

Moreover, the funding levels normally accorded such researchers is not sufficient

to sustain tests long enough to establish true proof-of-concept. We applaud some of

the state transportation agencies with whom we or our immediate colleagues have

worked, such as CALTRANS and the New Mexico Department of Transportation,

for their forward-thinking efforts in funding and/or facilitating research and development in SHM/DP technologies for bridges. Overall, however, the funding levels

that are typically allocated to such projects are well short of what is required. The

model used by most funding agencies—the single Principal Investigator three-year

award—typically amounts to between $250,000 to $300,000 total funds invested in

the complete development, testing, and validation of the given technology. This

funding level is not sufficient to transition a proof-of-concept demonstration to a reliable, field-deployable system. Moreover, these single-investigator funding levels are

not nearly sufficient to integrate the many components required by the multi-disciplinary nature of SHM/DP technology development.

As we alluded previously, there are non-technical challenges as well. Traditionally, many universities are not really established to support the kinds of large

multi-disciplinary efforts required to bring such a technology to bear. Universities

generally offer relatively narrowly-defined degrees (e.g., electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, etc.), when in fact the person optimally trained to develop

SHM/DP technologies should be trained in aspects of many such degree programs.

Additionally, universities also do not generally tend to encourage or reward the professoriate for undertaking such projects. Promotion and tenure is typically based on

individual merit, not the success of teaming arrangements, particularly for junior

faculty seeking tenure. Such a system does not encourage faculty to work together

to solve complex problems or develop complex technologies that demand multi-disciplinary contributions. Clearly these are cultural issues that exist and must be addressed at the university level, and we recognize and commend the Committee for

its efforts to promote interdisciplinary research, particularly via the National

Science Foundation. The Engineering Institute has attempted to tackle some of

these barriers by offering graduate degrees at the University of California San

Diego that require course work in several departments and by funding graduate research projects that span several departments. It is our hope that such efforts will

be replicated on a broader scale, and further encourage the university community

to deconstruct these ’silo’ models and to seek partnering opportunities not only

across departments but also with each other in order to meet the multi-disciplinary

needs of tomorrow’s technologist.

(4) How does the United States compare to other countries with respect to

implementing SHM/DP technologies in infrastructure health management?

A number of Asian countries have taken an increasingly proactive approach to infrastructure assessment and management. The Hong Kong (China) government,

through the Highways Department of Hong Kong, has implemented a large-scale

monitoring program on the Tsing Ma suspension bridge (and subsequently on another suspension bridge in the vicinity) whereby real-time data streams of bridge

vibration/deflection, load, cable forces, wind speed, temperature, and visual camera

images are synthesized in a master control center from which bridge management

decisions regarding traffic patterns, speed regulations, load limits, and other such

similar performance variables are continuously updated. Data are also being collected for long-term research efforts to identify damage detection and tracking algorithms that correlate with normal visual inspections and subsequent maintenance

actions so that SHM/DP technologies may be field-validated over long times. The

cost of this system has been reported as somewhere between $15–20 million. Even

with this significant investment it is not clear that these researchers have a robust

damage detection strategy in place. However, by allocating the resources for this

system and by making a long-term commitment to acquire and analyze the data obtained, these researchers are better positioned to learn how to make accurate damage assessments. This project is just one of many significant bridge monitoring systems being deployed in China that we have heard about at international conferences

on structural health monitoring. We are unaware of similar bridge monitoring

projects of this magnitude in the U.S.

In Seoul, Korea, the Seongsu Bridge collapsed suddenly in 1994 due to a structural failure, killing 32 people. As a result, the Korean government mandated that

the infrastructure construction companies must provide monitoring systems for that

infrastructure. Currently, these monitoring systems have only a limited number of

sensors, and it is questionable if they will provide the necessary local information

needed to identify local damage at its onset.

93

8 H. Wenzel, ‘‘SHM at the Civil Infrastructure: Applications, Recent Progress and Future Demands,’’ Keynote lecture, 6th International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, Stanford, California, September 11–13, 2007.

We are also aware of other bridges in Thailand, Singapore, Taiwan, and Japan

that have installed monitoring systems. Some of these monitoring systems have

been purchased from U.S. companies such as Kinemetrics, Inc. in Pasadena, CA.

However, to the best of our knowledge this company has not sold a system for monitoring a bridge in the U.S. Although there have been numerous large-scale SHM research projects on bridges in Europe, we are not aware of any long-term instrumentation projects in Europe that are as extensive as the ones being undertaken in

Asia. There are companies in Europe such as VCE Holding in Vienna, Austria that

specialize in monitoring civil engineering infrastructure. It was recently reported

that they have done measurements on over 1,100 bridges in Europe.8 To paraphrase

a quote from a recent keynote lecture on bridge structural health monitoring by a

representative of this company, ‘‘Monitored bridges and buildings in Europe and

Asia are considered intelligent structures while monitored bridges and buildings in

the U.S. are considered suspect.’’

(5) What are elements that the U.S. Government should consider as it

crafts an investment plan, both near-term and longer-term, for promoting the development of SHM/DP technologies, and facilitating their

transition to practice for infrastructure health management?

We begin by strongly encouraging the government, through its various funding

agencies such as the National Science Foundation, the Federal Highways Administration, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DOE, and the various DOD

research offices, to substantially increase its emphasis on investment in SHM/DP

technology development with specific attention to field deployment of test systems.

Even more importantly, the share of this investment earmarked for development of

basic science and engineering concepts, where the time to maturity is in the 5–10

year range, should be brought into balance with the much shorter time horizons associated with industrial times-to-market, typically 6–18 months. We believe the current funding profile that heavily weights the shorter time horizons exacerbates the

technical challenges presented above. That is, there is inadequate funding to do exactly the kind of longer-term exploratory field deployments needed to transition the

SHM/DP technology into practice. These short industrial times-to-market certainly

have their place in infrastructure health management. Through SBIR and STTR

small business programs, agencies can fund small studies on more mature technologies (for example, a new kind of sensor already prototyped) where proof-of-concept requirements are in line with these short industry time scales and can solve

certain specific problems already identified.

We believe that a sound renewed commitment to investing in fundamental science

and engineering, particularly where multiple disciplines are integrated to solve

problems at the systems level, can ensure a strong, balanced research investment

portfolio that optimizes the return on that investment. The Committee has led by

example on this front, setting forth an aggressive vision for a ten-year doubling of

the NSF budget. Particularly given such an appropriate infusion of resources, federal funding agencies can easily be tasked with such a mission and put into a position of being encouraged and rewarded for cooperating to pool resources as necessary in the short-term in order to promote these multi-disciplinary field deployments.

We urge that the engineering/technical community work proactively with policymakers to develop, fund, and execute a comprehensive research, development, and

transition plan that engages all technology developers with a reasonable balance of

academic, industry, national laboratories and government partners.

More specifically, we would like to reiterate our support of the FHWA’s LongTerm Bridge Performance Program. Such test beds are absolutely essential to the

further development, validation and field deployment of SHM technology as it is applied to bridge monitoring. We further recommend that funds are made available

for each state transportation department to support the deployment of at least one

large-scale, long-term monitoring system on a bridge that is of most concern. This

funding must also provide for long-term management and analysis of the data obtained from such a monitoring system. Ideally, as part of these studies the more

advanced structural health monitoring concepts will be directly compared to traditional inspection techniques over a long period of time. Such comparisons are necessary to validate the SHM methods and to show that these methods can provide

a higher fidelity of damage detection and quantification than the current visual inspection methods.

94

We recommend that policy-makers consider the significant amount of technology

components being developed at universities, national laboratories and industry that

are directly applicable to the bridge health monitoring problem. However, these

technologies must be integrated in a systematic manner to best address the SHM

problem as it applies to bridge structures as well as to all types of civilian and defense infrastructure. When technologies from all these sources are integrated though

multi-disciplinary research teams such as the one formed by LANL and UCSD, solutions to the complex problem of structural health monitoring can be more rapidly

advanced and deployed.

Finally, although this document has emphasized the need for more research

aimed at transitioning SHM technology from research to practice, we strongly urge

policy-makers to continue to promote formal education innovation in this field. U.S.

universities have a long history of being the best at training the technical specialists, and there will be always be a need for such specialists. However, for the U.S.

to retain its technical advantage in the global economy, we must also be able to educate a new generation of multi-disciplinary engineers that can integrate diverse

technologies to solve complex problems of national importance. In addition, technology leaders of the future will also have to be much more multi-disciplinary than

in the past. A key aspect of The LANL/UCSD Engineering Institute is its proactive

efforts to develop such a new multi-disciplinary degree program that focuses on

training the next generation of engineers in SHM/DP and on training the next generation of technology leaders. It is our position that such formal multi-disciplinary

education programs (not just multi-disciplinary research) need to be promoted as a

national educational priority.

Thank you again for this opportunity to submit testimony to the Committee, and

we hope that we can serve as a resource to the Committee as it considers these and

related issues of critical importance to our nation’s infrastructure. The faculty, students, and staff of the LANL/UCSD Engineering Institute looks forward to continued interactions with policy-makers, Federal and State Government agencies, and

private industry that will further promote and deploy SHM technology on all types

of aerospace, civil, and mechanical infrastructure.

95

STATEMENT OF LARRY W. FREVERT

PRESIDENT

AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House Committee on Science & Technology,

thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the hearing, Bridge Safety:

Next Steps to Protect the Nation’s Critical Infrastructure. My name is Larry Frevert,

President of the American Public Works Association (APWA). I submit this statement today on behalf of the more than 29,000 public works professionals who are

members of APWA, including our nearly 2,000 public agency members.

APWA is an organization dedicated to providing public works infrastructure and

services to millions of people in rural and urban communities, both small and large.

Working in the public interest, our members design, build, operate and maintain

our vast transportation network, as well as other key infrastructure assets essential

to our nation’s economy and way of life.

We join with others in expressing our deepest sympathy to everyone affected by

the I–35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis on August 1. We remain saddened by this

tragedy and continue to extend our support to local, State and federal officials working on recovery and rebuilding.

The tragic failure of the I–35W bridge is a stark reminder of the importance of

public infrastructure to the daily lives of all people and to the welfare and safety

of every community. But this essential public asset is aging and deteriorating. It

is suffering the effects of chronic under-investment and is in critical need of funding

for maintenance, repair and improvement.

Our nation’s highway bridges are no exception. The average span currently is

more than 40 years old. More than one in every four is rated structurally deficient

or functionally obsolete and in need of repair, improvement or replacement. Of the

more than 594,000 publicly-owned bridges on which we depend for personal mobility

and movement of freight, more than 158,000 are rated deficient, with more than

77,700 classified as structurally deficient and more than 80,600 as functionally obsolete.

Local governments own in excess of 300,000 bridges, more than half of publiclyowned bridges in the U.S. Of the total local inventory nationwide, 29 percent is

rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.

Standards have been in place since the early 1970s requiring safety inspections

every two years for all bridges greater than 20 feet in length on all public roads.

Some bridges may be subject to more frequent inspections, and some structures in

very good condition may receive an exemption from the two-year cycle and be inspected once every four years. These inspections, carried out by qualified inspectors,

collect data on the condition and composition of bridges.

Structurally deficient bridges are characterized by deteriorated conditions of significant bridge elements and reduced load-carrying capacity. Functional obsolescence results from changing traffic demands on the structure and is a function of

the geometrics of the bridge not meeting current design standards. Neither designation indicates a bridge is unsafe. But they do indicate a need for repair, improvement or replacement.

We cannot ignore the under-investment in bridge maintenance, rehabilitation and

replacement. It is a major contributing factor undermining efforts to adequately address deficiencies. Nationwide, the backlog of bridge investment needs is now estimated to total $65.2 billion.

As a nation, we are failing to meet the needs of a transportation system increasingly overburdened by rising travel, a growing population and more freight. Additional traffic volumes and heavier loads are placing ever greater stress on bridges

often designed for lighter loads. The U.S. Department of Transportation reports that

the funding backlog could be invested immediately in a cost-beneficial fashion to replace or otherwise address currently existing bridge deficiencies.

Local governments’ ability to fund necessary bridge improvements has eroded significantly over the years. They have limited financial means to adequately address

deficiencies and typically do not have the capacity to do major repairs or capital

work on the magnitude of a bridge replacement without funding support.

Sharp increases in the costs of construction materials and supplies in the past few

years are compounding the funding challenge for local governments. In Washington

State for example, escalating material and supply costs and one of the largest construction programs in the Nation have had a severe impact on delivering local agency projects. It is not unusual to take 10 years or more from the time funding can

be secured and replacement done. And with the recent industry cost index increases,

the gap is growing and will continue to grow.

96

Immediate action to increase investment is crucial to accelerating local bridge repair and replacement programs. Most bridges on local roads were either built to

older standards or are so old they are in urgent need of repair or replacement. It

is not uncommon that bridges have gone for years, even decades, without the appropriate action to repair or replace, due to lack of funds. This is particularly true in

more rural areas.

In many cases, locally-owned bridges were often designed to carry traffic volumes

and loads less than present conditions demand. As congestion increases on the

Interstate System and state highways, local roads become diversion routes, supporting ever increasing levels of usage. Freight volumes, too, have increased faster

than general-purpose traffic, adding demands on all parts of the system. Automobile

technology allowing for greater speeds has made many bridge geometrics substandard.

Deficient bridges are rated, prioritized and repaired or replaced as funding is

available. When funding is insufficient, deferred maintenance, increased inspections,

weight limits and closures are often the only options.

APWA has been and will continue to be an advocate for the development of public

policies which ensure the safe and efficient management and operation of our public

infrastructure. As Congress considers the needs of our bridge system, we urge you

to consider the following recommendations.

APWA supports a determined, comprehensive national effort to increase investment to eliminate the bridge funding backlog needed to repair, rehabilitate and replace all publicly owned bridges—including local bridges—as part of a zero bridge

deficiencies goal. Such an effort, however, should not stop there. It needs sustained

and sustainable funding to ensure ongoing system preservation and maintenance at

a level necessary to prevent future deficiencies of all publicly-owned bridges.

APWA also supports updating bridge inspection standards and strengthening data

collection and reporting procedures; evaluating active bridge monitoring systems;

and strengthening inspector qualifications and training and inspection technologies,

research and procedures for all publicly-owned bridges, including those on our local

system. We believe that a program to strengthen research, technology, procedures

and standards must be supported by full federal funding necessary to carry out and

sustain it.

In conclusion, our nation’s bridge system is aging, deteriorating and suffering the

effects of decades of under-investment. The result is the unacceptably high levels

of deficiencies we see today. APWA believes that working together in partnership

with local, State, federal and private sector partners, we can and must take immediate action to address our bridge needs. But it will take funding and leadership.

Increased investment to repair or replace deficient bridges is vital to achieve a safer

and more efficient transportation network. A strengthened inspection program can

help ensure that we make wise investments to maintain and preserve all bridges.

Mr. Chairman, we thank you for holding this hearing and are especially grateful

to you and Committee Members for the opportunity to submit this statement.

APWA and our members stand ready to assist you and the Committee as we move

forward to address our nation’s bridge needs.

Æ