Mission
 

Establish a roadmap for integrating steel bridge design through-construction
 

processes and for advancing the state-of-the-practice in steel bridge manufacturing
 

automation and productivity
 

April 23-25, 2001
 

at Edison Welding Institute
 

1250 Arthur E. Adams Dr.
 

Columbus, OH 43221
 

Sponsors
 

Federal Highway Administration
 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
 

National Steel Bridge Alliance
 

Edison Welding Institute
 
NOTICE 

This publication is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation 

in the interest of information exchange. The report does not constitute a standard, 

specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or 

manufacturers. Trade or manufactures' names appear in the publication only because they 

are considered essential to the object of this document. 

NSBA Disclaimer 

All data, specifications, suggested practices, and drawings presented herein, are based on 

the best available information and delineated in accordance with recognized professional 

engineering principles and practices, and are published for general information only. 

Procedures and products, suggested or discussed, should not be used without first securing 

competent advice respecting their suitability for any given application. 

Publication of the material herein is not to be construed as a warranty on the part of the 

National Steel Bridge Alliance, or that of any person named herein, that these data and 

suggested practices are suitable for any general or particular use, or of freedom from 

infringement on any patent or patents. Further, any use of these data or suggested practices 

can only be made with the understanding that the National Steel Bridge Alliance makes no 

warranty of any kind respecting such use and the user assumes all liability arising therefrom 
Computer Integrated Steel Bridge Design and Construction:

 Expanding Automation
 

Table of Contents
 

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................. i
 

Preface..................................................................................................................ii
 

Introduction........................................................................................................... 1
 

Background .......................................................................................................... 1
 

Workshop - Format - General & Breakout Sessions........................................ 2-10
 

Workshop Outcome............................................................................................ 11
 

References......................................................................................................... 12
 

Appendix A: Theme Areas......................................................................................
 

1.	 Computer Generated Drawings/Modeling 

 and Electronic Information Transfer..................................................... A-1-a-b

 2. Standardized Specifications and Paperless Approval Processes........ A-2-a-b

 3. Standardized Design Details to Facilitate Automation......................... A-3-a-b

 4. Showcase of Benefits of Automation ................................................... A-4-a-b 

Appendix B: Pre-Workshop Fabricator Questionnaire

 Summary of Responses .............................................................................B-1-3 

Appendix C: Pre-Workshop General Questionnaire

 Summary of Responses ............................................................................ C-1-3
 

Appendix D: Roster of Attendees and Affiliations ..............................................D-1
 

Appendix E: Brainstormed Topics ..................................................................E-1-7
 

Appendix F: Glossary ..................................................................................... F-1-3
 
Acknowledgments 

The Workshop, "Computer Integrated Steel Bridge Design and Construction ­

Enhancing Automation", was jointly sponsored by the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the National 

Steel Bridge Alliance (NSBA). It was cosponsored by the American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Edison Welding Institute 

(EWI) and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 

Following individuals served on the Workshop Steering Committee: 

� Krishna Verma, Federal Highway Administration 

� Arun Shirole', National Steel Bridge Alliance 

� Robert Kratzenberg, Edison Welding Institute 

� Thomas Siewert, National Institute of Standards and Technology 

� Stuart Chen, State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo 

� Theodore Ferragut, TDC Partners 

i 
Preface 

You hold in your hands the report of a unique workshop on Automation in Steel 

Bridge Design and Construction. Participants in this workshop represented diverse 

constituencies: the public sector (owners), fabricators, academics, software 

developers, and the Edison Welding Institute (EWI). This workshop is believed to 

be the first of its kind anywhere. The report provides a glimpse of both the 

excitement and the challenges facing us in utilizing the benefits of automation for 

producing steel bridges of the highest quality and value and to do so more 

expeditiously and more economically. 

The report represents the snapshot in time when the workshop was held in April 

2001. Since then, several initiatives have been undertaken. These initiatives 

include the following: 

1.	 An NCHRP funded study has been initiated on "Evaluation of 3D Computer 

Modeling and Electronic Information Transfer for Efficient Design and 

Construction of Steel Bridges." The objective of this study is twofold: (i) 

Review and synthesize available technical information relevant to the 

automation of steel bridge design and construction, and (ii) Summarize the 

3D modeling and electronic information transfer technologies which most 

merit being transferred or adapted to expand use of automation in steel 

bridge design and construction. This study is a direct outgrowth of Theme 

Area 1 arising from the workshop. 

2.	 Several owners and fabricators are exploring varying degrees of paperless 

approval processes. These explorations were identified in Theme Area 2. 

3.	 A number of initiatives of task groups within the AASHTO/NSBA 

Collaboration (www.steelbridge.org) are addressing some of the concerns 

raised in Theme Area 3, "Standardized Design Details to Facilitate 

Automation." Two of these, for example, are Guidelines for Design Drawing 

Presentation and Design for Constructibility. 

4.	 A meeting was held at the recent (January 2002) TRB Annual Meeting to 

plan next steps for Theme Area 4, "Showcase of Benefits of Automation." 

More information on this initiative will be forthcoming as it becomes available. 

ii 
Computer Integrated Steel Bridge
 

Design and Construction: Expanding Automation
 Stuart S. Chen, Ph.D., P.E. 

INTRODUCTION 

In April 2001, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Bridge 

Technology in collaboration with the National Steel Bridge Alliance organized a 

workshop to discuss integrating advanced computer-aided technologies in the 

design, fabrication, and construction of steel bridges. The mission of the workshop 

was as follows: 

Establish a roadmap for integrating steel bridge design through-construction 

processes and for advancing the state-of-the-practice in steel bridge manufacturing 

automation and productivity. 

Edison Welding Institute (EWI) hosted this three-day workshop in Columbus, Ohio, 

with AASHTO and EWI co-sponsoring the event. Fifty-three individuals with 

diverse expertise and from three continents participated in the workshop, 

representing government and consulting engineers, fabricators, erectors, welding 

experts and academia. Appendix D lists the attendees. 

Four theme area statements and accompanying action plans were developed. The 

action plans included objectives, rationale, short-, medium- and long-term tasks, 

potential resources to implement the plan, obstacles and potential payoffs. 

BACKGROUND 

In 1999, an international review tour of steel bridge fabrication sites was conducted 

by a study team headed by the Federal Highway Administration (1) focusing on the 

role of steel bridge design, innovation, and fabrication in modern steel fabrication 

facilities in Japan, Italy, Germany, and the United Kingdom. The objective of this 

scanning tour was to conduct a broad overview of newly developed manufacturing 

techniques that are in use abroad for steel bridge fabrication and erection. 

The team recommended several areas involving automation on which the U.S. 

industry should focus to improve competitiveness. The “Workshop on Computer 

Integrated Steel Bridge Design and Construction: Expanding Automation” was 

organized as a follow-up to pursue automation aspects of these recommendations. 

1
 
WORKSHOP FORMAT 

General Session 

In preparation for the workshop, a Pre-Workshop Survey and Questionnaire and a 

Pre-Workshop Fabricator Questionnaire were sent to prospective workshop 

attendees. The questionnaires asked the attendees to comment on the major 

obstacles toward automation in our industry. The information contained in their 

replies helped workshop organizers structure the general session and breakout 

sessions of the workshop. 

The workshop's first day was devoted to hearing presentations regarding 

automation and computer integrated systems from domestic and foreign sources. 

The second and third days were spent brainstorming ideas and writing action plan 

statements. First day presentations included the following and involved authors 

from Europe and Japan as well as the U.S. (2): 

•	 Observations from FHWA's Steel Bridge Automation-International Review 

Tour (K. Frank, U. of Texas) 

•	 Looking for Optimal Factory Automation Balanced Against Demand Capital 

(S. Tada, Kawada Industries) 

•	 Electronic Data Transfer and Processing for Automation (S. Chen, SUNY at 

Buffalo) 

•	 Automated Fabrication and Detailing Methods in the UK (G. Booth, Fairfield 

Mabey) 

•	 Bulldozers or Bridges--What's the Difference (T. Jutla, Caterpillar, Inc.) 

•	 Automation and Process Improvement in the Shipbuilding Industry (J. Dydo, 

Edison Welding Institute) 

•	 Systemization with CAD/CAM Welding Robots in Steel Bridge Fabrication (Y. 

Kanjo, NKK Industries) 

•	 Advances in Arc Welding Technology for Heavy Manufacturing (D. Harwig, 

Edison Welding Institute) 

•	 Steeling the Competitive Edge - Is there a place for Robots (J. Weston, The 

Welding Institute) 

•	 Automation Generation of Contract Plans for Steel Bridges (J. Jang and R. 

Teli, Columbus Engineering Consultants) 

•	 Computer Integration in Fabrication and Erection (J. O’Neil, Cleveland
 

Bridge)
 

Opening Session 

Welcoming Remarks 

Mr. Krishna Verma, Senior Welding Engineer with the Office of Bridge Technology 

in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), welcomed the assembled 

participants on behalf of the sponsoring agencies and pointed out that the 1999 

International Review Tour served as the basis of this workshop. That tour revealed 

to U.S. experts that steel bridge members can be fabricated efficiently and 

economically using automation and robots. Still, no fully integrated 

2
 
design/fabrication/erection process exists currently, as steel bridge fabrication 

practice in the U.S. is currently highly decentralized. With the large number of steel 

bridges that are fabricated in the United States each year, and with our expanding 

bridge program, Computer Integrated Manufacturing technology has tremendous 

potential. 

Mr. Arun Shirole', Executive Director of the National Steel Bridge Alliance (NSBA), 

welcomed the participants and pointed out the diverse constituencies they 

represent: the public sector (owners), fabricators, academics, software developers, 

and the Edison Welding Institute (EWI). This workshop is believed to be the first of 

its kind anywhere. 

Plenary Session 1: Automation in Steel Bridge Design and 

Construction – Current Status 

“Observations From FHWA’s Steel Bridge Fabrication Review Tour“ 

Prof. Karl Frank of the University of Texas at Austin, a participant in FHWA’s 1999 

International Review Tour, presented a summary of observations relating to aspects 

of automation from that tour of steel bridge fabrication plants in Japan, Italy, 

Germany, and the United Kingdom. Although none of the plants were fully 

automated, the ones with the highest degree of automation had fully automated 

thermal cutting lines, girder lines and web lines which included automated stiffener 

welding, and a semi-automated stiffened plate straightening station. 

Implications for changes to U.S. practice, if these advances were to be deployed 

here, include the following: 

•	 Elimination of radiographic inspection in favor of automation-friendly ultrasonic 

inspection, which would require new definitions of equipment and operator 

qualifications and new acceptance specifications based on fitness for purpose 

rather than the present workmanship requirements, 

•	 Elimination of submerged-arc welding (and required flux handling systems) in 

favor of automation-friendly GMAW or MIG/MAG welding processes, and 

•	 Use (and long-term archival) of a single 3D CAD model as the sole source of 

information on detailing, shop drawing information, CNC drilling and cutting 

instruction, automated inspection and virtual assembly (geometry verification), 

and 

•	 Possible contractual ties between fabricator and erector in order to facilitate 

virtual assembly 

“Looking for Optimal Factory Automation Balanced Against Demand, Capital 

Investment and Efficiency” 

Mr. Satoshi Tada of Kawada Industries presented a description of the automation 

history of the Shikoku plant in Japan, where steel box girders are much more 

prevalent than in the U.S. The CAD/CAM system in this plan provides a 3D model 

of fabrication geometry. This model enables checking of all three-dimensional 

relationships of all components within the structure and virtual assembly. It also 

generates CNC fabrication data obtained through “a 2D unfolding process within the 

system.” 

3
 
Another feature of the fabrication plant is extensive use of robotic welding 

equipment, processes, and attendant automation-friendly detailing. Interestingly, 

there is little automation downstream (box assembly, welding, straightening, and 

finishing). Quantitative comparisons of costs to produce project documentation 

before and after automation were presented. 

“Electronic Data Transfer and Processing for Automation” 

Prof. Stuart Chen of State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo described the 

need for standardization and automation in the context of the currently fragmented 

nature of the industry, along with a review of some current developments towards 

standardization and a case study showcasing benefits of automation based on 3D 

CAD modeling. Standardization should focus on the specifications (intellectual 

requirements) that “stay the same” from job to job, e.g., design details, inspection 

methods and acceptance criteria. Automation is envisioned via design and detailing 

software, hardware and software for electronic information transfer, and fabrication 

equipment and processes. A review of the various consensus standards developed 

(or under development) by the AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration highlights 

aspects of both the content of and the process underlying standards that 

owners/specifiers need to adopt before automation and its attendant economies can 

move forward. What these standards accomplish for information transfer for human 

eyes needs to be extended to electronic means of information transfer. Then the 

present “islands of automation” will begin to be bridged, likely based on rapidly 

developing web-based standards for software integration and business-to-business 

electronic commerce. 

Benefits of 3D CAD modeling in a steel bridge rehabilitation project were highlighted 

in a case study of a deck replacement. The 3D modeling in combination with a GISbased site survey was indispensable not only for fabrication but also for the 

visualization and planning of construction sequencing that involved installing a 

temporary gantry crane system, maintaining traffic, replacing utility lines and 

girders, jacking and re-using existing trusses, and pouring a new deck. 

EWI Facilities Tour 

Dr. Robert Kratzenberg and his associates of the Edison Welding Institute (EWI) 

hosted a tour of EWI’s internationally recognized laboratory and training facilities. 

Luncheon Keynote Session 

“Automated Fabrication and Detailing Methods in the U.K.” 

Mr. Geoffrey Booth of Fairfield-Mabey in England described the use of fully 

integrated 3D modeling, which in spite of being 30% slower than 2D CAD has huge 

spin-off benefits. The single 3D model is the basis for CAM (computer-aided 

manufacturing) as well as CAD, since the model serves as a template for CNC 

layout. The model is used to inform machines, not shop floor people. Thus, there 

are no shop drawings (!). The model is a single source of data about all relevant 

4
 
attributes of the structure that can be packaged in various ways. Quantity takeoffs 

for estimating and scheduling, for example, can be extracted from the single 

database of structure attribute information. 

Fabricator workflow involves issuing RFI’s (requests for information) to designers 

upon scrutinizing the designer’s drawings, with the 3D model generated after 

answers are received. Full numerical descriptions of each attribute of each piece 

enable generation of plate nesting instructions as well as CNC machine instructions. 

It is suggested that the 3D modeling system is the most significant advance and is 

the one to implement first; robotization can then follow. A “sensible mix of human 

skills and hi-tech machines” is desirable, “otherwise the technology owns you.” 

Weld preheat does not fit well within automated processing and the need for it 

should be eliminated. ISO 9001 certification is used as the basis of quality 

assurance. The most typical contracting mechanism in the U.K. is DBFO (DesignBuild, Finance, Operate), where the contractor recruits the designer and fast 

turnarounds are valued. 

Plenary Session 2: Experience with Automation for Steel 

Fabrication 

“Bulldozers or Bridges – What’s the Difference?” 

Dr. Tarsem Jutla of Caterpillar described the digital design and manufacturing 

employed by Caterpillar’s $3.5 billion business in fabricated structures, specifically 

earth-moving machines that are more complicated than our bridge structures, with 

tighter tolerances. Computer simulations using high-powered finite element 

analyses extracted from CAD solid models are employed, for example, for the 

following: 

� rolling and flattening operations, including cold rolled residual stress 

distributions, 

� laser cutting, including thermal distortions.
 

Thus, adaptive forming can compensate for “springback” and welding process
 

simulations predict residual stress and distortions and enable robot process
 

planning to work right the first time.
 

This presentation essentially pointed out, via the illustrative example provided by 

Caterpillar bulldozers, that customized job-shop fabrication of large steel structures 

could be highly automated around robust 3D computer modeling and that such 

automation increased throughput and reduced turnaround time. Future trends point 

to increased use of laser technology not just for cutting (currently up to 35 mm thick) 

but also for shaping parts, removing mill scale and machining. Working closely with 

the supply chain is considered important to establish strategic relationships to share 

both risks and rewards. 

“Automation and Process Improvements in the Shipbuilding Industry” 

Dr. James Dydo of Edison Welding Institute provided an overview of current 

procedures and recent developments in steel fabrication within the shipbuilding 

industry. Increased use of robotics and laser process methods are evident, as are 

changes in design for fabrication, e.g., design for modular assembly. Robust 

5
 
techniques that reduce welding distortion and improve fitup accuracy are of interest 

to the Navy. Accordingly, they have initiated the following development 

projects(described further in the full paper): 

•	 Advanced modeling techniques for prediction of distortion: buckling, angular 

change, and in-plane shrinkage (“We can predict distorted shape”), 

•	 “Thermal tensioning” techniques that reduce the amount of welding distortion via 

application of auxiliary heat and/or cooling during the welding process, and 

•	 “Thermal forming” techniques that apply heat selectively to the surface of a plate 

for the purposes of inducing curvature, even the compound (multi-axis) 

curvatures required of ship hulls. 

“Systemization with CAD/CAM Welding Robots in Steel Bridge Fabrication” 

Mr. Yoshihiro Kanjo of NKK Industries described multi-robot CAD/CAM welding 

systems developed for bridge fabrication and shipbuilding at NKK’s Tsu works. The 

key technologies facilitating welding automation in the robotic systems are focused 

on four areas: 

•	 High-speed rotating arc welding process for increasing welding efficiency, 

•	 A coordinate transformation system tied in with multifunctional arc sensors that 

corrects the positional mismatch before and during welding, 

•	 An altered production process (panel subassembly distinct from box assembly) 

in order to accommodate multiple simultaneous robots for welding for increased 

throughput, and 

•	 An integrated 3D CAD/CAM computer system that generates not only 2D 

drawing views, material lists, and CNC data, but also robot motion simulation 

and path data (in conjunction with the welding motion pattern database) and the 

multi-robot control system (e.g., to avoid robot collisions during welding). 

“Advances in Arc Welding Technology for Heavy Manufacturing” 

Mr. Dennis Harwig of Edison Welding Institute presented emerging arc welding 

technologies and opportunities for heavy manufacturing. Principal drivers for these 

developments are the need for increased welding speed and higher quality 

weldments. Key technologies are identified as the following: 

•	 high deposition processes (possible with SAW, FCAW, or GMAW-T), 

•	 welding procedure optimization accounting for interactions between process and 

production factors, 

•	 real-time data acquisition and quality monitoring with statistical process control, 

•	 robotics using both cartesian and articulated arm approaches, 

•	 adaptive welding technology with real-time through-arc sensing and dimensional 

inspection and application-specific adaptive fill algorithms, and 

•	 hybrid welding (e.g., hybrid laser/GMAW welding). 

Plenary Session 3: Implementation Issues 

“Steeling the Competitive Edge – Is there a place for Robots?” 

Mr. John Weston of the Welding Institute in England described the manufacturing 

6
 
processes used in the steel fabrication industry in terms of requirements for 

automation and robotics. Fabrication shops have been quick to implement islands 

of automation for operations such as CNC drilling, cutting, or machining. But there 

has been a reluctance to adopt a more widespread robotization of fabrication shop 

operations. These operations include: 

•	 Cleaning (typ. blast cleaning), where a robotic arm could manipulate the blasting 

nozzle, 

•	 Cutting and profiling, where robots in the automotive industry have been used in 

place of press trimming or punching, 

•	 Hole forming, which can be done via drilling or punching on multi-headed NC 

machines in 3D on a range of section shapes, 

•	 Joining, including not just arc welding robots but also bolting, nailing, riveting, 

and bonding with adhesives, 

•	 Bending and pressing, where NC operation is increasingly being deployed, 

•	 Rolling, where NC operational controls are increasingly being deployed, 

•	 Machining, a longtime NC process where robots are increasingly being used, 

•	 Applications of protective coatings, and 

•	 Handling, which has thus far resisted robotic solutions owing to the sheer size 

and diversity of product dimensions and shapes. 

Soon, robots may be applied in the following areas: 

•	 Cutting and marking (increasingly with laser systems), 

•	 Welding (initially using arc processes and eventually lasers), 

•	 Nondestructive examination (NDE), and 

•	 Coatings (painting robots), with their increased health and safety requirements. 

Information technology (IT) is seen as a key enabling technology that in this context 

requires robust linkages between numerous computer based applications such as 

CAD, simulation cells, administration, scheduling, planning, purchasing (ordering), 

and maintenance control. 

“Automated Generation of Contract Plans for Steel Bridges” 

One of the disconnects in the process of producing a steel bridge is the need to 

generate contract drawings after the bridge is actually designed. This presentation 

focuses entirely on this particular disconnect. Dr. Jack Jang and Mr. Raju Teli of 

Columbus Engineering Consultants described commercial software, cecSTEEL, 

that generates contract plans compliant with Ohio standards, for steel beam and 

plate girder bridges. Superstructure drawings, for example, include: 

•	 Typical transverse sections, 

•	 Deck reinforcing plan, 

•	 Framing plan and beam elevations, 

•	 Deflection/camber table, 

•	 Screed elevations table, 

•	 Bearing and splice details, and 

•	 Parapet transitions. 

In effect, the development of the software required the parameterization of the 

information contained in a set of contract plans for an entire typical steel bridge 

7
 
crossing. Secondary calculations such as detailed structure dimensions, beam seat 

elevations, screed elevations, material quantities, pay item quantities, reinforcing 

steel list, etc., are directly performed by the software in order to reduce the tedium 

of data entry. The software prompts the user for only the governing design 

parameters, performs all secondary calculations, and then generates the AutoCAD 

or MicroStation files containing the contract plans for the bridge in a fraction of the 

time it would normally take. 

“Computer Integration in Fabrication and Erection” 

Mr. James O’Neill of Cleveland Bridge in England described construction methods 

employed in building two very different large bridge projects: asymmetric box girder 

bascule bridges on the Bellmouth crossing in London and the Boyne cable-stayed 

bridge in Ireland. Modularization was successfully employed to minimize site risks 

associated with working at heights and reducing construction period by maximizing 

off-site activities. Planning of construction, using purpose-built temporary decks 

and incremental launching assisted by temporary stays, was greatly facilitated by 

use of the 3D CAD model. This presentation highlights the role of automation in the 

fabrication – erection interface. 

Plenary Session Summary 

There are a number of error-prone, inefficient and time-consuming disconnects at 

the transitions between the various stages in the design, plan generation, 

fabrication, and erection of a steel bridge. The Day 1 introductory and plenary 

presentations at the workshop each examined various aspects of those disconnects 

and the emerging technologies that potentially could help to remedy them. 

Some recurrent themes coming out of these presentations (and in the breakout 

sessions that followed) highlighted the need for the following: 

•	 Solid modeling based on a single 3D model as in other industries (3), not just 

2D CAD drafting, enabling direct links to manufacturing (e.g., CNC 

machines) 

o	 Virtual assembly 

o	 Model as a single source of data that can be extracted and packaged in 

various ways 

•	 Automated inspection and data recording as being done elsewhere and in 

related industries, 

•	 Use welding processes (e.g., GMAW) suitable for automation, 

•	 Modifying/eliminating current specs that are unduly restrictive and outdated, 

•	 Development of standard specifications, to replace the current myriad variety 

of state specifications, that would facilitate automation, 

•	 Design-Build type of approach that overcomes the adversarial barriers that 

plague the traditional contracting approach typically employed in bridge 

construction. 

•	 A cost effective systems approach that does not merely introduce robots or 

increase the speed of one of the processes. 

The table below provides an overview of some of the recurrent themes, by speaker. 

8
 
Plenary Speaker 

3D CAD ModelAutomated Inspection and DataRecordingAutomation-Friendly Welding(e.g., SAW GMAW)Automation-Friendly Inspection(e.g., RT UT)Virtual AssemblySpecs: Need to Consolidateand ModernizeDB(FO)Prediction &/or Control ofFabrication OperationsSystems Approach 

Frank • • • • • • • • 

Tada • • • • • 

Chen • • 

Booth • • • • • • • 

Jutla • • • • 

Dydo • • • 

Kanjo • • • • • • 

Harwig • • • 

Weston • • • 

Jang • 

O’Neil • • 

Implementation Panel Discussion and Open Forum 

As a precursor to the small-group brainstorming sessions to follow, the entire group 

of 53 participants engaged in some collective brainstorming. Some of the opinions 

and suggestions expressed during this collective brainstorming, slightly edited, were 

as follows: 

1.	 The model of information flow presented by Mr. Kanjo was helpful. 

2.	 Focus first on 3D information modeling (rather than robotics). 

3.	 We see that it can be done. What are the barriers to doing it here? We need 

to spend some time dealing with these barriers. 

4.	 Design-build breaks down the adversarial barriers that our system has in it. 

The issue is who is taking the risk, and how to share the risk. Construction 

Managers (CM’s) are not builders. 

5.	 (In the U.K.) through DBFO, we’re back to managing work, and expertise is 

valued. The issue is culture. When “FO” was added, expertise became 

valued. 

6.	 Can we (in the U.S.) invest useful energy into DBFO? Perhaps DB
 

advocates should be encouraged to push for DBFO.
 

9
 
7.	 We should define a list of items that need to be standardized along with 

associated impacts, e.g., gas welding and alternatives to RT (i.e., 

automation-friendly fabrication and inspection technologies). 

8.	 Caterpillar, like the auto industry, produces customized, made-to-order 

products. What do they standardize? 

9.	 Issue: how to set standards that make use of the knowledge out there (e.g., 

regarding welding). The basis for such standards ought to be fitness for 

service. 

10.We need to articulate the benefits of change. 

11.Comments thus far emphasize that lack of standardization is a hurdle. The 

steel industry keeps saying that they will give customers what they want, 

rather than articulate benefits of standardization. 

12.DOTs at times have inexperienced engineers in charge of fabrication. They 

in turn are reluctant to consider spec changes. 

13.Problem: how far can the owner be expected to bend? 

14.A further problem is that owner-fabricator exchanges don’t get communicated 

back to the designers. 

Breakout Sessions 

The objectives for the breakout sessions and group sessions on the second and 

third days were as follows: 

1.	 Identify advances needed in the state-of-the-art of the various 

technical support technologies (e.g., robotics, open software 

standards), and 

2.	 Identify high-payoff pilot projects, potential teams for those 

projects, and mutually agreed-upon statements of “where do we go 

from here?” to explore implementation issues and business 

process re-engineering required to implement available and 

emerging technologies needed. 

On the second day, four breakout groups were formed based on the pre-workshop 

questionnaires (shown in Appendices B and C) and first day discussions. Each 

breakout group was constituted to have a mix of fabricators, DOT engineers, and 

other stakeholders. The breakout groups’ first task was to brainstorm ideas on what 

the steel bridge industry's focus should be regarding automation. The four breakout 

groups identified over 100 ideas, listed in Appendix E. Participants then voted to 

identify the most important ideas for further development. 

Workshop facilitators then organized these ideas into common themes. The 

breakout groups reconvened to write action plans for the resulting four theme areas. 

The action plans included objectives, rationale, short-, medium- and long-term 

tasks, potential resources to implement the plan, obstacles and potential payoffs. 

The four theme areas are as follows: 

10
 
1.	 Computer Generated Drawings/Modeling and Electronic Information 

Transfer (Electronic Design and Drawings Transfer and Modeling) 

2.	 Standardized Specifications and Paperless Approval Processes 

3.	 Standardized Design Details to Facilitate Automation 

4.	 Showcase of Benefits of Automation 

The action plans for these four theme areas appear in Appendix A of this report. 

WORKSHOP OUTCOME 

The mission of the workshop, as stated earlier, was to establish a roadmap for 

integrating steel bridge design through-construction processes and for advancing 

the state-of-the-practice in steel bridge manufacturing automation and productivity. 

That “roadmap” took shape primarily along the lines of the four theme areas 

described above. The first theme area already has served as the basis for a 

NCHRP Problem Synthesis statement on “Evaluation of 3D Computer Modeling and 

Electronic Information Transfer for Efficient Design and Construction of Steel 

Bridges.” Other theme areas are being pursued partly via several of the task 

groups in the AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration (www.steelbridge.org). 

Ultimately, the consensus standards that have emerged or will emerge from such 

efforts will need to be accepted and adopted by owners if the objective of improved 

economies from increased automation is to be addressed. 

11
 
REFERENCES 

1. Verma. K., K. Frank, W. Wright, R. Medlock, B. McEleney, P. Loftus, B. Kase, H. 

Campbell, A. Wilson, J. Fisher, K. Lineham, M. Cress, R. Anderson, A. Shirole, D. 

Mertz, J. Uttrachi, R. Sathre, J. Hamilton, “Steel Bridge Fabrication Technologies in 

Europe and Japan,” Technical Report No. FHWA-PL-01-018, March 2001, 64 pp. 

2. ___, “Computer Integrated Steel Bridge Design and Construction: Expanding 

Automation,” Collection of Plenary Session Papers, sponsored by Federal Highway 

Administration, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 

National Steel Bridge Alliance, and Edison Welding Institute, Columbus, Ohio, April 

23-25, 2001. 

3. ___, “Electronic Data Interchange,” www.aisc.org (August 2001). 

12
 
APPENDIX "A"
 

Theme Areas
 
APPENDIX A-1 

Theme Area 1: Computer Generated Drawings/Modeling 

and Electronic Information Transfer (Electronic Design 

and Drawings Transfer and Modeling) 

Objective 

Identify and document the various computer automation and data communication 

technologies needed to build cost-effective and quality bridges in a time efficient 

manner, from planning through in-service. 

Rationale 

Existing bridge building processes typically involve time-consuming information 

transfer and approval procedures that involve traditional paper handling and 

document transfer between entities. Computer automation and data communication 

technologies could make this process faster, better and cheaper. 

Short-Term Tasks: 

1.	 Identify and evaluate existing internet file transfer formats for a) contract 

plans, b) contract documentation, and c) shop plan submittals and approvals. 

Electronic file transfer could be used for bidding considerations by 

contractors, fabricators, RFI's, shop drawing and erection plan approvals and 

contract documentation. 

2.	 Investigate potential for standardization of these formats (e.g., MicroStation? 

CIMSteel?). 

3.	 Monitor what is being done: 

- In more advanced industries (e.g., automotive) 

- On current Design/Build projects 

- In New York State with High Steel 

- In Great Britain re: owner-exported central models to all parties whom 

each build on that model, resulting in a complete record of the project. 

- Airports, Ove Arup, Cleveland Bridge, Strucad, Xsteel and NSBA 

4.	 Form multi-entity collaboration with several fabricators and owners to
 

examine file formats, develop test cases, etc.
 

5.	 Fabricators: Advocate and implement e-transmittal & e-redlining of shop 

drawings etc. 

6.	 Quantify benefits of 3D solid modeling (used in automotive industry) vs. 3D 

wireframe modeling. 

A-1-a 
Medium-Term Tasks: 

1.	 Identify data information constraints and hidden time delays between owner, 

fabricator, erector and contractor. 

2.	 Investigate CAM processes to utilize 3D model data in order to generate 

individual program instructions for various automated fabrication machines. 

Long-Term Tasks: 

1.	 Establish software (accompanied with training) enabling designers to 

generate 3D models of the structure. Fabricators, Contractors and Erectors 

could then download data from the 3D model directly into their computers for 

specialized processing. 

2.	 Flesh out corollary information to accompany 3D CAD model. 

3.	 Radically alter workflow with all aspects of design and design/construction 

information transfer on the computer. 

Potential Resources: 

1.	 Software companies specializing in computer generated drawings and 

electronic data transfer systems 

2.	 University researchers 

3.	 AASHTO/NSBA Collaboration 

4.	 Fabricators using CAD 

5.	 Detailers using internet transfer 

6.	 AASHTO and FHWA could furnish funding and education transfer 

7.	 NCHRP/TRB 

Obstacles: 

•	 Lack of knowledge to manipulate computer data systems 

•	 Contractual issues 

•	 Consulting engineers think of their product as drawings 

•	 Current fee structures and how work is priced 

•	 Lack of coordination of computer data systems within Governmental
 

agencies
 

•	 Security concerns 

•	 Owners may want to limit software/hardware selections 

Potential Payoffs: 

•	 Faster process from contract bid documents to completed bridge 

•	 A more reliable schedule 

•	 Lower costs 

•	 More accurate (construction process) and longer life structures 

•	 Better record of contract history for potential compensation litigation 

A-1-b 
APPENDIX A-2 

Theme Area 2: Standardized Specifications and Paperless 

Approval Processes 

Objectives: 

1. Establish among various owners the same demands, expectations and
 

flexibility, in order to facilitate automation and level the playing field.
 

2. Enable owners, contractors, fabricators and erectors to work together for: 

•	 Easier approval on changes 

•	 Better communications 

•	 More cost-effective structures 

Rationale: 

Current wide variations in owners’ method specs prevent automation; standardized 

specs are needed to facilitate automation and the benefits thereof. Build 

partnerships, trust. 

Short-Term Tasks: 

1. Include mill certs in fab specs; don’t restrict e-submittal. 

2. Allow UT in lieu of RT; consider auto-UT (review criteria used by fabricators in 

Japan). Who: (i) FHWA NDE validation center for tech changes in leadership; 

(ii) Joint AASHTO/AWS Bridge Welding Code committee for implementation 

in code. 

3. Review TWI-generated acceptance criteria and Japanese work in this area for 

possible direct use in US practice (fit-for-purpose based rather than 

workmanship based). Who: leading fatigue/fracture academics in US, UK, 

and Japan. 

4. Review research on (robot-friendly) operations which specs prohibit (re: 

laser/plasma cutting, drilling full-size holes, painting, etc.) Who: TRB 

Committee A2F07. 

5. Performance-based specs (rather than method-focused): 

•	 Encourage states to work through issues that stymie standardization: 

AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration. 

•	 Begin regional implementation of Collaboration-authored fabrication spec: 

Collaboration and associated regional and local quality groups. 

6. AASHTO T-14 (Steel Structures) needs to hear from fabricators, erectors, and 

G.C.s regarding constructibility with LRFD designs. Who: fabricators who 

attend T-14 meetings. 

7. Investigate robotic painting/metallizing technologies, reliability, payback. Who: 

Collaboration Task Group 8, Coatings. 

8. Fabricators and erectors need to inform AASHTO T-17 (Welding) and A-9 

(AWS) regarding constructibility with LRFD designs. 

9. Review U.K.’s certification and auditing processes for fabricators and
 

erectors. AISC Committee CFOS.
 

A-2-a 
Medium-Term Tasks: 

1. Make fabricator certification have a category such that owners do not feel the 

need to have inspection hold points. Who: AISC Certification committee, 

with emphasis and interest expressed by member fabricators. 

2. Continue ongoing support of the AASHTO/NSBA Collaboration. All industry 

and owner leaders. 

3. Finish and implement Collaboration constructibility guide (Beckmann) and 

standard details (Gatti). Who: AASHTO/NSBA Collaboration. 

4. Certification of erectors: encourage owners to require. Who: Collaboration, 

through erection specification; AISC, through speaking engagements; NSBA 

newsletter. 

Long-Term Tasks: 

1. Establish certification protocols for robotic welders (Ref. ISO standard for 

mechanized welding, ASME 9): Bridge Welding Code committee. 

2. Enable PQR Reciprocity: Collaboration. 

3. More Design-Build-Maintain or DB(FO) – need paradigm shift: product as 

long-term monitorable facility not just fabricated steel: Information Mode, 

Training Mode Who: NSBA. 

Potential Resources to Tap: 

• Japanese fabricators and Ohio DOT: Auto-UT acceptance criteria and trial 

• Turner-Fairbank NDE validation center 

• AISC Certification Program/Committee 

• Group 4 “Road Show” 

Obstacles: 

• Reliability, payback 

• Resistance to change 

Potential Payoffs: 

• Faster construction 

• Competitive, cost-effective structures 

• Higher quality, less defects 

• Standardization 

A-2-b 
APPENDIX A-3 

Theme Area 3: Standardized Design Details to Facilitate 

Automation 

Objective and Rationale: 

The design process should lead to a structure that provides the best lifetime value 

to the owner. Automation has been shown to reduce initial cost and improve 

quality in the final product. Enhancing bridge designers’ knowledge of the total 

construction processes (fabrication, steel production, erection, etc.) will improve the 

quality of their designs. In addition, standardizing practical bridge details reduces 

cost by ensuring that details are constructable and cost-effective. Automation is 

cost-effective when repeatable tasks are included in the process. Performance– 

based specifications and increased automation open the door to new bridge types 

with more complex component assembly and without a cost penalty. 

Short-term Tasks: 

1.	 Survey the industry to determine the effect of design decisions and 

specifications on the use of and potential for automation in fabrication shops 

in the United States 

2.	 Gather available data from sources to determine the impact on cost and 

speed of fabrication for design details in the industry. Evaluate the available 

information to determine if it is applicable to current practice and compatible 

with automated processes. 

Medium-Term Tasks: 

1.	 Produce a Designer’s Guide for Value and Economy in a Constructed Steel 

Bridge, hardcopy and online. Ongoing in the AASHTO/NSBA Collaboration. 

2.	 Virtual bank of pre-approved standard details that could be substituted by the 

fabricator. 

3.	 Produce a Fabrication Tour for Designers (Virtual Tour with system and 

equipment, describe how you build a plate girder through an automated 

process). 

4.	 Develop a Virtual Steel Mill Tour for Designers (plate and rolled shape mills) 

5.	 Make materials available for free download from the internet. 

Long-Term Tasks: 

1.	 Contribute to the development of Performance-based Specification for steel 

bridge design and construction to encourage creativity and innovation. 

2.	 Develop new steel design bridge types and specs that will make more 

effective use of automation. 

3.	 Develop incentive system for the designer to create bridges, which are the 

best value to the owner. 

A-3-a 
Potential Resources: 

NHI, AISI, NSBA, Bethlehem/Lukens, US Steel, Nucor-Yamato, Oregon Steel Mills, 

Chaparral, individual fabricators, Regional Groups (Texas Quality council, SCEF, 

North Central States) State Bridge Design Manuals, Japan, UK, Value Engineering 

studies performed by states and FHWA, Alternate designs performed by states, 

FHWA and D/B, FHWA, AISC, State DOTs, EWI, TWI, Lincoln Electric, AWS, 

Hobart, AREMA, University researchers, Carolina Steel & others (shop tour). 

Obstacles: 

•	 “WE’VE ALWAYS DONE IT THAT WAY” 

•	 “WE TRIED THAT 15 YEARS AGO” 

•	 “IF IT WAS A GOOD IDEA, SOMEONE ELSE WOULD HAVE DONE IT BY 

NOW” 

•	 Communication through the ranks to the designers, who turn over frequently 

•	 Fabricators not necessarily interested in sharing cost data or process data 

•	 Resistance to Unconditional Acceptance (of pre-approved substitutes) by 

DOTs 

•	 Designer lack of time to iterate and fine-tune 

•	 Lack of a single (unique) governing specification 

•	 Lack of a single (unique) unit of measurement 

Potential Payoffs: 

•	 Reduced initial and life-cycle costs 

•	 Faster delivery of structure to the traveling public 

•	 Platform for continuous improvement 

•	 Enhanced quality which improves public safety 

•	 Increased competition between materials 

A-3-b 
APPENDIX A-4 

Theme Area 4: Showcase of Benefits of Automation 

Objective: 

Prepare/Present ‘road show’ to show benefits and improve awareness of advanced 

technology; case studies are preferred, (multiple demos of combinations of 

software/equipment) to include: 

•	 Advances in 3-D modeling and engineering (2-D) drawings software 

•	 Cutting and welding equipment and demonstrations, including distortion-free 

processing 

•	 Automated inspection 

•	 Discussion of improved steels (low CE) to suit automation 

•	 Cost-effective coatings technology (automated application and long-term 

maintenance) 

• Value Engineering 

Primary audience consists jointly of owners, who have to revise specs, etc to allow 

advancements; and the fabricating industry, as they must make the investments. 

This project is a follow-up to FHWA Scan Tour. We need to understand the current 

culture, and plan this to be acceptable to the various stakeholders. 

Rationale: 

To demonstrate how automation will make steel bridge construction more 

economical/faster to complete and to disseminate the information gained on the 

FHWA Fabrication Scan Tour. 

Short-Term Tasks: 

1.	 Identify lead, advisory panel, estimate costs 

2.	 Identify content to be included (currently available) 

3.	 Identify ‘hot buttons' for owners 

4.	 Prepare proposal for funding to ??? 

5.	 Develop promotional material/website 

6.	 Design/identify program performance measures 

7.	 Do we need to write a proposal for a contractor to establish a cost? 

8.	 Develop calendar 

Medium-Term Tasks: 

1.	 Complete slide/script; begin presenting programs 

2.	 Assess performance measurement 

Long-Term Tasks: 

1.	 Consider alternate media (videos, CD, computer presentations, 

web sites) once we see what works 

2.	 Consider alternate audiences (tech schools, university design and 

engineering programs) 

A-4-a 
Potential Resources: 

1.	 Funding – government, industry (software vendors, equipment manufactures, 

trade groups), regional trade initiatives/zones, assistance in kind (AIK) 

2.	 People – develop, teach/present, AIK, universities, government 

3.	 Content – other tasks, as well technology providers 

Obstacles: 

1.	 Identify lead/Champion, develop consortium, logistics 

2.	 Limited resources 

3.	 Hesitance to share information 

4.	 How do designers fit in? 

5.	 Possible lack of synchronized planning 

6.	 Catch 22: Industry must push for advances, owners (jointly) must allow. 

Which comes first? 

Payoffs: 

1.	 This demonstration will become a resource for themes 1 to 3 for two-way 

flow of information. 

2.	 Enables potential user to evaluate cost/benefit 

3.	 Elevates visibility/image of steel bridge industry capabilities 

4.	 Educational material will attract a younger generation to industry 

5.	 Will supplement other projects aimed at increasing the use of automation 

with tangible/ high-impact examples 

6.	 Health benefits (to workers) from automation 

7.	 Better collaborations over long distances through automation 

A-4-b 
APPENDIX "B"
 

Pre-workshop Fabricator Questionnaire
 

Summary of Responses
 
APPENDIX B 

Summary of Responses Based on 6 responses
 

What, in your opinion, are the major obstacles to aggressively
 

automate steel bridge fabrication in the US?
 

Equipment Limitations - I would need equipment to do the following:
 

•	 Automated equipment would require flexibility. There are so many variables in 

the size, weights, and geometry in bridges. 

•	 I visited a Herman bridge fabrication shop over ten years ago and watched 

Robotic Assembly and Welding. This equipment at the time wasn't available in 

the US. Our industry needs this level of technology immediately for assembly 

and welding. 

•	 Adequate equipment currently exists to automate steel bridge fabrication if 

design and codes are standardized. 

•	 Girder to girder referencing (NDEVC laser system) and CNC drilling equipment 

could lead to elimination of the lay down and reaming operations. 

•	 CNC flame cutting of webs and flanges would improve accuracy and efficiency. 

•	 Acceptance of CNC controlled flame cutting of splice plates and stiffeners to 

include holes for bolts would improve accuracy and efficiency. 

•	 Utilization of girder assembly machines, similar to those used in the metal 

building industry would improve efficiency by eliminating the fit up and tacking 

process as well as combining welding into one operation. 

•	 Universally accepted welding processes and procedures could lead to more 

development of more efficient equipment. 

•	 Too Expensive - I would need additional $$$ to acquire/implement the 

following: 

•	 The $$$ available depends on the cash flow of the business. Larger companies 

will have more cash flow for larger investments, but any project with a 

satisfactory return on investment (ROI) will be done. 

•	 Obviously the type of equipment is very expensive and most small to mid-size 

fabricators couldn't afford the price. 

•	 Not an issue if standardization allows sufficient ROI. 

B-1
 
•	 Although a lot of expense can be realized when exercising new equipment 

options, most expense can be justified if its use is universally accepted enough 

to generate a market to keep it busy. 

Software-would need to do the following that it doesn't do now: 

•	 Software needs more consistency and "diagnostic tests" to prevent errors and 

ease of use. 

•	 The software to operate the German System was in a continuous state of 

improvement, as robot technology welding technology changed. 

•	 Ideal would be an industry/DOT standard design package to allow electronic 

interchange of data and download to CNC equipment without any hard copy 

drawings. 

•	 The most ideal situation would be original design software that is capable of 

downloading into a fabricators detailing system for preparation of shop drawings 

and ultimately downloading into CNC equipment on the shop floor. 

Business Processes - I would need to "re-invent" how my company does 

things: 

•	 Business will readily adapt if and when State DOTs standardize. 

•	 Utilizing the technology and equipment we described would take time to 

integrate to our technologically unsophisticated workforce. 

Contractual Mechanisms and Liability Exposure - would need to change: 

•	 In the short term contracts would need to allow for this level of technology, but 

once started it would become commonplace. Liability exposure should be 

minimal. 

•	 With a continuous flow of data from the original design through fabrication on the 

shop floor, liability issues with regards to the correctness and final fit-up of the 

final product would have to be resolved. 

Other (Describe): 

•	 Protective Coating Systems 

•	 Consistency, accuracy, & completeness in contract drawings & specifications 

•	 Availability & consistent pricing of raw steel materials 

•	 State D.O.T. Specifications; there would need to be acceptance by more than 

one or require code of specification changes. 

B-2
 
One objective of the workshop is to identify high-payoff pilot projects to 

explore implementation of available and emerging technologies for 

increasing automation and productivity in steel bridge manufacturing. 

Would you be willing to participate as a member of a team pursuing such a 

project? 

YES 1 

NO 

May-Tell Me More 2 

No Response 3 

Other Comments, Suggestions, and Questions: 

•	 If there are large developmental costs there are always financial obstacles 

•	 The mental images of the German System for manufacturing girders remains 

clear in my memory. My hope is to have that type of system some day. But it 

doesn't appear it will happen during my generation. By then where will the 

Germans be? 

•	 Your list of "obstacles" above implies that equipment financing is retarding 

automation, In reality, the provincial codes and specifications of DOTs are the 

constraint. Living proof is AISC building fabrication - one code, one spec, and 

even the smallest fabricator is highly automated. 

•	 We work outdoors and the subarc is as automated as we go at this time. Most 

often we work with rolled beams, so we don't see a lot of room for automation. 

•	 There are a number of automated fabricating opportunities available to the 

bridge fabricator. However, before any fabricator can justify the expense, much 

work has to be done to minimize the many standards, policies and procedures 

that result from each state going their separate way. A single governing factor 

would encourage the duplication and consistency necessary to develop a market 

that would support the various automated processes. 

B-3
 
APPENDIX "C"
 

Pre-Workshop Survey
 

Summary of Responses
 
APPENDIX C 

Summary of Responses Based on 15 responses 

What is your primary area of interest/expertise: 

Information Technology 1 

Design 7 

Fabrication (including Robotics & Welding) 6 

Erection 1 

Other 

� Fabrication Inspection 

1 

What is your secondary area of interest/expertise, if applicable: 

Information Technology 1 

Design 2 

Fabrication (including Robotics & Welding) 4 

Erection 3 

Other 

� Servicing & Automation 

� Eng- Shop Detail Drawings 

� Administration 

3 

Identify the following: 

High-Payoff (short term) Opportunities 

For Increased Automation 

Gaps, Needs & Potential Obstacles to 

Implementing These Opportunities 

Electronic Submittal of Shop drawings a) ability to make designer comments 

during review on the electronic copy 

b) ability to stamp and approve shop 

drawings & provide approved & current 

copies to required personnel 

Standardize details to enhance automation a) getting all owners to agree upon 

common details 

Electronic shop drawings:streamline drwg 

transfer, use for mat'l takeoffs/tracking 

Must agree on standard file format(pdf, 

TIFF), authentication & protection 

Improve shop documentation and info flow 

in shop (weld proc. NDT, paint, bar codes) 

Educate users (ongoing process) and 

make available for smaller shops 

Information transfer/storage/retrieval for 

shop owners, including exchange 

Standard file format & protocol, insuring 

medium won't be abandoned in future 

Nondestructive testing and production 

monitoring for both QC and QA 

System cost, owner acceptance/trust in 

results, common stds, small shop access 

Automated layout for cutting, NC cutting 

and drilling 

Initial cost for new equipment is high, 

requires retraining of employees 
High-Payoff (short term) Opportunities 

For Increased Automation 

Gaps, Needs & Potential Obstacles to 

Implementing These Opportunities 

Electronic Submittal/Approval of Shop 

Drawings 

Liability & Security questions 

Combining analysis, design & geometry 

software together 

Weak link is current software 

Repeat elements – cleats, stairs, supports Design for repeat product 

IT knowledge and strategies 

Data-detail 

Data Tracking Low pay for Information 

Web Management Technology People 

Shop Layout Low Pay for Engineers 

Poor or no Management Support 

Faster Construction 

Lower Costs 

Communication between design software 

& fabricator software 

Computer Based design and fabrication Fabrication considerations at design 

stage, particularly at structural details 

Code requirements should be improved 

Autonomous Welding (less supervision by 

welders) 

Automated inspections 

Sensor Integration 

Automation of Girder fit & weld CNC Is the Equipment available? 

Detailing software for bridges 

Uniform Details Varying state practices 

Medium and Longer term Opportunities 

for Automation 

Gaps, Needs & Potential Obstacles to 

Implementing These Opportunities 

Using shop drawings for direct production 

control (mat'l select, cut, weld, paint) 

Develop various systems; "cost" of shop 

errors, correcting errors found in field 

Flexibility to handle wide range of work 

(beams, I-grdrs, tubs, haunches, curves) 

System limits may exclude configurations 

and thwart innovative design concepts 

Workers more productive and have 

broader responsibilities with automation 

Fewer workers, older empl resist tech trng 

(or unable), lose knowledge/manual skills 

For repair & widening jobs, integrate new 

and existing shop drawings 

Major thrust in the next 50 yrs. Very laborintensive unless "intelligent scanning" 

Increased automation of all welding 

processes, automated fit-up and assembly 

(web to flange and stiffener assembly) 

Variability of girder size and many 

changes in flange size is an obstacle to 

automation 

Use of electronic design info in fabrication Design software limitations. Enough 

interest in industry to see benefits 

Automated contract drawing preparation Lack of software 
Medium and Longer term Opportunities 

for Automation 

Gaps, Needs & Potential Obstacles to 

Implementing These Opportunities 

Changed connection design Code acceptance 

Designer acceptance 

Appropriate equipment 

Design rules 

Columns and beams Product volumes 

Modular buildings Designs 

Failing Infrastructure Poor Scoping 

Lack of Timely use of resources 

Bridge Programs 

Synergistic considerations from structural 

design to fabrication/erection procedures ­

CAD/CAM 

1) CAD/FEA design connecting? Not 

consider manufacturing effects in eng. 

Welding/cutting 

2) E.g. welding sequence effects that 

significantly improve fatigue 

performance ???? 

Yes, Welding robot System Engineering for integration of Welding 

System 

Robotics for Welding Software and Hardware not able to handle 

submerged arc welding process 

Robotics for welding Conn & total CNC 

program @ Eng. Or shop floor 

Fewer plate thickness variations which 

could lead to more uniform designs and 

details. Also this could lead to more 

advanced plate purchasing contracts 

which may speed up projects. 

Designers wanting to "optimize" all 

portions of girder 

Other comments, suggestions and questions: 

� How does automation affect the design specification and procedures? 

� "Automation" is a very generic term, so the panel must be cautious to avoid 

assigning inappropriate goals. Reducing labor costs with fewer, less qualified 

shop personnel is not applicable. Fabricators must also understand that this will 

be an evolutionary process, with changes, improvements and (inevitable) 

corrections occurring at irregular intervals. These modifications will have some 

negative effects on production and costs. 

� We should see what is being done in the building industry. 

� In order to implement Robotics in bridge building the expanded use of MIG, 

inner shield and or Dual Shield welding process will be required. 
APPENDIX "D"
 

Roster of Attendees and Affiliations
 
DOT NSBA 

Lian Duan Caltrans Mike Beacham NSBA 

Ralph Anderson IL/DOT Lynn Iaquinta NSBA 

John Edwards IL/DOT Bill McEleney NSBA 

Ken Hurst KS/DOT Arun Shirole' NSBA 

Todd Niemann MN/DOT Dale Thomas NSBA 

George Christian NYS/DOT 

Paul Rimmer NYS/DOT 

John Randall OH/DOT Other (United States) 

Henry Pate TN/DOT 

Thomas Quinn TN/DOT Dave Mackey Columbus Engg. 

Ron Medlock TX/DOT Karl Frank U/Texas 

Stu Chen SUNY-Buffalo 

FHWA Tarsem Jutla Caterpillar 

Jack Jang Columbus Engg. 

Milo Cress FHWA Tom Siewert NIST 

Lou Triandafilou FHWA Toshio Omura Kawada - USA 

Krishna Verma FHWA Kevin Lehr Steelox 

Richard Sause Lehigh University 

Robert Smith Mabey Bridge & Shore 

Fabricators Alex Lowery Pittsburgh Coatings 

Dennis Noernberg AFCO 

Owen Sims Augusta Other (International) 

W.H. Reeves Carolina Steel 

N. Kannan Contour Steel James O'Neil Cleveland Bridge 

Jim DeLong DeLong's Geoffrey Booth Fairfield-Mabey Ltd 

Dan Moore Industrial Tsuyosho Sakura Kawada Industries 

David Johnson PDM Bridge Satoshi Tada Kawada Industries 

Bob Graham Steadfast Yoshihiro Kanjo NKK Industries 

Richard Inserra Stupp Bros Chitoshi Miki Tokyo Institute of Tech 

Tom Guzek Trinity Ind. Steve Maddox TWI Ltd 

James Tyvand Addison Corp John Weston The Welding Institute 

EWI 

Bob Kratzenberg EWI 

James Dydo EWI 

Dennis Harwig EWI 
APPENDIX "E"
 

Brainstormed Topics
 
APPENDIX E 

G-1 Brainstorming Ideas 

This appendix documents the various ideas generated during the brainstorming 

sessions in the four breakout groups. Group 3 devised the subheadings herein as a 

preliminary step towards articulating the four Theme Areas that appear in Appendix 

A. 

Group 1 Brainstorming Ideas 

Facilitators: John Weston (TWI), Mike Beacham (NSBA) 

Participants: 

Owners/Gov’t Fabricators Other 

Lian Duan, Caltrans Owen Sims, Augusta Jack Jang, CEC 

Ralph Anderson, ILDOT Dave Johnson, PDM Richard Sause, Lehigh U. 

Milo Cress Satoshi Tada, Kawada 

Kevin Lehr, Steelox 

G1 - 1 (jj) Understand information flow 

G1 - 2 (jj) Produce plans at speed of thought 

G1 - 3 (ra) standardize details 

G1 - 4 (os) reduce plan errors 

G1 - 5 (jw) design and build contracts and creation 

G1 - 6 (oa) combined fabrication and erection 

G1 - 7 (ra) warehouse common plate sizes 

G1 - 8 (tw) facilitate cash flow 

G1 - 9 (os) reduce paper via electronic plan preparation review and approval 

G1 - 10 (ra) standardize owner data format given to fabricator and contractor 

G1 - 11 (sJ) simplify and speed fabrication drawing approval 

G1 - 12 (os) standardize information flow (detailer / fabricator / contractor) 

G1 - 13 (oj) detailer to work directly with engineer 

E- 1
 
G1 - 14 (jw) design build finance operate
 

G1 - 15 (rs) design for automation (detail)
 

G1 – 16 (os) simplify standards and detail options (for instance x-frames)
 

G1 – 17 converter to change any plans to details that fit any fabricators
 

automated processes 

G1 - 18 (dt) each state / owner establish practices details, products 

G1 - 19 be competitive with steel and prestressed 

G1 - 20 reduce labor intensiveness of steel fabrication and construction 

G1 - 21 Decrease requirements / increase use of Ultrasonic test (how to 

record) 

G1 - 22 Confidence and lower cost of NDT 

G1 - 23 Weld sensing (smart) used instead of after the fact NDT 

G1 - 24 Use parameters during process to enable acceptance (min after weld 

NDT) 

G1 - 25 Quality control QA integrated in process 

G1 - 26 Reduce cost of certification or use of Certification vs. NDT 

G1 - 27 Standardize depth of intensity of inspection between steel and 

concrete and FRP 

G1 - 28 Education (owner / consultant / shop drafting) 

E-2
 
Group 2 Brainstorming Ideas 

Facilitators: Ronnie Medlock (TXDOT), Geoff Booth (Mabey) 

Owners/Gov’t Fabricators Other 

Ken Hurst, KSDOT Jim DeLong, DeLong’s Tarsem Jutla, Caterpillar 

Paul Rimmer, NYSDOT Dan Moore, Industrial Tsuyoshi Sakura, 

Steel Kawada 

Lou Triandafilou, FHWA Dennis Noernberg, Toshio Omura, Kawada 

AFCO 

Dale Thomas, NSBA 

G2 - 1 National standardization (Development and implementation)
 

G2 – 2 Bidding / Contracting system
 

G2 – 3 Customer Focus (include life cycle costs / values) (design /
 

build) (DBFO) 

G2 - 4 Performance specification instead of method specification / 

Contract alternatives 

G2 - 5 Performance standards (shift to risk including fit / assembly) 

G2 - 6 File transfer (DGN) 

G2 – 7 CA Modelling 

G2 - 8 Gather and inform about existing technology / training exposure 

E-3
 
Group 3 Brainstorming Ideas
 

Facilitators: Karl Frank (U. Texas), Lynn Iaquinta (NSBA)
 

Owners/Gov’t Fabricators Other 

John Edwards, ILDOT Jim O’Neill, Cleveland N. Kannan, U. at Buffalo 

and Contour Steel 

John Randall, OHDOT Bob Graham, Steadfast 

Tom Quinn, TNDOT Alex Lowery, Pgn 

Coatings 

Richard Inserra, Stupp 

Bros. 

AUTOMATED SHOP 

G3 - 2 acceptance of virtual laydown 

G3 - 6 standard acceptance of automated fabrication methods 

G3 - 7A automated NDT with document support (with high reliability) 

G3 - 9 designers flexibility during fabrication to change details to fit 

automation of selected shop 

G3 - 23 automated record keeping of quality parameters in shop and 

acceptance by owner 

G3 - 33 how do we qualify robotic-weld in bridges? 

G3 - 38 Training of workforce for automated positions 

G3 - 39 Continuing Advancement of automated processes creates a barrier 

(my investment is given free to next guy) 

DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARD BRIDGE SYSTEM 

G3 - 1 standard bridge complete package 

G3 - 3 standard bridge deck prefab system and design 

G3 - 4 modular construction (snap or connect standard parts) (reduce 

construction time) 

G3 - 18 short span standard rural stock bridges (drop in place) 

G3 - 19 strategic initiatives with precast concrete industry 

G3 - 20 acceptance of material that is pre-fabricated 

E-4
 
G3 - 21 letting of multiple bridge fabrication packages (1 year of work vs. 1 

bridge) 

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS 

G3 - 7	 acceptance of electronic documentation in lieu of traditional paper 

documents 

G3 - 8	 communication links between fabricators and designers 

G3 - 30	 archivable medium for future use of electronic documents 

G3 - 42 Standard Protocol for Electronic Data Transfer 

G3 - 43 Life cycle cost database for future maintenance program 

DESIGN AUTOMATION STEPS 

G3 - 5 common national steel details 

G3 - 7 acceptance of electronic documentation in lieu of traditional paper 

documents 

G3 - 8	 communication links between fabricators and designers 

G3 - 13	 designers need to be aware of mill rolling availability 

G3 - 14	 steel interchange site to exchange information on steel availability 

(AISI) 

G3 - 15	 cost data base (idea of cost / sq ft or lb/ sq ft to designers 

G3 - 25	 incentive program for designer, - economy, life-cycle quality (value) 

G3 - 26	 designer training in fabrication and construction (on-site) 

G3 - 28	 designer / detailer / fabricator / contractor to use one accepted 

computer model 

G3 - 35	 standard plate products to create fewer rolling sizes (allow some stock 

piling) (lump sizes) 

G3 - 36 Database of upcoming events by year and type to allow fabrication / 

production some project planning (market forecast) 

E-5
 
SPECIFICATIONS & CONTRACTS
 

G3 - 6	 standard acceptance of automated fabrication methods 

G3 - 7	 acceptance of electronic documentation in lieu of traditional paper 

documents 

G3 - 9	 designers flexibility during fabrication to change details to fit 

automation of selected shop 

G3 - 10 revise contractual arrangements to allow flexibility 

G3 - 11	 certification program acceptance (Requiring Certification) 

G3 - 12 improve certification process with more categories (higher standards) 

G3 - 20	 acceptance of material that is pre-fabricated 

G3 - 23	 automated record keeping of quality parameters in shop and 

acceptance by owner 

G3 - 29 comprehensive as built plans with details as constructed 

G3 - 31	 National acceptance of coating systems 

E-6
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Group 4 and Unattributed Brainstorming Ideas
 

Facilitators: Tom Siewert (NIST), Bill McEleney (NSBA)
 

Owners/Gov’t Fabricators Other 

Henry Pate, TNDOT Tom Guzek, Trinity Dave Mackey, CEC 

Krishna Verma, FHWA Bob Smith, Mabey Yoshihiro Kanjo, NKK 

Todd Niemann, MNDOT James Tyvand, Addison Chitoshi Miki, Tokyo Inst. 

of Technology 

George Christian, 

NYSDOT 

G4 – 1 Need to increase SPEED of construction 

G4 – 2 Reduce initial COST of structures 

G4 – 3 Certification based on quality of work and work force 

G4 – 4 Standardize transport requirements across country for oversize, 

overweight loads 

G4 – 5 Elimination of fabricator weld acceptance testing (PQR’s) 

G4 – 6 Cost of robot – savings (research data) 

G4 – 7 Deliver man-hours per ton through automation 

G4 – 8 Research on entire cycle of bridge construction (initiation of 

design through final punch list); Evaluate ability to change time 

of process 

G4 – 9 Standardize repair details 

G4 – 10 Coating system suitable for automation 

E-7
 
APPENDIX "F"
 

Glossary
 
AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 

May refer to the Standard Specifications (or LRFD Specs) for Design of Highway 

Bridges or to the organization whose committees (e.g., T-14 for Steel Structures) 

recommend changes to those Specifications. 

AISC: American Institute of Steel Construction, which provides a certification 

mechanism for fabricators. 

AISI: American Iron and Steel Institute 

ASME: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. May also refer to the code 

governing welding of pressure vessels. 

Auto-UT: Automated Ultrasonic Testing (NDE) of welds 

AWS: American Welding Society. Also often refers to the D1.5 Bridge Welding 

Code 

B2B: Business-to-Business (e.g., as contrasted with Business-to-consumer) 

CAD: Computer Aided Design, or Computer Aided Drafting 

CAM: Computer Aided Manufacturing, where software drives fabrication machines 

CE: Carbon Equivalent, a measure of the influence of chemical composition on the 

susceptibility of a weld to cracking 

CM: Construction Management, Construction Manager 

CNC: Computer Numerical Control (that increasingly drives steel fabrication shop 

machines) 

DB, D/B: Design/Build 

DBFO: Design/Build/Finance/Operate 

DGN: The file format used by MicroStation CAD software 

DOT: state Department of Transportation 

e - : electronic, typically using the Internet. e. g., 

e - commerce: electronic commerce, i.e., utilizing the Internet for buying/selling 

e – submittal/transmittal: electronic “shipping,” e.g., of shop drawings 

e – redlining: electronic markups, e.g., of shop drawings 

EWI: Edison Welding Institute, Columbus, Ohio 

F-1
 
Fab: steel fabrication including cutting, bending, punching/drilling, welding, handling, 

and painting 

FCAW: Flux-Cored Arc Welding 

FEA: Finite Element Analysis 

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration 

G.C.: General Contractor 

GIS: Geographical Information System 

GMAW: Gas Metal Arc Welding process 

Inner Shield: One supplier’s name for FCAW welding electrodes 

ISO: International Standards Organization 

IT: Information Technology 

Laydown: physical pre-assembly of the superstructure framing of a steel bridge prior 

to shipping of the fabricated girders to the job site 

LRFD: Load and Resistance Factor Design, which is the basis of the AASHTO 

LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. 

MIG: Metal Inert Gas welding process, a type of GMAW 

Mill cert: Steel mill provided certification of steel mechanical properties and 

chemical composition for a particular heat of steel produced 

NC: See CNC 

NCHRP: National Cooperative Highway Research Program, the research arm of 

AASHTO 

NDE: Nondestructive Examination, Nondestructive Evaluation 

NDT: Nondestructive Testing, often used interchangeably with NDE 

NHI: National Highway Institute 

NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NSBA: National Steel Bridge Alliance 

PDF: Portable Document Format, a popular file format for electronic documents 

F-2
 
PQR: Welding Procedure Qualification Record (for weld acceptance testing) 

QA & QC: Quality Assurance and Quality Control 

Reaming: re-drilling undersized holes to achieve full-size holes after physical preassembly to assure proper fitup 

RFI: Request For Information 

ROI: Return on Investment 

RT: Radiographic Testing for NDE of welds 

SAW: Submerged-Arc Welding process 

SCEF: Mid Atlantic States Structural Committee for Economic Fabrication 

Standards 

Subarc: see SAW 

TIFF: a popular file format for graphical images 

TRB: Transportation Research Board 

Turner-Fairbank: FHWA’s research laboratory in northern Virginia 

TWI: The Welding Institute, located in the U.K. 

UT: Ultrasonic Testing for NDE of welds 

F-3