PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsits use. ■ Development of a guideline and relevant changes to the LRFD Bridge Design and Construction Specifications areneeded to facilitate broader acceptance for cast-in-place applications of SCC.■ [Rating: 3] Experience over the past decade has demonstrated that SCC offers significant benefits in many precastapplications; however, cast-in-place concrete applications have been slow to adopt SCC. This project could spurinnovation by laying the groundwork for success.Research Advisory Committee■ Proven benefits in precast, need to extend this to cast in place construction.■ New material that holds a lot of promises. This research will answer a lot of questions for bridge engineers so it can beimplemented in everyday practice.■ We have had research in this area. (Design)■ Recommend increasing project cost to $600,000.■ In this problem statement, there are many elements that need to be researched by SCC producers and manufacturers aspart of their product development plan. Also is important to understand that there are many SCC materials in the market,and it would be very difficult to develop guidelines to cover all of them in this research.Other■ [Rating: 5] The proposed research deals with use of self-consolidating concrete (SCC) for cast-in-place concrete bridgesand tunnels. This research will complement the recently completed NCHRP research on use of SCC for precast ,prestressed concrete bridge elements (NCHRP Report 628).- There an increased use of cast-in-place SCC by state highway agencies; guidance on its use will help highway agenciesensure successful application.- The proposed funding seems inadequate to support the anticipated research; an increase to $600,000 is stronglyrecommended.This is the Number 1 priority project for the SOM.Item #20:09-45Test Methods and Specification Criteria for MineralFiller Used in HMA(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 2 7 7RAC 3 2 3 15 13 13Standing Committee on Research■ Certainly sounds like the project has been successful so far and potential benefits from the continuation will beworthwhile. Also, VDOT may be able to use some of the information that will be obtained. The continuation soundsreasonable and it appears that valuable benefits will be gained.■ It is important that this research be completed. Will benefit many transportation agencies.■ Not sure how many states will benefit from this. Doesn't seem to be very critical from my perspective.■ [Rating: 5] Continuation - approved by panelResearch Advisory Committee■ This is an ongoing research project. The panel overseeing the research believes this additional request is needed,therefore, it should be supported.■ I am ok with this if it is the only time cost increase.■ It's interesting that they only mention aggregate material passing the #200 as being "mineral filler." This research will beIV-10
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsof limited use for MSDOT.Item #21:SP-02Intellectual Property Stewardship Guide forTransportation Departments(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 1 1 3 2 2 7RAC 2 1 3 4 9 11 19Standing Committee on Research■ Important issue when innovation is the goal.■ Intellectual property issues are a significant impediment for innovation. A better understanding of IP issues wouldbenefit DOTs.■ This is an issue that is coming up more and more in state research programs.■ [Rating: 5] The necessity of establishing Intellectual Property protocols within the area of government fundedtransportation research is greatly needed. The ability to encourage more research that can be commercialized is seriouslylacking within this practice area. As such, research that can better establish the path for research to be protected andcommercialized will greatly benefit both public and private sectors interests.Research Advisory Committee■ We really need more legal research and guidance on this issue as more and more questions are being raised.Item #22:08-70Target-Setting Methods and Data Management toSupport Performance-Based Resource Allocation byTransportation Agencies(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 1 1 2 8 4RAC 1 2 1 6 9 17 13Standing Committee on Research■ The Continuation Request gives no hint of what the contractors have achieved with the first $700K.■ Needed for new Transportation bill■ [Rating: 3] Reasonable low cost for making result implementable more broadlyResearch Advisory Committee■ This is an excellent subject that definitely needs additional research and practical recommendations.■ Extremely important. We need ways to measure the needs and successes of projects that are not highway centric. If thisresearch focuses on other modes then we are in high support.■ This study is very important to continue and eventually complete. While most all state DOTs have strategic goals,measures, and objectives, I am not sure many states determine how much resources are necessary for each based on risk.■ This work could bring real value to investment trade-off decision making but it is limited. Performance based budgetneeds to focus on identifying and improving poor performance, but performance only criteria could lead to investments inmarginal problems.■ This is an important issue that DOTs are struggling with, and I agree that we need more specifics on how to integrate datawith policy, planning, and all aspects of our agencies.Other■ [Rating: 5] The Subcommittee on Asset Management supports this continuationIV-11
Page 1 and 2: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 9: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 61 and 62:
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
show all

PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?