PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsfor all DOT’s.■ Understanding what needs to be done to revise design and material standards to achieve a 100 year life for different typesof pipe would be highly beneficial to DOT's.■ Pipe installation and inspection guidelines to meet the service life for various pipe materials should also be developed.■ [Rating: 4] The problem statement indicates that AASHTO 100-year service life also pertains to LRFD specifications forpipe. The 100 year life requirement applies to buried pipe (concrete, steel and plastic). The problem statement is clearwith considerable detail and of national relevance particularly w/ regard to the increased use of plastic pipe.Research Advisory Committee■ If this research gets approved, it must address the very real issue of long term risk due to fire damage. In areas of thecountry where wildfires are very common (like Oklahoma), this risk to the various pipe materials must be considered inany legitimate research on the subject■ Has little promise and does not address issues that have high risk in transportation■ This problem statement rates high in comparison to the others reviewed. A 100-year service life is needed for pipe, and itwill be required by AASHTO LRFD Bridge Specs eventually. There is a clear and present need for this research; it isappropriate for NCHRP, and it has a high payoff potential.■ very important research■ This is an overwhelming, but worthwhile effort. This proposal is a joint effort between the Sub on Bridges and the Subon Materials.Other■ [Rating: 4] This is the Number 4 priority project for the SOM.Item #32:F-02Best Practices for Preserving Bridge decks(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 3 5 7 2RAC 1 1 1 7 16 11 12Standing Committee on Research■ We already know the best practices for preserving bridge decks. The project will not likely provide new information.■ Support combining with F-01■ This is a major concern for Caltrans and a very high priority.■ Combine with F-03 for total budget of $300,000■ Make sure that the evaluation of effectiveness for each treatment includes field testing. Combine with F01.■ combine with F-30■ Combining with F-01.■ Maybe combine under F-01 with no additional funding.■ [Rating: 5] Deck performance and the performance of deck treatments has been identified by many states as a major areaof interest and determining best practices in bridge deck maintenance and cost/benefit of deck treatments would be agreat asset to bridge managing agencies. The FHWA LTBP program has identified this topic as a top priority for theprogram and this NCHRP program would be a great compliment to be able to dig into the detail of the topic and provideIV-19