PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsmitigation requirements are sufficient (low alkali cement, fly ash and slag).■ WSDOT does not use the alkali loading approach in addressing ASR concerns. The research would not have animmediate impact on our specifications.■ Has some promise and addresses issues that affect concrete in our bridges■ Suggest funding level of $600,000.■ As it has been mentioned in the reviewer comments, this research should recognize the ongoing research by otherorganizations. This problem statement could be proposed with higher prediction of ASR damage to pavements andstructures.■ Subcommittee on Materials rated this proposal as a HIGH priority. The proposer strikes at a couple of potential issuesthat caused us to start looking at our specifications related to available alkali available for ASR. We do not calculateavailable alkali like Texas does, but have considered their approach. The issue presented with cement production is avery real issue.Other■ [Rating: 5] This would be highly useful information in this time of changing manufacturing processes and environmentalconstraints. . Needs a more appealing title. Those who do not read the problem statement will rate this low based on thetitle.■ [Rating: 5] The proposed research deals with determining the Na2O equivalent alkali content of the cement and its usefor predicting the potential alkali reaction (ASR) damage of the concrete.- Concrete damage due to ASR reaction has been observed in highway pavements and bridge structures, accurateprediction models will help highway agencies taking the necessary measures to mitigate such damage.- The proposed research seems to focus on the alkalis in the cement although other cementitious materials used in theconcrete mixture could affect its susceptibility to ASR.- The research should recognize the ongoing research by FHWA and other organizations, the previous researchperformed under SHRP, and the numerous studies conducted on this topic to avoid duplication.- Although the proposed research seems to be basic in nature, it could helpful in better predicting potential ASR damageto pavements and structures.- The problem statement has not provided an estimate of required funds; a funding level of $600,000 is recommended.This is the number 3 priority project for the SOM.Item #81:F-06Cross Asset Funding Investment Strategies forMaintenance(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 4 4 4 3 1RAC 3 6 13 12 11 4Standing Committee on Research■ This proposal develops a synthesis of practice. As such other NCHRP funding sources are available and moreappropriate. Virginia has been on the cutting edge of asset management practice and such a report would be of marginalvalue to us. With many more research needs than funding, other needs should take priority.■ Recommended funding of $200,000 seems high for this work.■ Recommend a synthesis■ Synthesis■ Envisioned product is a synthesis report, this should be a candidate for 20-5■ SynthesisIV-58
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Consider fit in synthesis program. May be addressed under F-04 or F-05.■ [Rating: 4] An essential part of Asset Management is the ability to effectively allocate funds across assets types. Thisresearch would be very beneficial to State DOTs and HIAM by identifying the state of the practice and successfulstrategies in this area.Research Advisory Committee■ reduce to $100,000■ The problem statement says this is a survey to conduct a synthesis among highway agencies on the process they use todetermine investment dollars across asset types such as how much should go to pavements, or bridges, or other assetclasses based on need. ODOT currently has a means of evaluating the conditions of bridges and pavements. A surveywill have too many factors across 50 states to narrow down any practical use. The cost is also too high at $200,000. Wedon’t believe that the research would lead to an improved ability to allocate state and federal dollars at it says because ofall the state to state objectives and constant limits on funding.■ Low value in conducting a survey of what other states are doing because decisions are based on legislative/policydirection.■ Consider as a synthesis project.■ Although worthwhile in concept, much of the demand balancing for funding by different asset classes is presently part ofthe operational side of asset management programs in various State and Federal agencies. In addition, the methodologyis so fluid that a methodology documented this year may not be in place next year.Other■ [Rating: 4] Priority #6■ [Rating: 1] Envisioned product is a synthesis of best practice, should be submitted under NCHRP 20-5Item #82:G-32Methods to Improve Physical Conditions for PedestriansAlong Existing Roads(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 3 5 5 2 1RAC 1 2 6 17 12 7 4Standing Committee on Research■ there is a lot of work out there on this issue. This may be better suited to a synthesis than a new project.■ Develop as a synthesis■ Important for livable communities. The problem statement needs to be refined and should be more focused.■ Not clear distinction between this and B-22, Of possible interest to rail to help with Trespasser issues■ This type of research is warranted. However, the research objective is sketchy, and needs to be developed in more detail--for example, there is no explanation as to how "improving pedestrian accommodations will be identified and described"and how "The second phase of the research will evaluate how effective current practices are...".■ Same as B-22. ■ Duplicate with B-22■ Walkways are one of FHWA's 9 proven crash countermeasures (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/memo071008/). Also,MPD Pedestrian Safety Action Plan recommends an ADOT guideline or policy for sidewalk construction andmaintenance (http://mpd.azdot.gov/mpd/systems_planning/PDF/PedSafety/2009_06_24ADOT_PSAP_Final.pdf) .IV-59
Page 1 and 2:
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 57: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
show all

PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?