PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #93:F-03Optimal Timing of Bridge Deck Washing to ReduceChloride Penetration(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 4 2 5 2 2RAC 1 6 9 11 11 5 6Standing Committee on Research■ Although removing salt before it penetrates into the concrete by washing a deck is useful, the washing of a deck will notremove salt that has penetrated into the deck beyond the concrete surface layer. Therefore, this research will have limitedbenefit on older decks that already have elevated salt levels, and the benefit on newer decks will not be as valuablebecause of the concrete quality being much better and salt penetration rates much low. This is a new topic that has notbeen researched. Because of the many variables that influence chloride penetration the project will not likely produceuseful results. This research is of interest to highway agencies who wish to perform preventive maintenance in de-icingregions. Though the statement only cites 1 reference by P.D.Carter, other research has been done by Rhode Island DOTand others. Unfortunately, chloride ingress into concrete is a long-term phenomenon, and to properly evaluate in thefield the benefits of deck washing would require many bridges and longer than 2 years.■ Weather & manpower availability dictate timing of washing■ California does not wash bridge decks due to environmental concerns.■ Combine with F-02 for total budget of $300,000■ Combine with F01. Consider expanding to more than just deck washing.■ combine with F-02■ Combine with F-01■ Maybe combine under F-01 with no additional funding.■ [Rating: 3] We agree with the panel reviewer's comments that this problem statement should be combined with 2011-F-01 statement for better results and coherent decision making processes.Research Advisory Committee■ combine with problem statement 2011-F-01■ Very little work has been done on bridge preservation.■ Suggest combining F-02 and F-03.■ By combining the last three statements, money can be spent more effectively and will provide better correlation acrosspreservation strategies and decisions that affect them■ Bridge decks are built with waterproof membranes to prevent such penetration. Some state DOT’s us salt brine as apretreatment before forecasted snow and ice events. Rain water in general performs a adequate washing or rinsing. SomeState DEP’s mandate 100% reclamation for such power washing activities, this makes it very cost prohibitive.Other■ [Rating: 4] Suggest combining F-02 and F-03IV-68
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of RatingsItem #94:B-08Developing Adaptation Strategies for Impacts ofClimate Change to Transportation Infrastructure(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 4 5 5 3RAC 2 4 8 16 14 2 3Standing Committee on Research■ The problem description and proposed research approach are definitely relevant. Based on FHWA's and NCHRP'scomments there is obviously some question as to how much overlap there is with another study (NCHRP 20-83(05) thatis to start soon. I would recommend adjusting the scope and funding of 20-83 rather than spending the full $300K onthis. The focus on soil engineering (slope failure) and vegetation management (wildfire) makes this problem statement asubtopic of 20-83(5).]■ We need research developing adaptation strategies to respond to climate change-this research may be too focused (sitespecific & not applicable to other regions) and from the comments on the proposal it may be duplicative.■ This proposal represents an important issue related to climate change adaptation and response that is not being addressednationwide. The need is greatest for coastal states due to sea level rise, but all other states will have an interest inprotecting roadsides as weather patterns change.■ Too localized in scope■ Hold till 20-83(05) completes■ Definite need for this project.■ [Rating: 3] B-08 is potentially duplicative of NCHRP 20-83(05), although it does focus on fires and slope failures. Iwould recommend that the proposers should be asked to revise so that it is supportive of the 20-83(05) project, but notduplicate work.Research Advisory Committee■ The title is great, but the scope is only applicable to a few states. Ohio wouldn't get anything out of this work.■ The proposed research project would examine an adaptation-related issue that has not been greatly studied (slope failuresand wildfires resulting from climate change effects). While not a high priority, it is one that would be useful in assessingthe vulnerabilities and risks to infrastructure in Washington State.■ Project potentially better suited as a regional pooled fund study.■ Recommend that the objective #1 be broaden to include other topics such as rising sea levels, etc..Other■ [Rating: 2] The Committee believes the research objective is too narrow. The title leads you to believe that the focus isbroader. We believe the DOT's need a more expansive review. Additionally it is believed that this work may beduplicative of a shared university study under way in Oregon, Washington and Idaho. It also seems regional in scope.Fires and mudslides are generally localized on the west coast. Finally, the funding seems low.■ [Rating: 5]Item #95:G-28Safety Impacts of Publicly Maintained Rest Areas(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 3 6 2 3 2RAC 7 10 10 10 8 4Standing Committee on Research■ This is interesting work, buit these decisions will be strongly politically influenced. As suggested by the FHWAreviewer, the research should account for other commercial establishments.IV-69
Page 1 and 2:
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 67: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
show all

PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?