PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ This is a relatively local issue and there are other higher priority projects.■ This is a very broad proposal that requests insufficient funding. The literature search is limited to Section 106-specificdocuments and the proposal may benefit from a broader search. Might be appropriate for FHWA STEP.Item #104:F-07Rockfall Fence Testing Guidelines(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 5 4 4 2 1RAC 8 10 10 9 7 5Standing Committee on Research■ Suggest combining with 2011-E-07■ Develop as a synthesis■ of possible interest to ROW portection■ If funded, combine with E-07.■ The standard developed in 2003 through NCHRP 20-7 appears to be out of date, and this proposal would develop aguideline and integrate the findings of the newer ETAG-027 standard. Integration of the older standard with a moremodern standard could be beneficial and would provide the possibility for newer fence designs in the US, a higher levelof public safety, and a reduction in the costs of rockfall fences. One of the other deliverables is a generic specificationusing updated standards, which may have some value.■ [Rating: 4]Research Advisory Committee■ This project should be combined with 2011-E-07.■ As a stand alone, there is not a research component to the topic, should be included in Problem E-07.■ This problem statement is to not to have U.S. manufacturers double test rockfall fence to European standards and U.S.standards. Since there are already acknowledged conflicting standards and difficulties for manufacturers to introduce newfence designs in the U.S., why would we spend 6 months and $50,000 to research the differences? Just change our U.S.standards to meet European Union standardized testing or break from reconciliation and just use the U.S. standards.Rockfall fence U.S. industry leaders should be brought together to solve their problem and come to consensus on whatwould be best for their businesses.■ Combine with E-07■ This Department does not have any installation of these types of structure; however, having uniform performanceguidelines would be a benefit if we ever had a need.■ This is not relevant to our state.Item #105:E-06Assessing Corrosion in Two-Stage MechanicallyStabilized Earth Walls(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 4 4 5 2RAC 2 2 10 13 14 6 2Standing Committee on Research■ It appears that construction methods may also need to be addressed for this type of structures. Reasonable projecttimeline and scope, and in my opinion, this research will attempt to determine the extent of corrosion the best waypossible which is on actual field structures.■ Steel elements exposed to air, moisture and potentially corrosive elements behind the 2-stage MSE wall panel systems (asIV-76
PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsnoted in the proposal) warrant evaluation for long-term corrosion damage.■ low need■ [Rating: 3] This is a necessary study because collapse of MSE walls due to corrosion can impact the mobility and safetyof the traveling public. However, the proposed research approach in Task 3 is somewhat weak in that in-situ corrosionpotential and rate measurements may not be feasible due to configuration of the two-stage MSE wall.Research Advisory Committee■ 2 Stage MSE walls are not used in a scale that warrants a full blown NCHRP research effort.■ Would make a good pooled fund study.■ While the focus of the proposed project is slightly different than the current NCHRP 24-28 project, it is questionablewhether there are enough wall cases out there where corrosion performance data could be obtained. Nevertheless, twostage walls are becoming more commons and an investigation of this type of wall is warranted.■ MassDOT does not build any of these■ Seems under-funded for work described.■ Although we have not experienced corrosion problems with out mse walls, I am aware of other DOTs across the countrythat have. The problems that I'm aware of are generally at the face/connection. This research is specifically for an msewall type that would appear to have conditions that have a higher potential for corrosion. There is some merit to theproposed research.■ This is not currently a nationwide problemOther■ [Rating: 3] Long term information on these walls is lacking; this study would help.Grossly underfunded for work describedItem #106:D-10Optimizing Flexible Pavement Performance Based onAggregate Physical Properties(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 2 5 4 3 1 2RAC 1 5 10 12 11 5 5Standing Committee on Research■ This project will put the findings of a previous NCHRP study (4-30) and ongoing (4-34) to fill a critical gap linkingaggregate morphological characteristics to HMA performance. This will enable a more rational use of aggregates,increasing the use of locally available materials which are important aspects of sustainability and energy reduction andcost reduction. The project cost could be reduced or staged to fit into the overall program budget.■ There have been a number of studies done in this area.■ There has been extensive work done to related aggregate properties to performance.■ This is a major need. It is important for us to better understand how the interaction between aggregate and the asphalt inHMA ultimately affects the pavement performance.■ [Rating: 4] Enormous strides have been made in characterizing aggregate chemical, physical and morphologicalproperties. However, the weak link in advancing this aggregate research has been the tie in with field performance asnoted in this problem statement. In part this also addresses aggregate sustainability issues.Research Advisory Committee■ Very costly!IV-77
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:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
Page 75: PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-
show all

PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?