Appendix C - Research Topics.pdf

Appendix C – Research Topics

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Acquisition and Grants Management

Research Initiatives in Support of FHWA Bridges and Structures Programs

Note: Concept papers may be submitted at any time, through the closing date of the research topic.

Load Rating Program

Topic Number Title Closing Date for

Concept Papers

HIBS10-LR-001

Mobile Lab for Bridge Load Testing and Bridge Performance

Testing – Feasibility and Conceptual Framework Study

05/18/2023 at

12pm noon

Seismic and Multi-Hazard Resilience Program

Closing Date for

Concept Papers

HIBS10-SMH-001 Liquefaction and Consequences Study 05/18/2023 at

12pm noon

HIBS10-SMH-002

Probabilistic Damage Evaluation: Hazard Intensity Measure and Fragility Parameters

Bridge and Tunnel Security

Closing Date for

Concept Papers

HIBS10-BTS-001

Vulnerability of Brittle Metal Bridge Components from

Explosive Threats

Construction Program

Topic Number Title Closing Date for

Concept Papers

HIBS10-BTC-001

National BIM Transportation Library Creation and

Deployment Work Plan

Bridge and Tunnel Safety Inspection Program

Closing Date for

Concept Papers

HIBS30-BTMP-001

Database Solution Study for National Critical Findings

Database of Bridges and Tunnels

Highway Tunnel and Bridge Safety Technology

Closing Date for

Concept Papers

HIBS40-TUN-001

Safety Inspection and Evaluation of Functional Systems for

Highway Tunnels and Moveable Bridges

Load Rating Program

Topic: HIBS10-LR-001

Title: Mobile Lab for Bridge Load Testing and Bridge Performance Testing – Feasibility and Conceptual Framework Study

To comply with the requirements of the National Bridge Inspection Standards, states load rate each bridge as to its safe load capacity in accordance with the AASHTO Manual for Bridge

Evaluation (the AASHTO Manual). Sections 6 and 8 of the AASHTO Manual prescribe the analytical and non-destructive load testing methods that states should use to perform bridge load rating.

Analytical methods of load rating normally utilized by bridge owners provide reasonable structural capacity estimations that meet bridge management and operation needs. In addition, analytical methods are consistent with the design methodology used in the AASHTO bridge design specifications and thus provide a margin of safety that is acceptable to industry and asset owners.

However, there are situations where a method other than the analytical methods must be used in order to develop reasonable and realistic, but conservative load ratings. For example, the non-destructive load testing methods prescribed in Section 8 of the AASHTO Manual could be used and might be the only choice for certain bridges.

The AASHTO Manual provides guidance on conducting bridge load tests which states have relied on in performing field load testing and developing bridge load rating based on field load test data. Two load testing methods are frequently used: proof load tests and diagnostic tests. The former measures and monitors structural responses to incrementally applied loads to a preset threshold and develops a lower bound capacity (load rating) for the tested bridge. The latter measures and records structural responses to controlled loads (static load testing) or ambient traffic loads (dynamic load testing) and then develops bridge load rating through an analytical method by means of a structural model calibrated with field measurement. This method accounts for the actual stiffness and mass distribution of a structure that provides better estimation of structural performance of that structure.

States have taken advantage of load testing occasionally as-needed, however, load testing has not been used as a routine practice. The low frequency of use of load tests in the past also hinders the wide adoption of these methods due to the availability of equipment, experience, cost etc.

This research is intended to investigate the feasibility of standardized field load testing vehicles

(a Mobile Lab) to perform field load tests, both diagnostic and proof, for bridge load rating. It is envisioned that a Mobile Lab will be equipped with tools, devices and instrument required to perform a field load test and be deployed to a site or sites along a route quickly.

A Mobile Lab may consist of a fleet of vehicles. The first vehicle may house the data collection and processing system. The second is equipped with controlled weights as applied loads for proof and diagnostic load tests, and itself together with the tested bridge is instrumented with sensors that can transmit response data to the data logger in the first, stationary vehicle wirelessly as it crosses the tested bridge. When field measurement is complete, the data processing system in the first vehicle may be able to develop bridge load rating based on the measurements. The

FHWA seeks solutions for this topic which address the following:

1. Literature review and state of practice review,

2. Technical/theoretical study of the technologies related to the Mobile Lab, especially the use of measured data from the instrumented test vehicle and the tested bridge,

3. Feasibility study and development of the Mobile Lab conceptual framework, and

4. Recommendations of further study and development.

Seismic and Multi-Hazard Program

Topic: HIBS10-SMH-001

Title: Liquefaction and Consequences Study

Liquefaction near the foundations of highway structures is a significant threat to the performance of these structures during and after extreme events. Liquefaction may be caused by the ground shaking during an earthquake, by static shear stress in certain saturated soil conditions, or by transient pore pressure variation from hydraulic events, such as long-period waves. Results of these liquefaction phenomena may produce significant demand on the structures or aggravate other adverse effects from extreme events.

Direct impacts may include force or displacement demands on foundations, settlements, landslides, and accelerated scour of bridge foundation or approach embankments. These may subsequently cause structural damage or functional degradation that produce safety concerns or economic loss.

To support a resilient community, highway structures need to be able to withstand or rapidly recover from the impact of extreme events. The liquefaction phenomena described above can introduce great uncertainties and potentially increased construction/repair cost if not addressed.

The FHWA is interested in solutions that address the following objectives:

1. Advance the understanding in these phenomena in the context of improving resilience for highway structures and network,

2. Recommend necessary updates for design methods,

3. Benefit from or contribute to current national efforts in addressing practical and reliable liquefaction evaluation,

4. Identify structural consequences from the seismic, geotechnical, and hydraulic causes of liquefaction.

5. Advance the probabilistic loss analysis capability for asset management planning to consider liquefaction risk,

6. Advance post-event response and prioritization capability,

7. Address the change in demand caused by climate change, and/or

8. Support performance-based or risk-targeted design approaches.

Topic: HIBS10-SMH-002

Title: Probabilistic Damage Evaluation: Hazard Intensity Measure and Fragility Parameters

The evaluation of the probability of damage for highway structures caused by extreme events has a broad application in design, benefit-cost analysis, project prioritization, asset management planning, and post-event response and recovery.

A common way to conduct such evaluation includes identification of the intensity of the hazard effect, fragility functions of the facility, and consequence formulas. In the case of the evaluation for seismic hazard, the hazard intensity and bridge fragility functions have been studied analytically and empirically to establish quantitative relationship based on validated data. For a comprehensive evaluation that supports a data-driven decision-making process, other causes of damage or degradation need to be included in a consistent framework.

One of the significant difficulties in the development of these relationships is the definition of the parameters and input variable(s) for the fragility functions. The input variables need to represent hazard intensity measure(s). The method needs to enable corresponding entities (such as NOAA or USGS) to produce real-time or long-term probabilistic intensity data. In the meantime, the intensity measure(s) must have a strong correlation with structural damages.

The parameters of the fragility also need to be able to characterize the performance of the structure against a specific type of extreme events. A strong preference is that the parameters are broadly available without additional investigations. Data items currently used in bridge management would be a good example of broad availability for all bridges in the system.

The FHWA seeks solutions that address the following objectives:

1. Establish the intensity measure and fragility parameters for significant extreme events other than earthquakes. These extreme events may include but are not limited to floods, scour, wave action, landslide, wildfire, severe storms, levee and dam failures, sea level rise, and extreme weather events.

2. Develop different formulation approaches which should be compatible with existing loss estimate frameworks for each type of hazard.

3. Develop implementable fragility functions and intensity measure specifications that can be achieved by corresponding hazard data providers.

Bridge and Tunnel Security Program

Topic: HIBS10-BTS-001

Title: Vulnerability of Brittle Metal Bridge Components from Explosive Threats

Explosions were used in most attacks against bridges worldwide. Explosions can cause extremely intense blast loads impacting local structural components and their material response, especially brittle components in steel bridges. Failure of these metal brittle components can lead to significant consequences, including collapse.

Identifying the behavior and probability of the structural damage of brittle bridge components under an explosion can help bridge owners understand the risks associated with and assess the impact of explosions. Fragility curves can help to formulate vulnerability and risk assessments of bridge components. The FHWA is seeking solutions that address the following objectives:

1. Develop fragility curves for selected brittle metal bridge components subjected to explosive threats – both noncontact, up to and less than a scaled range Z = 1.0 ft/√𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙3

(where Z = 𝑅𝑅 √𝑊𝑊3 ; R, the standoff distance from the center of the charge threat to the closest surface of the target is divided by the cube root of W, the explosive weight of the charge in lbs.), and in contact. The charge shapes evaluated can include spherical and prismatic configurations with varying aspect ratios of width to length and thickness for the prismatic shapes. Descriptions and details of selected components will be made available upon request through a Controlled, Unclassified Information (CUI) access.

2. Establish and develop numerical modeling, using a design of experiments approach, for creating a response space as a function of threat size, range, and type of component.

3. Establish and develop consequences by total maximum plastic strains, damage levels, expected operational function, or another suitable metric or variable relating to damage or operational function after application of the threat.

4. Develop an experimental plan for selected validation and verification of the numerical results. All results will be considered CUI.

Construction Program

Topic: HIBS10-BTC-001

Tittle: National BIM Transportation Library Creation and Deployment Work Plan

In 2021, the FHWA published a research report entitled “Advancing BIM for Infrastructure:

National Strategic Roadmap” as one of the FHWA strategic initiatives to implement Building

Information Modeling (BIM) for Infrastructure. This research report defined BIM for transportation infrastructure as following:

Building Information Modeling (BIM) for Infrastructure is an open standards-based collaborative work method for structuring, managing, and using data about transportation assets and networks throughout their lifecycles.

Benefits of adopting BIM were presented in this roadmap. BIM can greatly improve collaboration among project designers, fabricators, construction engineers and asset managers and is envisioned to improve data and design model management through the life cycle of each bridge asset.

BIM has matured in the architecture and building domain and has been adopted in the years following a series of major standardization milestones. Data standards for buildings are based on the Industry Foundation Class (IFC) data schema and exchange file format. In 2019, the

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) passed a resolution titled Adoption of Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) Schema as the Standard Data

Schema for the Exchange of Electronic Engineering Data, which recognized IFC schema as the national standard for AASHTO states. AASHTO has recently formed a Joint Committee on Data

Standardization (JSTAN) to oversee AASHTO’s interaction with and participation in buildingSMART, the international body that maintains IFC.

Over the years, many research efforts on the application of BIM in infrastructure projects have been conducted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and state DOTs. More details on some of these efforts can be found at the follow links.

• https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/21064/21064.pdf

• https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/bim/ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/21064/21064.pdf https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/21064/21064.pdf https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/21064/21064.pdf https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/bim/

• https://highways.dot.gov/research/research-programs/infrastructure/building-information-modeling-bim-infrastructure-publications

The most recent research efforts have identified existing data and process workflows for design, construction, inspections, and asset management, that could be transitioned from traditional workflows to BIM-based workflows to gain efficiencies and productivity. Some of those workflows are listed below.

1. Creating project scoping documents for design workflow

2. Creating visualizations for alternatives analysis and public outreach workflow

3. Providing data for interdisciplinary coordination workflow

4. Developing final structural analysis workflow

5. Producing final plans and/or model workflow

6. Creating updated/detailed quantity take-off and estimate workflow

7. Providing design information for automated machine guidance workflow

8. Development and review of shop drawings and/or models workflow

9. Verifying construction results and recording as-built data workflow

10. Providing post-construction bridge or tunnel inspection data for asset management workflow

Also from research, types of artifacts that are required for deployment of BIM-based workflows are identified. These artifacts include, but not limited to, the following:

1. business process models,

2. data terms and definitions,

3. classification systems,

4. data dictionary and object type libraries (OTL),

5. information requirements,

6. information delivery manuals (IDM),

7. information exchange specifications (ILS),

8. model view definitions (MVDs),

9. model contract documents, and

10. model contract language.

For development and administration of these BIM artifacts, the need for building a National

BIM Transportation Library (NBTL) has been established. The concept for NBTL is envisioned https://highways.dot.gov/research/research-programs/infrastructure/building-information-modeling-bim-infrastructure-publications https://highways.dot.gov/research/research-programs/infrastructure/building-information-modeling-bim-infrastructure-publications as a national repository that is used to maintain open standards-based BIM artifacts in a version-controlled environment.

Additionally, an architecture for the NBTL based on the metadata model that is recommended for such libraries in The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) is needed.

Deployment of an open standards-based repository allows stakeholders in the public and private sector, including BIM standard development organizations (SDOs) and transportation organizations at the regional, state and national level, to use the content in the repository and contribute to its development promoting interoperable objective of BIM.

The NBTL is envisioned to work similar as the buildingSMART Data Dictionary which primarily is used by the vertical construction and manufacturing industries. More information on this type of data dictionary can be found at https://www.buildingsmart.org/users/services/buildingsmart-data-dictionary/.

The FHWA sponsors an on-going Transportation Pooled Fund (TPF) project, TPF 5(372) –

Building Information Modeling for Bridges and Structures, which plans to achieve multiple outcomes while engaging with buildingSMART International and buildingSMART USA

Chapter. Some of the outcomes include development of Information Delivery Manual (IDM), creation of Model View Definition, and US bridge data dictionary for commonly used bridges.

Outcomes from TPF 5(372) project could improve the buildingSMART’s ability to support horizontal construction industry. However, horizontal construction has geospatial needs that are beyond buildingSMART’s current offerings.

To support BIM deployment in roadway, bridge, and tunnel projects, the FHWA seeks to

• understand how well buildingSMART Data Dictionary can support horizontal construction and its limitations and

• develop a work plan for creating and deploying a NBTL for hosting BIM artifacts and

BIM administration of highway infrastructure projects to complement the bSI Data

Dictionary and address the limitations.

This work plan will include but not limited to the following:

1. A summary of buildingSmart’s capability and limitations.

2. Goals and objectives of the work plan for creating and deploying a NBTL to address limitations.

https://www.buildingsmart.org/users/services/buildingsmart-data-dictionary/

3. Steps needed to achieve the goals and objectives and general schedule to execute the work plan for developing a NBTL for both national and state specific use

4. Recommendations on where the NBTL should be housed and maintained, including the pros and cons of using various approaches.

5. Technical requirements and evaluation criteria of a new NBTL

6. Technical requirements and evaluation criteria of entity who owns and manages NBTL

7. Constraints and limitations of the work plan and the proposed NBTL

8. Risks and accountability of developing and maintaining a NBTL

9. Strategies to compel/encourage highway community content contributions to the NBTL

10. Clarity on what artifacts should be submitted for bSI’s Data Dictionary versus the NBTL

11. Hardware and software requirements

12. Resources available (OpenBrIM, GitHub, USDOT Secure Data Commons, etc.)

13. Data governance and management plan

14. Data aggregation and integration

15. Ability to improve and/or update the NBTL in the future

16. Cost estimates for creating and maintaining NBTL

This work plan should address all aspects of NBTL development and administration including, but not limit to, the following:

1. People and process requirements for NBTL

• Requirements associated with management of the BIM artifacts using the NBTL among NBTL stakeholders. NBTL stakeholders should include FHWA, BIM standard development organizations, technology/software vendors, and state DOTs, especially states that participate in the Transportation Pooled Fund (TPF) studies

TPF-5(372) and TPF-5(480).

• Different versions of the various national and international standards and artifacts would be used to create the NBTL BIM artifacts and identify the metadata content management process/functions/repositories among NBTL stakeholders.

2. NBTL database

• Database purpose, the metadata repository based on the NBTL BIM artifacts that would be stored in the database, application management layer, and database administration roles.

• NBTL content metadata repository using open standards such as TOGAF and fundamental aspects such as the ability to share, reference, annotate, discuss, search are defined for simple but powerful collaboration, during the development of the application tier of the NBTL database.

• Feasibility of linking the NTBL with bSI’s Data Dictionary.

3. NBTL administration and enable version-controlled schema generation

• Admin roles and privileges for the stakeholders and users of the NBTL.

• Administrators’ collaboration with each other; administrators’ ability to review, comment, compare, revise, revert, and finalize content in the NBTL for dissemination.

• Version control platform and permission for management of who can commit changes, manage versions, review/approve content that is proposed for check-in into the NBTL content library.

4. Application Programming Interface for NBTL collaboration

• Content for the NBTL Application Programming Interface (API) and full API scaffolding based on the NBTL metadata repository.

• API management platform, API access process, API capabilities and deployment of the capabilities for use by stakeholders.

5. NBTL collaboration community portal

• A friendly public facing API Portal for dissemination of the NBTL content to the community of developers, integrators, data architects, data scientists, data engineers and other stakeholders who want to use the API to integrate the NBTL content into their products, business processes or systems.

Bridge and Tunnel Safety Inspection Program

Topic: HIBS30-BTMP-001

Tittle: Database Solution Study for National Critical Findings Database of Bridges and

Tunnels

The National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) and the National Tunnel Inspection Standards

(NTIS) require states, Federal agencies, and Tribal governments to address critical finds for bridges and tunnels in a timely manner and regularly report progress in addressing critical findings to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Beginning with the May 2022 publication of the final rule updating the NBIS, there are now minimum requirements that will likely increase the number of critical findings reported each month. These standards also charge

FHWA with collecting the information on and monitoring the activities and corrective actions taken in response to, critical findings.

In the preparation for this requirement FHWA implemented the National Critical Findings

Database (CFD) in 2020 to identify trends that can:

• Inform national level programs on bridge and tunnel safety by identifying and targeting vulnerabilities in performance,

• Identify and develop best practices in bridge and tunnel management,

• Identify risks as well as opportunities for investment, and

• Inform future re-authorizations or grant programs

The CFD is still in its infancy; but issues have already come to light regarding consistency and efficiency of data collection, storage, modeling, and analysis.

The FHWA is interested in exploring data solutions that maximize efficiency and consistency with minimal upkeep and maintenance. The solutions should be all inclusive and provide:

1. And electronic data collection form, tool, app, or interface

2. Data storage for large datasets

3. Accessibility of data for modeling and analysis using common analytical software/programs

4. Ability to parse and import data from large independent data sources of historical bridge and tunnel information to provide consistency and efficiency in the data collection process

5. Easily modified, updated, and maintained by non-IT staff with a basic knowledge of common coding languages or a willingness to learn.

Highway Tunnel and Bridge Safety Technology

Topic: HIBS40-TUN-001

Tittle: Safety Inspection and Evaluation of Functional System for Highway Tunnels and

Moveable Bridges

Tunnel functional systems, such as ventilation, lighting, and drainage, are key components to maintaining the operational safety of the nation’s highway tunnels. Mechanical and electrical components of movable bridges allow for safe operation of the bridges for highway, rail, and maritime traffic. The National Tunnel Inspection Standards (NTIS) and the National Bridge

Inspection Standards (NBIS) require the complete inspection of these components. However, these systems are inherently different from the structural and civil components that many inspectors are used to assessing. Inspection of these systems may require different inspection techniques and inspection intervals.

The intent of this project is to develop reference material that will allow tunnel owners and moveable bridge owners to refine the specific inspection procedures for the inspection, evaluation, and maintenance of tunnel functional systems and moveable bridge systems. The reference material will provide information pertaining to the unique mechanical and electrical components and operational characteristics of highway tunnel functional systems and moveable bridge components.

The FHWA seeks solutions to address the following items:

1. Mechanical & Electrical system basics for structural / civil engineers and owners.

2. Inspection and Coding methods for tunnel functional systems that conform with National

Tunnel Inspection Standard (NTIS) including:

a. Common or suggested Agency Defined Elements (and assess the use of additional elements for mechanical and electrical system components to supplement existing elements defined in the Specifications for the National Bridge Inventory)

b. Common Deficiencies

c. Common Condition States

3. Inspection and Coding methods for movable bridges that conform with National Bridge

Inspection Standard (NBIS) including:

a. Common or suggested Agency Defined Elements

b. Common Deficiencies

c. Common Condition States

4. Suggested inspection scope and interval for common functional system components

5. Thresholds for significant findings

a. Acceptable / common methods of analysis for system components, to determine design capacity of existing systems and effective capacity or serviceability of degraded systems.

b. When is a certain level of analysis recommended (or required)