Minutes
AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration
Cleveland, OhioOctober 11-13, 2000
Attendance List Attached
Task Group Meetings
Task Groups met Wednesday, October 11, 8 am to Thursday, October 12, 12 noon.
Main Committee Meeting
The main committee met Thursday, October 12, 2000, 1 pm to Friday, October 13, 2000, app. 10 am
1. Opening
Introductions and opening remarks - Ronnie Medlock
2. Steering Committee Report
2.1 G1.1 – AASHTO approval – Ronnie Medlock reported that the Collaboration’s first standard, G1.1 Shop Detail Drawing Review/Approval Guidelines, was approved by AASHTO at the June 2000 meeting of the Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures. A new edition reflecting the updated status and editorial changes will be published.
2.2 Steering Committee (SC) Items – Ronnie provided a update of Steering Committee activities and requested Collaboration approval on a number of issues:
2.2.1 Use of Collaboration draft specs – use of Collaboration draft specs is encouraged; however the Collaboration requests notification of any changes
2.2.2 Steering Committee Membership/Expansion – The SC felt that the committee should be expanded to include one more AASHTO rep and one more industry representative. Key is that with the retirement of Al Laffoon from Missouri DOT, the SC no longer has a member who also sits on the Bridges and Structures Subcommittee. Further, if the Collaboration was in agreement, the SC proposed Ken Hurst of Kansas DOT be the new member. The Collaboration approved 1) the expansion of the Steering Committee to eight with one new owner and industry representative each, and 2) the membership of Ken Hurst to the SC. Ronnie will convey this to Ken and ask him to participate. A SC Sub-TG of Fred Beckmann and Arun Shirole will consider nominees for the additional industry representative.
A suggestion was made to add a consultant representative to SC. Though the Collaboration recognized the importance of consultant designers to effective implementation of many of the standards, the Collaboration did not reach a consensus that the way to achieve this was by having a rep on the SC. In resolution the SC agreed to give this further future consideration.
2.2.3 Steering Committee Officers – The SC recommended to the Collaboration that 1) the Steering Committee chair and vice chair have terms lengths and 2) that the Steering Committee chair always be an owner representative and the vice chair always be and industry representative. After some discussion the Collaboration resolved the following:
- The Steering Committee chair and vice chair will each serve three year terms
- There is no limit to the number of terms each may serve
- The chair and vice chair will be elected at Collaboration meetings; the SC will present nominations for both officers; the Collaboration may also field nominations
- The chair and vice chair will be elected at staggered years for continuity
2.2.4 Executive Committee – For information, Ronnie told the Collaboration that the SC was considering proposing an "executive committee" comprised of TG chairs. The SC felt this would facilitate standards development and implementation, but the SC was also concerned that another meeting would overburden the Collaboration.
2.2.5 Operations Manual – The SC is working on an operations manual that codifies Collaboration procedures. The chair has presented the latest draft for SC review; SC members will review and send comments back to Ronnie. It will subsequently be sent to the Collaboration for review and then vote per normal Collaboration procedures.
3. Task Groups reports and review
Included is a brief synopsis of Collaboration activities, including task group activities. A representative will provide an update of the task group and ask for discussion as needed.
TG 1, Detailing – Walter Gatti
The Collaboration has reviewed TG 1’ s standards for 1) shop drawing presentation and 2) contract drawing presentation; the TG resolved comments at their meeting. Walter will forward the final result to the steering committee for voting.
Two presentations were made about electronic drawing transfer. Copies of slides are attached.
Don Lee of High Steel told the Collaboration that the federal government has legislated to 1) minimize paper and 2) formally recognize electronic signatures. E-Approval 1) streamlines, 2) reduces turn-around, and 3) avoids unnecessary handling. To implement 1) a platform must be chosen; options include TIFF, PDF, or other; and 2) a file transfer method must be chosen; options include CD ROM, Email, FTP, and web based document management. (click here for PowerPoint file, 921 kb)
Additional comments from the floor: NYDOT beta tested; took about 3 days. File size is not an issue; at 200 dpi, 400% enlargement, details are very clear; TIFF & PDF files sizes about the same – got 15 drawings on a floppy disk. Does not facilitate 3D viewing, but fabs can provide if requested.
Don also did a great job helping with the audiovisual equipment at the meeting.
Colin Foo of Tensor Engineering spoke about use of web based document management for E-approval on the 3rd Carquinez Bridge fab. The project team had players from Canada, Japan, the UK, Florida, California, and New York. They were concerned about exchanging drawings effectively, security, signatures, notations, and teamwork. They set up a website and gave access to the players and set up protocols to address their concerns. It's working great; no drawings are mailed. (click here for PowerPoint file, 695 kb)
TG 2, Fabrication Specification - Ronnie Medlock
The Fabrication spec was voted for the first time just before the meeting. The TG met and resolved comments. Last minute comments will be handled by email. Then, technical changes will be balloted later this fall.
TG 3, Regional Groups – Lou Triandafilou
Lou Reported on the activities of the various associated groups. Details can be found in the meeting minutes posted on the Collaboration website.
TG 4, QC/QA - Paul McDad
At their meeting, the TG got updates on the following research assignment:
2.1.1 Coating from Bob Stachel; this assignment was expanded to cover Thermal spraying and galvanizing inspection qualification, assigned to Ross Panico.
2.1.2 Lab certification from Kathy Linehan – they are leaning towards A2LA; ISO would be overkill.
2.1.3 Bolting from Tom Schlafly.
The QC/QA spec was voted for the second time last spring. The TG met and resolved comments. Paul will compile the comments and get changes to the Steering Committee. Changes, if any, will be reballoted. The TG is also working on fabricator and inspector qualifications and certifications.
TG 5, Repair Database
- Kim RoddisMeeting report attached.
Kim is still collecting decision based and rule based repairs. They’re working toward a web-based version vs. a CD based version; this will alleviate file size concerns and provide a national interface and make updating easier. This will take a while (app. 2 years); so first they plan to come out with a hard copy system. Kim has more grad students on board.
TG 6, Transportation - Tamer Ahmed
Things are looking up for TG 6. They have been doing work by conference call. During their last call they discussed escort requirements and certification, SBC proposed envelope, stress analysis on bridges for the proposed envelope, and night move requirements between states.
OSFFA is newly formed national organization trying to unify the escort certification process in the country. The TG is waiting until they know what OSFFA is trying to accomplish before doing anything with them.
Ray DeRocco took the load truck envelope proposal to SASHTO. The envelope included a load length of 140', but SASHTO could only live with 125'. The TG finds this positive because they went up from 100' to 125'. Besides changing some of the language in the proposal concerning staying on the interstate en route and of course the length, things look pretty good. Ray will carry the same proposal to WASHTO, and NASHTO in October; if they adopt the TG envelope (or at least 125' in length like SASHTO) then the Collaboration would have accomplished a big thing.
John Holt is working on comparing stress analysis for different bridge spans (simple span and continuous) under the following loads: HS-20, the existing regional envelope with 100' truck load, 125' truck load, and 140' truck load. His analysis show that longer is actually better for stresses in bridges.
Night moves was not discussed because Jeff Ross was not available but it will be discussed in the task group meeting on October 11.
After a couple of years of feeling that the TG was not accomplishing much, Tamer now feels the TG has accomplished something that will make movements of girders more economical and easier. There is still a lot to accomplish. Tamer really feels good about this, and the Collaboration also expressed a special thanks to Tamer for his continued leadership.
Future work includes refining the TG’s proposal after Ray comes back from WASHTO & NASHTO, and getting back comments from the entire collaboration. Once all the comments are addressed we put out the proposal for the collaboration to vote on and submit it to AASHTO for approval after getting the approval from SASHTO, WASHTO, and NASHTO.
TG 7, Research and Technology – Krishna Verma
Meeting report attached.
Looking at Dexter work.
7.01 Automated Ultrasonic Testing – Glenn Washer, FHWA. Auto UT is not necessarily fully automated UT; the key is that the automated UT methods provide an actual test record that the Owner may confirm. Glenn has been to the shop to try some hands on work. The TG is weighing the options between cost, ease of use, and test results.
TG 8, Coatings – Eric Kline
Meeting report attached.
Eric reported that the proposed merger between SSPC and NACE is off.
The TG discussed the comments from the last ballot and will have the next edition ready for vote shortly.
North Carolina will soon try a metallizing job.
Eric pitched a call-to-action by the entire Collaboration to address the results of the AISI/NSBA fabricator needs survey that identified coatings as the biggest problem area.
TG 9, Bearings
Fred Beckmann reported on the behalf of this group. The TG is looking at design elastomeric bearing design under LRFD. Designers will draft something on this.
The TG has not been very active and was looking for a starting point; they decided to take a look at the New England group’s work and see if they could build on that. They also developed a list of issues and concerns related to design, manufacturing, and installation of bearings. They asked that the Collaboration do the same. They will consider AREMA and NSBA materials.
The TG would like to see bearing manufacturers involved and will invite some.
TG 10, Erection - Bill McEleney
The TG is at the point where they have something reasonable and workable. Some key issues: 1) in terms of erector certification, they will require the AISC certification or an equivalent; 2) they will address the need for a PE stamp in the commentary; and 3) they have added field welding.
TG 11, Standard Girder Design - Arun Shirole/Al Laffoon
Arun reminded everyone that this TG changed its scope at the previous meeting. They are now doing standard girder design vs standard girder sections. Dale Thomas explained that if the bridge does not have the exact span and girder spacing used to develop standard sections, use of the standard section becomes impractical. Further, stockpiling girders of standard section would not be practical because you wouldn’t know what lengths to stockpile.
The TG proposed a primer format, and the Collaboration concurred.
The TG will incorporate the work of other TGs working in similar areas, especially TG 1 work on standard details and TG 12, constructability. They will have a draft by the next Collaboration meeting.
TG 12, Design for Constructability and Economy - Fred Beckmann
At the last Collaboration meeting, the TG reviewed the comments they had received from owners; at this meeting they reviewed what they had received from fabricators. They are now ready to draft a report.
TF Design/Build – FHWA rules should be coming out in 2001. D/B activities across the country are increasing for transportation projects; we’ll be seeing more and more activity for bridges. The are bridges in CO, SC, and FL currently under D/B. The TF will continue to keep the Collaboration informed of these activities.
4. New Business
4.1. Review list of needs
4.1.1. Seismic – Arun reported that research is still being conducted and suggested that the Collaboration wait further before going into this area. Ronnie added that FEMA had completed its work and that AWS was looking at its requirements for welding of structures.
4.2. Discuss any new needs
4.2.1. Peer group – Krishna Verma proposed that the Collaboration act as a formal steel bridge specialist group available to address technical issues for improvement for both fabricators and owners. There are many resources out there, but the Collaboration might fill a niche. The steering committee had discussed this idea and suggested that if the Collaboration adopt this effort, TG 3 handle this.
4.2.1.1. The Collaboration did not reach a consensus on whether or not to implement this effort. Lou Triandafilou suggested that he discuss the idea further with TG 3 and get back to the Collaboration; the Collaboration concurred and it was left there.
4.2.2. Steel Bridge Database – A suggestion was made that the Collaboration compile a steel bridge data base with cost information about each steel bridge built. The Collaboration decided that this would not be an appropriate activity for the Collaboration and suggested rather that this would be an NSBA function.
5. Operations
5.1. Credit for Collaboration work – Walter Gatti
5.2. Walter raised a question about people getting credit for Collaboration work. The Collaboration concurred that Collaboration standards should have some identification of professionals responsible for the document inside. The Collaboration decided that each task group chair would provide the list of names to be included and use their own judgement about who contributed to the work.
6. Closing
6.1. Future meetings
6.1.1. Spring 2001 Reno, Nevada
6.1.2. Fall 2001 Kansas City, Missouri
6.1.3. Spring 2002 Tampa/Orlando, Florida
6.2. Meeting operations
6.2.1. The Collaboration decided that in the futures, all day Wednesday and Thursday will be reserved for TG meetings and the main committee meeting will be held on Friday. Because the next meeting will be in Reno, the main committee meeting will start at 7 am so that people can make flights back east.
6.2.2. The Collaboration voted that 1) there will continue to be presentations at the main committee meeting and 2) there will not be presentations or business at the Thursday night dinner.
Attendance List - by Last Name
Frank Adragna NDT Tamer Ahmed FHWA Peter Ault Corrpro Companies Mike BeacAham NSBA Fred Beckmann Jeff Bishop Grand Junction Steel Joe Butler Joseph T. Butler, Inc. Jamie Connor D. S. Brown / Lewis Eng Steven Cook Michigan DOT George Crosland High Steel Structures Michael Damiano SSPC Denis Dubois Maine DOT Jon Edwards Illinois DOT John Fleek West Virginia DOT Mike Ftizgerald Massachusetts Highway Dept. Scott Funderburk Lincoln Electric John Gast ConWeld Erectors Walter Gatti Tensor Engineering Heather Gilmer Texas DOT Ben Graybeal Wiss Janney Elstner Mary Grieco Massachusetts Highway Dept. Chad Grinsteiner White Engineering Associates, Inc Roger Haight Parsons Transportation Group Stephen Halloran Kentucky TC David Henkle Parsons Brinckerhoff Rick Hiller Sherwin-Williams John Holt Texas DOT Ken Hurst Kansas DOT Lynn Iaquinta NSBA Richard Inserra Stupp Bridge Company Dave Johnson PDM Bridge Bob Kase High Steel Structures Darrin Kelly DeLong's, Inc. Tom Kiener Jansen- Kiener Frank Kingston abs Structural Corporation Eric Kline KTA-Tator Cathy Klobuchar Tampa Steel Andy Kottenstette Robert W. Hunt Company Scott Kring Kentucky TC Al Laffoon Don Lee High Steel Structures Warren Lenon AFCO Steel Wes Lindley Stupp Bridge Company Kathleen Linehan FHWA Kelly Masten Grand Junction Steel Paul McDad Texas DOT Bill McEleney NSBA Dee McNeill Sherwin-Williams Bill Medford North Carolina DOT Ronnie Medlock Texas DOT Duane Miller Lincoln Electric John Miller North Carolina DOT John Miner Quality Auditing Co. Dennis Nash Stupp Bridge Company Todd Niemann Minnesota DOT Dennis Noernberg AFCO Steel Toshio Omura Kawada Industries/Steelox Systems Russ Panico High Steel Structures Skip Pendry Sherwin-Williams Paul Rimmer New York State DOT Buck Roberds PDM Bridge Larry Roberts Louis Berger Group Kim Roddis University of Kansas Jeff Ross High Steel Structures Tom Schlafly AISC Ted Sheppard The DoRoss Group Arun Shirole NSBA Bob Stachel Robert W. Hunt Company Doug Steele Fought & Company Dale Thomas NSBA Lou Triandafilou FHWA, Eastern RC Krishna Verma FHWA Daniel Walsh Upstate Detailing Steve Walsh Upstate Detailing Glenn Washer FHWA Gary Wisch DeLong's, Inc. John Yadlosky HDR Engineering, Inc.
TG-3 Regional Quality Groups
Attendance List and Introductions
|
NAME |
AFFILIATION |
PHONE / FAX |
| Tamer Ahmed tamer.ahmed@fhwa.dot.gov | FHWA-CA | 916-498-5023/916-498-5008 |
| Al Laffoon laffoonal@aol.com |
Retired | 573-635-1156/573-635-1685 |
| Krishna Verma krishna.verma@fhwa.dot.gov | FHWA - HQ | 202-366-4601/202-366-3077 |
| Todd Niemann todd.niemann@dot.state.mn.us | MnDOT | 651-747-2132/651-747-2207 |
| Lynn Iaquinta iaquinta@aiscmail.com |
NSBA | 509-926-9507/509-926-0494 |
| Ronnie Medlock rmedloc@dot.state.tx.us | TxDOT | 512-467-3781/512-465-7616 |
| John Fleek jfleek@dot.state.wv.us |
WvDOT | 304-558-3193/304-558-0253 |
| Andy Kottenstette ajk@pa.robhunt.com | R.W. Hunt | 412-921-8833/412-921-8836 |
| Larry
Roberts lroberts@ctel.net |
Berger Group | 207-377-8752/207-377-5992 |
| Glenn Washer glenn.washer@fhwa.dot.gov | FHWA-NDE Ctr | 202-493-3082/202-493-3126 |
| Ben Graybeal benjamin.graybeal@fhwa.dot.gov |
" |
202-493-3122/202-493-3126 |
| Lou Triandafilou lou.triandafilou@fhwa.dot.gov |
FHWA - ERC | 410-962-3648/410-962-4586 |
Review and Approval of Minutes from 4/20/00 San Antonio Meeting
Minutes approved after motion by Krishna Verma and seconded by Todd Niemann.
Regional/State Quality Group Activities since April 2000
NESBC - Larry Roberts
* 5th meeting held last week in Boxboro, MA; next meeting will be at MAHD.
* Active Task Groups include Details, Coatings, and Bearings
* Presentation by George Poirier, FHWA ME Division, on Sagadahoc River segmental concrete bridge project; design- build
* Presentation by Bill McEleney, NSBA, on recent girder edge preparation study for coatings.
* Implementation of G1.1 document: MA has used on 1 consultant design project; no specific feedback, but there are general concerns with small fabricators being able to follow. NY has used successfully. ME is re-writing their Section 100 General specs and will include G1.1
* Discussed drafts of QC/QA manual and fabrication guide.
* Emile Troup announced that the next bi-annual conference of the Structural Steel Fabricators of New England will be held November 3rd in Boxboro, MA.
As an aside, and in response to a recent survey question, it was noted that TX allows field welding of girder splices during new construction. GA and MA allow field welding on repair or rehab projects.
Massachusetts Quality Partnership
* Second-hand report that the state is continuing work on steel box girder details for its bridge design manual. Next order of business will be to address HPS.
SSCEF - Email report from Richard Crane
* NC reviewed their current spec requirements in comparison with G1.1, noted agreement between the two, and determined that no changes were necessary.
* MS has 1 project on I-55 in Jackson where they used G1.1; no evaluation yet.
* FL is revising standard specs and will be incorporating all Collaboration documents (including G1.1). Work being done by HDR Engineering.
NCS Consortium - Todd Niemann
* OH has joined the group; currently soliciting MT to join.
* Presentations on abrasive blasting (Pangborn); rapid deployment for recoating bridges over Interstate highways; OSHA requirements for slip coefficients; field reviews of modular expansion joints and tower lighting (Steve Cook - MI).
* Demo of new stud welding technique (computer controlled) by Netherlands. Can shoot studs through 6-7 mils of rust and scale; also underwater. Independent of cable length.
* Availability, specs, grade 50, zone 3 material toughness of HPS.
* Update to AASHTO/AWS D1.5
* Canvass of states regarding field welding on new construction - only allowed on minor items and piling.
* Supplier proposing revisions to AASHTO guide specs for pedestrian bridges.
* NE has adopted the QC/QA draft manual.
MO Quality Partnership - Al Laffoon
* His replacement on Collaboration will be new state bridge engineer, Mr. Shyam Gupta - (573) 751-4676.
* Group evolved into a 3-part relationship: technical, program funding, and political.
* Spring meeting included large and small fabricating shops; DOT construction, materials, research personnel.
* G1.1 was reviewed and determined to be rubber stamping of what the state's procedures already are. Will look to formalize their procedures in light of document.
* No field welding allowed on superstructure, and no base of interest to propose.
Texas Quality Council - Ronnie Medlock
* 5 of 7 research proposals suggested by the group have been funded.
* Reviewed consultant interchange design.
* Successful implementation of G1.1 for in-house projects; still need to get consultants to use on decentralized district projects.
* TxDOT does allow field-welded main member splices, using a formal certification program, 100% radiography of the work. Have found fabrication to be faster this way; no impact on delivery of members. Have had problems finding enough certified welders; may go to allowing option for bolted splices, but are uncertain if bolting would be faster.
WSSB - Lynn Iaquinta and Tamer Ahmed
* No formal group yet, but 4-5 states do vote on the Collaboration documents. AZ and CA have never voted. CA hosted a recent Steel Bridge Forum for 160 people; sent 80 of their staff to it.
* Lynn has distributed 250 copies of G1.1 to the western states, as she makes presentations on the NSBA. Given to NSBA and non-NSBA member fabricators. ID and MT in-house staff each have their own copies. NV and WS want more. Next 6 months, more copies will be provided to AZ, CO, NM, OR, and WY.
* FHWA Western Resource Center being brought up to speed on G1.1 and the Detailing standards.
* Western States Bridge Conference next September.
* Tamer's TG-6 Transportation Task Group will be formally responding to comments made by State Bridge Engineers at the recent ERC Bridge Technology workshop.
* Concerns with possible claims due to G1.1 providing turnaround timetable for shop drawings. Some state claims personnel feel a timetable is needed to address claims if they arise.
Mid-Atlantic States SCEF - Lou Triandafilou
* 40th meeting of the group held subsequent to TG-3 meeting. States adopted regional welder qualification procedures for SMAW and revisions to High Load Multi-rotational Bearing spec. Details to be posted on Eastern Resource Center website in near future.
* Still investigating regional inspection certification programs for welding, bolting and painting; also new AISC certification category for minor bridge components.
* Formed task group to assemble states' details for overhead sign support structures, in effort to standardize for economy. Reinstated subcommittee to address large movement expansion joints.
* Regarding G1.1 implementation: DC has discussed with Chief Engineer and will use most of document for next cycle of projects and give to consultants. Have included it in upcoming $26 million bridge replacement project. DE will implement after specs are changed, but have concerns with fabricators dealing directly with designers. They now informally follow anyway; fabricator has only to request expediting process through Contractor. Similar process being followed on SR-1 bridge north of Smyrna. WV bridge staff has been notified that document has been finalized and adopted by AASHTO. Probably not a deviation from their current practice. Could be put into Bridge Design Manual.
Review and Updating of Regional Quality Groups Membership List
* Mark-ups provided; update posted
here (MS Word file)
Updating of Nationwide listing of HPS Projects
*
See attached (MS Excel file) for the latest listing. A survey is being distributed to the States, asking why they used HPS.
ACEC Review and Adoption of Collaboration Documents-Lynn Iaquinta
* Formal presentation will be made to this group and to APWA.
FHWA Office of Bridge Technology Re-issuance of Memo Supporting Collaboration Efforts - Krishna Verma
* On hold until new Office Director is selected and settled in on board. Former director was in favor of distributing such a memo to Division Bridge Engineers.
Other Issues
* Suggestion by Krishna Verma at the end of the meeting for TG-3 to take lead in compiling and providing solutions to real life issues arising from steel fabricating shops, state DOTs and others. These could be complied from audits, reviews and other sources.
This topic was discussed in more detail at the full collaboration meeting. Concerns were raised over duplication which may arise by having another group for people to have to go to for solutions to problems. TG-5 efforts are already underway to establish a database of repairs and solutions; also the Collaboration "Listserve" has been available for people to get help with problems.
TG-3 agreed to look into this proposal in more detail to determine the best way to accomplish the suggested task in the most value-added way. A telephone conference call will be convened in the near future with regional quality group chairs to discuss.
Task Group on Repair Database (TG-5)
JOINT MEETING OF SPR-3 (083) FIXS REGIONAL POOLED FUND
STUDY
and SBC TASK GROUP 5: REPAIR DATA BASE
Attendance:
Chair of Task Group 5 and Principal Investigator of SPR 3-(083): Kim Roddis
Members of the Technical Committee of SPR 3-(083):
Ken Hurst, Kansas
Heather Gilmer, Texas
Todd Niemann, Minnesota
Bob Horwhat, Pennsylvania
Steve Cook, Michigan
Task Group 5 Members:
Al Laffoon
Krishna Verma, FHWA
Arun Shirole, AISC/NSBA
Bill McEleney, AISC/NSBA
Members of Task Group 5 not in attendance at this committee meeting due to
conflicting SBC committee meetings:
Gary Wisch, DeLong Steel
Buck Roberts, PDM Bridge
Denis Dubois, Maine
Clarification of Group Composition:
The Committee is made up of two groups sharing the objective of improving
resolution of fabrication noncomformances. The initial group is identified as
the Steel Bridge Collaboration Task Group No. 5 Repair Database (SBC-TG5). To
this original group has been added the second group made up of the technical
representatives to the FHWA SPR-3(083), FIXS Regional Pooled Fund Study. The
FHWA SPR-3(083) technical committee (SPR-TC) consists of DOT appointed
representatives from the 12 participating states. In that capacity, their role
is to provide technical oversight and input to the three-year pooled fund study
on FIXS.
Milestone targets for FIXS research project:
a. Near-term target is to produce a tutorial on resolution of fabrication
errors. This will be issued as a hard copy document to be published and
distributed by NSBA after undergoing the normal SBC review process.
b. Second target is initial setup and operation of web site for committee
members.
Tutorial
The draft tutorial document was distributed and discussed.
a. Reviewers: All the technical committee members should have an assignment so
that all portions of the tutorial are covered. Each part should at least one
fabricator reviewer and one DOT reviewer.
b. Metric: Hard metric conversion will be used throughout the tutorial and the
rest of FIXS.
c. Audience: To properly review the draft tutorial sections, the target
audience for this document should be clear. Possible tutorial users identified
were: 1) non-engineer inspectors who need to know what are good repair decisions
that preserve the engineering design intent, 2) engineers with little exposure
to fabrication processes who need to make a nonconformance resolution decision,
and 3) training for designers and inspectors. The consensus was to assume the
tutorial document is intented to act as a communication device between the
designer and the inspector. (Example: how far can a stiffener be moved while
preserving the engineering design intent?)
d. Content: The tutorial document should lay out the interaction between the
DOT and fabricator, and should tie in with the SBC Guide Specs for QC/QA. In
particular, see QC/QA Sections 9.6 concerning nonconformances and Section 11.2
concerning inspection of fabricated members. A section should point out that the
tutorial is not comprehensive, listing some of the many things that can happen
in the shop, clarifying that some have standard repairs and some do not.
e. SBC Review: The tutorial is intended to be a stand-alone document. When the
Joint Committee has produced a complete document, it will be submitted to the
normal SBC review process.
Web site planning document
A planning document for the web site development, including limitations, is
being prepared in the form of a check list
Request for input by SBC members:
More graphic information on fabrication practices and FIXS is desirable.
Therefore, all members of the joint committee and SBC are encouraged to begin
collecting photographs and film clips that would be beneficial to explain FIXS
to be added to the tutorial.
Chair: Krishna K. Verma (FHWA)
The Chair, noted the need to compile available findings and recommendations from the literature, which may influence and improve steel bridge fabrication. He recommended that we examine results of various on going and past research activities in public and private sectors. The Chair will seek assistance from members of TG-7 and friends of Task Group 7 from State DOTs, FHWA and steel industry.
Members were informed that the following may be of interest to them;
q
During annual Transportation Research Board (TRB) meetings (January 2001), a session sponsored by the TRB Committee A2F07 (Fabrication and Inspection of Metal Structures) on Plasma Cuttingq
A Workshop "Computer Integrated Steel Bridge Design Fabrication and Construction" is being planned. The workshop will be held in April in Columbus, OH. Workshop details will be available in the near future.
Mr. Glen Washer (FHWA), Chair, sub-task group on Automated Ultrasonic Testing, presented on the ongoing work on the assigned task. He noted that the initial developmental work is based on the present acceptance rejection criteria for ultrasound testing in the AASHTO/AWS/ANSI Bridge Welding Code. He added that the present Bridge Welding Code does not provide procedures and techniques for automated ultrasound testing. Mr. Washer, described advantages and disadvantages the automated procedure.
During the discussion among members of the task group (TG-7) it was recognized that in order to implement the automated ultrasound testing technique, the sub-task group need to develop a write-up on a procedure and a technique in a code like language, for adoption in the Bridge Welding Code. The task group also recognized the need to address pertinent NDT certification issues for the automated process.
Task Group 8 met on Oct. 11 from 1-9pm and on Oct 12 from 7:30-11am.
The committee is developing a specification for shop painting of steel bridge members with inorganic zinc rich based coating systems. The specification was balloted to the entire Collaboration in April 2000. Many good comments were received from literally dozens of interested parties. The comments were reviewed and all have been addressed. The comments resulted in some fundamental technical changes to the document. The Task Group will circulate the latest version of the specification through its members and have the specification re-balloted before the next meeting in Reno, NV.
The specification is complete in the sense that it includes systems that are shop prime coated with shop/field intermediate and topcoats as well as systems that are completely shop coated.
The Task Group discussed the addition of language to also include organic zinc rich primers and their topcoats. The committee is considering taking up this logical extension of the specification as its next task.
The committee is asking for Collaboration endorsement for the revision of the "Guide to Shop Painting Structural Steel" (SSPC document 91-06). SSPC and AISC/NSBA will collaborate on the new Table of Contents for this revised guide. Thereafter, SSPC and AISC/NSBA will explore the best way to develop the guide sections.
The task group is concerned about the survey published by AISI/NSBA Steel Bridge Committee in 1999 that identified shop painting as the single biggest impediment to the production of steel bridges. The Task Group believes that shop painting should not be the impediment that it is believed to be. The task group requests that the leadership of the collaboration and the NSBA join the committee and other interested groups (State DOT"S. Coatings Suppliers. etc.) in addressing the needs of the fabricators so that the market for painted steel bridges can be expanded.