Structural DesignProgram Review

Massachusetts Department of TransportationSeptember 20-23, 2011

Purpose of Review

Provide a service to MassDOT management Identify best practices Recognize areas of excellence Document policies & practices Identify opportunities for improvement

Outline Review Team Review Process General Observations Commendable Practices Opportunities for Improvement Discussion

Review Team

Olu Adeyemi – FHWA, Division Office, Cambridge Tom Saad – FHWA, Resource Center, Matteson Jamal Elkaissi – FHWA, Resource Center, Denver Derrell Manceaux – FHWA, Resource Center,

Denver Mike Arpino – FHWA, Division Office, Cambridge Guatam Sen - MassDOT, Boston Edmund Newton - MassDOT, Boston Craig Shike – Oregon DOT

Schedule

Tuesday Kick off Meeting Deputy Chief Engineer Director of Project Development Design and Project Managers ABP, In-House and Consultant Managers Hydraulics Engineer

Wednesday State Bridge Engineer ABP, In-House and Consultant Designers Roadway Design, Environmental and Planning Engineers Materials Division

Schedule

Thursday Geotechnical Engineers Construction Materials Control District Office Engineers Consultants

Friday Close Out

General Observations

Professional and Motivated Staff Good Communications, but Specific

Suggestions for Improvement Dynamic Work Environment / Chain of

Command Numerous Major Advancements in last Five

Years

Opportunities for Improvement

Success due to leadership’s commitment to implement new practices and innovative delivery methods

ABP ABC FAST 14 DBE / DUCE (District Bridge Engineer-District

Utility Constructability Engineer) Design Build Implementation

Development, standardization and implementation of “State of the Practice” procedures

Design manuals Standard structural details NEXT beam LRFD procedures

Flexibility of staff to adapt to multiple reorganizations

ABP Design Build Special Project team New District Positions In-House Design

Expanded partnership with districts, consultants, and traveling public

ABP Design Build Manuals Development Expedited Project Delivery Environmental: Context Sensitive Design &

Bridge Aesthetics

Improvement in specific practices and procedures

Process of public involvement for project development is good

Decision matrix for implementing ABC technologies

Standard details Bridge design manual developed and updated

in-house

1/2

Improvement in specific practices and procedures (cont’d)

Forefront on crash tested bridge rails and transitions

All utility relocations must appear on plans Record of Design Report – evaluating

Consultants Use of VIRTIS Ratings as check of design

2/2

Opportunities for Improvement

Training & professional development/need for better communication

Need for Structural Engineer career path Training for Structural and Consultant

engineers Recognition / reward system Develop effective team environment Implement rotational assignments Succession Planning No incentive for PE license

Establish In-House bridge design

Track design hours / cost Consultant review section does not have

project authority Technician to maintain standard details and

CADD support In-house highway design capacity needs to be

developed More focus on bridge design effort

Clearly document roles & responsibilities

In some cases, engineers do not understand full scope of responsibilities

Districts challenging roles and responsibilities Consultants receive conflicting comments in

plan reviews Authority unclear

QC/QA

Inconsistent QC practices QA procedures not clearly defined /

standardized Some reviews are redundant Can use bridge load rating as valid QC method

Tools required

Update software Substructure structural software Civil-3d locks computer Adobe WORD

Scanner Update computer hardware

Additional recommendations

Need for Hydraulics Program Review Applied research Use of electronic transfer of drawings and

plans/shop drawings Update Standard Specifications Maintenance Manual Capital improvement plan for preventive

maintenance

Response to ADA request regarding staffing levels following reorganization

Limits on hydraulic and geotechnical capabilities

Increased work load for in-house staff - identify where scoping will be conducted

Schedule for development of final report

Submit draft report to Review Team for comments (Nov 2011)

Comments incorporated (Jan 2012) Final report (Feb 2012)

Additional topics…..questions??