AASHTO/NSBA

Steel Bridge Collaboration

Meeting Minutes

October 26-28, 1998

Salt Lake City

Minutes

AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration

Third Meeting

October 26-28, 1998, Salt Lake City

Table of Contents

Introduction

Opening

Task Group Reports

New Business

Operations, Collaboration

Next Meeting

 

---

Introduction

The following minutes are from the third AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration meeting and associated task group meetings, which were held in Salt Lake City, October 26-28, 1998. The format of the minutes follows the meeting agenda, which is included with these minutes. An attendance list for the main committee meeting is also included. The attendance breakdown is as follows: 

Academia - 3

DOT's - 19 people (15 states)

FHWA - 9

Consultants - 8 people (7 companies)

Fabricators - 20 people (10 companies)

Erector - 1

Steel Producers - 5

Coatings - 3 people (2 companies)

Other industry - 2

NSBA - 3

Other trade associations - 1 

TOTAL ATTENDANCE - 70  

Monday, October 26, 8 a.m. to Tuesday morning, October 27, 12 p.m.

Task Group Meetings 

Task group meetings were held at various times in four rooms all day Monday and on Tuesday morning. Eleven task group meetings were held; minutes from those meetings are available directly from the task groups. Each task group made a report at the main committee meeting, so a synopsis of their presentation and progress to date is presented below. On Tuesday evening a dinner was held which was cosponsored by eight of the participating fabricators: DeLongs, Industrial Steel Company, Lincoln Steel, PDM Bridge, Utah Pacific, Stupp Brothers, and Tampa Steel Erecting. These fabricators also sponsored the coffee/soda breaks that were provided between meetings and on breaks.

Tuesday, October 27, 1998, 1 p.m. to Wednesday, October 28, 12 p.m.

Main Committee Meeting 

Opening 

Welcome, Tom Warne, Utah DOT 

Tom Warne is the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Transportation, and he is also the chair of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways. He welcomed everyone, spoke about construction on the huge I-15 project, and expressed his support for the Collaboration efforts. 

Introductions and opening remarks, Ronnie Medlock

 Ronnie covered a few administration items as follows: 

1. Task group numbers have been changed since the last meeting; they now run sequentially regardless of the year they began, instead of starting over with new numbers each year; for example, TG 1 – 98 became TG 9.
2. Participation on task groups is open to anyone; there is no formal procedure for becoming a task group member except to inform the task group chair about the intent to participate and to let Ronnie know for data base purposes.
3. Soon the Collaboration will have its first documents prepared, and the voting procedure is under development. It will be very important for participants to vote when the opportunity arises because this is what will provide a solid affirmation for Collaboration work. 

Erection Certification 

Tom Schlafly of AISC provided an overview and update about AISC’s new certification program for steel erectors. Copies of his slides are available from Ronnie Medlock. Tom emphasized the following: 

• In the shop program, criteria for welding issues in the bridge categories are based on Bridge Welding Code requirements, including calibration of welding machines and qualified procedures. Major Bridge category includes there requirements for certified inspectors (CWI).
• The Erector Certification Program was developed jointly by AISC, National Erectors Association, and the Steel Erectors Association.
• DOT’s should note that this is not a program just for bridge erection; it addresses all forms of steel structure erection.
• The program is divided into two different certifications depending upon the complexity of the work. Bridges are found in both categories, dependent, again, on the complexity of the work.
• Cost for certification is about $5,000.
• Right now only 6 erectors have a certification; Tom says DOT’s should not specify the certification as a requirement just yet. However, most erectors are waiting to see if owners will mandate the certification. When owners do stipulate the certification, they should allow at least 6 months lead-time from the announcement of their support to requirement of the certification..
• The program will involve inspection and oversight by contractors to AISC. AISC performs audits, not inspections, so will not be able to assume responsibility for performance on any particular job.
• Tom also reported on the status of SSPC QP3 and the AISC SP endorsement; these have become almost identical except that only the SSPC program addresses safety issues and environmental issues. ConnDOT requires QP3 but will probably accept SP endorsement as an equal. 

Task Group Reports and Review

A representative from each task group provided an update about task group activities and lead a discussion about important points.  

TG 1, Detailing – Report by Walter Gatti 

1. SG 1.01, Standard Design Details, Paul Rimmer, Chair – The task group discussed several proposals regarding design presentation. First, contract plan layout needed to be addressed. The discussion centered upon a proposed outline presented in the minutes. Some members thought it was too detailed and beyond the scope of the task group. Although the outline was generally believed to be a positive start, the task group agreed to revise this outline to a more general focus keeping in mind that the steel industry is more than girders.
   Secondly, the long series of collected details were reviewed and a decision was made to categorize the details by function. The steel details were divided into four groups. Details for local bridges or temporary structures, straight girders, curved or haunched girders and tub or closed box girders.
   Lastly, the task group reviewed the categorized framing plans, transverse sections, table formats and cross frame details and eliminated those details that were inappropriate or substandard. The remaining details were to be reformatted from 81/2 x 11 sheets to the proper micro-station size and format. Revised details and constructability confirmation was to be sent to FHWA representatives and constructability review comments were to be sent to NSBA TG 1.01 members. Any additional comments should be forwarded to Paul Rimmer.
2. SG 1.02, Drawing Presentation, George Crosland, Chair – The sub task group has established a recommended sheet numbering system for fabrication and erection detail sheets and is completing work on a piece marking system for shop, shipping and erection use. The draft versions should be available to the TG by year-end.
3. SG 1.03, Shop Submittal and Review Practice, Jon Edwards Chair – The sub-task group is completing work on the practice for shop plan review. Comments received were reviewed and a revised version will be submitted to the TG chair (Walter Gatti) within two weeks of the meeting for dissemination to the task group members. After their input is received and incorporated, it is expected to go forward to the Steering Committee for processing in accordance with the guidelines in item 4.2. Hope to have a finalized version before year-end.
4. SG 1.04, Electronic Data Transfer – AISC is presently working on a protocol for electronic data transfer of shop drawings, so the task group is waiting to see what comes from them.
5. Seismic Detailing Considerations for Steel Plate Girders – The Collaboration agreed at the Nashville meeting to continue monitoring issues related to seismic details. Steve Altman of CALTRANS sent a paper about these details to the Collaboration; it was included with the agenda, and a copy is also attached.

TG 2, Fabrication - Report by Ronnie Medlock

1. Action plan update – The task group is busy with step four, working on sections of the specification and commentary. The task group met in Providence in June to work through draft one of the specification; parts 1 through 4 of the 2^nd draft are now complete; work continues on the remaining sections. The first drafts of parts 1 through 4 of the commentary have been completed and are under review; the task group is working on the remaining parts.
2. Purpose of document – The task group had a discussion about the intended purpose of the specification and re-affirmed that the target was a document that states can adopt to replace their own requirements for steel bridge fabrication. Also, the task group discussed the options of first having a "guide" specification which would later grow to full specification status; one reason for this would be that it probably is easier to get a guide spec approved. However, the task group felt strongly that an actual specification is preferred over a guide spec.
3. NDT – The task group had a discussion about whether to include general references to D1.5 or to just have one statement saying the NDT would be in accordance with the code. After much discussion, the task group chose the latter: the specification will simply state that NDT will be in accordance with the Bridge Welding Code.
4. QC/QA – These issues are being addressed by the QC/QA task group, but there are contractual provisions that may need to be in the specification. Ronnie will work closely with the QC/QA TG chair (Paul McDad) to co-ordinate the two documents.
5. Metric – Many states are going back to US customary units; the specification will adopt the protocol being used by FHWA and the Bridge Welding Code - the specification will be written in metric with US customary units following the metric units parenthetically. The US customary units will be hard conversions of the metric values.
6. Larger problems – The task group had a discussion about what to do with big problems - for example, should the task group take action if some states are miss-applying the D1.5 provisions for NDT. The task group reached the consensus that although problems like this can be very serious and need to be addressed, it is not within the scope of the task group to address such issues specifically, except to write the best specification and commentary possible.
7. Support from fabricators – The task group felt it needed more participation from fabricators; at the June meeting only one fabricator was present, and at the Salt Lake City meeting there were two present. Ronnie made an appeal to the larger Collaboration for more fabricator participation, at least at the level of reviewing the document. [Later during the meeting Ronnie was approached by a few fabricators who did say they would help the task group.]  

TG 3, Regional Groups - Report by Lou Triandafilou 

1. Reorganization – The FHWA continues through its transition; as of October 1, 1998, there are no longer any regional offices, but there are four technology centers. These are located in Baltimore, Atlanta, Denver, and San Francisco. The Collaboration regional group boundaries mirrored to some extent the FHWA region boundaries; however, that does not necessarily mean that the Collaboration group structure will change. The Collaboration groups will form as is most effective for their group. A map is attached.
2. Regional Group Structure – an organization chart was provided with the agenda showing how local and regional groups are aligned with the Collaboration; a copy is included with these minutes. The task group will be working to provide more details about participation in each groups, specifically addressing the member organizations (i.e. state and fabricator names, but not necessarily names of individuals).
3. New Groups – A new regional group was formed since the last Collaboration meeting; this is the North East Steel Bridge Collaboration (NESBC) under the leadership of Larry Roberts of Louis Berger & Associates. The NESBC assigned a member as an official link to some of the Collaboration task groups. This will facilitate review of the Collaboration works by the quality groups and help with implementation.
4. Exchange protocol – The task group is working on a protocol for exchange of information; this will be incorporated into the Collaboration operations manual.
5. Associated groups – Lou reported on the latest activities of the North Central States, the Western States Steel Bridge Team, the Subcommittee for Economic Fabrication, the Southeastern States Committee for Economic Fabrication, and the Texas Steel Quality Council. Of note, the North Central States are working towards reciprocity of inspectors; this was discussed further later in the meeting as a new business item. Also discussed briefly were Buy America, SCEF’s new safety handrail std, the AWS Welder Certification program, painting of faying surfaces for Gr 50W, partial payment for materials, Regional certification "schools" for inspectors, shop personnel and/or contractors.
6. Announcements – Lou also made two announcements. The first was a call for papers for the next NDE conference to be held in New Jersey in April 2000 (attached). The second was a request for questions to be asked as part of an FHWA sponsored Europe/Japan scanning tour on steel bridge fabrication. These should be sent directly to Lou. 

TG 4, QC/QA - Report by Paul McDad. Slides used for his report are attached. 

1. Update – The task group completed draft one of their document last spring, met in June in Pittsburgh to discuss it, developed draft two, and then discussed draft two in their Salt Lake City task group meeting. They will send their documents to the regional quality groups and hope to have comments back from them by February 1, 1999. They will incorporate these comments by May 1, 1999, and then have their document to the larger Collaboration for review by July 1, 1999. They are using ASTM standard, SCEF documents, and input from AISC in development of their work.
2. Output - The task group is essentially working on two documents 1) a quality control practice for fabricators and 2) a quality assurance practice for owners. The task group is still struggling with the issue of power/authority for these documents. It is generally accepted that the quality control document will be a document that describes what fabricators should put into their quality control plan. However, there is still discussion about whether the quality assurance documents should be recommendations that an owner can use to write their own quality assurance practice, or if it should be a document that may be adopted directly by an owner for direct use.
3. Other Challenges – Need to address certification issues, authority of the inspector, coordination with the Collaboration fabrication task group, and how to coordinate their work with the AISC certification requirements, which already place certain demands on fabricators’ quality control programs. 

TG 5, Repair Database - Report from Kim Roddis, with demonstration of software. 

1. Update - Kim provided a brief history of the project, including an explanation of how the repair database software (FIXS) originally started out as a project for Kansas DOT and through the Collaboration became a project for all states. She described the features of the software than have been added since the original project. The program and database are now stand-alone instead of depending on proprietary software. This makes the program much easier to distribute and utilize, but a website or other system would be ideal for updates. There are now about 150 error cases and 500 rules logged, and states/owners have the latitude to accept, modify or reject, based on the situation and their level of confidence. KSDOT has already used the software and found significant benefits.
2. Present work - The team has gathered more repair cases for inclusion in the database. At present task group members are reviewing the solutions. Kim has a graduate student, Xiuzhen "Susan" Wang, working on the project, and she has funding until May. Originally there were plans to seek FHWA funds to continue the project, but now this will not work because there is no longer an OTA within FHWA. Another means of funding will be necessary for successful implementation of the project because once it is placed on the web site, it will need to be maintained.
3. Demonstration – Kim and Xiuzhen gave a very impressive demonstration of how the software works. 

TG 6, Transportation - Report from Tamer Ahmed, copies of overheads used in the meeting are attached. 

1. Regional Efforts - Tamer reported on their findings to date, including state’s responses to their questionnaire (see attachment). He also discussed the existence of 3 regional groups (New England, Multi-state, and Western), but that these have approval limits that are too low (length, width, and weight) to markedly help expedite transportation of long girders.
2. Steel Girders as a Commodity - The National Oversize/Overweight Uniform Working Group on Regional/National Permitting (NOOUWGRNP) was consulted about unifying escort criteria and requirements and either treating fabricated as a commodity or getting national length limits of 125 to 150 feet. The group responded, "No." The TG will continue exploring cooperative options.
3. Present tasks – The task group is working on the following issues:
4. 1. Unification of the super-load requirements among states
   2. Possible unification of the escort requirements among states.
   3. Encouraging states that are not part of a regional permitting group to join one. 

TG 7, Research and Technology - Report from Krishna Verma, flyers attached 

1. Task Group Developments – The task group has changed its name from "Research" to "Technology and Research" to better reflect its role in the Collaboration. That role is 1) to bring technology to the Collaboration and 2) to facilitate research. Persons within or without the Collaboration who plan to conduct research and would like the Collaboration’s input should submit a needs statement to the task group chair, Krishna Verma, for consideration by the task group.
2. Heat Straightening Repair for Damaged Steel Bridges - Krishna was first commissioned to compose a four-page handout to address the heat straightening repair issue, but soon decided there was a need for more comprehensive work. The FHWA contracted with Dr. Avent of LSU, and Dr. Avent has now completed his work, which includes an interaction CD-ROM and four heavy manuals addressing both theory and practice of steel bridge member correction by heat. Krishna emphasized that though the work very comprehensive and even describes how to make repairs, making such repairs is as much art as science, and a great deal of experience is needed to effectively perform corrections. Still, the work will be a tremendous resources for DOTs who are faced with damaged bridges and must be sure that corrective work performed on their bridges does not compromise the integrity of the structures. Further, the guidance provided in the work are also useful in the fabrication arena because the same theory and principals apply. The CD and manuals will be available soon directly from Krishna.
3. Narrow-Gap Improved Electroslag Welding for Bridges – A moratorium was placed on electroslag welding by the FHWA after the catastrophic failure of a bridge in Pennsylvania that originated in an electroslag joint. Since that time electroslag welding has been allowed only for compression joints, and this limitation has precluded effective application of this process. However, the FHWA has conducted extensive research and has developed techniques which improve the performance and confidence in the electroslag process. The process provides great potential to fabricators because in may be used to weld full penetration joints very quickly. For example, a four foot long full penetration joint on one inch thick material may be welded in 11 minutes, after set up time. The FHWA has prepared a demo to help with implementation. They will take this demo to various locations around the country; interested parties may contact Krishna to see if the demo may be brought close to them.
4. Ultrasonic Impact Treatment – During the cold war the Soviets were using an ultrasonic impact treatment on steel structures, including nuclear submarines, to improve fatigue performance. Through IIW, Krishna heard about this technique and invited Dr. Efim Statnikov, the Russian expert who developed the technique, to bring the technology to the United States. The technique shows promise and has been applied on the Allatoona bridge in Georgia. Dr. Fisher of ATLAS has been conducting some research with this method and has gotten some positive results, and he will speak about his findings at TRB next January. 

TG 8, Coatings - Report by Mike MeLampy, with synopsis attached 

1. "Guide to Shop Painting of Structural Steel" – As a means of providing guidance for shop painting, the task group is working with the Society of Protective Coatings (SSPC) to modernize the "Guide for Good Painting Practice". A Quality Assurance and Quality Control Section will be added to the guide. This guide will be revised and updated with the help and concurrence of the SSPC.
2. Uniform supplier– The task group advocates having one paint manufacturer supply all coats of a system to insure compatibility and accountability.
3. Specification - The TG is working on a generic/guide paint specification for states to adopt (in total or in part) to assure good practice.
4. Paint systems -The task group does not expect to try to evaluate or recommend a particular system, only methods for applying and testing, with the possible incorporation of NPTEP and NEPCOAT for product evaluation.
5. Selection – The "Guide for Good Painting Practices" will provide the specifier with information sources to enable better coating system selection. 

TG 9, Bearings -  Bob Colpitts is to assume task group chair. The task group is working on the following issues: 

1. Certification – Incorporate the AISC certification program for bearing fabricators
2. Co-ordination – Improved coordination between fabricators, contractors, and owners in the bearing fabrication process.
3. Testing - Standard testing requirements for bearings
4. Details – Recommended details for bearings
5. Trapezoidal Steel Bridge Members – Use and design of pot bearings; alternate designs. 

TG 10, Erection - report from Bill McEleney 

1. Erection procedure – The task group advocates requiring an erection procedure on every major project, if not every job. The task group will work on a check list of items to be included in an erection procedure.
2. Certification – Touching on the earlier presentation by Tom Schlafly, Bill noted the benefits of certification or at least verification of previous experience and ensuring equipment is properly sized, maintained, and functioning.
3. Erection Stresses – The task group notes that there will possibly be confusion coming with the LRFD Code if erection stresses are limited based on "design" stresses; erection stress limits probably need to be based on material properties rather that LRFD design stresses. 

TG 11, Standard Girder Sections - report from Dennis Mertz 

1. Preliminary work – Dennis will be doing the lion share of the work for this effort, with input from the task group. He will incorporate work begun by Steve Olson (formerly of NSBA), Joey Hartmann, FHWA, and the University of Nebraska.
2. Approach - They will be looking at standard girders in lengths of 120 feet to 200 feet erected as simple spans for steel deadload, then made composite for live load. He expects to develop some generic configurations and designs to send to fabricators, erectors, and owners for comment. Plate thickness variations will be kept low, possibly constant web and top flange and two transitions in the bottom flange as a starting point. Designs covering metric HL93 could possibly also accommodate HS25 if states don’t go LRFD. 

New Business

Review list of existing needs 

1. On hold for the future – There are presently three issues on designated as work for the future: Field Visits, Maintenance, and Standard Rehabilitation procedures. The Collaboration decided to keep field visits and maintenance on hold for the future.
2. Task Force 3, Rehabilitation – Though the Collaboration did not feel ready to make a full commitment to this issue, it was decided that Jon Edwards will start collecting existing details and guidelines for bridge rehabilitation. Quality groups will ask for this input from their members, to be forwarded to Jon. At a later date, once material has been collected, the Collaboration will begin work on recommendations. Until this then will be considered preliminary work.

Design for Economy

1. Discussion – A statement of purpose for this task group was included with the agenda and is also included with these minutes. A copy of an article entitled "Enhancing Steel Bridges" by Bill McEleney and Andy Johnson was also included with the agenda. This article also addresses this issue
   Ronnie introduced the topic and lead the discussion. He explained that the basic premise is that there are many little ways in which experienced professionals improve steel bridges, especially in design, and that these need to be formally captured and shared. For example, when it is necessary to increase a flange cross-section, is it better to change the width of the flange or the thickness of the flange? Or, when spacing stiffeners, how close can they be to each other and still provide comfortable access for welding?
   The best answers to questions like these are based on combined experience of designers and fabricators, and many already address these issues. The TxDOT Steel Quality Council regularly discusses these issues and incorporates them into their "Recommendations"; Bill McEleney often answers such questions; and task group 1 is incorporating some of these issues into their details. Though the details will reflect some concepts, these issues involve more than just design details, and the Collaboration is in a good position to collect and disseminate this type of information.
2. Action – The Collaboration felt much input will come from other Task Groups and may eventually develop into an economy/constructability checklist of common questions/guidelines. One criterion for the recommendations should be future maintainability. For now Ronnie Medlock will collect and amass this information from other Collaboration participants, task groups, and/or associated quality groups, and from the inquiries received by the NSBA.
3. Task Force 2, Design/Fabrication for Economy/Constructability – This task force is comprised of Bill McEleney, Vasant Mistry, and Ronnie Medlock. They will collect ideas, case studies, guidance, publications, and whatever other information is available related to enhanced design and/or fabrication of steel bridges for better quality and value, including improved cost, better constructability, and better maintainability. Quality groups will ask force this input from their members and forwarded it to Ronnie. Individual Collaboration participants will also forward related information to Ronnie, either directly through the quality groups or direct. At some future date, to be determined by the Collaboration, the Collaboration will undertake to compile and publish this information.

Reciprocity of inspectors

1. Discussion – At a recent meeting of the North Central States Consortium, an extensive discussion was held about the sharing of inspectors by states. This can be very beneficial for states with small projects at a distant location if the other state has an inspector there with the time and expertise. This already occurs in some cases, but states would benefit from more activity like this, and the Collaboration would be in good position to facilitate this sharing. Usually sharing involves a rather simple agreement between the two participating states; usually charges include an hourly rate and travel expenses. Not all states have inspectors, but those that do can help states that have work within their own state. Though states do share their own inspectors, it is probably not practical to share contract inspectors. For implementation of such reciprocity, it would be important to know which states have their own inspectors. Task Group 3 also discussed this issue at their meeting.
2. Action - Task group 3 will work to facilitate reciprocity of inspectors, including the development of a list of states and whether they have in-house inspectors, contract inspectors, or both, and who is the point of contact for inspection for steel bridges.

Qualification/Certification of Inspectors

1. Discussion – This has grown into a very important issue in steel bridge fabrication and erection. Programs already exist for welding inspection (CWI) and non-destructive testing (ASNT TC 1A), but no program is used for painting and for general inspection knowledge. There is a strong need to ensure inspectors have a minimum level of training and experience. A certification or qualification program would help states in the use of contract inspection because there would be a nationally recognized level of expertise that they could require in their contract; in similar fashion it would also facilitate reciprocity of inspection. A Collaboration based or supported program would need to be based on the Collaboration quality assurance/quality control program, so there may be a need to wait until the QC/QA task group has completed their work.
2. Action: Future Work – Qualification/Certification of Inspectors – At a future date, when task group 4, QC/QA, has completed more of its work, the Collaboration will consider work on this issue. Task group 8 will be looking at certification of inspectors for cleaning and painting.

Design/Build

1. Discussion – Al Laffoon and Arun Shirole discussed the benefits of Design/build projects such as the I-15 project in Salt Lake City. Design/build adds benefits on large projects and demands a major commitment on the part of the owner. There are pros and cons, and design/build will likely be seen more and will benefit the steel bridge industry, especially when substructure’s design and locations are included. Walter Gatti emphasized that rapid turn-around times are possible when the designer and the fabricator cooperate to optimize details such as depths, spans, segment lengths, etc., and fabricators can order material as early as the 30% design stage and begin fabrication long before all plans are done. For example, before the last design was complete on 80 structures for I –15 between 3/97 and 10/98, 50% of the bridges had been fabricated. Walter cited the mutual liability carried by all participants, the potential to incorporate aesthetic considerations if the contract requires them, and the overall improvements in efficient, economical steel details that can result and be incorporated into other projects. Krishna Verma noted that the basis for payment of raw and complete materiel should be addressed in the contract to avoid cash low problems.
2. Some felt that "Design/Build" did not fully capture the intent of this idea, and that perhaps "Innovative Project Delivery" would be better.
3. Action – The Collaboration felt that it would be good to collect the available information and then compile it into recommendations.
4. Task Force 1, Design/Build – This task force is lead by Al Laffoon, with participation by Tamer Ahmed and Vasant Mistry. They will collect available information for future consideration by the Collaboration. Regional groups will seek input from their participants and forward this to Al. Individual Collaboration participants will forward input directly to Al or through regional groups.

Statistics, Ronnie Medlock

1. Discussion – Ronnie expressed the need for the use of statistics in steel bridge inspection. At present, there is no formal method for how much various aspects of fabrication get inspected. Generally engineers provide qualitative guidance such as "look at everything" or "check the problem spots" or "use your judgement". Inspectors in turn generally use their judgement; they look closer at certain aspects of the work if they know there are problems there; if they have worksheets, they conduct the inspection needed to complete the worksheets. In terms of NDT, some work is examined "100%", as with radiographic inspection (RT) of tension splices; other work is sampled at a lower rate, such as RT of compression splices, which is sampled at 25%.
2. For all of this work, statistics could be use to provide a more scientific basis for deciding how much work to look at, and the amount of looking could be reduced. For example, statistics might show that you could get a 97% assurance by testing, say, 10% of tension splices vs. 100% assurance by testing 100%. Considering the risk of a defect in a tension splice on the non-fracture critical bridge, it might not be worth doing the additional 90% of testing to achieve the extra 3% of assurance. When using statistics to select a sample size there are many factors to consider; it was emphasized that one very important to consider is risk. Also, any method used should incorporate features whereby the sample size is reconsidered and adjusted as needed. For example, if there are a number of RT failures, the amount of sampling should increase, at least until the process is brought under control.

   Some felt that "statistics" didn’t capture these ideas well, and perhaps a title like "Use for Purpose" would be better, or perhaps "Statistical Sampling". The idea could be summarized by saying "use of statistics to determine the most appropriate sample size for evaluation of the work, including inspection and NDT."

3. Action – Since the applications for statistics as discussed focused around inspection or inspection related activities such as NDT, and these in turn are quality functions, the Collaboration decided that for now statistics would be relegated to Task Group 4.

Summary of Potential New Work

The following is a summary of how new work was handled at the meeting:

• Standard Rehabilitation – Task Force 3, Rehabilitation, is formed, lead by Jon Edwards with no other members at this time, to begin preliminary work. Collaboration participants will provide input, preferably through quality groups where applicable.
• Design for Economy - Task Force 2, Design/Fabrication for Economy/Constructability, lead by Ronnie Medlock, with Bill McEleney and Vasant Mistry, is formed to begin preliminary work. Collaboration participants will provide input, preferably through quality groups where applicable.
• Inspector Reciprocity – Task group 3 will facilitate inspector reciprocity. The issue will be discussed in the quality groups. A list of states and whether or not they use in-house inspectors will be compiled. Development of this issue in North Central States will be watched.
• Design/Build – Task Force 1, Design/Build, is formed, with Al Laffoon as lead and Tamer Ahmed and Vasant Mistry as members. Collaboration participants will provide input, preferably through quality groups where applicable.
• Statistics – Task group 4 will consider use of statistical methods for inspection, NDT, and other quality checking functions.
• Inspector Certification/Qualification – This issue is on hold until further development of QC/QA work.

Operations

Website, list server, Bill McEleney

The Collaboration has new website at www.steelbridge.org. Information about Collaboration events, meetings, and publications will be found there, as well as other information that may be pertinent to Collaboration participants. Documents will still be stored at the original FHWA website, with links to this new site.

Approval/acceptance of documents, Ronnie Medlock

Ronnie lead a discussion about acceptance of documents, especially the voting procedure, for the Collaboration. The work of the Collaboration is based on consensus between a diverse group of representatives; the acceptance procedure must effectively capture their input and achieve that consensus. An initial acceptance procedure was proposed by Ronnie and then discussed by the Collaboration; the latest draft is attached. This draft will be followed as a trial basis.

Additional participation, Fred Beckmann – tabled.

The next meeting is tentatively set for Atlanta, March 29 – 31, 1999