Technology Sharing Initiative (TSI) Texas

Summary of Takeaways and Ideas for Sharing

March 24-26, 2015

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Office of Infrastructure
Office of Asset Management, Pavement and Construction
Construction Management Team

By:
Romeo R. Garcia
Bridge & Tunnel Construction Engineer
In Partnership with:
Hector Garcia
Texas Division Office Bridge Engineer
Andrew Smyth
Texas Division Office Assistant Bridge Engineer

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................3

II.

INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE OF TSI .....................................................................................................4

III. GENERAL APPROACH TO CONDUCTING THE TSI ......................................................................................5

IV. SUMMARY OF TAKEAWAYS IDEAS FOR SHARING ..................................................................................6
a.

Substructure Elements ..................................................................................................................... 6

b.

Superstructure Elements.................................................................................................................. 7

c.

Deck Elements .................................................................................................................................. 9

d.

Maintenance, Preservation, Rehabilitation Practices................................................................... 11

e.

Fabrication Practices ...................................................................................................................... 11

f.

Geotechnical Practices ................................................................................................................... 12

g.

Research Activities ......................................................................................................................... 12

h.

Visited Research Lab/Project/Fabrication Plant ........................................................................... 13

V.

TXDOT ITEMS OF INTEREST AND/OR NEED ......................................................................................... 17

VI. MEETINGS AND ATTENDEES ............................................................................................................ 18

a.

FHWA Division Office Meeting ...................................................................................................... 18

b.

TxDOT Bridge Division Office Meeting .......................................................................................... 18

c.

TxDOT Office of Research & Technology Implementation (RTI) Meeting .................................... 18

d.

Visit to Ferguson Structural Engineering Research Lab University of Texas ............................. 19

e.

Visit to Brazos River Extradosed Bridge Project (Waco, TX) ......................................................... 19

f.

Visit to Horseshoe Project (Dallas, TX) ......................................................................................... 19

g.

Visit to Fred/Med Slide-in-Bridge Construction Project (San Antonio, TX).................................. 19

h.

Visit to Bexar Concrete Works Precast Concrete Plant (San Antonio, TX) ................................... 20

APPENDIX A TEXAS TSI AGENDA ........................................................................................................... 21

APPENDIX B DISCUSSION GUIDE............................................................................................................ 22
APPENDIX C TXDOT RESPONSES TO DISCUSSION GUIDE ............................................................................. 24

I.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The construction management team within the Office of Infrastructure, Office of Asset
Management, Pavements and Construction has embarked upon a Technology Sharing Initiative
(TSI) within the area of bridges and structures. The TSI consists of visits to select states across
the country for the purpose of identifying underutilized, market-ready technologies and/or best
practices including current research activities that may be shared with others.
This report documents the first of such visits which took place in Texas on March 24-26, 2015
and includes a summary of takeaways (ideas for sharing), as well as TxDOT items of interest
and/or need.

II.

INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE OF TSI

The construction management team within the Office of Infrastructure, Office of Asset
Management, Pavements and Construction has embarked upon a Technology Sharing
Initiative (TSI) within the area of bridges and structures. The TSI consists of visits to select
states across the country for the purpose of identifying underutilized market ready
technologies and/or best practices including current research activities that may be shared with
others.
There are currently a number of initiatives underway that are aligned to accomplish such
transfer and sharing of information. The programs listed below all provide avenues or
opportunities for sharing of technologies & best practices. This TSI is intended to serve as a
compliment to these well-established programs:
Innovative Bridge Research and Development (IBRD)
Innovative Bridge Research and Construction (IBRC)
Highways for Life (HLF)
Every Day Counts (EDC)
State Transportation Innovation Council (STIC) Incentive
Strategic Highway Research Program 2 (SHRP2)
In selecting states for this TSI, there is no specific criterion for making such a selection. Rather,
the selection is mostly based on the availability of the states to share whats going on in their
states within the area of bridges and structures. Otherwise, states are being selected
somewhat at random with the goal that they will represent a good mix of states in terms of
geographical location and size of bridge program (small, medium and large). Under this TSI,
plans are currently underway to perform visits to about 6 to 10 states by the end of 2015.
This report documents the first of such visits which took place in Texas on March 24-26, 2015.

III.

GENERAL APPROACH TO CONDUCTING THE TSI

Each TSI consists of a 2-3 day visit of the selected states with assistance provided by the
Division Bridge Engineer in organizing and setting up the agenda for the visit.
The agenda for the visit over the 2-3 day period may be set up in consideration of the following
possible activities, or other activities that may present themselves as opportunities to take
advantage of:
Visit the FHWA Division Office to meet with the Division Administrator & Chief
Operating Officer (including the Division Bridge Engineer/Technology Lead and other
interested staff members)
Visit with the State DOT Bridge Office (including the Bridge Standards Unit and Office of
Bridge Research)
Visit with a State Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) center
Visit with a bridge research facility (e.g. University that is working closely with State
DOT)
Visit with a local steel or concrete fabrication plant
Visit with a local or regional Associated General Contractors (AGC) Office
Visit an active or recently completed Design-Bid-Build (DBB), Design-Build (DB),
Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC), or Public-Private Partnership (PPP)
projects as time permits
To stimulate or provoke a discussion about the characteristics of the bridge program within a
given state a Discussion Guide consisting of 17 possible areas of discussion is provided ahead
of the visit. There is no expectation that all 17 areas will be covered during the visit and there is
no expectation that written responses be provided by the host state. However, any written
responses or narratives about specific bridge technologies or practices are much appreciated.
The agenda developed for the Texas TSI is included in Appendix A.
The discussion guide is included in Appendix B.
The TxDOT responses to the discussion guide are included in Appendix C.

IV.

SUMMARY OF TAKEAWAYS IDEAS FOR SHARING

The following bridge design and construction technologies, best practices, and research
activities were shared by TxDOT representatives (some website links are provided for further
information):
a. Substructure Elements
Precast Bent Cap Options for Concrete/Steel Piles & Round Columns Contractors in
Texas have the option of using precast concrete bent caps in lieu of cast-in-place caps
and standard drawings for these precast options are available to the contractor. The
availability of these standard drawings makes such optional use easier and less risky for
contractors. Contractors are now more interested in the use of these precast options
compared to past years even though it means sharing more of the work opportunity
with the precast plants. The design and performance of these bent cap options are
based on research projects that have been conducted in Texas. These standards can be
found at the following links:
PBC-P: Precast Concrete Bent Cap Option for Concrete & Steel Piles:
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/standard/bridge/pbcstd02.pdf
PBC-RC: Precast Concrete Bent Cap Option for Round Columns:
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/standard/bridge/pbcstd01.pdf
Additionally, a presentation on Precast Bent Cap Options can be found at the following
link:
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/brg/0212_webinar/holle.pdf
The benefits of using precast bent caps are: accelerated bridge construction, increased
construction zone safety and of course an available option to the contractor.
The Associated General Contractors (AGC) has suggested that more options and
flexibility be given to the contractor on what to use. This has been conveyed through an
AGC/TxDOT Structures committee that meets once or twice per year that provides for a
good forum for information exchange on items of mutual interest in the area of bridge
construction. Similarly, there is a Precast Manufacturers Association (PCMA) that deals
with precast products that meets once a year (there are about 7 major plants and
perhaps as many as 13 minor plants in Texas). Additionally, the Texas Steel Quality
Council (TSQC) meets once per year about 85 people in attendance at the September
2014 meeting. Please see section on Fabrication Practices for additional information
concerning the TSQC.

b. Superstructure Elements
Lean-On Bracing in Steel Girder Bridges An excerpt from the ASCE library reads as
follows: The use of lean-on bracing systems is where individual cross-frames provide
bracing to multiple girders. The detailing used in these bridges includes top and bottom
lateral struts in girder bays adjacent to a cross-frame to allow several girders to lean on
the cross-frame. Utilization of lean-on concepts should reduce fabrication costs since
there will be fewer bracing members that need to be constructed, and also provide
maintenance benefits over the life of the bridges since there will be fewer cross-frames
to inspect and maintain. However, the most significant benefit from use of lean-on
cross-frame concepts in bridges with skewed supports is that the bracing system can be
laid out such that the cross-frames will pick up smaller forces under truck traffic in the
completed bridge than those that would occur with a conventional cross-frame layout.
A report on the use of this system can be found at the following ASCE library link:
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/40946%28248%2979
Also, the FHWA Steel Design Handbook on Bracing System Design found at the
following link provides additional information on the use of Lean-On Bracing:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/steel/pubs/if12052/volume13.pdf
Also, the following link contains a presentation on the use of this technology:
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/brg/0212_webinar/romage_chambers.pdf
The TxDOT Bridge Design Manual states: Lean-on bracing design, as described in CrossFrame and Diaphragm Behavior for Steel Bridges with Skewed Supports, Helwig and
Wang, Research Report 1772-1, 2003, is permissible.
Elimination of All Diaphragms for Prestressed Concrete I-Beam Bridges Based on
research that was conducted many years ago, Texas does not utilize diaphragms
(neither intermediate nor end diaphragms) in their prestressed concrete I-beam bridges
with the exception of temporary diaphragms or temporary bracing that are required for
stability of the superstructure until such time as the deck is placed. This practice
provides for substantial savings in both time and money. Minimum erection and bracing
requirements for prestressed concrete girders can be found at the following link:
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/standard/bridge/mebcste1.pdf
Split-Pipe or Half-Pipe Web Bearing Stiffener for Heavily Skewed Bridges Texas requires
the use of this type of stiffener on bridges skewed over 45 degrees. With this detail, the
round pipe (half-pipe) allows a perpendicular connection between the skewed support
cross frame and stiffener for any skew angle. The split-pipe stiffener serves as both the
bearing stiffener and connection plate. The pipe stiffener increases the warping
resistance of the girder and thus improves the buckling resistance of the girder. The
7

standard details for this half-pipe web bearing stiffener can be found at the following
link:
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/standard/bridge/spgdste1.pdf
Also, the FHWA Steel Design Handbook on Bracing System Design found at the
following link provides additional information on the use of this Split-Pipe or Half-Pipe
stiffener option:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/steel/pubs/if12052/volume13.pdf
Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Wrap for Fascia Beam Impact Damage
Protection for New Construction The use of this CFRP wrap takes the place of the
traditional use of an angle plate that is installed on the fascia beams of precast,
prestressed concrete beams in Texas. The purpose of this CFRP serves as an enhanced
or more effective method of protecting the superstructure from hits incurred by over
height vehicle loads. Apparently, the use of CFRP wrap distributes the impact load more
effectively compared to the steel angles and contains the mass of the concrete beams
upon impact (eliminates or minimizes any resulting concrete rubble). Additionally, this
CFRP can also be used to repair existing beams that have been damaged by over height
impact loads.
The standard details for this CFRP wrap, Std. Name BPBW Bridge Protective Beam Wrap,
can be found at the following link:
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/standard/bridge/bpbwstd1.pdf
Additionally, a presentation on Bridge Protective Beam Wrap can be found at the
following link:
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/brg/webinars/2014-0716/smith.pdf
Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Being Used to Strengthen Existing Bridges
Traditionally, TxDOT has only used CFRP to confine or protect concrete. The American
Concrete Institute (ACI) has allowed for strengthening concrete through the use of CFRP
for over 10 years. Based on recent research with the University of Texas at Austin,
TxDOT is now using CFRP to increase flexural and/or shear capacity on existing bridges
that were either not designed to handle modern traffic loads or have reduced capacity
due to deterioration or damage. TxDOT is supplementing the strength of the existing
members rather than counting on the CFRP to carry a majority of the load. In most
cases the assumed capacity will increase by no more than 20%, though in rare cases
strength may be increased by up to 40%. In reality the strengths can be increased by far
greater amounts but TxDOT does not want to rely on that in practice.
Galvanizing and Metalizing of Metal Components TxDOT is in the process of shifting
from traditional paint methods and, instead, maximizing the use of hot-dipped
galvanizing. TxDOT is also exploring opportunities to metalize steel that is too large to
dip, particularly girders and beams. For rehabilitation of existing steel bridges TxDOT is
8

currently weighing the benefit of metalizing instead of painting. TxDOT anticipates that
the metalizing + seal/aesthetic top coat will provide 20 to 40 year service life, far more
than traditional paint systems.

c. Deck Elements
Precast Prestressed Stay-in-Place Concrete Deck Panels Texas has been allowing the
use of precast prestressed partial depth concrete stay-in-place deck panels with a
composite slab cast atop the precast deck forms for many years (since 1963). With this
system, the deck panels stay-in-place and become part of the load carrying structural
deck. Up until recently this system has been applicable to the deck area between fascia
girders and has not included the deck overhangs which have typically involved the use
of traditional removable deck forms. Now, partial depth precast concrete stay-in-place
deck overhang panels are being allowed as an option to fully formed deck overhangs
that require the use of traditional overhang brackets. This new system compliments the
use of partial depth precast concrete deck panels that have been used in Texas for many
years within the interior or central portion of the bridge deck and was featured in a
recent article of Aspire Magazine as shown on the following link:
http://aspirebridge.com/magazine/2013Fall/CCC-Overhang.pdf
A second generation of these overhang deck panels is being tried on one project in east
Texas as a required use to gain experience. The use of partial depth deck panels are
apparently resulting in near crack free decks with the exception of some minor
reflective cracking along the edges of the panels. Reflective deck cracking has been
minimized through various adjustments to both the panel design details and installation
practices throughout the years. The use of these deck panels provide for added safety to
the construction crew as well as traveling public as there is no need to remove the
forms. Additionally, the use of these stay in-place deck panels greatly accelerates the
construction of the decks.
The standard details for these stay in place forms can be found at the following links
(Std Name PCP & PCP-FAB):
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/standard/bridge/pcpstde1.pdf
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/standard/bridge/pcpstde2.pdf
The attached power point provides additional information about this technology being
used in Texas. Also, the following link has a paper that describes the use of these stayin-place forms in Texas from a historical perspective. The paper is a little bit dated but
nevertheless demonstrates the very positive comfort level that Texas has on the use of
this technology as shown on the following link:
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdotinfo/library/pubs/bus/bridge/precast_stay_forms.p
df
9

 Poor Boy Continuous Link Slab Under this design, the beams are designed as simple
span (as opposed to the optional continuous for live load approach to the design of
prestressed concrete beams) bridges but the deck is nonetheless made continuous from
one span to the other. The added advantage is that the deck joint that results from a
typical simply supported bridge is eliminated. There is no saw cutting on the deck as
the crack is forced in the deck in the area of the pier/bent, since the deck is cast
continuous over the pier/bent. And there is no concern for the negative moment in the
top of the slab at this location. The induced transverse crack is not a straight line crack
but the location is somewhat controlled by the placement of a board between the stayin-place concrete deck panels at this location.
The use of the Texas poor boy design for prestressed concrete I-beams coupled with the
elimination of all diaphragms and cross-bracing makes for a very economical design and
construction of prestress concrete I-beam bridges. Also, since diaphragms or crosssections are not required, the time spent in the erection or placement of the bridge
superstructure is greatly reduced.
The typical details for the deck in the area of piers or bents are shown on the following
link:
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/standard/bridge/igcs1ste.pdf
Sandwich Plate System (SPS) for Bridge Decks SPS consists of steel face plates bonded
to a rigid polyurethane core. A typical bridge application utilizes SPS primarily as a
bridge deck acting compositely with conventional support girders. This system was first
tried on a bridge deck in NW Ft. Worth (Cedar Creek in Wise County) and is being
evaluated. Additionally a second use of this system is being considered as a deck
replacement option on a steel truss bridge located in Waco. The use of this system is
beneficial in reducing the dead load as well accelerating the construction of bridge
decks. However, until more experience in gained, no extensive use of this system is
currently being contemplated. In the meantime, this bridge deck system is considered
part of the ABC tool box.
Corrosion Resistant Reinforcement TxDOT is developing options for use of corrosion
resistant reinforcement to fill the gap between epoxy-coated and stainless steel rebar.
Item 440 (Reinforcement for Concrete) in the TxDOT standard specifications provides
for various types of reinforcement including Steel, Epoxy Steel, Stainless Steel, Low
Carbon/Chromium Steel, Dual Coated Steel, and GFRP Bars.
The TxDOT Standard Specifications for Construction can be found at the following link:
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/des/spec-book-1114.pdf
A new specification on the use of GFRP for deck reinforcement is about 98% complete
including a standard drawing, as shown in the following link:
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/standard/bridge/igfrp001.pdf
10

Hotdipped galvanizing - welded wire fabric rebar was recently used as a value
engineering proposal on one project in the railings/barriers (10-15 miles of barrier with
a saving of $250,000 owed to local availability as opposed to transporting epoxy coated
welded wire fabric rebar from a far distance).

d. Maintenance, Preservation, Rehabilitation Practices

Bridge Maintenance and Improvement Program (BMIP) By dedicating additional funds
for bridge maintenance, TxDOT developed the Bridge Maintenance and Improvement
Program (BMIP). The program goal is to address bridge condition needs through
systematic preventive maintenance to reduce life-cycle costs and ensure that Texas
bridges remain safe. The BMIP is in its second year of implementation. A memo
formalizing the process is complete and currently being reviewed by TxDOT's
Administration. It will be available on the public website soon.

e. Fabrication Practices
Concrete Repair Manual The following link provides information on a Concrete Repair
Manual that includes repair procedures for use on new and existing concrete members
in Texas which might be of particular to other states:
http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/crm/manual_notice.htm
In particular, this manual provides guidance for protecting the ends of the girders to
provide for better protection of the pre-stressing strands which are cut flush with the
end of the beam as part of the fabrication process/detail (to avoid or minimize issues
with deterioration of the ends of pre-stressed concrete girders).
Precast Concrete Fabrication Plant Certification TxDOT is not relying on Prestressed
Concrete Institute (PCI) plant certification and does not require PCI certification.
Nevertheless, it is understood that most plants in Texas are PCI certified. Department
Materials Specification DMS- 7300 provides requirements for Precast Concrete
Fabrication Plants (both multi-project and project-specific) which might be of
particular interest to other states and is included at the following link:
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cst/DMS/7000_series/pdfs/7300.pdf
Preferred Practices for Steel Bridge Design, Fabrication, and Erection The following link
provides a document developed by the Texas Steel Quality Council (TSQC) on
Preferred Practices for Steel Bridge Design, Fabrication, and Erection. The TSQC is a
joint owner-industry forum comprised of various public and private stakeholders. This
document, which is maintained by the TSQC, provides excellent guidance on achieving
optimal quality and value in steel bridges.
11

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/library/pubs/bus/bridge/steel_bridge.pdf

f. Geotechnical Practices
This TSI briefly touched base on TxDOT geotechnical engineering practices due to
limited time allotted to visit in this area of the overall Bridge program in Texas. Of
particular interest is the excellent guidance provided on the design and construction of
foundations and retaining walls which collectively can be viewed at the following sites:
Geotechnical Manual:
http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/geo/geo.pdf
Retaining Wall Selection Considerations:
http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/bridge/specifications/retaining-wall.html
Geotechnical Resources:
http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/forms-publications/consultantscontractors/publications/bridge.html#geotechnical

g. Research Activities
Listed below are some areas of research currently underway or completed in Texas
which show much promise in advancing the performance of transportation structures.
Links are noted for additional information on these research activities.
End Region Behavior of Pre-tensioned Concrete Beams with 0.7-inch Prestressing Strands
https://fsel.engr.utexas.edu/research/0-6831.cfm
Strengthening Continuous Steel Girders with Post-Installed Shear Connectors
https://fsel.engr.utexas.edu/research/0-6719.cfm
Bi-Directional Application of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) with CFRP Anchors
for Shear-Strengthening and Design Recommendations/Quality Control Procedures for
CFRP Anchors
https://fsel.engr.utexas.edu/research/0-6783/index.cfm
Extending Use of Elastomeric Bearings to Higher Demand Applications for Steel Bridges
https://fsel.engr.utexas.edu/research/0-6785.cfm
Partial Depth Precast Concrete Deck Panels on Curved Bridges
https://fsel.engr.utexas.edu/research/0-6816.cfm

12

 Spliced TX Girder Bridges

https://fsel.engr.utexas.edu/research/6652.cfm
Fatigue Resistance and Reliability of High Mast illumination Poles with Pre-Existing
Cracks
https://fsel.engr.utexas.edu/research/0-6829.cfm
Repair Systems for Deteriorated Bridge Piles
http://library.ctr.utexas.edu/Presto/content/Detail.aspx?q=KHJwLklEPSgzMTk2MSkp&ct
ID=M2UxNzg5YmEtYzMyZS00ZjBlLWIyODctYzljMzQ3ZmVmOWFl&rID=MTc3&qcf=&ph=
VHJ1ZQ==&bckToL=VHJ1ZQ==&
Curved Plate Girder Design for Safe and Economical Construction
http://library.ctr.utexas.edu/hostedpdfs/txdot/psr/5574.pdf
Improved Tub Girder Details
http://library.ctr.utexas.edu/Presto/content/Detail.aspx?q=VHViIEdpcmRlciBEZXRhaWx
z&ctID=M2UxNzg5YmEtYzMyZS00ZjBlLWIyODctYzljMzQ3ZmVmOWFl&rID=MTE5&qcf=&
ph=VHJ1ZQ==&bckToL=VHJ1ZQ==&
Effects of New Prestress Loss Predictions of TxDOT Bridges
http://library.ctr.utexas.edu/hostedpdfs/txdot/psr/6374.pdf
Strength and Serviceability Design of R/C Members in D-Regions
http://library.ctr.utexas.edu/hostedpdfs/txdot/psr/5253.pdf

h. Visited Research Lab/Project/Fabrication Plant

Ferguson Structural Engineering Research Lab
This visit consisted of a tour of the Ferguson Structures Lab to observe on-going
research activities particularly the first seven research activities listed above.

13

 Brazos River Extradosed Bridge Project

This visit included a power point presentation on the Brazos River Extradosed Bridge
project followed by an on-site tour of the recently completed bridge. This project
consist of two new 620 long frontage road bridges with one-way traffic in each
direction built adjacent to IH 35 over the Brazos River to relieve congestion for local
traffic, increase mobility and to serve as a traffic detour for the main-line bridges once
those bridges are replaced sometime in the future.
A signature bridge was selected for this site to match local economic revitalization
improvements and to add capacity to the roadways for a new 55,000 seat stadium at
Baylor University. Both bridges include wide pedestrian walkways and overlooks and a
state-of-the-art LED lighting system that can be customized for special occasions.
The new bridges used an innovative design which is highly aesthetic, durable and costeffective.

Horseshoe Project Calatrava Pedestrian Bridge & Spliced Concrete Girder Bridges
This visit included a PowerPoint presentation on the Horseshoe project followed by an
on-site tour of the construction of the Calatrava bridges and adjacent Interstate bridges.
The project is a Design-Build project located near the Dallas Central Business District.
The project consist of the replacement of bridges on I-30 and I-35 and connecting
roadways that cross the Trinity River; upgrading of outdated roadway geometry;
constructing of additional lanes, and the construction of the Margaret McDermott
Signature Pedestrian/Bike Bridges. The Signature bridges are steel suspended arch
bridges designed by Santiago Calatrava and are 1,125 feet in length and 286 feet in
height at the tallest point. Additionally, this project also includes the construction of
spliced post-tensioned concrete girder bridges (4 span continuous span unit @ 250
feet/span). The use of various structural elements such as partial depth precast
concrete stay-in-place forms, diaphragm-less girders, and galvanized welded wire fabric
for median barrier were observed.

14

 Fred/Med Slide-in-Bridge Construction Project (San Antonio, TX)

This visit included a brief presentation on some of the highlights of the Slide-in-Bridge
Construction (SIBC) activities for this project followed by an on-site tour of the nearly
completed project. The major scope of work for this project was to run Medical Drive
under Fredericksburg Road in effect converting an existing at-grade intersection into a
grade separated intersection to allow for uninterrupted traffic flow on Medical Drive.
This was accomplished by installing drilled shafts retaining walls (abutments) and
thereafter excavating the area between the walls followed by sliding a preconstructed
superstructure unto or atop the walls. The combination of drilled shaft retaining walls
and Slide-In-Bridge Construction is considered to be a very creative and cost-effective
way of accelerating the overall construction of this grade separation project.

Bexar Concrete Works Precast Concrete Plant (San Antonio, TX)

This visit included a brief introduction of the overall operation of the plant followed by a
tour of active fabrication activities throughout the plant. Witnessed fabrication of
several Texas precast members including I-Girders, U-beams, Box Beams, and Bridge
Deck Panels. Also, observed the Splice Girder system and new precast prestressed Bent
Caps. Monitored QC/QA inspection and material testing done by TxDOT and the
fabrication plant. Additionally, and as per the previously noted Concrete Repair
Manual, the method for protecting the ends of the girders to provide for better
15

protection of the pre-stressing strands which are cut flush with the end of the beam as
part of the fabrication process/detail was observed.

16

V.

TXDOT ITEMS OF INTEREST AND/OR NEED

TxDOT is interested in receiving information in following areas:

Technical guidance and best practices on the repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of
gusset plates
Technical guidance, specifications, and best practices in metalizing new and existing
structures

17

VI.

MEETINGS AND ATTENDEES

a. FHWA Division Office Meeting

FHWA Texas Division Office Meeting Attendee List
Name
Position
Al Alonzi
Division Administrator
Hala Elgaaly
Chief Operating Officer
Melanie Twehues
Director of Technology Assistance
Hector Garcia
Division Bridge Engineer
Andrew Smyth
Assistant Division Bridge Engineer
Romeo R. Garcia
Bridge & Tunnel Construction Engineer

March 24, 2015

Organization
FHWA-TX
FHWA-TX
FHWA-TX
FHWA-TX
FHWA-TX
FHWA-HIAP

This was a general meeting to introduce the purpose for the Technology Sharing
Initiative. A good take away from this meeting was the thought that perhaps a visit to
a 3P project might reveal or uncover some bridge design and construction concepts
and/or practices that may of interest to the rest of the country.

b. TxDOT Bridge Division Office Meeting

TxDOT Bridge Division Office Meeting Attendee List
Name
Position
Gregg Freeby
State Bridge Engineer
John Holt
Design Section Director
Jamie Farris
Design Group Leader
Marcus Galvan
State Geotechnical Engineer
Graham Bettis
Field Operations Section Director
Hector Garcia
Division Bridge Engineer
Andrew Smyth
Assistant Division Bridge Engineer
Romeo R. Garcia
Bridge & Tunnel Construction Engineer

March 24, 2015

Organization
TxDOT-BRG
TxDOT-BRG
TxDOT-BRG
TxDOT-BRG
TxDOT-BRG
FHWA-TX
FHWA-TX
FHWA-HIAP

c. TxDOT Office of Research & Technology Implementation (RTI) Meeting

Name
Wade Odell
Chris Glancy
Hector Garcia
Andrew Smyth
Romeo R. Garcia

TxDOT RTI Meeting Attendee List

Position
Research Project Manager
Research Project Assistant
Division Bridge Engineer
Assistant Division Bridge Engineer
Bridge & Tunnel Construction Engineer

18

March 24, 2015

Organization
TxDOT-RTI
TxDOT-RTI
FHWA-TX
FHWA-TX
FHWA-HIAP

d. Visit to Ferguson Structural Engineering Research Lab University of Texas

Visit to Ferguson Structural Engineering Research Lab Attendee List
Name
Position
Oguzhan Bayrak
Professor/Director
Hossein Yousefpour
Ph.D. Graduate Student
Hector Garcia
Division Bridge Engineer
Andrew Smyth
Assistant Division Bridge Engineer
Romeo R. Garcia
Bridge & Tunnel Construction Engineer

March 24, 2015

Organization
UT-FSEL
UT-FSEL
FHWA-TX
FHWA-TX
FHWA-HIAP

e. Visit to Brazos River Extradosed Bridge Project (Waco, TX)

Visit to Brazos River Extradosed Bridge Project Attendee List
Name
Position
Kirk Krause
Area Engineer, McLennan County
Solomon A. Thomas
Assistant Area Engineer, McLennan County
Hector Garcia
Division Bridge Engineer
Andrew Smyth
Assistant Division Bridge Engineer
Romeo R. Garcia
Bridge & Tunnel Construction Engineer

March 25, 2015

Organization
TxDOT-WAC
TxDOT-WAC
FHWA-TX
FHWA-TX
FHWA-HIAP

f. Visit to Horseshoe Project (Dallas, TX)

Calatrava Pedestrian Bridge & Spliced Concrete Girder Bridges
Visit to Horseshoe Project Attendee List
Name
Position
Ceason Clemens
Transportation Engineer
Anita Wilson
Urban Area Engineer
Hector Garcia
Division Bridge Engineer
Andrew Smyth
Assistant Division Bridge Engineer
Romeo R. Garcia
Bridge & Tunnel Construction Engineer

March 25, 2015

Organization
TxDOT-DAL
FHWA-TX
FHWA-TX
FHWA-TX
FHWA-HIAP

g. Visit to Fred/Med Slide-in-Bridge Construction Project (San Antonio, TX)

Visit to Fred/Med Slide-in-Bridge Construction Project Attendee List
Name
Position
Lonnie V. Ragsdale
Transportation Engineer
Doug Dupler
Transportation Specialist
Jason Tucker
Transportation Engineer
Hector Garcia
Division Bridge Engineer
Andrew Smyth
Assistant Division Bridge Engineer
Romeo R. Garcia
Bridge & Tunnel Construction Engineer

19

March 26, 2015

Organization
TxDOT-SAT
TxDOT-CST
TxDOT-CST
FHWA-TX
FHWA-TX
FHWA-HIAP

h. Visit to Bexar Concrete Works Precast Concrete Plant (San Antonio, TX)
Visit to Bexar Concrete Works Precast Concrete Plant Attendee List
Name
Position
Randy Frerich
Plant Manager
Doug Dupler
Transportation Specialist
Jason Tucker
Transportation Engineer
Mike Reedy
Laboratory Supervisor
Hector Garcia
Division Bridge Engineer
Andrew Smyth
Assistant Division Bridge Engineer
Romeo R. Garcia
Bridge & Tunnel Construction Engineer

20

March 26, 2015

Organization
Bexar Concrete Works
TxDOT-CST
TxDOT-CST
TxDOT-CST
FHWA-TX
FHWA-TX
FHWA-HIAP

APPENDIX A TEXAS TSI AGENDA

Tuesday, March 24, 2015
8:00 am 9:00 am

FHWA TX DA & COO

Al Alonzi
Hala Elgaaly

9:00 am 11:00 am

TxDOT Bridge Division

John Holt, P.E. TxDOT BRG

11:00 am 12:00 pm

TxDOT Research and Technology Implementation (RTI)

Wade Odell

1:00 pm 3:30 pm

Ferguson Structures Lab University of Texas

Concrete spliced girder research project
John Holt/Dr. Bayrak

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

8:00 am 10:00 am

En route to Waco

10:00 am 11:30 am

Brazos River Extradosed Bridge

Solomon Thomas, P.E. TxDOT WAC

11:30 am 2:00 pm

En route to Dallas

2:00 pm 5:00 pm

Horseshoe Project Calatrava Ped Bridge & Spliced Concrete Girder Bridges
Ceason Clemens, P.E. TxDOT DAL
Duane Milligan, P.E. TxDOT DAL

Thursday, March 26, 2015

8:00 am 1:00 pm

En route to San Antonio

1:00 pm 2:30 pm

Fred/Med Project Slide in Bridge Construction

Lonnie Ragsdale TxDOT SAT

2:30 pm 4:00 pm

Bexar Concrete Works I, Ltd. San Antonio, TX

Jason Tucker TxDOT CST
Lonnie Ragsdale TxDOT SAT

4:00 pm 5:00 pm

Return to Austin

21

APPENDIX B DISCUSSION GUIDE

1. What new bridge design and construction technologies is the State using on a regular
or experimental basis?
2. What technologies or best practices in the area of bridge construction has the State
found to be most successful from a cost, speed of construction, or durability
perspective (whether new or old)?
3. What IBRD, IBRC, EDC, STIC, SHRP2 or other related technologies is the State pursuing
as a standard practice in the area of bridges? What challenges or impacts are these
initiatives introducing and how are they being communicated with design,
construction and maintenance personnel?
4. If allowed, does the State keep a list of Alternate Technical Concepts (ATCs), general
or project specific, that have been accepted or rejected, or even perhaps those
accepted with some conditions? If so, can this list be made available? The purpose
behind this question is mostly to identify those bridge design and construction
technologies that contractors are particularly interested in pursuing by virtue of the
fact that they are proposing to use them. These could be technologies that have been
utilized successfully in other states but are currently not part of the standard practice
in the State being visited.
5. To what extent is the State using 3D modeling for bridges?
6. To what extent is 3D modeling being used in the fabrication of steel and concrete
bridge members?
7. What are the most common bridge superstructure types being utilized in the State for
both state owned and local agency owned bridges?
8. What are the most common deep foundation types utilized in the State for both end
bearing and friction type systems? What verification testing is the State using to
validate performance?
9. To what extent are spread footings on soils utilized in the State including ground preconditioning systems for such use? Are three side structures on spread footings
utilized in the State?
10. To what extent are ABC technologies (e.g. GRS-IBS, PBES, SPMTs, SIBC) being used in
the State and under what conditions? (This question is closely related to question 3
above).

22

11. What is the States experience with the use of stay-in-place steel or concrete deck
forms?
12. What are some common bridge deck overlay or deck surface treatment systems used
in the State (with or without membranes)? How are deck
repair/rehabilitation/replacement actions identified?
13. What is the States experience with the use of re-bar corrosion protection systems
beyond epoxy coated re-bars, such as galvanized or stainless steel? Is the State
moving towards performance based or service life deck design?
14. Does the State have standardized bridge maintenance or repair techniques? Who
decides on needed actions?
15. What bridge construction and/or maintenance related testing equipment is the State
currently utilizing, researching, or experimenting with?
16. What contracting methods are commonly utilized on bridge projects?
17. What structural training and technical design or construction guidance from the FHWA
would be most helpful to your agency?

23

APPENDIX C TXDOT RESPONSES TO DISCUSSION GUIDE

1. What new bridge technologies is the State using on a regular or experimental basis?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.

Precast, prestressed caps.

Precast overhang panels
Sandwich Plate System deck
GFRP deck reinforcement
Hot dipped galvanized WWR in railings and barriers
CFRP girder protective wrap (for armoring girders against overheight vehicle hits)
Split pipe bearing stiffeners
Link slab construction.
Elimination of end diaphragms in prestressed girder spans
Partial Depth Concrete Panels
Lean-on bracing
Use of CFRP for strengthening existing structures. In the past we primarily used
CFRP only for confinement or protection.
m. For new construction, shifting to galvanizing and metalizing of metal components
to increase service life.
n. On remedial coating of existing steel bridges, using metalizing + seal/aesthetic
top coat in lieu of traditional paint systems that are extraordinarily expensive and
often provide disappointing results.
o. Developing options for use of corrosion resistant reinforcement (Z-bar, MMFX,
galvanized) to fill the gap between epoxy-coated rebar and stainless.

2. What technologies or best practices in the area of bridge construction has the State
found to most successful (whether new or old)?
a. Use of WWR in lieu of traditional straight, tied bars for bridge decks, concrete
girders, and other elements to ease placement.
b. Precast bridge deck panels, including overhang panels. The PCPs improve speed
of construction (no form installation), safety (practically eliminates falling
hazards), and performance (plant-produced precast concrete is typically superior
to CIP).
c. Maximizing the use of prefabricated elements from top to bottom. Quality and
speed of construction improve dramatically.
d. Focusing on a combination of High Performance Concrete, attained through the
use of fly ash, and additional concrete cover has resulted in excellent
performance of all bridge elements (CIP and precast).
e. Repetitive standards and details simplify the construction process and permits
contractors to increase productivity and quality.

24

f. Bridge Maintenance and Improvement Program (BMIP) is in its second year of

implementation. By addressing defects in bridges before they have dramatic
impact on performance or longevity we are able to spend a little now to avoid
spending a lot later.

3. What IBRD, IBRC, EDC, STIC, SHRP2 or other related technologies is the State pursuing
as a standard practice in the area of bridges? What challenges or impacts are these
initiatives introducing and how are they being communicated with design,
construction and maintenance personnel?
a.
b.
c.
d.

Sandwich Plate System

UHPC for connections of precast elements
PBES-precast elements for substructure (caps and columns)
Lateral bridge slides

PBES make a dramatic difference in improving construction time and improving quality
in the finished product. Design, construction, and maintenance functions embrace PBES.
Lateral bridge slides are challenging with respect to communicating the method to the
construction industry. For design, it is difficult to be specific in bridge plans as the
contractors equipment is unknown. Overall, the impact of lateral slides is expected to
be very positive as it becomes more widely used.

4. If allowed, does the State keep a list of Alternate Technical Concepts (ATCs), general
or project specific, that have been accepted or rejected, or even perhaps those
accepted with some conditions? If so, can this list be made available? The purpose
behind this question is mostly to identify those bridge technologies that contractors
are particularly interested in pursuing by virtue of the fact that they are proposing to
use them. These could be technologies that been utilized successfully in other states
but are currently not part of the standard practice in the State being visited.
The TxDOT Strategic Projects Division (SPD) is developing an ATC database. The ATC
database is not ready to be shared with others outside TxDOT due to confidentiality
issues that are still being worked out, a few other issues that need to be addressed, and
approval from TxDOT Administration.

5. To what extent is the State using 3D modeling for bridges?

Using Bentley REBAR on full time basis, to increase quality of details and to check for
conflicts.
25

6. To what extent is 3D modeling being used in the fabrication of steel and concrete
bridge members?
At the moment it is not being used. We have met with steel fabricators and attempted
to check shop models as opposed to shop drawings. We are currently discussing 3D
modeling of reinforcement cages with the reinforcing steel industry.

7. What are the most common bridge superstructure types being utilized in the State for
both on system and off system bridges?
a. Pretensioned concrete girders (I-girders, tub girders, box beams, and slab beams)
b. Steel girders (I-girders, tub girders, rolled beams)
c. Spliced precast concrete girders (I- , and tub girders, including curved)
8. What are the most common deep foundation types utilized in the State for both end
bearing and friction type systems? What verification testing is State using to validate
performance?
a. Drilled shafts for both friction and/or end bearing
b. Driven piling for friction
Drilled shafts are used primarily inland while driven piling are used along coastal regions.
We typically use prestressed concrete piling however all pile jobs are evaluated for the
potential use of steel H piling. Designs rely both on friction and end bearing. On select
projects we utilize PDA monitoring for driven piling to develop driving criterial and best
estimate capacity. For drilled shafts we have begun to use Thermal Integrity Profiling
(TIP) testing to evaluate the integrity of the element. This testing is specified for projects
with problematic or potentially problematic profiles. On projects with difficult profiles,
we require load testing of foundation elements following the requirements of our
standard specification 405, Foundation Load Test. This specification item allows the
use of ASTM D1143, ASTM D4945 or ASTM D7383 as methods of testing.

9. To what extent are spread footings on soils utilized in the State including ground preconditioning systems for such use?
They have limited use. They are considered in areas where good competent bearing
strata is shallow and in areas where scour is not a concern.

10. To what extent are GRS/IBS systems used in the State?

26

They have limited use. They are considered in areas where good competent bearing
strata is shallow and in areas where scour is not a concern.

11. What is the States experience with the use of stay-in-place steel or concrete deck
forms?
TxDOT has had excellent success with the use of stay-in-place prestressed concrete
panels and use them on the vast majority of concrete superstructure bridges. Although
there are oftentimes reflective cracks that propagate through the cast-in-place portion
of the deck the overall performance has been highly satisfactory. Significant problems do
arise if either (1) the surface of the concrete form is not cleaned properly prior to deck
placement or (2) the foam bedding strips are not properly installed.

12. What are some common bridge deck overlay or deck surface treatment systems used
in the State (with or without membranes)? How are deck
repair/rehabilitation/replacement actions identified?
TxDOT is currently exploring options for best bridge deck overlay systems. We no longer
use dense concrete overlays due to the proliferation of cracking and delamination.
Rather, we are moving more in a direction of either structural overlays (plain concrete or
latex-modified concrete) or thinner overlays to help prevent water infiltration (multilayer polymers).

13. What is the States experience with the use re-bar corrosion protection systems
beyond epoxy coated re-bars, such as galvanized or stainless steel? Is State moving
towards performance based or service life deck design?
We have built one bridge with GFRP reinforcing in the deck and are prepared to build
more, having prepared a standard drawing to allow GFRP reinforcement as a
contractors option to epoxy coated bars in bridge decks. We are using dual-coated bars
(ASTM A1055) in decks in one region of the state. We have used stainless steel
reinforcement in substructure elements in contact with salt water. We are currently
installing galvanized welded wire reinforcement (WWR) in median barrier. These
installations are relatively new; it is too early to determine their long term benefits.
TxDOT is not moving toward performance based deck design nor is it directly using the
service life design procedures outlined in the Design Guide for Bridges for Service Life
(SHRP2 Renewal Project R19A). We are beginning to implement empirical deck designs
on a statewide level and providing more clear cover to our top mats and have more
options for corrosion resistant reinforcements (GFRP, A1035, A1055, stainless, and
galvanized).
27

14. Does the State have standardized bridge maintenance or repair techniques? Who
decides on needed actions?
TxDOT recently published a Concrete Repair Manual that will be implemented for
standard repairs statewide. Though we don't yet have a standard bridge maintenance
manual we recognize the benefit of such a document and intend to write one in the near
future.

15. What bridge construction and/or maintenance related testing equipment is the State
currently utilizing, researching, or experimenting with?
Thermal imaging camera (we own two of them) to identify delaminations and other
defects in concrete.
Standard NDE equipment (rebar locators, ultrasonic testing for steel, impact echo).

16. What contracting methods are commonly utilized on bridge projects?

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

Design-bid-build
Public Private Partnerships (P3)
Comprehensive Development Agreements (CDA)
Design Build Contracts (D-B)
Concessions
Pass Through Finance Agreements (PTF)

17. What structural training and technical design or construction guidance from the FHWA
would be most helpful to your agency?
a. Technical guidance and best practices on the repair, rehabilitation, and
replacement of gusset plates.
b. Technical guidance, specifications, and best practices in metalizing new and
existing structures.

28