Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
N~ASTRUCT IRE FOR THE 21STCENTURY Flamework for a Research Agenda Committee on infrastructure Innovation National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS \\'ashington D.C. 1987

OCR for page R1
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research} Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen {or their special competencce and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences is a priorate, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Frank Press is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciencce, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine ~ established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Samuel O. Thier is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and ad~rising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific Ad engineering communities. The Council ~ administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Prep and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National R - earch Council. SPONSOR: This project was sponsored by the National Council on Public Works Improvement and the National Research Council. Copies of this report may be obtained from: National Academy Prep 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 A charge of S3.00 for postage and handling is required. Supplies are limited. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON INF=STRUCTUBE INNOVATION LAWRENCE DAHMS, (Chairman), Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, California FLOYD CULLER, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California DENOS C; GAZIS, IBM Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York ROBERT HERMAN, University of Texas at Austin, Austin. Texas GORDON KING, Stanford University, Stanford, California MARTIN LANG, Camp Dresser & McKee, New York, New York THOMAS D. LARSON, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania WALTER R. LYNN, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York GEORGE J. PASTOR, UTDC Corporation, Detroit, Michigan ERNEST L. PERRY, Perry International, Ltd., Litchfield Park, Arizona FRANK RAINES, Lazard Ereres ~ Co., New York, New York ... 111

OCR for page R1
PARTICIPANTS WORKSHOP ON INF^STRUCTU1lE DYNOVATION Woods Hole, Massachusetts June 29- July 2, 1987 JESSE H. AUSUBEL, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C. E. ROBERT BAUMANN, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa MICHAEL E. BELL, National Council on Public Works Improvement, Washington, D.C. DAVID L. BODDE, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. CLARK W. BOLLARD, University of ID~nios, Urbana, Bl~nois NICHOLAS J. CARINO, National Bureau of Standards, Ga~thersburg, Maryland ROBERT A. CRIST, Wiss, Janney, Vintner Associates, Inc., Northbrook, Bl~nois WALTER DIEWALD, National Council on Public Works Improvement, Washington, D.C. GERALD DONALDSON, Center for Auto Safety, Washington, D.C. WILLIAM L. GARRISON, University of California, Berkeley, California NEIL S. GRIGG, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado JOHN F. GUINAN, Broome County, Binghamton, New York MARK HAYNES, U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Washington, D.C. KENNETH L`. KRAEMER, University of California, Ovine, California DAMEAN KULASH, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. DOROTHY LEONARD-BARTON, Harvard Business School, Cambridge, Massachusetts JOHN LOEWY, U.S. Senate Environment add Public Works Committee, Washington, D.C. CATHARINE Ee LITTLE, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. GENE G. MANELLA, Electric Power Research Institute Washington, D.C. 1V

OCR for page R1
DAVID H. MARKS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts BRUCE MCDOWELL, National Council on Public Works hnpro~rement, Washington, D.C. MARK MEO, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma D. KEI,I,Y O 'DAY, Peer Systems, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania MILTON PIKARSKY, National Council on Public Works Improvement, Washington, D.C. ROBERT E. PRICE, Openaka Corp., Inc., Denville, New Jersey JOHN C. RICHARDS, M.W. KeHog Co., Hilton Head, South Carolina LOUIS A. ROSETTI, Rosetti Associates, Detroit, Michigan JAMES F. ROETZER, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Wayne, New Jersey NANCY S. RUTLEDGE, National Council on Public Works Improvement, Washington, D.C. L.R. SHAFFER, U.S. Army Construction, Engineering Research Lab, Champaign, minios PHILIP M. SMITH, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. ABEL WOLMAN, Professor Emeritus, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland The committee 8~0 wishes to acknowledge contribution by: COURTNEY RIORDAN, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. RICHARD W. ROTHERY, Consultant, Austin, Texas WILLIAM STEINWAY, Coleman Research, Orlando, Florida RICHARD SUI,LIVAN, American Public Works Association, Chicago, mix JOEL A. TARR, Carnegi - Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania HENRY THORNTON, U.S. Army Engineers, Waterways Experunent Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi Y. PAUL VIRMANI, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, Virginia RALPH WIGGINS, SchIumberger-DoD Research, Ridgefield Connecticut v

OCR for page R1
CO]allTTEE STAFF Lynne F. Cramer, Study Coordinator Director U.S. National Committee for Rock Mechanics Norman Metzger, StaE Officer Deputy Executive Officer National Research Council NEC COMMISSION LIAISON John P. Eberhard Director, Building Research Board Michael G.H. McGeary Study Director, Committee on National Urban Policy Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences, and Education Stephen Rattien Deputy Executive Director Commission on Engineering ~d Technical Systems Stanley M. Wolf Senior Program Officer National Material Advisory Board Robert E. Skinner, Jr. Senior Program Officer, Special Projects Transportation Research Board SUP PO1tT STAFF VirgiIiia M. Lyman Administrative Assistant U.S. National Committee for Rock Mechanics Dede Ogden Special Assistant Committee on Infrastructure Innovation V1

OCR for page R1
consents Daniel W. Oottl~b' Alto C~theb Associates Baboon, D.C. away Evans Baboon, D.C dr~ C. Bar Baboon, D.C. "~- Ins Baboon, D.C. .. vo

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface This report, In~astract~re for the 21st Centory: framework for a Research Agenda, was prepared at the request of the National Council on Public Works Improvement (NCPWI). NCPW! was created by congressional mandate as ~ ad hoc council having a tw~year life, with the my - ion to report to Congress and the President on the state of the nation's infrastructure. The mission has two purposes: (1) to improve understanding of the condition, safety, and capacity of the nation's public works facilities, and (2) to enhance the process of resource allocation. The probe associated with improving our public works in- frastructure deserve special attention. Various studies have been conducted which estunate the annual shortfall between investment requirements ~d available revenues to attain necessary system upgrades. These estunates vary from $17.4 billion (Congressional Budget Office, 1983) to $24.6 billion (Joint Econo~ruc Committee of Congress, 1984) to $71.7 billion (Associated General Contrac- tors of America, 1983), but all point to large annual shortfall and a need for action to bridge the shortfall. Technology opera a partial solution to some of the problems that face the nation within infrastructure systems. To help meet L'C

OCR for page R1
its Congressional mandate, the NCPW} asked the National Ret search Council to address three issues with regard to infrastructure technology: promising research areas for the technological improvement of infrastn~cture; factors governing the adoption or rejection of technological innovations; and, the means for developing and carrying out a national ret search agenda to foster innovative research for ~nfrastruc- ture systems. The charge to the Research Council clearly spanned its insti- tutional boundaries; the nature of the subject is not simply en- gineering or urban policy, but demands a spectrum of knowledge found in different units of the Research Council. Accordingly, the study was organized as a cross-institutional activity. The mem- bership of the study committee, the Committee on Infrastructure Innovation, was derived from nominees proposed by the applicable Research Council units including the Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, the Transportation Research Board, and the Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Participation within these units came from the Marine Board, the National Materials Advisory Board, the Building Research Board, the Board on Geotechnical Engineering, the Water Science and Technology Board, and the Committee on National Urban Policy. The committee and pane} members were selected for their special expertise and experience in all modes of infrastructure, including highways, water supply, solid waste, mass transit, waster water treatment, energy utilities, water resources, air transport, and hazardous waste management. The group was diverse, with members drawn from government, academia, and industry. The committee met three times over a fin - month period as a full committee and several times in subgroups. One of these meet- ings was organized as a workshop, and included some 33 additional people who helped the committee greatly in refining and respond- ing to its task. At the outset, the committee recognized that its charge was broad and that the committee would have to work with several limitations, two of which would be time and resources. More importantly, the committee felt that a larger constituency than encompassed by the eleven committee members was needed to address some of the issues included under its charge. Thus, to x

OCR for page R1
create a comprehensive research agenda on infrastructure and to design an effective organization to serve as a focus and stimulus for that agenda, the active involvement of the affected constituen- cies representing transportation, solid and liquid waste treatment, water supply, corrununication~, power, and other components of the infrastructure system would be required. The committee never saw a realistic way to involve Al of these constituencies In its initial effort to define a research agenda on infrastructure. The committee faced a difficult task: to define an ambitious program in a subject for which definitions differ and for which there is no single constituency In government, industry, or acade~xua. believe a reasonable beginning toward this national focus has been made. It is the result of difficult, expert, and diligent work of a great many peopIc the committee itself, the workshop attendees, those who corresponded with the committee, the staff of the Na- tional Council on Public Works Improvement, and the staff of the National Research Council. Lawrence Dahmm, Chairman Committee on Infrastructure Innovation act

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Contents EXECUTIVE SUGARY 3 , 1 1 RESEARCH AND INFRASTRUCTURE INNOVATION- OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES 4 The Challenge of Rebuilding, 6 The Opportunities for Innovation, 6 Conclusions, 7 2 IDENTIFYING THE OPPORTUNITIES 8 Illustrative Opportunities for Mode Research and Innovation, 9 Blustrati~re Opportunities for Cro~Cutt~ng Research ~d Innovation, 18 Conclusions, 26 BARRIERS TO INNOVATION 27 Infrastructure Ch~actermtics that Discourage Research, 27 Barriers to the Diffusion of l~novati~re Technologies, 29 Encouraging the Diffusion of Innovation, 34 Conclusions, 37 - ~

OCR for page R1
4 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR A NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE RESEARCH AGENDA.......... Building on Current Programs, 40 Research add Development Across Modes, 43 Lemom Le~ed from the Strategic Highway Research Program, 44 Moving Beyond Existing Programs, 46 The Implementation Program, 49 Expected Results, 49 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations, 54 REFERENCES 39 51 56 APPENDIX Opportunities for Improving Reliability of Public Works Using Nondestructive Evaluation 61 X1V