Recommended AASHTO Guide Specifications for ABC Design and Construction (2018)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-1 A P P E N D I X A Results of State Agency Questionnaire This appendix contains the information gathered from each responding agency. The following are general conclusions that can be drawn from the responses to the questions: 1. The main goal of this questionnaire was to identify which technologies are being used by owner agencies. A review of the myriad of ABC technologies that are in use indicates that there is widespread use of ABC. 2. The technologies that are in use were compared to the draft guide specification outline. The conclusion is that the draft outline covers all of the ABC technologies that are in use. 3. There have been limited “lessons learned” reports completed for projects. The ones that are available will be reviewed during the development of the guide specifications. 4. Plans and construction specifications are available; however, there were limited recommendations offered for design guidance. The construction specifications will be reviewed during the development of the construction portion of the guide specifications. 5. There is a general concern regarding the durability of prefabricated elements. A portion of the proposed guide specification will address durability issues. 6. There is a need for design guidance, which justifies the development of the new guide specifications. 7. There is no clear consensus on seismic issues with ABC. Some states expressed concerns over placing element connections in hinge zone, others did not. Some states are using force-based design, while others are using displacement-based design. These responses justify the decision to address various seismic issues in the guide specification, as proposed. 8. Several states have sponsored research on ABC technologies. Most of these works were uncovered by the team during the literature search. These research reports will be reviewed during development of the specifications.

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-2 Compiled Questionnaire NCHRP Project 12-102 Recommended AASHTO Guide Specification for ABC Design and Construction a. Have you employed any ABC techniques in your non-seismic bridge structures in the past 5 years? b. If so can you share the details with our team? Note: See the list on page one and two for typical technologies. Information can be in the form of plans, individual details or specifications. Whichever is adequate to describe the technology. Answers: Alabama 1a – Yes 1b – Yes. See pdf attachments (to this email) MM_ABCSheets and RCC_ABCSheets. Alaska We use many (perhaps 50% to 75% of all new bridges) precast decked bulb tee girder superstructures. This system eliminates all deck forming, bar placement, concrete placement and deck curing operations thereby saving much construction time. On the other hand, differential camber and greater girder weight must be addressed during construction. We have also use full-depth precast concrete deck planks on steel girder bridges in remote locations. Our approach is essentially a substitute for timber deck that had been used in the past. The timber is much lighter for shipping concerns but does not last long. The precast deck planks are not stressed together but are connected to the girders with stud shear connectors. We are working on a Bridge and Structures Manual (BSM) that will address the design aspects of these superstructure elements. We intend to publish the manual in the first part of 2015. We have no standard drawings or design procedures for ABC substructures Arizona No Arkansas No. We have a committee in place that has been investigating and collecting examples. At some point we may try a slide-in, PBES, and GRS-IBS. Maybe others, as applicable. Califormia California addresses seismic on all bridges.

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-3 Delaware We used a precast stub abutment with NeXT beams as well as 2 GRS-IBS abutment bridges. Hawaii No. All of our bridges are designed for seismic loads. Illinois We have used full-depth precast concrete deck panels with UHPC. The plans can be viewed here: http://eplan.dot.il.gov/desenv/022814/60W29-117/PLANS/PL-60W29-117-101-200.pdf The bridge plans start on page 36 of 109 of the file. The special provision used for the deck panels is attached. Iowa Yes, information, including plans and specifications, about Iowa ABC projects can be found at the following links: • http://www.iowadot.gov/us6kegcreek/ • http://www.iowadot.gov/MassenaBridge/index.html • http://www.iowadot.gov/bridge/abc.htm Kansas Not yet. We have an ABC project that is to be let in mid-November 2014 that utilizes pre-installed foundation, precast columns and pier caps, conventional continuous steel beam framing plan and precast post-tensioned segmental deck sections. Maine Yes, our most recent ABC projects include a lateral slide in Auburn, a bridge featuring prefabricated abutments on ledge with a NEXT beam superstructure in Kittery, and a full-depth deck panels with UHPC connections in Fairfield. The plans, specifications and bid information can be found at: http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=DOT_projects&id=647699&v=full-archive for Fairfield http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=DOT_projects&id=467999&v=full-archive details for Auburn http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=DOT_projects&id=611655&v=full- archive#details for Kittery Maryland Yes, we used SPMT’s to remove two existing bridge superstructures and replace with two new superstructures. Both bridges were part of the same project and carried West Nursery Road traffic over MD 295 in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Massachusetts Yes. ABC techniques have been widely used in our state in the past few years (Accelerated Bridge Program). Part III of our 2013 LRFD Bridge Manual is dedicated to Prefabricated Bridge Elements and

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-4 Systems. It can be found on the MassDOT website by following this link: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/DoingBusinessWithUs/ManualsPublicationsForms/LRFDBridg eManual2013Edition/PartIIandPartIIIStandardDetails/PartIIIPrefabricatedBridgeElements.aspx Michigan Yes. Michigan conducted two lateral bridge slides in 2014 and has one scheduled for 2015. MDOT is also utilizing UHPC for spliced bulbed T-beams in 2015, and conducting precast substructure element construction in 2015. All of these plans and specs are available. Minnesota Yes, full-depth precast deck panels, SPMT move and a lateral slide. Information (plans, specs, etc.) have been uploaded with the following naming convention: LatSlide: 2014 Lateral slide of Larpenteur Ave Bridge in St Paul SPMT: 2012 Lateral slide of Maryland Ave Bridge in St Paul Full-Depth: 2012 Full-depth deck panel project Missouri We did do one bridge superstructure slide in using hydraulic jacks. Interstate 44 over the Gasconade River in Laclede County, Missouri. New Mexico We have. Most recently we used full-depth precast deck panels for two prestressed girder bridges. One had multiple spans with closure pours at the piers, abutments, and centerline, and the other had a simple span and uniform cross slope and closure pours at the abutments only. Yes New York Yes, we have. We can share details. North Carolina Most large-scale ABC projects are 5 years or older. A majority of the projects less than 5 years old involve precast, prestressed cored slab or box beam superstructures on precast, prestressed bent caps. Details are available for all ABC projects if the team is interested. Ohio GRS/IBS and Lateral Slide Oklahoma Yes, this was a bridge slide for SH-51 over Cottonwood Creek in Creek County. Project Number BRFY-219A(006). Oregon Yes, Oregon has employed ABC techniques. 1. Precast full-depth deck panels. 2. UHPC for deck panel joints. 3. Lateral slide in superstructures. 4. Precast pile caps. South Carolina

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-5 Approximately five years ago, we had a rehabilitation project that utilized a lateral slide. I do not have any details. South Dakota No, not on the state system for the techniques listed. However, there has been some use on the local government system in South Dakota. Texas Answers: Yes. In the past 5 years, TxDOT has employed precast bent caps, with the most recent ones being pre-tensioned. Other techniques used include slide-in construction, precast abutments, precast slab overhang panels; decked slab beams; precast railings, and precast approach slabs (in the pre-bid phase). Development and trial use of precast columns, footings, and abutment wingwalls is being considered and discussed with Texas’ precast industry. Also being discussed is partial standardization of full-depth precast deck panels. TxDOT has standard drawings for precast bent cap connections, offered as contractor option to CIP versions. Another methodology currently in design is similar to slide-in, except that the old spans are picked up in their entirety by crane and moved to temporary substructure. The spans are short and light enough to make crane pick up and relocation more appealing than sliding. We can provide details for the most of the above items upon request. Utah Yes – all technologies listed. Please contact me for specific details or specifications. Vermont Yes, grouted connections, pile pockets, Integral connections, closure pours, full-depth deck panels w/ UHPC, lateral slide, contractor self performance of precast concrete, and composite sections (PBUs.) Washington No Wyoming Have one bridge (staged construction) being built now with precast full-depth deck panels. Detail will be sent in with this survey.

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-6 Have you employed any ABC techniques in your bridge structures in the past 5 years? And a. Have any of these been in moderate to high seismic zones (i.e. the two highest zones or categories in AASHTO)? b. Have any of the connections been in, or adjacent to, expected energy dissipation locations (e.g. plastic hinge zones)? c. Have any of the connections been in capacity-protected members (e.g. superstructure elements)? Answers: Alabama 2a - No 2b - No 2c - No Alaska a. Used precast pier cap beams designed in accordance with NCHRP 12-74 on one project in SDC C. b. The pocket type connection was used in the cap beam – this is adjacent to the plastic hinge. c. No Arizona No Arkansas No California a. Yes b. Yes – girder end strand continuity through bent cap c. Yes – see ‘b’ Delaware Delaware is in Seismic Zone 1. Hawaii Yes. a. Yes. GRS/IBS b. No c. Yes. Illinois

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-7 We have used ABC techniques as noted in question 1 and a. No, none have been in moderate to high seismic zones b. No, none have been in expected energy dissipation locations c. No, none have been capacity-protected members. Iowa No. Kansas No to all. Maine No Maryland No to all questions. Massachusetts Yes. ABC techniques have been widely used in our state in the past few years (Accelerated Bridge Program). The vast majority of our bridges are to be classified as SDC A based on the new AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. Michigan a. No b. No. 2015 projects may include this type of connection c. Yes. Decked beams with closure pours have been utilized in the past. Minnesota No seismic ABC info. Missouri No New Mexico Not applicable in our state. New York a. No, they are not in moderate to high seismic zones. b. N/A c. N/A North Carolina : Precast, prestressed cored slabs or box beams on precast, prestressed bent caps. 1. No 2. No 3. No

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-8 Ohio No to all Oklahoma Other than Cottonwood Creek noted above, we have not done any ABC projects. We are not in a high seismic zone. South Carolina Yes a. Yes b. Yes – Precast Pile to Precast Cap – Pile Pocket in Cap c. Yes – Precast Pile to Precast Cap – Pile Pocket in Cap Oregon a. Precast deck panels and precast pile caps have been used in moderate seismic zones. b. No ABC techniques have been employed near plastic hinge locations. c. No use of precast connections in capacity-protected members. South Dakota N/A for South Dakota. Texas No ABC techniques for moderate to high seismic zones have been used in Texas due to the state’s very low seismicity. Utah a. Yes b. Yes c. No Vermont a. No b. Yes c. Yes Washington Yes. a. Yes. b. Yes. c. Yes. Wyoming No

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-9 Can you share any lessons learned (reports, post-construction meeting minutes, correspondence, etc.) from the use of ABC techniques in terms of constructability and durability? Answer: Alabama No, as these projects have not yet gone to construction Alaska No formal documents exist but post-construction discussion further emphasizes the stringent tolerances that must be satisfied in order for the prefabricated components to fit well together. Arizona No Arkansas No California Lessons learned from Fort Goff ABC bridge are being summarized for the SHRP2 toolkit. A presentation on subject will be available in February 2015. Some of the lessons learned on the project are: • Increase the amount of time between contract award and start of construction (delayed start) to account for shop plan review and fabrication of precast elements. • Emphasize the importance of accommodating dimensional construction tolerances in the design of the project. Allow room in the design for small adjustments in the field. • Adequate resources must be provided during the construction phase. There is more time required for quality assurance at the fabrication site and in the review of shop drawings. • Designers need to pay close attention to rebar congestion in precast elements. ABC connection durability reports are limited to research contract final reports. Delaware Our first GRS-IBS bridge has a 3-year monitoring contract with the University of Delaware. We would be glad to share the results after the monitoring has been completed. Hawaii Not available. Illinois The project mentioned in question 1 is still under construction and we have not had the “post mortem” for the full-depth panels/UHPC, yet. We can share the results when they become available. Iowa The links below to HfL project reports containing lessons learned (24th Street) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hfl/summary/ia/ (Keg Creek) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hfl/summary/iw/iw00.cfm

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-10 Massena Lateral Slide: • Designer/Owner • Let ABC projects similar to steel bridges (fall letting) • Incentive/Disincentive specification definitions • Precast/CIP option for substructure units • Be prepared to fully evaluate impact of contractor method changes • Elimination of stainless steel sole plate • Rolling in jacking pockets • Do not allow re-use of laminated neoprene bearings • Add a specification requiring falsework design engineer to inspect and accept falsework construction • ABC project design team time • Designer/Owner • Driven pile acceptance criteria need to be modified from the standard specification • More smaller piling is preferred to the fewer larger piling due to pile splice time • More storage space • Separate the falsework bid item from the prefabricated bridge move bid item Kansas Not yet. Maine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mLp-zKElIc&feature=youtube https://aratrans.sharefile.com/d/sbfd716b564945df8 http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20140908-NEWS-409080310 Maryland Yes. Report is attached Massachusetts No. Michigan Yes. A comprehensive “lessons learned” document regarding lateral bridge slides is available. Minnesota See question 1. Missouri None available New Mexico Post-construction meetings were not performed on our full-depth panel projects. Durability data has yet to be collected as these jobs are recent.

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-11 New York Recommend the following PCI Journal article: Implementing UHPC for ABC in New York Date: Fall 2014, Volume: 59, Issue: 4, Page number: 38-47, Author(s): Mathew Royce North Carolina Post-construction meeting minutes are not available; however, contractors have provided information on constructability of ABC for small bridge replacements. In general, the contractors stated the time spent preparing for placement of the ABC elements and grouting the ABC connections took longer than traditional cast-in-place methods. Also, equipment needed for placement of superstructure units was brought to the construction site to handle the precast substructure units. This created an increase in construction cost due to the increase in time the equipment was rented. Ohio Let contractor determine techniques to use on a given project. Give the contractor the time frame that you want the work completed and let contractors choose how to get it done. Design/build project delivery is idea. Oklahoma Not at this time. Project was delayed due to the bird nesting season. Oregon Our standards are working well. South Carolina (blank) South Dakota No Texas We can address specific questions about any ABC methodology used in terms of constructability and short term durability (<15 years). Utah Yes - http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0:::1:T,V:4361, Vermont Every project has lessons learned. We continue to modify and improve connection details and material specifications. Washington My experience was in precast columns and crossbeams on three projects; Eastbound Nalley Valley, the Grand Mound Bridge, and the Bone River Bridge. Lessons learned are listed below. 1) Simplicity is key. a. Recesses in crossbeams make construction complicated and should be avoided. It makes an empty duct hard to hold in place.

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-12 b. Shorter cross sections make them lighter, but require more moment steel. This crowds the ends of the ducts. c. Staggering longitudinal column rebar lengths does not provide a benefit for fitting crossbeams onto columns. d. Good architecture ought to accent grouted joints. Hiding grouted joints is awkward and complicates construction. 2) Contractors lack familiarity with precast substructure components. e. What may seem simple, such as holding a duct, may have unforeseen complications. An empty duct tends to float, making it wander or leak cement into the duct. This makes them hard to fit-up and it makes it hard to remove the device used to hold the duct in place. f. When a contractor experiments by trying multiple methods to perform the same task, they will create multiple sets of errors…. Perhaps until the method is perfected after many experiments. g. When given the option to choose precast over cast-in-place, they will choose cast-in-place because it provides predictable results, costs a predictable amount, and takes a predictable amount of time. For them to choose precast substructures, some dramatic benefit needs to be evident. 3) Providing options is always a good idea. By continuing to put precast substructures in front of contractors, they figure things out. Mistakes made on one project will not likely be repeated on the next. 4) Repetition provides benefit to the contractor. 5) Casting rectangular columns sideways is easier than vertical, but creates tolerance issues for grouted joints in column splices. 6) Column splices should be avoided. 7) Who casts what is significant. h. Casting precast elements at a precast facility creates conflicts with union labor. Precast facilities do not require union labor, casting on site does. i. Casting at a precast facility costs more due to the added subcontractor seeking profits for their work. 8) A top down grouting sequence is best because its gravity fed, not pressure driven. Pressure grouting can be tough to do well. This can be mitigated by better geometric tolerances. 9) Design around a desired pick weight. I could go on…….. Wyoming Not yet, still under construction

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-13 Can you share any lessons learned (reports, post-construction meeting minutes, correspondence, etc.) specifically from the use of ABC techniques on projects in higher seismic regions? Answer: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Wyoming No, No response, or Not applicable California See #3. Caltrans is currently preparing a list of target multi-span pilot projects for ABC in higher seismic regions of CA. A ‘lessons learned’ will follow these projects. Illinois N/A – we have not used ABC techniques in high seismic regions, yet. Maryland No, don’t have any experience Michigan Michigan does not have seismic regions. New York NYSDOT has no experience in the use of ABC techniques on projects in higher seismic regions. Oregon Not at this time. South Carolina Due to the size needed for minimum pile installation tolerances, precast cap units were very large. This made erection/installation difficult. Utah Yes -http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0:::1:T,V:4361, Washington I’d have to research what universities have produced. My role has been in structural design, and being in Washington State, many concerns with high seismic regions were addressed in the research. My role is to apply what was tested as outlined in design guidelines, which should include lessons learned specific to high seismic regions.

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-14 Do you have any design specifications, design guidelines, reports, standard plans or details, construction special provisions, or design examples that relate to the use of ABC (seismic or non- seismic) and can they be shared with this NCHRP project? Please provide references. Answer: Alabama Of the items listed we can provide special provisions. See pdf attachment (to this email) 12-1117 Horizontal Slide. Alaska The BSM will provide guidance on decked bulb tee girder bridges and concrete-filled steel pipe pile extension bents. It does not contain any substructure ABC design considerations at this time. Arizona No Arkansas No response California All materials are considered DRAFT at this point. Draft Memo to Designers, preliminary details, and design guidance are being developed and reviewed internally as research concludes. Delaware Attached. Hawaii We do not have. Illinois The special provision for the precast concrete deck panels with UHPC is attached. Iowa See Q#1 Kansas Yes. I will include them in my response email. The project has not been let or constructed, however, so they are not proven-in-action. Maine See links provided in Q1 for project specific details and specs. We don’t have any standard details for ABC elements, however we did recently receive STIC funding to develop draft standards and specs for full-depth precast deck panels with UHPC connections. Maryland

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-15 No, SPMT move did not have any special details. Massachusetts Part III of our 2013 LRFD Bridge Manual is dedicated to Prefabricated Bridge Elements and Systems. It can be found on the MassDOT website by following this link: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/DoingBusinessWithUs/ManualsPublicationsForms/LRFDBridg eManual2013Edition/PartIIandPartIIIStandardDetails/PartIIIPrefabricatedBridgeElements.aspx Michigan Yes. Specifications, reports and designs are available. Minnesota No standard plans or details, specific job plans only as for question 1. Missouri No New Mexico We have a special provision that specifically addresses full-depth precast deck panels. We also have design examples to share. New York Attached are: NYSDOT UHPC joint specification, Precast deck specification Drawings with precast deck details FHWA memo regarding UHPC. North Carolina Standard design plans for precast, prestressed cored slab and box beam superstructures and precast, prestressed bent caps are available for download at the following link: https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/structures/Pages/default.aspx Click on the link, then look to the right side of the webpage under “Standard Design Plans” Ohio No response Oklahoma Special Provisions (see attachment). Oregon Bridge Design and Drafting Manual, Volume 3, pp. 90-110 can be found at the following web page: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BRIDGE/Pages/index.aspx (Hit link in the center of the page.) South Carolina

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-16 We had a recent research project on a precast superstructure (Modified NEXT Beam) that resulted in some guidelines for the superstructure design. These can be found on page 226 of the report. http://people.clemson.edu/~bnielso/SPR-682%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf This detail has not been constructed yet. South Dakota No Texas Standard drawings for precast bent caps can be found here: ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/standard/bridge/pbcstd02.pdf ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/standard/bridge/pbcstd01.pdf Utah Yes - http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0:::1:T,V:1730, See drawings and the Peer Review Set 2 as well as UDOT Standard Specifications Vermont See attached project examples Washington Yes. I don’t have immediate access to university reports. I can provide bridge plans and calculations for the projects I worked on. Wyoming NA

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-17 Are there any specific concerns that, unless adequately addressed, prevent you from employing ABC techniques (seismic or non-seismic)? Do any of the concerns include the following? d. Availability of test data supporting adequate performance of systems, elements, or details e. Availability of design procedures or design guidelines f. Availability of proven construction methods, construction specifications, and inspection procedures g. Availability of data supporting durability Answer: Alabama The application of ABC technologies in Alabama is recommended by structural engineers but the actual decision to use them is made by the regional engineer, whose primary goal is keeping the project cost to a minimum. Alaska a. Methods for addressing the effects that couplers (grouted, mechanical, or others) have on the strength and deformation characteristics of plastic hinge regions is needed. The on-going NCHRP 12-105 project should help address this issue. b. See above c. Your NCHRP project should consider the required construction tolerances needed for ABC construction as well as the ability for common contractors to achieve these limits. d. Not a significant concern. Arizona No Arkansas No response California All of the above. Also, cost is an issue. Our studies have shown that ABC may be more expensive when compared to conventional construction. Traffic relief savings experienced by the users cannot be recaptured to offset the increased cost of ABC at this time. Program managers are reluctant to appropriate more funds on these projects. Delaware D is our biggest concern. However, we are evaluating and/or beginning to implement several techniques, including precast substructures, UHPC, precast deck panels, and SPMT’s. Hawaii No specific concerns. Illinois No for all

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-18 Iowa No. Kansas Nothing that rises to the level of “concern”. I’m not convinced we have a long enough track record to wholesale endorse the connections we are using to join precast elements. Up-front cost will always be an issue in Kansas regarding ABC, unless justified by avoidance of inconveniencing very large traffic counts. Maine No concerns about performance, construction or durability. Maryland For Maryland, our concern is proven construction methods and durability. Also, common methods and materials must be non-proprietary. Massachusetts No. Michigan No. Minnesota We generally have no major concerns deploying ABC, other than with details for blind grouted moment connections, particularly those that will be buried below ground (column-to-footing connections) that cannot be readily inspected. Cost is also a significant issue. Missouri The extra cost is the main reason we don’t use ABC techniques very often. New Mexico No. Typically, ABC elements are considered for each project. When they are not used, there is usually a project-related line of reasoning for it. New York We are currently utilizing non-seismic ABC technologies. NYSDOT is mainly utilizing ABC technology for precast decks and prefabricated superstructures. NYSDOT has used ABC for some precast substructures, mainly piers that used fully bonded post- tensioned elements or grouted splices for primary reinforcement. Since these bridges were in Seismic Zone 1 or 2 an elastic design to resist seismic forces was feasible. North Carolina Concerns to consider involve site restrictions, contractor experience, additional cost due to deviation from typical construction techniques and durability of connections/system. Ohio a. No

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-19 b. No c. No d. No – but would be nice to have Oklahoma If ABC techniques such as precast elements are used in the superstructure, we have some concerns about durability due to the potential for leaks at the joints between the precast elements. Oregon No response South Carolina We do have some concerns which include all of the above items. South Dakota No, nothing other than feasibility/cost concerns associated with our typically lower highway traffic levels. Texas No current concerns prevent TxDOT from employing ABC techniques. Durability is a concern but not to the extent of stopping ABC implementation. Utah No Vermont We are concerned, but are implementing details per AASHTO design. Washington a. I do have some concern about the performance of precast connection that are out of tolerance. With only idealized laboratory conditions defending these items, test data on imperfect connections would ease my concerns in design. Perhaps consider testing a few likely cases, such as a bar that is not located in the center of a duct, or perhaps a bar shorter than the duct is long. b. I can find guidelines at WSDOT, because I work for WSDOT and we own much of the literature available. If I were to work somewhere else, design procedures may be harder to come by. c. I’m not allowed to specify means and methods, but I’ve witnessed a lot of what works and what doesn’t. I’d like to see education be made available to contractors showing them what’s been learned so far. d. I am very concerned about the durability issue. But that’s tough to address with so few ABC projects in WSDOT’s inventory. I try to ensure I’m following the requirements of the research data and I hope the field inspectors are insisting upon full conformance to the plans. Wyoming No response

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-20 For seismic bridge structures, do you think the use of ABC connections should be limited to certain locations? For example, the following? h. Capacity-protected, non-energy dissipating elements i. Construction that emulates the seismic performance of cast-in-place construction j. No Limits (e.g. Allowed anywhere, including where novel types of construction are considered (e.g. rocking columns, other)) Answer: Alabama 7c. No Limits (e.g. allowed anywhere, including where novel types of construction are considered [e.g. rocking columns, other]) Alaska a. This should be allowed since the element would be protected with a known, well-defined demand and intended to respond in an essentially elastic manner. b. This too should be permitted since portions of the NCHRP 12-74 Project demonstrated the success of emulative design strategies with minor modifications. c. With the owner’s approval, no strategy should be prohibited unless there is evidence that it would be unsuccessful in practice. Arizona Yes, as it relates to item b. Arkansas No response California California expects structres built by ABC to perform at least equal to CIP construction. Research can and should be used to develop ABC connections for specific seismic regions. Research exposes limitations of concepts, components, and systems. It is then the responsibility of the governing authority to establish policy for safe practice. This applies to all areas of the structure. Delaware B Hawaii If designed properly, there should be no limits. Illinois We would not limit the use of ABC connections for seismic bridges. Iowa N/A Kansas

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-21 I would tend to answer “b”, but we have no stated policy in Kansas. Maine NA Maryland Maryland does not have seismic concerns so can’t weigh in on this. Massachusetts No. The vast majority of our bridges are to be classified as SDC A based on the new AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. Michigan NA Minnesota NA Missouri No (c). New Mexico This question has not been considered in our state. New York Bridges in low seismic areas could resist seismic forces elastically, hence the entire structure could be designed with capacity-protected, non-energy dissipating elements. We have no comments on the appropriateness of various ABC technologies in moderate to high seismic zones. North Carolina No response Ohio NA Oklahoma No opinion at this time. Oregon Limit precast connections in plastic hinge regions until further performance testing is completed. South Carolina a. No b. Yes, unless there are analysis tools available to model conditions that do not emulate seismic performance of cast-in-place construction. c. No

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-22 South Dakota N/A Texas No comment. Utah No limits Vermont B Washington No limits. At the most holistic level, I don’t think there ought to be limits on any structural details as long as there’s sufficient evidence to defend there’s adequate structural capacity and durability, as much as durability can be gaged. I do believe some locations are more practical than others. It may be tough to ensure adequate durability in a precast deck. Abutments are often simple enough, or far enough from a contractor’s critical path that they may not need to be designed precast. Columns are often considered to be simple enough to be constructed as cast-in-place. I think the industry might benefit from pushing the envelope here and encouraging more locations be constructed as precast. This might combat the skepticism and encourage precast be used in places we may be unaware of as being beneficial. Wyoming No response 8. Which seismic design methodology do you currently use? a. Force-based design as outlined in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, b. Displacement-based design as outlined in the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, or c. Other? Have you found one of these methods to be more conducive to the use of ABC in higher seismic categories? If so, please explain? Answer: Alabama 8b. Displacement-based design as outlined in the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design No comment on follow-up question Alaska The Alaska DOT&PF uses the displacement-based provisions of the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (SGS) with some modifications (e.g., cold climate effects). It would seem that these provisions would be more accommodating of ABC – specifically, the SGS require the design

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-23 engineer to better understand the demands placed upon the structure, the full structure response (e.g., the force-displacement relationship for the bridge) and will likely become the primary seismic design methodology in future AASHTO codes. Arizona No Arkansas No response California ABC is a construction method, not a design method. Members are currently designed using the same methods and tools whether using ABC or traditional construction. Caltrans uses its SDC version 1.7 dated April, 2013 as a primary seismic design code. This is a displacement-based code. Delaware We are in Seismic Zone 1. Hawaii We allow both methodologies and in my opinion both methods are equally conducive to the use of ABC. Illinois Illinois uses force-based design methodology. We have not done any ABC in seismic regions, so we have not found either methodology more conducive to ABC design. Iowa N/A Kansas We use: a) the force-based design in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Spec. I do not have sufficient knowledge to answer the second question. Maryland NA Maine Seismic design has not been an issue on our ABC projects. Massachusetts Presently, seismic analysis of bridges in our state is performed based on the displacement-based design as outlined in the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. The vast majority of our bridges are to be classified as SDC A based on the new AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. Michigan NA

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-24 Minnesota NA Missouri Displacement based (B) New Mexico Load-based. We really haven’t considered higher seismic regions in our work. New York NYSDOT standard practice is force-based design as outlined in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. In special circumstance displacement-based design as outlined in the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design could be used with the approval of the State Bridge Engineer. North Carolina Force-based design as outlined in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Ohio No response Oklahoma a. Force-based design Oregon All designs in Oregon use the Displacement in the Guide Spec. South Carolina c. Performance-based design (displacement) as outlined in the SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications for Highway Bridges. South Dakota N/A Texas TxDOT follows AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Utah b. Displacement based Vermont Non-seismic zone Washington a. Displacement based as noted in the AASHTO Guide Specifications listed in the question. b. I do not have experience with precast substructure design with the force-based system, so I cannot make a complete comparison. I can say that the structural details I’m familiar with

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-25 have more to do with developing reinforcing bars than specifics of one code over another. For example, if a design required a #18 column bar, I would be interested in using the ABC connection methods to develop the capacity of that bar. The rest of the reinforcing would be designed to that specific code, making the specific code irrelevant to the specifics of ABC. In general the more reinforcing crowding a joint, the less attractive ABC methods become. There is more research in the works that may be more relevant to this question. But my personal experience has been that there is little to compare between the two design philosophies Wyoming No response

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-26 9. Have you sponsored or performed tests on ABC systems or connection details that might be used in higher seismic categories? a. Please provide references to any relevant information on the tests and indicate if seismic performance was investigated or considered and whether testing has been performed on representative large-scale specimens under cyclic loading b. Please indicate whether the details researched have been constructed on actual bridge projects. Answer: Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming No or No response Alaska The AKDOT&PF often uses large diameter driven pipe pile extension bents for our bridges similar to that shown in the attached photo. Piles range in size from 2-ft diameter piles (infrequently) to the more commonly used 3-ft or 4-ft diameter pipe piles. This system eliminates the needs for cofferdams, provides its own form and reduces construction time but the concrete in the piles is always cast in place. This system is stiff, strong and ductile resulting in good seismic performance. On the other hand, special details are needed at the top of the piles to accommodate plastic hinging demands in the cap beam and joints. Also, below ground plastic hinging may occur with this system making post-earthquake inspection more challenging. We have sponsored much research on concrete-filled pipes to better predict the force-displacement response of this system. Research reports can be found at the following web site (or you may contact me directly): http://ine.uaf.edu/autc/final-reports/ The AKDOT&PF has also sponsored research on “all steel piers” that use hollow steel pipe piles and steel cap beams. This system has applications for remote locations where cast-in-place concrete is

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-27 unavailable, in low to moderate seismic regions and for temporary detour and work bridges. Reports for this research are available from the web site above. California California has invested over $3M in ABC related research contracts, most of which involve seismic aspects. Details are under development and being implemented on a project by project basis. Illinois No, we have not sponsored or performed tests described above. Maryland NA Massachusetts No. The vast majority of our bridges are to be classified as SDC A based on the new AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. New Mexico This question has not been considered in our state. North Carolina The following is a link to research funded by NCDOT’s Research and Analysis Unit for an ABC connection in a non-seismic region. The bridge was constructed in 2005. https://apps.dot.state.nc.us/Projects/Research/ProjectInfo.aspx?ID=1582 Click on “Final report (PDF)” to view the report South Carolina a. Testing of connections between Prestressed Concrete Piles and Precast Concrete Bent Caps http://www.clemson.edu/t3s/scdot/pdf/projects/SCDOT%20-Precast%20Caps-%207-11- 2011.pdf b. Detail was recently constructed on actual bridge project Utah Yes - http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=18866028707358307

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-28 10. Are you aware of ABC work that has been executed and published outside of the U.S.? If so, please provide a reference and/or contact information. Answer: Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming No or no response Alaska There are several NCHRP projects that have been completed and several more that are on going. California Czechoslovakia has performed a great deal of bridge construction using PBES since the late 19670’s, especially for rail bridges. Span has also used PC columns and PC box superstructures since the 1990’s (see BSST system through Structural Research group). Though not labeled as ABC, the use of PC has likely reduced the bridge construction time in at least these countries. Washington Yes, but I do not have references available. I listened to presentations at a Highways for Life conference in 2010, and two steel conferences in 2012 and 2014.

NCHRP Project 12-102 A-29 11. Are you aware of any on-going research or implementation of ABC that has not yet been published? If so, please provide a contact name and email address for the person conducting the work. Answer: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah Vermont, and Wyoming No or nor reponse California Caltrans has a number of on-going contracts, information from which is traditionally not distributed until final reports are completed/published. Iowa Several Iowa DOT ABC related research projects are in progress at Iowa State University. You may contact Dr. Brent Phares for current progress. Massachusetts NCHRP Project 12-98: “Recommended Guidelines for Prefabricated Bridge Elements and Systems Tolerances and Dynamic Effects of Bridge Moves”. Contact Person: Waseem Dekelbab, WDekelbab@nas.edu Washington Yes. Contact Bijan Khaleghi at (360) 705-7181 or KhalegB@wsdot.wa.gov.