<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Research in Progress (RIP)</title>
    <link>https://rip.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://rip.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>Optimizing SEAHIVE® solutions to mitigate bridge scour (TXST)</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2662984</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Bridge scour remains the top cause for bridge failure in the United States. When scour is observed during bridge inspections, a plan of action must be established to ensure the safety of the traveling public. Bridge failure is obviously costly; scour mitigation and monitoring are additional costs for the life cycle of the structure. Scour is additionally challenging to predict and unforeseen changes in the hydraulic load (both in direction and in magnitude from extreme events) can further exacerbate bridge scour. This research is the next phase of Texas State University (TXST)'s effort to implement SEAHIVE® elements for scour mitigation. SEAHIVE® is an engineered protection system composed of concrete hexagonal prisms. Perforations on the side faces of the elements provide passage for water flow, dissipating the energy within the system while also adding structural complexity to improve its potential for habitat creation. SEAHIVE® is under research and development at the University of Miami (UM) for wave energy dissipation. TXST conducted experimental and computational studies on a horizontally stacked three-unit SEAHIVE® system. A three-unit system placed three pile diameters in front of a monopile reduced the scour magnitude by 70.2% and volume by 94.1%. The configuration also reduced tangential velocity by one-third and vertical velocity by 80%, effectively weakening vortex strength and minimizing local scour. A limitation of the first phase is the SEAHIVE® system was continuous in that it extended edge-to-edge across the TXST flume and in the computational model.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to expand the analysis to more realistically simulate field-scale challenges and to establish baseline design parameters towards testing a prototype system in the O.H. Hinsdale Wave Research Laboratory at Oregon State University (OSU). The calibrated coupled hydrodynamic-morphodynamic model in Open FOAM will be used for further analysis to include studying the effects of: soil density, flow height, velocity, and  SEAHIVE® length to pier diameter ratios. Additionally, in this phase we will analyze vertical SEAHIVE® systems, including a SEAHIVE® skirt around the monopile and a SEAHIVE® wall. Such data are needed more fully understand the practical boundaries of SEAHIVE®  as an effective green-gray scour counter measure and design the prototype scale experiments in the OSU flume.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2026 15:52:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2662984</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Thermal Effects on Concrete Substructure Elements</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2652209</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Upcoming changes to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load And Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specification (BDS) include the modification of how thermal effects are calculated, specifically related to uniform temperature change. Historically load factors for uniform temperature change (γTU) were 0.5 for force effects and 1.2 for displacement effects for strength limit states, and 1.0 for force effects and 1.2 for displacement effects for service limit states. The reduced force effect (γTU = 0.5) was used to account for changes in cross-section and material properties over time, allowing the use of gross section properties in a simplified analysis. In the upcoming BDS these values will change to 1.0 for force effects and 1.2 for displacement effects, regardless of limit state being evaluated. The rationale for removal of the reduced force effect is that modern analysis software packages are capable of accounting for varying section and material properties over time, and the conflation of load factors and analysis procedures is unnecessary and confusing.
Current Kansas Department of Transportation (KsDOT) policy allows for the application of γTU values equal to 0.33 and 1.20 for force and displacement effects, respectively. Policy states that one-third of the instantaneous modulus has been used in the past and is suggested for LRFD substructure design. Although no known issues have been caused by this design policy, there is no known justification for its noncompliance with current AASHTO LRFD specifications and the resulting force effects may be unconservative. Additionally, the conflation of analysis processes with load factors may be confusing to engineers, introducing the potential for design errors. With the upcoming changes to the LRFD BDS, KsDOT policy will be further out of compliance with no known justification. Information is needed to ensure that force effects are being appropriately determined and accounted for in the KsDOT bridge design process.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2026 14:58:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2652209</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Develop Guidance on Drilled Shaft Response to Collision Force</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2606400</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The 2024 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 10th Edition, specify a 600-kip equivalent static force (ESF) for vehicle collisions with unprotected bridge columns. Current provisions assume this force transfers directly from the column to the foundation, often a drilled shaft, leading to potentially inadequately sized foundations. Field investigations show that drilled shafts rarely sustain impact damage; instead, failures typically occur at the column-to-drilled-shaft connections or the column. Additionally, the response of soil, concrete, and steel under high strain rates differs from static conditions, increasing material strength and stiffness. Nevertheless, current design provisions provide limited guidance on these dynamic effects, leading to uncertainty in impact load distribution and resistance. This study aims to enhance collision load modeling accuracy, ensuring that drilled shaft-supported bridge substructures are designed more efficiently while maintaining structural resilience. The outcomes will support Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and 
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) specification updates, optimizing foundation design and mitigating the risk of premature failures at critical connections.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2025 09:47:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2606400</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) Methods for Pile-Footing-Column Systems</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2509057</link>
      <description><![CDATA[
Building on a previous project, the proposed research will advance the accelerated bridge construction method for bridge substructures using steel piles and precast pile caps and columns. The weight of the precast members will be reduced using hollow sections, which in turn will improve both construction tolerances and constructability. The hollow sections will be filled with in-situ concrete. The piles will be designed with temporary collars, which will eliminate the need to wait for the concrete to cure before continuing with the superstructure construction. The proposed research, funded jointly by the California Department of Transportation, will include a large-scale test unit which will incorporate both vertical and battered steel piles. The testing of the system will incorporate service level and extreme loads and ensure dependable performance of the new system and its components. As part of the testing program, the performance of the column and pile foundations will be examined systematically. Analytical models will be developed to realize the observed performance of the test unit and the components. Using the combination of analytical and experimental observations and findings from the previous phase of the project, appropriate design recommendations will be developed for improving bridge construction.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2025 18:34:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2509057</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Concrete Patching Methods</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2417061</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Many bridge decks and substructures on Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC)-managed structures are in dire need of rehabilitation. But a lot of the methods used to patch concrete result in poor performance, with failures in the new patching material and/or adjacent existing materials occurring not long after patches are completed. When failures happen, KYTC has to replace structural components, which comes at a greater cost. As such, the Cabinet needs guidance on materials and methods it can use to install concrete patches that are not vulnerable to rapid failure.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2024 13:26:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2417061</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Development of Design Recommendations for Non-Contact, Hooked Bar Lap Splices for Large Reinforcing Bars </title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1869632</link>
      <description><![CDATA[There has been an increase in the design of bridge substructures using precast elements in order to accelerate construction. Often, these designs require innovative connection methods, such as reinforcing bars spliced in closure pours between precast pieces. Making these splices using large-sized bars for the flexural reinforcement can be challenging because the development length of straight reinforcement, particularly Class B tension lap splices that must be 1.3 times the ordinary development length, can make closure pours quite large. Furthermore, failures of these connections tend to be brittle, thus adequate development is important. 

One strategy for reducing the closure pour length is to lap splice hooked bars in a non-contact fashion, which enables easier fit-up of members during construction. While American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) does provide limits for lap-spliced straight longitudinal bars in flexural members, there is no guidance on the maximum offset distance between hooked bars serving as a lap splice. There is also little data for non-contact lap splices or the development length of hooked bars that are larger than #6 bars. Additionally, multiple layers of spliced reinforcement in tension is not explicitly covered in AASHTO. 

The objective of this work will be the development of recommendations for designing non-contact, hooked bar lap splices in precast substructure elements. The scope will include large-scale structural tests to assess the need for modification factors based on: bar size, hook type, distance between lapped bars, side cover, transverse tie reinforcement, multiple layers of reinforcing, reinforcement yield strength, and concrete strength. The analysis will assess the cracking at service level stresses and the conditions of the elements at strength level and incipient failure.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2021 15:07:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1869632</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SPR-4165: Verification of Bridge Foundation Design Assumptions and Calculations</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1465620</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Investigation of transfer of dead and live loads through the structure of the Sagamore bridge to its pile foundations combined with detailed bridge foundation movement monitoring in order to assess current design methods and software.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:25:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1465620</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Seismic Repair of Reinforced Concrete Bridges Substructure</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1425934</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Modern seismic design practices for bridge structures involve the use of capacity design principles that locate plastic hinges in columns, while protecting against other modes of failure or locations of damage. For large earthquakes, the formation of plastic hinges in columns can lead to buckling and rupture of longitudinal steel. Traditionally, once buckling occurs, bridge columns are demolished and rebuilt because the cost to replace portions of columns can be prohibitive. Replacement is deemed necessary since the inelastic strain capacity of reinforcing bars is severely diminished once buckling occurs, rendering the structure vulnerable to collapse in future earthquakes. Bridge column repair has been studied for some time with several established techniques for repair for shear and confinement critical columns. To the knowledge of the principal investigators (PIs), there is little data available on repair of columns that are otherwise designed to modern standards. Similarly, there is little data available on developing an understanding of when repair is truly needed, and when repair is truly no longer feasible. A recent pilot study conducted at North Carolina State University (NCSU) demonstrated the feasibility of a repair technique which employed the relocation of the plastic hinge to a previously undamaged location within the column. This was successfully employed for columns that sustained buckled reinforcing bars, and showed promise for columns with fractured bars. In this proposal, the pilot study is expanded by developing a suite of repair techniques aimed at achieving plastic hinge relocation in damaged columns. Techniques may include the use of fiber reinforced polymers, high strength steel, reinforced concrete and structural steel. The focus will be on the concept of â€˜hinge relocation for repairâ€™ and will consider variables such as the need for rapid deployment following an event, environmental conditions at the time of repair, and expertise of potential repair workers in Alaska. The research will utilize columns that will be built and damaged as part of another Alaska Department of Transportation (AKDOT) research project, thus maximizing resources. Recommendations will consist of analysis and design guidelines, as a function of damage level (i.e. strain limits), for repair design of reinforced concrete (RC) bridge column to footing connections. The recommendations will also be applicable to some RC column to cap connections, although specific tests on that configuration are not part of this phase of work.. In addition, analytical studies will be conducted on other bridge column connection types (e.g., reinforced concrete filled steel pipes to pile cap beams) such that the direction for future experimental work on those connections may proceed. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2016 14:54:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1425934</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Continued Advancements in Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Foundations, Substructures and Other Geotechnical Features</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1336367</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) currently offers formal technical training on the design of highway bridge substructures using load and resistance factor design (LRFD). The training was developed to assist participants of varying levels of experience with transition of practice from allowable stress design (ASD) to Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for bridge substructures, foundations and retaining structures. For structural applications, training was based on the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 3rd Edition, 2004 (AASHTO LRFD specifications). For geotechnical applications, training referenced development work on AASHTO LRFD Section 10, Foundations, including the approved 2006 interim specifications. Considerable changes have occurred to Sections 3, 10 and 11 of the AASHTO LRFD specifications in the last few years, and significant work is required to address gaps and issues remaining in the geotechnical guidance. In order to remain current with technical guidance developed for state departments of transportation (DOTs) and address future changes to the AASHTO LRFD specifications, revisions to the reference materials, comprehensive design examples and training/technology transfer structure are necessary. These necessary revisions will provide up-to-date guidance for state DOTs and allow the developed materials to be flexible enough to easily accommodate future changes. Future changes in FHWA technical guidance and in the AASHTO LFRD specifications will have to address calibration of design methodologies for deep and shallow foundation design, earth retaining structures including mechanically stabilized earth (MSE), embankment and slope design, culverts, and soil and rock properties. In addition, such topics as serviceability in geotechnical design, loads and load combinations, and extreme events must be addressed. This pooled fund effort will support several activities to address these topics.
OBJECTIVES: The project objectives are to: 1) Revise and update comprehensive bridge design examples to reflect the most recent changes to Sections 3, 10 and 11 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Standards; 2) Redevelop instructor led and web-based training for transportation engineers responsible for substructure and foundation design of bridges; 3) Identify research needs for continued advancement, and improved reliability and cost effectiveness of LRFD design methodologies for substructures and foundations.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2014 01:00:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1336367</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Lightweight Concrete Code Provisions</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1230548</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This research project will conduct an extensive laboratory study to develop code provisions for using lightweight concrete in bridge structures. It is not known if existing code equations are applicable for this new class of material.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 14:02:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1230548</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Finite Element Analysis of Concrete Approach Slab on Soil Embankment</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1230340</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Current AASHTO specifications for structural design of bridge approach slabs do not take into account the interaction of slabs with the underlying soil. Consequently, the slabs experience a distress primarily in the form of cracking, also known as "the bump at the end of the bridge" because they are not designed to sustain the effects of differential settlements. Passing of large heavy vehicles over distressed slabs generates impact loads that cause further damages to bridges and pavements and may become a safety concern. In addition, the accumulation of settlement over time necessitates frequent maintenance, thus increasing the whole life cycle costs of bridges and incurring additional costs due to the associated traffic disruptions. While several different suggestions have been proposed for the alleviation of this problem (Stark et. al., 1995; Monley and Wu, 1993; Helwany et al., 2003) none of them have been widely accepted or implemented. It is because of a sheer number of bridges, including 25,620 in Kansas alone, and 590,111 in the U.S. that the current design approach negatively affects the resilience, durability, safety and economy of transportation infrastructure. Kansas has the fourth largest number of bridges, following Texas, Ohio and Illinois. In addition, according to Bakeer et al. (2005) Kansas was also the second state to build the integral bridge in 1935. Today Kansas has about 1,000 integral bridges. This type of a bridge is more sustainable choice than its non-integral counterpart because it boasts multiple advantages. However, the bridge approach settlement in integral bridges is even more significant due to a complex soil-structure interaction. Significant differential settlements occur below the approach slab because integral bridges accommodate thermal expansions and contractions of the deck through the cyclic deformation in the adjacent soil. Devising a design that will enable the approach slabs to sustain larger differential settlements will directly contribute to the increased resilience, longevity, safety and economy of transportation lifelines, thus increasing their overall sustainability rating.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 13:58:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1230340</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>