<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>Risk Mitigation and Update of Highway Bridge Design Guidance for Vessel Collisions</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2712182</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In 1991, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) adopted the Guide Specification and Commentary for Vessel Collision Design of Highway Bridges (GSVCD) as a result of the 1980 collapse of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge and following a research project sponsored by 11 states and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The GSVCD requires that bridge structures be designed to minimize the risk of collapse after being struck by a ship. The second edition of the GSVCD (2009/current) was developed to incorporate lessons learned from the use of the 1991 GSVCD, incorporate the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) methodology, clarify the risk procedure, and highlight evaluation of existing bridges using the revised GSVCD.

On March 18, 2025, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued the report Safeguarding Bridges from Vessel Strikes: Need for Vulnerability Assessment and Risk Reduction Strategies in the wake of the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse by ship collision. The report recommended evaluation of 68 bridges for risk of catastrophic collapse from vessel strikes and potential development of risk reduction plans.

A recent workshop on “Large Ship Impacts on Bridge Piers” was organized by the City College of New York and the University of Michigan and attended by more than 700 engineers and researchers from around the world. The workshop provided extensive feedback from leading experts and engineers on needs and gaps in this area.

Since the AASHTO GSVCD publication, a lot of research studies have been carried out nationally and internationally.

The objective of the research is to identify needs and gaps for risk mitigation of large vessel or ship collisions and update the AASHTO GSVCD and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD BDS). The research will be based on the evolving state of practice, the growth of the shipping industry and data collection, the feedback from applying the existing Guide Specs and the LRFD BDS, and recent advancement of national and international research. The updated guidance will build on the existing design guidance and apply to new bridge design and existing bridge evaluation, risk assessment, bridge protection, and/or countermeasures and retrofit associated with risk of highway bridge vessel collision.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 15:51:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2712182</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Investigation of Shear Capacity in Girders with Undersized Transverse Stiffeners</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2709244</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The design of transverse shear stiffeners in steel plate girder bridges has changed over the years. Earlier AASHTO Standard Specifications and AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications (BDS) required transverse stiffeners to have sufficient flexural rigidity to develop the shear buckling resistance of a steel girder web. The current AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD BDS) use a different approach based on minimum geometric dimensions of the stiffener. 

This change affects the load rating of older bridges that do not meet current criteria. The AASHTO LRFD BDS and the AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE) do not include provisions for determining the shear capacity of girders with undersized stiffeners or the effectiveness of an undersized stiffener. In current practice, load rating engineers may assume existing undersized transverse stiffeners are adequate based on inspection or original design practice; however, when these stiffeners are evaluated against current geometric requirements, even slightly undersized stiffeners may be treated as ineffective, and the girder may be rated as unstiffened. This can significantly reduce the calculated shear resistance of the girder and may result in unnecessary strengthening, load posting, or bridge closure. 

Engineering judgment indicates that slightly undersized stiffeners may still provide some resistance; however, there is currently no mathematical basis or load rating procedure to quantify that resistance. Therefore, research is needed to investigate the resistance of steel girders with undersized transverse stiffeners. This research would help state departments of transportation (DOTs) and bridge owners more accurately evaluate existing steel girder bridges, reduce unnecessary load postings or strengthening, and extend the service life of bridges that have reserve capacity. 

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to develop load rating provisions for bridges with undersized transverse stiffeners. The research should be presented through a white paper with proposed revisions to the AASHTO MBE. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 15:10:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2709244</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Design and Testing of High-Load Multi-Rotational Disc Bearings for Bridges



</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2669883</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (BDS) currently contain limited design criteria for disc bearings. The BDS requirements are predominately based on NCHRP Project 10-20A, “High-Load, Multi-Rotational Bearings: Design, Materials, and Construction” initiated in 1986 and published in 1999 as NCHRP Report 432: High-Load Multi-Rotational Bridge Bearings.  At the time, only one company manufactured disc bearings and testing samples of their product were limited.  Since 1999, multiple companies manufacture disc bearings and industry standards have progressed. 

Due to the limited research, bridge designers are reliant on disc bearing manufacturers’ unique in-house designs, which introduces uncertainties that may result in nonuniform reliability and performance. Renewed consideration of high-load multi-rotational (HMLR) disc bearings would likely result in a more thorough and robust design approach. Research is needed to update the current practice for the design, fabrication, and construction of disc bearings.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to develop design procedures and acceptance testing methods and criteria for HLMR disc bearings for highway bridges. It shall be applicable to all design limit states.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2026 18:46:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2669883</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>Shear Wave Velocity Measurements - Phase II</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2640695</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The objective of this project is to update and refine the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT)’s geotechnical seismic site investigation and analysis procedures in response to the release of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide Specifications for Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Seismic Bridge Design, 3rd Edition. This will also include updates for geotechnical investigations procedures, analysis methods, and global stability procedures for retaining wall and embankment design in response to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 10th Edition. The project will include an evaluation of available software programs that may assist in performing the required seismic analysis as it relates to transportation projects, including but not limited to bridges, culverts, retaining walls, and roadway embankments. The conclusions and results of the analysis will be incorporated into the existing Engineering Policy Guide (EPG). Additionally, at the conclusion of the project, MoDOT staff will be trained on the preferred methods of performing the updated seismic hazard analysis.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 09:39:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2640695</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Investigations into Expansion Joint Movement for Integral Abutment of Multi-Span Concrete Bridges</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625844</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This project extends the work of a previous project for single-span bridges. The research will provide realistic data for multi-span bridge expansion joint design. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) code expansion joint movement guidance is conservative for parts of Colorado. Improved design guidance will save money, and result in lower maintenance needs and costs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 08:27:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2625844</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Assessing and Characterizing Geotechnical Soil Strength Parameters for a systematic process to analyze slope stability in accordance with LRFD methods.</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2431165</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The purpose of the study is to review previous project mitigation measures and determine associated soil strength parameters used for the design of various landslide and embankment mitigation measures constructed around the state. The soil strength parameters will be characterized by geologic type with the unit weight, phi, and cohesion of the subsurface materials associated with the analysis and mitigation measures for the project. Furthermore, the use of load and resistance factor design (LRFD) methods applied and integrated for both slope and structural considerations for a reasonable level of mitigation would be developed.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 07:39:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2431165</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>Clay and Shale LRFD Design Criteria for Drilled Shaft Foundations</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2604567</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Texas Department of Transportation's (TxDOT) geotechnical design guidance has transitioned from using Texas Cone Penetrometer (TCP) boring logs and capacity correlations to design drilled shaft foundation elements with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' Load and Resistance Factor Design (AASHTO LRFD) investigations and resistance-based design methods. The research team will optimize TxDOT's drilled shaft design methods and resistance factors for clay and shale in accordance with TxDOT's specific soil and construction conditions. The research team will develop a likelihood map of shale for a district selected by TxDOT.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2025 16:35:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2604567</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Live Load Distribution Factors for Straight Steel I-Girder Bridges</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558367</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (BDS) Article 4.6.2.2.2 provides approximate live load distribution factors (LLDFs) for line girder analysis of steel I-girder bridges and other beam-slab bridge types. Some of these provisions and specifically Article 4.6.2.2.2d, which covers LLDFs for exterior girders, are based on limited research, and various designers and owners have questioned their accuracy. The LLDFs in Tables 4.6.2.2.2b-1 and 4.6.2.2.2d-1 were developed assuming the presence of only end cross-frames and ignoring parapet stiffness. In addition, recent innovations in steel I-girder bridge design are facilitating the use of “lean-on bracing” framing systems on straight bridges with or without skew, which feature far fewer diaphragms or cross-frames than were traditionally used. Thus, the applicability of current AASHTO provisions is unknown. Research is needed to investigate the appropriateness of the current LLDFs for straight steel I-girder bridges using either traditional framing or lean-on bracing framing. 

The objective of this research is to evaluate the accuracy of the moment and shear LLDFs provisions for girders in straight steel I-girder bridges with composite concrete deck when using line girder analysis methods.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2025 13:11:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558367</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Service III Limit State for Tension in Prestressed Concrete Bridge
</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558377</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Concrete tension stress at the Service III limit state is the governing condition for the design of most prestressed concrete bridge superstructure members. The Service III limit state was first introduced in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (BDS), 1st edition (1994), as an ad hoc adjustment to align design outcomes with those from past practices of the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. While primarily a design concern, the Service III limit state is relevant for the inventory load rating in the AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE).

The Service III limit state was not calibrated with consideration for structural reliability. Subsequent research efforts to calibrate the service limit states revised the Service III live load factors by creating a two-tiered approach that is often misinterpreted. This two-tiered approach is based on the chosen prestress loss method and cross-sectional properties; however, new data and methods are available for estimating the prestress losses. Research is needed to develop clear and accurate design requirements for prestressed concrete bridge superstructure members based on a properly calibrated Service III limit state for tension. 

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to evaluate the requirements for Service III limit state regarding design and load rating for tension in prestressed concrete bridge superstructure members to ensure consistency and reliability, while maintaining operational flexibility. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2025 12:43:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558377</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Design and Analysis of Bridge Foundations for Redundancy

</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558400</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) approach for designing highway bridges and structures addresses uncertainty in load and resistance and quantifies the variability in design parameters. However, from a geotechnical perspective, foundation design has typically involved calibrating design methods to a target reliability index (β) correlated to the probability of failure, which was considered acceptable in past practice. For example, the reliability index for deep foundation design has been calibrated for probabilities of failure of 1 in 100 (β = 2.3) for driven piles and 1 in 1,000 (β = 3.0) for drilled shafts. This difference is believed to be attributed to the variation in reliability between individual foundation elements and pile groups, with the latter being considered highly redundant systems.

The current AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications (BDS) are ambiguous regarding the definition of redundancy and its application to foundations. Research is needed to investigate redundancy as it applies to geotechnical design and to enhance existing design and analysis requirements.

The objective of this research is to develop design and analysis requirements for bridge foundation elements and groups. These requirements shall account for redundancy based on a probabilistic consideration of resistance for foundations.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2025 10:00:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558400</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Guide for Culvert and Storm Drain Rehabilitation

</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558411</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Culvert and storm drain systems constitute critical nodes in U.S. transportation networks; however, many of these structures have met or exceeded their design service life. Replacing culverts under difficult constraints (i.e., high fills, high-volume roadways, difficult maintenance of traffic conditions) presents unique challenges causing transportation agencies to explore rehabilitation options. Much of the maintenance and restoration performed on buried structures is based on past practices and procedures in which state departments of transportation (DOTs) are familiar and experienced with implementing. 

Many times, standardized guidance for the rehabilitation design process is local. Meanwhile, new rehabilitation technologies continue to emerge without sufficient information on when and how they should be applied. The recent American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Culvert and Storm Drain System Inspection Guide (CSDSIG) published in 2020 provides a roadmap for the inventory and inspection of culverts and storm drains. The next logical step is to determine a course of action for assets identified as deficient.  Research is needed to develop strategies for state DOTs on when to replace versus rehabilitate and the choice of a rehabilitation method.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this project is to develop a guide for state DOTs for evaluating when to either replace or rehabilitate culverts and storm drains. The guide will also assist designers in the selection of the most appropriate rehabilitation method(s) along with the applicable loading conditions and design method to use when applying the chosen method. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 20:50:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558411</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RES2025-02: Use of Confinement Reinforcement in Prestressed Concrete Beams to Improve Resistance to Impacts from Over Height Loads</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2437327</link>
      <description><![CDATA[To avoid a potential misunderstanding with reading this proposal, the principal investigator (PI) first introduces two different “shear failure cases”: (1) the traditional “gravity-load” (perpendicular to the bottom flange of the prestressed concrete (PC) beam) shear failure caused by factored gravity loads; and (2) the newly introduced “impact-load” (parallel to the bottom flange of the PC beam)
shear failure caused by the horizontal impact force from the overheight vehicle to the bottom flange of the PC beam. Every year, 
Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) has PC beams that are struck by overheight loads and are either damaged or destroyed. Collisions between over-height vehicles and bridges are becoming more commonplace.
According to a recent NCHRP study [1], impact damage is usually readily apparent and varies from scrapes to structural collapse. The impact causes a torsion-induced shear cracking pattern in the exterior (or fascia) PC beam. In cases where the impact is more direct, this pattern becomes more of a shear push-out (impact-load shear failure)
as shown in Figure 1 [1]. Considering the observed shear cracking pattern, it is hypothesized that shear reinforcement in the direction parallel to the bottom flange of the PC beam should provide significant benefit to the beams when struck by overheight loads.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2024 15:39:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2437327</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Develop Standardized LRFD Design Methods for Ancillary Highway Structures</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2420079</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Texas Department of Transportation's (TxDOT's) current standards for design of ancillary highway structure foundations are based on allowable stress design (ASD) framework and need to be updated to the load and resistance factor design (LRFD) framework to be compliant with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) policy. The goal of this project is to develop standardized LRFD design methods for foundations of various ancillary traffic structures that are compliant with AASHTO requirements while maintaining an efficient design and the ease-of-use of a standard. The research team will (a) perform literature review and summarize the state of the practice and key findings of standards and design criteria for traffic structure foundations of TxDOT and other DOTs, (b) identify soil parameters and associated testing methods that can be used in updated standards, (c) evaluate TxDOT's current traffic structure standards for foundation design by comparing design outcomes from TxDOT's standards and those from other DOTs for various soil and loading conditions, (d) develop new LRFD design criteria for updates to the applicable standards, and (e) prepare design examples using the new LRFD design criteria.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:10:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2420079</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>