<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>Public Utilities Within SDDOT’s Highway Right of Way</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2704041</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Utilities located within or near the highway right of way (ROW), whether existing or planned, pose significant challenges for the South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT). These challenges include managing and documenting final utility placement and minimizing conflicts with future construction. A lack of planning and coordination often results in insufficient space for additional utilities and complicates future infrastructure projects.
Permitting practices across SDDOT vary significantly, particularly for non-traditional or private utility installations such as drain tile, methane lines, and private water systems. This inconsistency is exacerbated by outdated South Dakota Administrative Rules, which do not reflect modern installation methods, materials, or industry standards. For example, current rules still require steel casing under roadways, even though modern alternative materials like  polyethylene meet structural requirements and are commonly used in other states. While SDDOT does allow alternative materials if they meet Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) criteria, this requirement can be burdensome for smaller utility providers who may lack the resources to hire engineers for custom casing designs. The lack of standardized, pre-approved casing options further complicates permitting process and installation practices. Additionally, the rules provide little to no guidance on modern installation practices such as horizontal direction boring, which has largely replaced trenching in many contexts due to its lower surface disruption and environmental impact. These regulatory gaps contribute to permitting delays, inconsistent enforcement, and increased costs for both the Department and utility owners.
After utility permits are issued and work is completed, the submission of as-built documentation is often inconsistent and lacks standardization. This makes it difficult to accurately verify the depth and location of installed utilities. Submissions can vary widely – from  detailed Computer Aided Design (CAD) files to hand-drawn sketches--resulting in  uncertainty and inefficiencies during future planning, maintenance, and construction activities.
Utility coordination in developed areas remains a significant challenge due to the absence of a unified, enforceable framework. In many cases, coordination among utility providers is nearly nonexistent, resulting in inefficient use of limited ROW space. This lack of coordination has led to overlapping installations, redundant infrastructure—such as multiple dark fiber lines—and increased risk during construction or maintenance activities. Compounding the issue is the absence of a clear process for managing abandoned utilities or maintaining an accurate inventory of existing infrastructure. Without reliable data, future planning becomes more complex and costly.
Federal regulations, including 23 CFR Part 645 Subpart C, require state DOTs to designate broadband utility coordinators and establish a process for registering and notifying broadband providers about planned projects. These rules are intended to reduce redundant installations and promote early coordination. However, SDDOT has faced limited engagement from broadband providers, making compliance difficult and undermining efforts to streamline utility planning.
The growing presence of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) infrastructure—such as fiber-optic lines, sensors, and communication equipment—adds another layer of complexity. ITS systems require secure, uninterrupted access and are particularly vulnerable to damage or interference from uncoordinated utility work. Protecting ITS infrastructure is critical to maintaining traffic safety and operational efficiency.
Although South Dakota Administrative Rules reference utility corridors, there is no consistent enforcement mechanism or incentive structure to encourage shared use or coordinated planning. This approach increases the likelihood of project delays, cost overruns, and safety hazards during construction.
To address these challenges, a comprehensive evaluation of current utility coordination practices is needed, including a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis. This would identify gaps, assess risks, and provide practical, policy-driven improvements aligned with both state and federal expectations.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2704041</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SDDOT 2024 Statewide Customer Satisfaction Assessment</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2704024</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) has commissioned statewide customer satisfaction assessments in 1997, 1999, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2011, 2015, 2018, and 2021. These surveys identified SDDOT’s key products and services and assessed perceptions of their importance and quality of delivery. Survey findings raised SDDOT’s awareness of customers’ concerns, provided valuable insights into their degree of satisfaction, influenced SDDOT’s strategic plans, and allowed SDDOT to gauge progress in addressing customers’ priorities. Some of the assessments included comparisons with similar assessments in other states in the region. Important recurring questions the SDDOT’s assessment intends to address: Have perceptions of SDDOT’s performance changed significantly? If so, how? Have SDDOT’s responses to issues identified in prior surveys been effective? Are more proactive or effective responses possible? Do key customer segments perceive SDDOT's services and performance differently from the population at large? Do perceptions vary by age, region or between urban and rural populations? Have new issues emerged that are important to the Legislature, the general public, or key customer segments? In light of increasing costs and constrained funding, have customers’ perceptions changed regarding the need for and relative priority of capital improvements, maintenance, operations, and other services? How have external factors, such as demographic changes, rural and urban development, agricultural and shipping practices, and technological developments affected customers’ perceptions of the need for and relative priority of SDDOT’s services? Have changes in SDDOT business processes, such as increased use of consultants, remote work arrangements, traveler information systems, and its external communications plan affected customers’ perceptions of the quality of service delivery? How have customers’ needs, preferences, and satisfaction levels regarding communication with SDDOT changed? How can SDDOT increase customers’ interest, trust, and engagement? How effectively does SDDOT conduct business with key business partners, particularly the contracting industry? Does the SDDOT respond innovatively and effectively to issues and concerns important to stakeholders? What is the public’s perception of driver behavior and the transportation safety culture in South Dakota?

SDDOT’s emphasis on strategic planning and its participation in the Baldrige Excellence Framework assessment process elevates the need to reassess perceptions of SDDOT’s performance and to identify how SDDOT can effectively respond.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 09:33:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2704024</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Efficient Construction Material Testing and Inspection Based on Risk Levels</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2533743</link>
      <description><![CDATA[South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) previously completed research project SD91-05 Essential Testing and Inspections Levels which was conducted over 30 years ago. It would be beneficial to review SDDOT’s current construction material testing and inspection program using a “Risk-Based Analysis”. This type of analysis would focus on the value of each material test and type of inspection, thus helping SDDOT to direct resources to where they would provide the most value and reduce the risk to end quality and performance. Risks include but are not limited to time, cost, safety, quality, and scheduling. Advancements in technology and software since SD91-05 have improved processes and productivity in the highway construction industry. Current and emerging technologies should be considered in this research to improve the efficiency of SDDOT construction material testing and inspection. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2025 08:45:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2533743</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Evaluation of Granular Density and Moisture Testing
</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1852212</link>
      <description><![CDATA[SD2014-12 Compaction Testing of Granular Material was a research project to review current South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) compaction control methods and determine whether more appropriate methods were available. Two possible improvements were recommended as a result of this research. 

The first recommendation was to adopt moisture density curves made specifically for the materials SDDOT uses. A family of moisture/density curves was developed from historical SDDOT compaction tests of base and subbase materials to replace the currently used Ohio Curves, which do not apply to granular material and are being phased out by many state transportation agencies.

Another recommendation was to change the testing method from relative compaction to a strength-based procedure using the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP). The DCP testing was based on specifications from Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 

Finally, SD2014-12 recommended full-scale side-by-side tests on pilot projects prior to adopting either of these techniques. The study’s technical panel thought it advisable to verify the applicability of the South Dakota moisture-density curves over a full range of materials and geographical areas. The panel also recommended parallel testing of the DCP to: verify correlation of strength with density; evaluate the speed, convenience, and safety of the test procedure; identify operational limits on its use; and determine whether adjustments to MnDOT specifications are needed in South Dakota.

The purpose of this research will be to design and execute an effective evaluation plan for the South Dakota moisture/density curves and the DCP and to recommend how they can be best used in South Dakota.


The research objectives are to: (1)	Design a field test program that will provide side-by-side comparison of the SDDOT moisture/density curves and the DCP test to current compaction testing methods during the 2020 construction season. (2)	Based on results of the side-by-side comparison, evaluate the suitability of the SDDOT moisture/density curves and the DCP test as replacements for current granular material compaction acceptance. (3) Recommend specifications for using the SDDOT moisture/density curves and the DCP test in construction involving granular material compaction.

]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2021 08:53:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1852212</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Pavement Preservation Guide Update for SDDOT and Local Agencies
</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1851960</link>
      <description><![CDATA[South Dakota Department of Transportation's (SDDOT’s) pavement preservation guidelines are 9 years old and loosely based on Illinois DOT guidelines. The document needs to be reviewed and updated. An updated guide would include the most recent techniques and materials available for pavement preservation. The guide should be a useful document to all individuals involved in pavement management and preservation, from lead workers to program managers. There is also a need for cost-benefit analysis that can be easily applied for decision making. The research objectives are to: (1)	Review SDDOT’s and local agencies’ pavement preservation practices, including the SDDOT Pavement Preservation Guide, and identify opportunities for application of new materials and techniques. (2) Develop a basic cost/benefit technique to support decision-making at the county highway office level. (3)	Create an updated Pavement Preservation Guide based upon the results of Objectives 1 and 2. (4) In concert with the updated Pavement Preservation Guide, develop an abridged version to be used as a field guide. (5) Recommend changes, if any, to existing pavement preservation training and outreach programs to SDDOT and local agencies in South Dakota.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2021 17:02:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1851960</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Technical Support for SDDOT's Pile Load Testing
</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1851858</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In response to the Federal Highway Administration’s October 1, 2007 deadline that applies to all federally funded bridge projects, the 
South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) has transitioned to Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Specifications. Load and resistance factor design methods, including the American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials (AASHTO) LRFD Specifications, are based on limit state design, which uses load and resistance factors to account for a factor of safety. They rely heavily on statistical probability and reliability theories. LRFD differs from traditional allowable stress design (ASD) analysis, which is based on a global factor of safety. 

Research project SD2008-08, Review and Refinement of SDDOT’s LRFD Deep Foundation Design Method, involved a comprehensive review of deep foundation design procedures at SDDOT to identify potential improvements in design efficiency and reliability. The project elevated awareness of the LRFD transition process and goals, emphasized the importance of updating current deep bridge foundation design procedures, and identified potential improvements in SDDOT’s overall design process. Researchers verified that SDDOT is in compliance with the Federal Highway Administration’s mandate regarding deep foundation design of driven H-pile sections, precast concrete, timber piles, and drilled shafts. 

In the course of the SD2008-08 study, it became apparent that available pile load test data is not sufficient to verify SDDOT’s current predictive design method or reliably determine resistance factors specific to conditions in South Dakota. The formal implementation plan for SD2008-08 proposes a focused, five-year program of pile load testing within regular construction projects to supplement the existing load test database. This research is necessary to provide technical support for the load testing and to analyze load test data to verify and improve accuracy of resistance factors and predictions of pile drivability and bearing capacity. 

The research objectives are to: (1)	Support pile load testing, data analysis, verification of pile driveability and bearing capacity formulas, and recalibration of resistance factors for deep foundation design. (2) Recommend further refinements to SDDOT’s current foundation design procedures consistent with LRFD Specifications. (3) Assist SDDOT with expanded use of LRFD Specifications to optimize reliability, consistency, and efficiency of deep foundation designs.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2021 15:27:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1851858</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Winter Maintenance Levels of Service and Performance Measures</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1844015</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Winter maintenance is one of the most important activities performed by the South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT). SDDOT’s Snow and Ice Control Performance Standard defines priorities and operational procedures for plowing, sanding, and chemical application needed to provide a safe and reliable highway system. An important element of the performance standard is “level of service”, which defines how well the condition of highways is or should be maintained and restored during and immediately after winter events. Transportation agencies define winter levels of service in various ways, including: recovery time (time from end of storm to restoration of pavement surface to a defined condition), maintenance frequency, surface condition, traffic speed, or pavement friction maintained, frequency or duration of highway closures, travel time reliability, and others. SDDOT currently defines level of service in terms of maintenance frequency and recovery time “to 80% clear of ice and snow”. If possible, priority routes are to be treated every two hours and recovered within 18 hours and non-priority routes are to be treated every four hours and recovered within 36 hours.

SDDOT’s current level of service definitions exhibit some significant limitations, because they may not: be objectively measurable; relate to highway users’ needs and expectations for safety and mobility; communicate expectations to SDDOT staff and highway users; be interpreted or applied consistently by maintenance staff; align to unwritten expectations to do as much as possible with available resources; 	accommodate the full range of storm severity, duration, and characteristics; 	distinguish among highway locale, use, and traffic levels; consider resource costs and constraints; support creation of objective performance measures and tracking to gauge SDDOT’s winter maintenance performance; support strategic and tactical winter maintenance decisions; or translate into physical criteria that can be applied by SDDOT’s Maintenance Decision Support System.

SDDOT needs to establish measurable levels of service that better meet the needs of maintenance staff and managers and highway users. The objectives of this research are to: (1) Assess purposes for which level of service definitions are and could be used by SDDOT and highway users; (2)	Develop winter maintenance level of service definitions that address the needs of SDDOT and highway users; (3) Define and calculate winter maintenance performance measures based upon the level of service definitions; and (4) Update the SDDOT Snow and Ice Control performance standard to address department capabilities and customer expectations.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2021 10:47:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1844015</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Snowplow Route Optimization for SDDOT</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1843617</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) is responsible for operating nearly 7800 miles (8450 lane-miles) of highway. The state network is predominantly rural two-lane highway, but also includes rural and urban Interstate highways and 4-lane rural expressways. Winter maintenance—comprising snowplowing, anti-icing, and deicing activities—is performed by 25 maintenance reporting units operating from 71 maintenance shops and 11 remote stockpile locations. SDDOT’s equipment fleet includes 428 tandem-axle trucks equipped with a variety of front-, side-, and underbody-mounted plows as well as 21 tow plows. Staffing levels permit SDDOT to operate a single extended-hours shift statewide, with limited overnight shifts on Interstate highways near Rapid City, Sioux Falls, and Sioux City, Iowa.
SDDOT faces several challenges meeting road users’ rising expectations for winter level of service, including constrained budgets and staffing levels; rising costs of equipment, fuel, and deicing materials; and staffing availability in rural areas. To help meet these challenges, SDDOT has established performance measures related to resource utilization. SDDOT is also examining new ways to define level of service, which is currently defined in terms of plowing frequency during winter storms and clearance time after storms on two classes (priority and non-priority) of highway segments. SDDOT has also begun expanding its Maintenance Decision Support System—which uses weather forecasting, real-time feedback on location and treatment activity from snowplows, and computer modeling to predict future surface condition and to recommend cost-effective maintenance treatment types, rates, and timing—from approximately one-third of the state to the entire state.
To further improve its winter maintenance effectiveness, SDDOT wants to consider whether other potential changes—such as snowplow routing, location of remote stockpiles, staffing levels, equipment type and allocation, and others—are technically feasible, economically advantageous, and beneficial to road users. The objectives of this project are to: (1) Create and calibrate a snowplow routing model that can accurately represent SDDOT’s current winter maintenance operation and reliably evaluate alternative routing strategies; and (2) Use the calibrated routing model to identify more efficient and effective winter maintenance strategies.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:32:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1843617</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Improvement of Approach Smoothness on Integral Abutment Bridges</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1843615</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Approach slabs span the embankment directly behind the bridge abutment backwall to provide a smooth transition between the bridge and pavement. Ride roughness at the approach slab has been a persistent problem, requiring significant maintenance for many highway agencies. The problem is so prevalent it is commonly referred to as “the bump at the end of a bridge”. 

Extensive research has identified time-dependent consolidation of the embankment and foundation soil along with inadequate compaction as primary causes for approach roughness. The natural movement of an integral bridge abutment, which the South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) uses extensively, can further compress the embankment material. Additional causes include design details, drainage, soil erosion, embankment material quality, and construction. The complexity of the problem is evidence that bridge approach roughness may be due to various conditions happening simultaneously, with a solution achievable by design engineers, geotechnical engineers, field engineers, and contractors working together.

Over the past 30 years SDDOT has used various methods—including various embankment geometries, various backfill materials, addition and removal of geotextile fabric, different drainage configurations, and different joint details at sleeper slabs—to build and maintain smooth bridge approaches. However, the bump is still a major complaint for road users, still expensive to repair, and still a potential safety hazard.

The objectives of this project are to: (1) Analyze and compare the performance of SDDOT’s current and past design, construction, and maintenance practices to resolve integral abutment bridge approach slab roughness; (2) Investigate the design, construction, and maintenance practices of other United States and European highway agencies to reduce approach slab roughness on integral abutment bridges; (3) 	Recommend feasible new designs and changes to SDDOT’s current design, construction, and maintenance practices to reduce approach slab roughness on integral abutment bridges; and (4) Recommend a strategy for future monitoring and evaluation of roughness at integral abutment bridge approaches. 
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:14:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1843615</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>