Citation
Construction and materials research and development for the nation's public works

Material Information

Title:
Construction and materials research and development for the nation's public works
Creator:
United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment.
Publisher:
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
194 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Infrastructure (Economics) -- United States ( LCSH )
Engineering -- Research -- United States ( LCSH )
Materials -- Research -- United States ( LCSH )
Research, Industrial -- United States ( LCSH )
Genre:
federal government publication ( marcgt )

Notes

General Note:
A report on the nation’s infrastructure that is the physical framework that supports and sustains virtually all domestic economic activity; it is essential to maintaining international competitiveness as well.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of North Texas
Holding Location:
University of North Texas
Rights Management:
This item is a work of the U.S. federal government and not subject to copyright pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §105.
Classification:
Y 3.T 22/2:2 C 76/6 ( sudocs )

Aggregation Information

IUF:
University of Florida
OTA:
Office of Technology Assessment

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Construction and Materials Research and Development for the Nation's Public Works June 1987 NTIS order #PB94-134723

PAGE 2

OTA PROJECT STAFF CONSTRUCTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR THE NATIONS PUBLIC WORKS John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division Nancy Naismith, Science, Education, and Transportation Program Manager Edith Page, Project Director Robert Gold* Leonard Wojcik Administrative Staff Marsha Fenn Chris Clary Michelle Haahr Wendy Weingarten MATERIALS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR THE NATIONS PUBLIC WORKS Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTA Energy, Materials, and International Security Division Peter D. Blair, Energy and Materials Program Manager Jenifer Robison, Project Director Karen Larsen Joanne Seder Gregory Eyring Administrative Staff Lillian Chapman Linda Long OTA Contractor

PAGE 3

CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS During its research for this study, OTA contacted a wide range of knowledgeable individuals in the public and private sectors and in the academic world. All gave generously of their time and expertise. These contributors and reviewers for this paper played key roles in identifying major issues. Moreover they contributed a broad and invaluable range of information, for which OTA is very grateful. However, OTA bears sole responsibility for the contents of this paper. Walter Anderson, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation George Barney, Portland Cement Association Ray A. Barnhart, Federal Highway Administration William Beddow, National Constructors Association John Bergerson, Water and Wastewater Manufacturers Association David P. Billington, Princeton University Carl A. Brunner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Robert M. Clark, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency John Convery, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Claudia Copeland, Congressional Research Service Gene De Michele, Water Pollution Control Federation Robert C. Doban, Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation John P. Eberhard, National Research Council David Eckstein, Uni-Bell Ezra D. Ehrenkrantz, The Ehrenkrantz Group John W. Fisher, Lehigh University Arthur J. Fox, Engineering News Record Geoffrey Frohnsdorff, National Bureau of Standards Edgar J. Garbarini, Bechtel Group, Inc. James G. Gross, National Bureau of Standards Alan Hais, US. Environmental Protection Agency Edward Harrigan, The Asphalt Institute Neil Hawkins, University of Washington Richard Hay, Federal Highway Administration Paul Howdyshell, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Donald G. Iselin, Consultant Arnold K. Jones, IBM Corporation Rolland D. King, Battelle Columbus Laboratories Robert K. Kreklau, Federal Highway Administration Frederick Krimgold, Virginia Polytechnic Institute Damian Kulash, Strategic Highway Research Program Michael Maccoby, Project on Technology, Work and Character Darrell Mach, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation James Manwaring, American Water Works Association Research Foundation Richard May, The Asphalt Institute William McCleese, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers David McDermott, Utility Contractors Association Henry L. Michel, Parsons & Brinckerhoff Inc. Fred ,Moavenzadeh, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Steven Moore, National Asphalt Pavement Association Education Foundation

PAGE 4

William W. Moore, Dames & Moore Julian K. Morrison, National Research Council Richard P. Mudge, Apogee Research, Inc. Louis J. Mulkern, RMD Associates J.P. Murtha, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Boyd C. Paulson, Jr., Terman Engineering Center Jessie Pfeiffer $ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alan E. Pisarski, Consultant V.P. Puzinauskas, The Asphalt Institute Robert J. Reilly, National Research Council John C. Richards, M. W. Kellogg Co. Kenneth I. Rubin, Apogee Research, Inc. Jack C. Scalzi, National Science Foundation Louis Shaffer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Harry Smith, National Research Council Andrew Stevenson, Water Pollution Control Federation Jack Sullivan, American Water Works Association Richard Sullivan, American Public Works Association Robert Thomas, U.S. EnvironmentaI Protection Agency Gerald Triplett, The Asphalt Institute Richard L. Tucker, The University of Texas Tom Vonier, Consultant Harold Weber, The Sulphur Institute John H. Wiggins, J.H. Wiggins Company John H. Winkler, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill Richard N. Wright, National Bureau of Standards Klaus Zwilsky, National Materials Advisory Board

PAGE 5

-CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR THE NATIONS PUBLIC WORKS TABLE OF CONTENTS PART ONE Chapter 1: Introduction and Summary PART TWO CONSTRUCTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Chapter 2: Federally Supported Research and Development on Public Works Infrastructure Construction Chapter 3: Construction Research and Developmentin the Private Sector Case Study The Complex Process of Implementing an Infrastructure Innovation Chapter 4: Construction R&D Programs in Other Industries and in Foreign Countries Chapter 5: Institutional and Policy Issues for Construction R&D Case Study Japanese Institutions-A Contrast and A Challenge PART THREE MATERIALS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Chapter 6: Introduction Chapter 7: Recent Materials Developments Chapter 8: Federal Programs Supporting Research on Materials for Public Works Chapter 9: Nonfederal Programs for Infrastructure Materials Research Chapter 10: International Research and Development for Infrastructure Materials Chapter 11: Institutional Issues, Research Needs, and Policy Options Materials R&D Bibliography Part Three Appendices: Federal Agencies Program and Project Funding Levels Tables A-1 through A-5

PAGE 6

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

PAGE 7

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION AND MlATERIALS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR THE NATIONS PUBLIC WORKS The nations infrastructure is the physical framework that supports and sustains virtually all domestic economic activity; it is essential to maintaining international competitiveness as well. In its broadest definition, infrastructure includes all types of public facilities, such as highways, roads, and bridges; water resource projects and water supply and treatment systems; sewer systems and wastewater treatment plants; locks, dams, and waterways; ports; airports; railroads and mass transit facilities; public buildings; and resource recovery facilities.1 To meet the immediate concerns of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for a review of infrastructure research and development (R&D), this Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) Staff Paper focuses on construction technologies and materials for transportation and water-related infrastructure components --those commonly termed public works, Thus, public buildings, mass transit systems, railroads, airports, and the air traffic control system are not included, although significant Federal sums are spent on them. OTA found that public and private expenditures for R&D related to infrastructure technologies and materials are very low--generally less than 0.3 percent of gross annual expenditures by Federal agencies or business volume for industries. Moreover, water and wastewater systems and advanced construction technologies receive virtually no Federal R&D funding. In light of 1 See, Public Works Improvement Act of 1984, P.L. 98-501, 2 As used in this Staff paper, construction refers to new construction, reconstruction, repair, and maintenance unless specifically described otherwise. 1-1

PAGE 8

this, Congress may wish to consider increasing support for R&D programs that focus on these neglected areas. OTA also found substantial institutional barriers and economic disincentives to nonfederal R&D, especially in the movement of new technologies and materials off the research bench and into the field. These include procurement processes and issues related to risk that impede the adoption of new technologies and materials in public works projects, and splintered private and governmental roles. In addition, investments in public works are characterized by high fixed costs, lengthy planning and construction schedules, complicated public financing arrangements, and long payback periods, which lead to uncertain economic returns on R&D investment. Consequently, OT.A concludes that simply increasing R&D expenditures without also taking steps to alleviate these barriers and disincentives will do little to advance the materials. machinery, and methods by which we design, build, and maintain our Nations public works. BACKGROUND Federal, State, and local governments are responsible for building, repairing, and maintaining public works. The magnitude of public works investments by these governments is very large--S97.3 billion in 1984--accounting for about 24 percent of all new construction annually. Howeve r $ the growth rate of public works investment has slowed significantly over the past three decades compared with the growth rate of net private capital formation. 3 T WO studies have associated this trend with deterioration of the nations infrastructure. 4 Randall W. E berts, .An Assessment of the Linkage Between Pub 1 ic In frm~ructure ~nd E:o no mic De Ve iop men t, prepared for the \ational Council on Public Norks Improvement (Jul] 1986); Therese J. NlcGuire, On [he Relationship Between Infrastructure InYestmenr ~nd E:ono mic Develop men t, prepared for the >a[ional Council on Public ~1orks Improvement ~ Jul:+ 1986), 1-2

PAGE 9

Total real spending for public works increased from $60 billion in 1960 to $97 billion in 1984, but total spending as a share of GNP has declined. In 1984, total public works expenditures on construction, operations, and maintenance were 2.7 percent of GNP, down from around 3.7 percent in 1961. This decline reflects a marked drop-off in capital expenditures for new construction, and an increase in outlays for operations and maintenance. Thus the public sector has shifted its primary focus from building new stock to maintaining its existing capital base. 5 Construction of entirely new, large-scale public works projects has slowed substantially with the completion of the interstate highway system and the shift in national budget priorities toward defense-related projects. Another important trend is the change in the types of facilities funded that occurred between 1960 and 1980. Highway projects dominated public works investment in the 1960s, with water resources and water supply systems a distant second. After 1970, highway spending began to decline as spending for other facilities--primarily wastewater treatment and mass transit--grew. In the 1980s, highway spending has continued its relative decline, while mass transit funding continues its relative increase. Expenditures for wastewater treatment, water supply, and solid waste have remained comparatively stable since 1980. 6 Still another trend is the shift in spending by level of government. From 1960-1984, the relative role of States in funding public works declined, while the local share of infrastructure spending rose, with the greatest increase occurring since 1980. In 1984, local governments accounted for 50 percent of the total public works investments, the Federal Government 27 percent, and State governments 23 percent. While local governments have borne more of the responsibility for the construction costs for water supply, wastewater treatment, solid waste, and mass transit facilities, they also face rising costs for operating and maintaining all forms of 5 National Council on Public Works Improvement, supra note 3, at pp. 48-49. G Ibid, p. 51. 1-3

PAGE 10

public works. The Federal role has been characterized by periodic bursts of spending for highway, wastewater treatment plant, and mass transit facility construction. 7 The concerns about the condition of the Nations infrastructure that were so widelypublicized in the early 1980s prompted several recent studies 8 that attempted to define current annual infrastructure investment needs for adequate maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and new construction. These estimates range from $52.6 billion to $118.2 billion 9 Actual expenditures are expected to meet only 33 to 60 percent of the estimated public works construction and repair needs. The relative decline in capital works expenditures and other concerns led the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to ask OTA to study a number of issues related to research and development for public works to determine the effectiveness of infrastructure R&D policy and programs. These issues include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The major areas of construction, repair, and maintenance technology that could benefit from increased research and development and that are likely to yield valuable results in the short and long term; The magnitude of research and development needs, and the point point at which increased funding for research and development would reach diminishing returns; The present state of research and development in the private sector, and the advantages or disadvantages of government research and development programs relative to similar private sector efforts; A comparison of research and development spending for infrastructure construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation and that in other major industries; The research and development efforts of other countries, and the extent to which these efforts are underwritten by government agencies; 7 Ibid, p. 53. 8 National Council on Public Works Improvement, supra, note 3; Congressional Budget Office, Public Works Infrastructure: Policv Considerations for the 1980s (.April 1983); The Associated General Contractors of America, Americas Infrastructure: A Plan to Rebuild (May 1983). 9 National Council on Public Works, supra, note 3, Table II-1, at p. 10. Estimates are for ail public works, including airports, mass transit systems, and solid waste disposal facilities. 1-4

PAGE 11

6. The overlap between the areas of highways, water projects, sewage treatment, public buildings, and other types of construction that might warrant a more unified or coordinated research program for all of these areas; 7. The constraints on innovation caused by existing Federal contracting or administrative procedures; and 8. The adequacy and efficiency of technology transfer between government agencies and the private sector. This OTA Staff Paper responds to the Committees request. Part One of the Paper is this Introduction and Summary. Part Two examines R&D for construction technologies and methods, and Part Three focuses on materials-related R&D for public works. This is not an exhaustive review of all aspects of R&D for public works. OTA relied on an extensive literature survey supplemented with information obtained in meetings and telephone conversations with Federal agencies, trade associations, and companies. Several questions were impossible to address adequately within the time constraints of this survey, and would benefit from further study. In particular, we were unable to quantify the size of the R&D needs, or the point at which R&D investment reaches diminishing returns (question 2, above). Instead, we provide a brief qualitative review of the R&D areas that would deliver the biggest bang for the buck, and discuss means of using the available research dollars more efficiently. In addition, we were unable to conduct a thorough review of the constraints introduced by Federal contracting policies and issues related to risk (question 7). WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF R&D FOR PUBLIC WORKS? The long-term cost savings from the development of new and improved technologies and materials for public works construction, repair, and rehabilitation, or of a better understanding of the properties and uses of currently available technologies and materials, could far exceed the short-term cost of an expanded commitment to R&D. Other benefits of public works R&D are 1-5

PAGE 12

less easy to quantify, such as the potential public health benefits of improved water and wastewater treatment, and the benefits of improved infrastructure systems for local economic development. While OTA was unable to quantify the potential R&D costs of achieving these benefits, we can offer several examples of research areas with potentially big payoffs that can be quantified. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) estimates that the total cost of rehabilitating and replacing the nations highways and bridges will be between $1 trillion and $3 trillion. According to the TRB, if research could improve the performance and durability of roads and bridges by just one percent, the direct savings would be $10 billion to $30 billion. Much of that payoff would come from advances in materials and improved understanding of materials performance, because materials absorb almost half of new construction costs. The Federal Highway Administration estimates the repair and replacement costs for the more than 137,000 bridges rated as deficient at over $35 billion; an additional 85,000 bridges 11 Most of these repair costs are for reare in need of rehabilitation at a total of $15.5 billion. placement of concrete bridge decks. The decks are designed to last for 40 years, but because of weather conditions and the use of corrosive de-icing materials, they often require extensive repairs in 5-10 years and replacement at 15 years. Development of anti-corrosion protection systems that could extend the performance life of bridge decks from 15 to 20 years (only half the theoretical design life) would have a payoff in excess of $2 billion. 1 2 For repair and reconstruction of public works, however, costs associated with redirecting traffic, site protection, and public safety are so large that the materials costs can shrink to be10 Transportation Research Board, Americas Hi~hwavs: Accelerating the Search for Innovation, Special Report 202, 1984, at p. 82. 11 ,Martin Tolchin, $50 Billion Needed for Bridge Repair, Congress is Told by Federal Agency, New York Times, April 12, 1987, p. 24. 12 TRB, Supra note 10, at p 10 9 1-6

PAGE 13

tween 3 and 4 percent of the total. Thus R&D to improve the durability and lengthen the effective life span of the materials used for repair and reconstruction could bring large construction cost benefits with little increase in the total project cost. Asphalt paving materials account for over 20 percent of total highway spending in the U.S. The Federal Government alone is projected to spend over $200 billion on asphalt pavement by 2000. Even a one percent improvement in the performance life of asphalt pavement from research could save over $100 million annually in total highway repair and construction costs. This expected savings is not unreasonable, because many highway engineers believe that an increase of 3 to 5 percent in asphalt pavement life could be achieved now simply through better quality control in pavement design, construction, and maintenance. Similarly, asphalt cement represents roughly 20 to 25 percent of the cost of asphalt paving material. Use of improved asphalt cements in initial construction or overlay could save repair and repaving costs of more than four times the cost of the cement. 13 Studies of buried sewer and water pipes by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the American Water Works Association Research Foundation have found that external and internal corrosion are roughly equal contributors to pipe deterioration. Neither mode of corrosion is well understood, but arresting either one could almost double the performance life of sewer and water pipe systems. Internal corrosion protection systems, such as slip liners and special coatings, avoid the much higher costs of excavating and repairing or replacing buried pipe, which can run as high as $80 to $100 per installed line foot of pipe. Although cost estimates for internal protection measures were not available, the American Water Works Association says they can be significantly less than excavation and repair/replacement costs. Continued R&D would lead to lower costs and improved performance of internal protection methods .14 13 Ibid, at pp. 66-67, 82-83. 14 personal communication t. OTA by Jack Sullivan, American Water works Association, APril 1987. 1-7

PAGE 14

As these examples show, the benefits of even modest increases in materials R&D for highway repair, maintenance and construction alone could be $15 billion to $35 billion over the next 10 to 20 years. Compare these savings to the current Federal and nonfederal investment in materials R&D for all types of public works of $53 million to $62 million, and the value of the investment in R&D becomes even more pronounced. Still more significant, much of this benefit could be obtained with materials that are available now, but are not used because of inadequate technology transfer, the perceived financial risks of using new materials, and government procurement practices. Of particular importance is research into methods of improving the life of drinking water systems, which has a relatively low level of support. A focused research program to increase knowledge about the factors affecting the life cycle costs of clean water systems could bring rich benefits as the country embarks on a renewed effort to upgrade such systems. Individuals contacted by OTA during the course of this survey cited three primary areas in addition to materials where R&D could offer great opportunities for public works benefits: -Robotics and automation for use in construction, particularly for applications in hostile environments and for remote sensing; -Computer applications creating efficiencies in construction processes and improving design. Advances in computer technology and software, such as integrated knowledge systems consisting of networked expert systems, simulation models, and databases, also could be invaluable in overcoming the inadequate information exchange among researchers and public works agencies, and thus in promoting the use of the best available materials and technology; and -Basic research into natural water processes, such as the effects of shoreline erosion and groundwater movements and characteristics on structures. So little is known about these natural processes that public works improvements often are undertaken with insufficient understanding to ensure structural longevity. WHO IS FUNDING R&D FOR PUBLIC WORKS? Research and development for public works are sponsored and carried out by a number of Federal agencies, and by State and local governments, universities and research centers, trade 1-8

PAGE 15

associations, and corporations. However, despite the economic importance of public works, and the magnitude of annual investment in construction, operations, and maintenance, R&D expenditures on construction technologies and materials are relatively small. Total Federal R&D for infrastructure was $103 million in FY85, or roughly 0.3 percent of total new infrastructure construction (see table 11). Of this amount, OTA estimates that Federal agencies spent around $36 million on R&D for infrastructure materials; $14 million on incremental and advanced improvements in construction technologies and methods; and the remainder to improve design, evaluations, needs analyses, management systems, feasibility studies, information dissemination, etc. The types of, and levels of funding for, Federally-sponsored R&D programs related to public works vary widely (see tables 1-2 and 1 -3). Domestic public works projects tend to borrow technologies and materials developed for other applications (e.g., fiber-reinforced concrete). Federal research agendas reflect this in their emphases on adapting available products for specific public works applications, on analyses of public works capacity, and on management support. OTA found no significant Federal R&D expenditures for advanced construction technologies, or to support the design or development of alternative infrastructure systems, such as a totally new way of delivering water. Although reliable data on nonfederal R&D funding are difficult to obtain, OTA found that private sector R&D for infrastructure construction technologies and materials also is minimal. Based on the figures obtained within the time constraints of this survey, OTA estimates that total nonfederal materials-related R&D for infrastructure is about $18-$25 million annually. Similar figures were not available for construction R&D, but OTA estimates R&D expenditures by construction equipment and materials manufacturers to be less than 0.3 percent of the total annual value of new construction in the United States. Construction firms come in on the low end of this estimate, spending less than 0.04 percent of their annual construction sales on R&D. Materials manufacturers and suppliers spend between 0.1 and 0.3 percent of their annual sales on R&D. Data on R&D spending by State and local governments generally were not available for this survey. 1-9

PAGE 16

Table I-l .-federal RAD Expenditures federal R6D Incremental and Advanced Federal R&() Total Reported Value of New Infrastructure Construction Percentage of Total Percentage of Total YEAR in U.S. (mllflons of dollars ) Ml I I ions of Dollars Publlc Works Expenditures Mllllons of Dolfar s Publlc Works Expenditures ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1985 34,37 0 14 0.1 103 0 1986 38,742 15 0.1 109 0. 1987 (unknown) 14 (unknown) 97 (unknown -=---.=-=--=:-=--= .=-======-=====-. =---.=--------------------------------------------_---_---------.------------_---------------__----.---============ .-.----.------------------------------------------------------------------------- -9 frel iminary d.dta. SWltceb; Total v~lue of new infr~>tfucture construction ad~pted by OTA from U.S. Department of (kmmerce, Bureau of the Cen>us, v~[ue of NC W Clm~truction Put in Place, C30-8612, issued fetwuary 1987 (Washington, DC: U.S Government Printing Off Ice, December 1986). ;-ederal R61 1 .-- expenditures from OTA.

PAGE 17

Iable l-2.leder~l Expenditures on R6D for All Infrastructure Type s FY 1985-87 (3-Yecir>) Spending (in mi I I ion> of ~01 Idr>) For Construction Technologies Lhsi c Re~e~rch to Improve Adv~nced Incremental Rese~rch De>ign, Evaluations Othe r R&L) R&D For R&D And/or Needs An~ly>es Rti>carch rO t d l --. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5 Nell 1 nv rJdl $0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0. 3 0 $0. 1 0.2 $ $28. 2 0. 3 7. 7 0 0. 4 0 1. 4 0. 2 $38. 3 I 2 .4X $0 0 0 0 1.9 2. 0 0 0 $3.9 1 .3% %35 .6 4. 3 14.5 9. 8 4.7 6. 0 3. 3 3. 3 $81. 5 26. 3% 532.8 2. l b 9. 8 I 30.0 2. 9 3.0 1. 4 b 1. 7 b $184. 9 59.8 $ 596.6 7.4 32.0 I 40.4 10. 3 1 I .0 6. 5 5. 2 $309. 4 100. ox - ---- ---- -- ---------====----------------------------------------------------------------. -- --- -. -- -_--

PAGE 18

l~blc l-3.Feder~l Ml) Expenditures for Each Infrastructure Type tY 1985-87 (3-Years) Spending (in mltl ions of dollars) (or Construction Technologie s tldslc Research to Improve Adv~nced Incremental Research Design, Ev~luations, Other Rl$l) ~a~ For RaO And/or Needs Analyses Re>edrch Tota l -..---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------l)dnb .5 1.8 1.9 11.0 4. 4 19. 4 Wdlcf supply Sybtclnb 3 4 1. 9 6. 7 6. 7 16. 0 Sewer Sy>tem> 3 2. 9 3. 9 9. 4 5. 6 22. 1 Iligtlwijy> tiIId OIl)ef liu{~dways 6 8. 0 1. 9 28. 3 146. 6 185. 0 of Idgeb .4 3. 6 1. 9 12.1 5. 0 23. 0 Iufllicl > 3 .4 1.9 4. 6 2.1 9. 3 Wdlclwdyb, including ioi t> 5 23. 7 1. 9 31. 7 27. 0 84. 1 --~---=============== === ===== ==== ===== = ============================ = ================== = -__ --__ --_ = -=---=-_- --n iXI-!(~tlC> d II unkl~uwl) ~ \ IIIIII I II l ot expc[ld i t ures Ior State Hf&R projects; however these expenditures are no t fo r ~oil>tructlon teclinologlc ~. tk) i c : t igures mdy fm t CIdd tl<)( izul~tdlly tIecdube of rounding and dre not added vertically bec~us e > I 911 I f I Cdll t dlllLMIll I s (J t bpc IIct i ng dpp I y 10 more t t~dn one type of i n f r db t r uc t ure. Md t er i d I s c XDCIId i t UI C > df G I I It. I 11 dc d

PAGE 19

. Due to a number of institutional and economic constraints, research that would be considered advanced in industries such as chemicals and electronics generally is not undertaken by the infrastructure-related industries in the United States. Therefore, the low levels of private R&D funding contrast markedly kets. For example, the chemical nues for R&D, while the motor with industries that sell defined products in commercial marand electrical industries each spend about 4.3 percent of revevehicle industry spends about 3.2 percent. However, R&D is proportionately lower for the electric utilities industry (0.4 percent of sales), which is a regulated monopoly but does cooperative integrated research, and for the mining and minerals industry ( 1.5 percent), which currently is depressed. Table 1-4 shows other comparisons. CONSTRUCTION R&D PROGRAMS For this analysis, OTA divided R&D on construction technologies into five categories: Advanced R&D; basic research; incremental R&D; research to improve design, evaluations, and 15 These are defined as follows: needs (i.e., system capacity) analyses; and other research. Advanced R&D leads to a major realignment of how things are done or what product results, and brings substantial benefits in cost and quality. Two relevant examples are the introduction of tunnel-boring machines for transit construction and the use of computers in construction. These types of change make possible what would formerly have been unrealistic.l G Of the agencies using Federal funds, only the National Bureau of Standards and the National Science Foundation (NSF) have spent substantial sums on advanced R&D. Less than 0.2 percent of all Federal infrastructure construction research dollars are spent in this category. Incremental R&D brings about gradual and continual improvements and innovations for existing materials, processes, or pieces of machinery. The collective impact over time of these 15 Materials-related R&D wa!j nOt SO fXISy to categorize. Frequently one project would include elements of two or more of these categories. Therefore, in tables 1-2 and 1-3, much of infrastructure materials R&D is included in other research. 16 Research Needs in Transportation Facilities: Guideway Technology and Materials Research, Transportation Research, vol. 19A, No. 5/6, 1985. 1-10

PAGE 20

Table l-4.-Private Sector R&D Expenditures Per Gross Sales R&D Expenditures Industry (As a Percentage of Gross Revenues) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Aircraft and Missiles 4. 2 Electrical Equipment 4.3 Machinery 5.2 Chemicals and Allied Products 4.3 Motor Vehicles 3.2 Metals and Mining l.s a Electric Utilities (Investor-owned) 0.42 b Construction <0.33 C ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a 1985 estimate from Business Week, R&D Scoreboard, June 23, 1986, pp. 139156. b Sherman Feher, Planning Analyst, Electric Power Research Institute, personal communication, Apr. 28, 1987. c OTA estimate for construction expenditures in 1985. According to NSF, the y receive too few responses to their annual survey from construction firms to provide reliable expenditure figures Source : 1984 estimate from National Science Foundation, National Patterns of Science and Technology Resources 1986, NSF 86-309 (Washington, DC: 1986), p. 56, except as noted.

PAGE 21

improvements is progress in the quality and service life or costs of the technologies. The Corps of Engineers, Federal Highway Administration, and NSF are the major supporters of this type of research. About 12.4 percent of total Federal infrastructure construction research dollars are spent on this type of research. Basic research encompasses work aimed at new techniques essential for technology development, and does not address applications. The National Bureau of Standards project on building data protocols is an example. About 1.3 percent of Federal research dollars are spent here. Research to improve design, evaluations, and needs analyses includes construction-related research that results in choices or applications among known and available technologies. This research does not advance infrastructure construction technologies, but can lead to more efficient and cost-effective results from known construction technologies. All Federally-funded research programs support this kind of research, which accounts for roughly 26 percent of Federal infrastructure research dollars. Other research includes projects such as management systems and administrative studies, feasibility analyses, demonstrations, and transfer or dissemination efforts. All Federally-funded research programs also support this kind of research, which receives almost 50 percent of Federal infrastructure construction R&D dollars (i.e., excluding the materials research included in this category in tables 1-2 and 1-3). Although the activities designated other research are valuable, the allocation of almost half of the available Federal construction R&D resources to research that does not lead to technological advances is a fact that Congress may wish to examine carefully. They also should consider reexamining the small size of Federal expenditures--14 percent--for advanced, incremental, and basic R&D, which has the greatest potential for advances in infrastructure technologies, and therefore the largest benefits. 1-11

PAGE 22

MATERIALS R&D PRO GRAMS Based on our brief survey, OTA estimates total to $62 million in FY86, with around $35-$37 million materials-related R&D to be $53 million coming from Federal agencies and programs and the remainder from nonfederal sources. Nearly half of the Federal materials R&D (around $17 million in FY86) is sponsored by the Department of Transportation (DOT). Within DOT, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) conducts research on pavement performance, and evaluates new or improved materials for highway and bridge construction, repair, and corrosion protection. FHWA also participates in two Federal-State cooperative R&D programs-the Highway Planning and Research Program and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program. The second largest chunk of Federal materials R&D for public works comes from the Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers ($12 -!$13 million). The Corps research program supports their responsibilities for construction and maintenance of water resource projects, dams, locks, waterways, ports, flood control projects, and military support facilities. The latter includes demonstration projects on energy conservation, building maintenance and repair, pavements, railroad maintenance, wastewater treatment, etc. The Corps research is carried out at dedicated laboratories. Other Federal research efforts include: The Environmental Protection Agency funds R&D on drinking water quality and waste water treatment to support its program and regulatory responsibilities under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act (less than $3 million in FY86); The National Bureau of Standards conducts basic research intended to advance the fundamental understanding of materials characteristics, composition, and performance, as well as projects designed to develop standardized testing methods and equipment (around $2.4 million in FY86); The National Science Foundation is a major source of funding for university and other private sector research in civil and chemical engineering, primarily under their programs related to structures and materials engineering (around $1 mil lion); The Bureau of Reclamation within the performance of cement and concrete 1-12 Department of the Interior researches the in dams, canals, and line pipe; corrosion

PAGE 23

prevention for metals and concrete; and materials evaluation methods (around $1 million); and -The U.S. Forest Service is the central source of R&D in the US. for low-volume roads, which $200,000). are a major part of the public roads system in rural areas (around Of the $18 million to $25 million spent annually on nonfederal materials R&D for public works, around 60 to 65 percent is related to highways, roads, and bridges. This is funded by State and local governments and regional transit agencies, as well as professional organizations and trade associations and their affiliated research foundations (e.g., the American Public Works Association or the Asphalt Institute). The major materials of interest in this research are cement and concrete, asphalt, steel and other structural and reinforcing materials, protective coatings, sand and gravel, surface treatments, de-icing substances, and geotextiles.1 7 Materials are an important cost component in sewer construction and maintenance, and the larger municipal sanitary districts are a significant source of funding for materials-related research for sewers and wastewater treatment systems. Other sponsors include professional and trade associations; engineering, consulting, and construction firms; and equipment and materials suppliers. Together, these groups spend approximately $3 to $5 million annually on wastewater R&D. Another $1 million in nonfederal funds for materials R&D is devoted to water supply and treatment, primarily by local governments. The major concerns are: the mechanics of internal and external corrosion; the long-term performance of system materials for pipes (concrete, plastic, ceramics, masonry, iron, lead, steel, copper, etc.), pipe foundations and liners, and seals; maintenance requirements and technologies; methods of failure prediction; nondestructive evaluation techniques; and the effects of materials and water additives on water quality and SyS tem durability. 17 Geotextiles are ~~oven and nonwover synthetic fabrics used in geotechnical applications (see chapter seven). 1-13

PAGE 24

Finally, around $100,000 to $500,000 projects, waterways, and ports. The primary gate, pipes, coatings, geotextiles, membranes, is spent annually on materials for water resource materials of interest here--concrete, stone, aggreliners, filters, als--are shared with other infrastructure types. Moreover, large and costly projects rests with the Federal government. and structural and reinforcing metthe primary responsibility for these HOW DOES DOMESTIC PUBLIC WORKS R&D COMPARE TO RESEARCH EFFORTS ABROAD? Comparing infrastructure R&D expenditures in the United States to those abroad is difficult because the funding processes and programs are so different. Government research support in dollars is not markedly lower in the U.S. than abroad, but foreign governments play a much more active role in facilitating R&D and in bringing technical innovations into common practice. Successful development of construction materials and technologies, and their incorporation in public works projects, require a which are lacking in the United States. work the bugs out of theory and move favorable climate and appropriate incentives--both of Strong incentives are available in other countries to new ideas to the marketplace. In both Japan and Europe, for example, the governments encourage innovation and development through tax incentives or matching funds, and through flexible bidding concepts. Governmentindustry co-funding assures a companys willingness to commercialize results after research is completed. West Germany, for example, makes public grants available for the introduction of promising innovations into commercial markets. Also in Germany, special linker organizations facilitate innovation by expediting the flow of technical information and contributing to the stimulation of 1-14

PAGE 25

., new ideas The Japanese government also has agencies that coordinate research and dissemi. nate information. Also, relative to materials R&D, few U.S. universities have construction-related materials programs, and many civil engineers have little or no training in materials science. The opposite is true in Europe and An integrated structure projects by Japan where specialty engineers receive cross-disciplinary training.l g approach to design, engineering, and construction would benefit infraidentifying optimal technologies and materials for specific projects. An integrated approach also would help facilitate the transfer of information more readily. Although the U.S. is not presently pursuing this approach in any organized manner, other developed nations have established integrated research programs, such as Switzerlands efforts in concrete technology .20 WHAT ARE THE CONSTRAINTS ON EFFECTIVE R&D FOR PUBLIC WORKS IN THE U. S.? The nature and effectiveness of R&D depend heavily on the environment within which new technologies and materials will be implemented. Americas continuing inventive abilities are unquestionable, yet OTA found numerous institutional and economic factors that mitigate against increased R&D spending, make the available research dollars less cost-effective, and inhibit the adoption of advanced construction technologies and materials in public works projects. Over the long-term, this will mean increased construction, repair, and maintenance costs fo r public works agencies. 18 Sherman Gee, Techno]o~v Transfer. Innovation and International CTll13etitivelleSS, New yor~: J. Wiley & Sons, 1981. 19 Daniel \Vo Halp in, TeC h no]o~v i n ~ rc h i teCtU re. E n.~ i neer i n ~ l and Construction (Contractor Report to OT.A, Tasks 1 and 2, Chapters 8 and 13, Nlarch 17, 1986. 20 Ibid., chapter 8. 1-15

PAGE 26

First, no national goals for public works infrastructure have been set, making it difficult to determine an optimum amount for Federal R& D expenditures. R&D has increased productivity in the past, and it is conventional wisdom that more R&D would improve productivity in the future. Within the public works context, however, productivity does not necessarily mean preparing materials or building structures more cheaply or with fewer workers, but may refer to the capacity or reliability of the system. Therefore, a redefinition of productivity goals for public works may help set public spending priorities. For example, some advances in materials and construction technologies, such as off-site road or bridge construction, simply move the time spent in materials preparation and handling to another location. However, off-site construction does shorten the time a road or bridge must be taken out of service for repairs, and thus increases the productivity of the transportation system markedly. This increase in productivity does not accrue large benefits to the industry, but it benefits the public tremendously. Thus it is probably appropriate that the public, through government expenditures, support R&D to increase the productivity of its vital systems. Second, in order to make the limited R&D funding that is available more cost-effective, the research agenda needs to be targeted more directly to national needs. The initial step is determining what the most critical needs are. This is especially important for water supply and sewage and wastewater treatment systems, which traditionally have been local government responsibilities, and in which the R&D is more fragmented than other infrastructure types where the Federal role is larger. This would not require an exhaustive inventory of the condition of public works, but could be based on a for various types of public works about gic Highway Research Program (SHRP) survey of Federal, State and local agencies responsible their most pressing problems. For example, the Strate began with a two-year planning and assessment process to further define gaps in current knowledge. A similar assessment for other infrastructure types (e.g., water supply, wastewater systems) could eliminate duplication in research efforts and facilitate coordination of projects, and thus get more bang out of the limited bucks available. 1-16

PAGE 27

Innovation centers also can bean excellent means of targeting research. Examples highlighted in this survey include the NSF-funded Engineering Research Centers at Lehigh University, Carnegie-Mellon University, and the University of California at Santa Barbara; the Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois; the two newly-established, Army-funded Centers of Excellence in Building Construction Technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Illinois; and the Air Forces Center for Cement Composite Materials, also at the University of Illinois. The SHRP also is an exemplary Federally-funded program in that it included transportation officials--the usersin the process of setting its goals and priorities. Moreover, it is the only program to focus specifically on one aspect of public works. Although most of these programs are too new to have research results for evaluation, they share three important features: they represent a specific allocation of resources over a period of time for research on construction technology and materials, they require the research group to focus nologies and materials, and they target areas of infrastructure R&D to produce particular cost benefits and provements. on advances in particular kinds of techthat have been identified as being likely advanced or incremental technology imThird, a variety of factors combine to reduce private sector R&D. The industries that vie for public works contracts are sharply competitive and highly fragmented. Numerous small, local firms compete for every public works job. Moreover, foreign firms have begun to show an interest in the U.S. market, making the fight for market share increasingly ferocious. In this environment, and with the threat of merger or takeover hanging over even large companies, firms are forced to cut costs wherever possible to tide them over the irregular nature of public infrastructure spending. This economic climate does not support the large front end costs of developing innovations in construction technology and materials. Also important is the fact that 1-17

PAGE 28

public works construction materials generate a low rate of return and have a long payback period compared to other investments and, consequently, do not contribute much profit that can be allocated to R&D. Finally, there is a general belief in many industries that public works R&D is a governmental responsibility. Fourth, government contracting and procurement policies place significant constraints on the amount of infrastructure R&D and the implementation of research results. The regulatory systems and procurement processes vary for different types of infrastructure. For example, highway construction standards vary according to the sponsoring government and anticipated traffic load. There is no guarantee that a generic innovation a company develops will be acceptable for all types of public works, or even all types of roads. For materials, government agencies typically prescribe key project specifications (e.g., so many inches of a particular form of asphalt). Approval of new specifications or standards is a difficult process because it can be costly for public works suppliers and contractors to change their current materials and practices, and because testing, evaluation, and certification of new construction materials takes a long time. Standard test methods and specifications are vital for ensuring the quality of infrastructure materials and for facilitating the acceptance of new materials, but the development of good standards requires a lot of research. Federally-supported and other research to provide the basis for materials standards has been decreasing, which is a serious concern for materials innovation. 2 1 Further, the contracting process itself is keyed to low bids. However, that process typically does not consider any potential long-term savings from reduced maintenance and repair costs. Because new materiaIs and construction methods often hav-e a higher capital cost than conventional ones, contractors are unlikely to propose their use for fear of losing the job. Also, 21 personal communication t. OTA by Geoffrey Frohnsdorff, Chief, Building Materials Division, National Bureau of Standards Center for Building Technology, June 1987. 1-18

PAGE 29

existing life-cycle costing methods are not perceived to be sufficiently accurate to support procurement based on long-term performance. Fifth, governments and corporations also perceive a high level of risk in using new infrastructure materials and construction methods. People place a high premium on the reliability of public works. If advanced technologies or materials turn out to be less effective than anticipated, the political and economic costs of repair or replacement can be high. At the extreme, there is a risk of personal injury or property damage liability in the event of system failure. Sixth, because of the number of agencies and organizations that conduct R&D, and the problem-oriented nature of much of the research, information flow among the researchers is limited. Trade and professional associations, journals, and conferences provide identification of research needs and priorities and the dissemination of research ever, the processes for information exchange among and between these groups forums for the results. Howare haphazard. OTA found that, despite sporadic efforts at coordination, even Federal agencies do not share research results with each other on a systematic basis. Professional societies provide for interaction to the extent that individuals may be members of more than one group. Trade associations often do not have even that small link. Corporations often treat information on their research as proprietary and do not release it. A related problem is the slow rate at which new or advanced materials and technology are accepted by government agencies, architects/engineers, and contractors for incorporation into public works projects. The lack of information exchange probably accounts for at least some of the snails pace at which innovations are adopted in the United States. However, (3TA concludes that a significant increase in information dissemination would not necessarily speed the diffusion of R&D results without programs to address the economic and institutional barriers discussed previously. AS a result of the limited funding of infrastructure materials R&D, inadequate information and technology transfer, and procurement practices and perceptions of risk, there are gaps 1-19

PAGE 30

in the R&D agenda. These take the form of mismatches between R&D projects and public works needs, and of inadequate research on particular materials and technologies and their value in individual projects, and on evaluating tradeoffs between construction, maintenance, repair, and replacement. These are all difficult and complex problems, and are not likely to be tackled by the private sector alone. In terms of basic research, the gaps in infrastructure R&D are substantial. There is almost no research on, or expectation of profit from, research toward developing totally new methods of delivering transportation, water supply, and wastewater disposal services. There even is little basic research on new materials, such as a totally new material for building roads. Moreover, few agencies or organizations are researching the public vanced technologies and materials (e. g., ceramics and composites) that works applications of adwere not developed speci fically tion. 22 for infrastructure. OTA also identified numerous issues related to public works that need further exploraAmong them are: Analysis of the interrelationships among design and construction and materials, Further study of the government procurement and contracting processes to determine the extent to which they pose barriers to technology diffusion, An in-depth look at the relative costs and benefits of design versus performance standards in public works procurement, Development of certification standards for acceptance of new construction materials and technologies to facilitate their use in public works, Identification of legal issues related to liability and shared risk, Development of improved life-cycle costing methods for use in public works procurement, Analysis of the tradeoffs among expenditures for maintenance versus repair versus new construction or replacement and how those trade-offs might be affected by the capital and maintenance costs of new 22 Specific research needs for construction technologies chapters five and eleven, respectively. technologies and materials, and for materials may be found in 1-2 0

PAGE 31

Analysis of means for facilitating the international exchange of information about construction technologies and materials R&D for all types of public works projects, and -Analysis of the return on investment for private sector R&D on infrastructure construction technologies and materials.

PAGE 32

-1 x m z > -1 0 z (n TJ x (n n o z Ln i m c n -1 0 z n n x + z o z +

PAGE 33

CONSTRUCTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR THE NATIONS PUBLIC WORKS TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 2: Federally Supported Research and Development on Public Works Infrastructure Construction Chapter 3: Construction Research and Developmentin the Private Sector Case Study The Complex Process of Implementing an Infrastructure Innovation Chapter 4: Construction R&D Programs in Other Industries and in Foreign Countries Chapter 5: Institutional and Policy Issues for Construction R&D Case Study Japanese Institutions-A Contrast and A Challenge

PAGE 34

CHAPTER TWO FEDERALLY SUPPORTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ON PUBLIC WORKS INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION The Nations transportation and water resources and wastewater treatment systems are essential to the frastructure in functioning of physical and economic well-being of the country. In general, public works inthe United States has stood up well, permitting us to take the smooth and safe these systems for granted until such unexpected tragedies as the collapse of the New York Thruway bridge earlier this year, We are currently faced with the need to maintain, repair, and reconstruct the existing systems to make them endure, or to develop new technologies that will enable us to replace them with more efficient and effective systems. To increase our understanding of how to meet these challenges, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works asked the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to address questions related to the magnitude and effectiveness of addressed these questions through a ture construction technologies R&D R&D spending in the public and private sectors. OTA has two-part staff paper, with this part focusing on infrastrucand the part following on infrastructure materials R&D. BACKGROUND: PUBLIC WORKS INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION More than one million companies participate in the $400 billion construction market in the United States; public works construction accounts for 25 percent of this market. While only 1,000 of the construction companies play a major role in public works construction, even they are likely to concentrate on particular types of facilities, such as waste w at e r systems or highways and bridges, rather than on the spectrum of public works. Research and Development (R&D) funding is splintered among the numerous Federal agencies, universities, and private 2-1

PAGE 35

companies. Most of these groups do not coordinate R&D projects with other groups. 1 Th e environment for public works infrastructure R&D is fragmented and disparate, and the level of R&D support in each fragment is small. Such a situation speaks to the overwhelming need for addressing the multitude of institutional, economic, and industrial barriers to moving technological innovations into widespread use and enabling the Nation to enjoy the benefits. METHODOLOGY Early in its investigation, OTA found that no comprehensive database existed for evaluating federally or privately funded research and development (R&D) undertaken in the United States to advance construction technologies for public works infrastructure 2 Compiling such a database thus became the first step in obtaining a snapshot view of federally-funded research that the administering agencies consider to be R&D on infrastructure technologies. Five Federal agencies and one non-Federal organization relying on Federal funds were identified as having principal responsibilities and activities for public works infrastructure construction research. The five Federal agencies include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation of the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) of the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the National Science Foundation (NSF). The non-Federal organization is the Transportation Research Board (TRB), part of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also funds research related to materials (see chapter eight). 1 Henry L. Michel, President and CEO, Parsons, Brinckerhoff Inc,. personal communication, May 18, 1987, and John C. Richards, M.W. Kellogg Company, personal communication, May 24, 1987. 2 Public works infrastructure construction technologies, as used throughout this study, refers to technologies applicable to reconstruction, maintenance, and repair, as well as new construction. 2-2

PAGE 36

OTA also contacted other Federal agencies, including the Naval Facilities Engineering Command and the Tennessee Valley Authority, and they did provide information. However, these agencies were omitted from analysis because their research on infrastructure construction was relatively small in an overall national view. Other agencies not contacted in the limited time available about their construction R&D programs include the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture, and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration in the U.S. Department of Transportation. In addition to creating a database to cover the above organizations, OTA investigated four other organizations: one new Federal program and new, federally-funded programs at three universities. These programs are special cases, important because of their possible future impacts and because they are examples of a different approach to infrastructure R&D and related research in the United States. In assembling these data OTA found that federally-funded research for public works infrastructure construction is fragmented and widely dispersed within as well as outside the Federal Government. Moreover, because no central clearinghouse exists for recording what and where federally-funded infrastructure research is being done, 3 creating a comprehensive and exhaustive report was not possible. However, we are confident that we have accurately captured the bulk of Federal spending, and that our sources are representative of the allocation of Federal dollars. The six organizations named above were requested to provide short descriptions and funding amounts of all infrastructure R&D projects completed or ongoing in fiscal years 1985, 1986, and 1987. Three years of expenditures were requested to determine whether significant recent upward or downward trends were apparent. OTA did not find such trends over the past 3 A coordinating committee composed of the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs does meet to discuss research programs and coordinate research among these agencies. 2-3

PAGE 37

three years; however the past ten years, Federal research dollars have declined substantially for the types of research of interest here. The organizations were asked to list the projects applying to each infrastructure type, 4 and to include all projects they considered R&D. For doubtful cases, they were asked to In the absence of information furnished by include rather than omit projects. other reliable and comprehensive sources, OTA relied entirely on the the six organizations. Then, using the project descriptions, OTA classified each of the projects as belonging to one of the categories defined below for each infrastructure type for new construction, reconstruction or repair, or routine maintenance. In cases of mixed activities and uncertainty about what projects consisted of, projects were assigned to their probable classification nearest to advanced R&D. A few projects reported by Federal agencies in their budget numbers were omitted by OTA, because they did not appear germane. To avoid skewed conclusions from an atypical year, OTA aggregated the data to obtain a combined 3-fiscal year snapshot. PROJECT CLASSIFICATION The categories of the project classification include advanced and incremental R&D; basic research for R&D; information to improve design, evaluations, and needs analysis; and other re search. Advanced and Incremental R&D Advanced and incremental R&D may be defined in two ways. The first is on a general or conceptual basis, distinguishing evolutionary from revolutionary changes in technology. Professor Fred Moavenzadeh, Director of the Center for Construction Research and Education at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.l.T. ), states this best: 5 4 Dams, water supply systems, waste water treatment, highways, bridges, tunnels, and waterways. 5 Fred Moavenzadeh, Research Needs in Transportation Facilities: Guideway Technology and Materials Research, Transportation Research, vol. 19A, No. 5/6, 1985, p. 502. 2-4

PAGE 38

Incremental vs. quantum change. There are two types of change with respect to technology One is a gradual change in which improvements and innovations are continually being made to an existing material, process, piece of machinery. The collective impact of these improvements is progress in the quality or costs this process of gradual improvement must be continued. The second type of change is much more dramatic: it involves a radical realignment of how things are done or what product results, and it is pervasive in that its substantial benefits in costs and quality convince entire markets of its acceptability. Some examples of this type of change include the replacement of animalpowered road construction gangs with mechanized crews in the 1920s, the introduction of tunnel-boring machines for transit construction, and the use of computers for construction The impact of these types of changes is to make possible what would formerly have been unrealistic or not affordable. The second way to distinguish the two types of R&D is to identify the areas that experts agree have potential for great advances, Improvements in the remaining areas belong in the incremental category. OTA found agreement among the sources consulted that the following areas should be considered advanced R&D for infrastructure construction technology: o Robotics and automation in onsite construction. o Computer applications (including knowledge-based systems and artificial intelligence) linking and improving entire processes of engineering and design, construction management, and subsequent facilities maintenance and management. o Advanced materials, especially in the area of so-called engineered, or exotic, materials. Examples of advanced R&D include: the NBS project on ultra-high strength concrete, applicable to all seven infrastructure types, will apply material science concepts toward ultrahigh-strength concrete (compressive strength greater than 30,000 psi). The project will also investigate the feasibility of casting and of developing ultra-high-strength concrete by high -pres sure compaction. A series of high-strength concretes will their strength will be identified. A second example is the mentitious composites technology, applicable to highways. be designed NSF project This project and the factors limiting on fiber reinforced ce will investigate the ad2-5

PAGE 39

dition of small fibers to the concrete in an effort to make concrete last longer for pavements. Some fibers under consideration are: steel, glass, nylon, carbon, kevlar, and polyethylene. OTA did not find really good examples of advanced R&D in construction technologies among the Federal programs. Furthermore, while these examples of materials projects represent advanced research in the context of public works, they are not real examples of advanced materials research such as that carried out in the aerospace industries. An example of incremental R&D is the Corps of Engineers program on repair, evaluation, maintenance, and rehabilitation, applicable to waterways and ports. In this program the Corps will identify and where necessary develop effective and affordable technology for maintaining and where possible extending the service life of Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects. Another example is the FHWA project on bridge rehabilitation technology, which will focus on developing nondestructive techniques for inspecting highway bridge members during fabrication and service. Basic Research for R&D Basic research for R&D encompasses projects that clearly aim at new or improved knowledge or techniques that are useful or essential for infrastructure construction technology development. This category does not include research on applications. In this category are the many projects of the NBS that meet the criteria of research but not the development of infrastructure R&D, especially projects associated with advanced R&D. An example of basic research for R&D is the NBS project on building data protocols, applicable to all seven infrastructure types. According to the NBS, the projects goal is to establish the technical basis for information exchange standards because rational techniques for describing building practices and elements are needed to establish the technical basis for information interchange standards that will support computer integration. 2-6

PAGE 40

Research to Improve Desire, Evaluations, and Needs Analyses Projects that result in choices or applications among known and available technologies of infrastructure construction are considered research to improve design, evaluation, and needs analyses. Such projects are related to infrastructure construction technology in important ways, but the research done is not developmental and does not advance these technologies. Instead, most of the projects aim at knowledge or techniques that manipulate existing and available construction technologies to obtain more appropriate, more efficient, more cost-effective, or better quality infrastructure results. Some projects aim to improve methods of analyzing when infrastructure work is needed for safety or other technical reasons. Projects in this category may include R&D, such as for nondestructive testing important for evaluations, or for expert computer systems or other computer applications for design, evaluations, or needs analyses, but they do not lead to advanced infrastructure construction technologies. One example of such research is the Corps of Engineers program on structural engineering, applicable to dams. This program will improve (1) structural engineering practices in Computer Aided Structural Engineering (CASE); (2) the strength design of conduits, floating breakwaters, soil-structure interactions; (3) the seismic response of concrete dams; and (4) the structural behavior of sheet piles. Of particular importance will be case studies that develop new or adapt existing computer programs for design and analysis. A second example is the FHWA project on large truck safety, applicable to highways, Goals of this project are to determine the impact of increases in allowable truck size and weight limits on highway safety; to identify truck safety problems related to highway design or operation; and to develop cost-effective solutions to highway-related truck safety problems. Other Research Other research is a miscellaneous category of projects that are infrastructure-related but do not focus on construction technologies. The category includes management systems or other administration studies, feasibility studies, contract acceptance criteria studies, demonstra-

PAGE 41

tions, transfer or dissemination efforts, conferences and workshops, and technical assistance. An example of such research is the Corps of Engineers program on environmental impact, applicable to waterways, including ports. The program was established to develop, verify, and document user-oriented impact prediction and assessment techniques, to document and quantify environmental effects; and to develop practical engineering and resource management strategies. A second example is the FHWA project on safety and traffic control devices, applicable to highways. This project supports the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices by providing R&D for signs, signals, and markings to establish and implement safety standards and to improve traffic control devices. FEDERAL AGENCY EXPENDITURES Five Federal agencies have responsibility for the majority of infrastructure construction R&D expenditures. EPA expenditures relate primarily to materials used in water quality and supply infrastructure (see chapter eight). The Corm o f Engineers The Army Corps of Engineers has a military research program that focuses on buildings for the military and a civilian program. OTA examined only the latter for this study. During the three fiscal years examined for this study, the Corps of Engineers spent $96.6 million (from funds appropriated to the Corps) for infrastructure research on dams, water supply and sewer systems, waterways, and highway s-by far the largest total amount spent for such purposes by any of the Federal agencies or non-Federal organizations (see table 21). (The laboratories administered by the Corps also do reimbursable work for other Federal agencies, so total Corps spending was substantially greater than the directly appropriated funds. ) The Corps spent more appropriated funds on four infrastructure types --dams, water supply systems, sewer systems, and waterways --than did any of the other organizations. Nevertheless, table 2-1 shows that Corps spending was highly concentrated. More than three-quarters of the $96,6 million was spent on waterways infrastructure research. 2-8

PAGE 42

TABLE 2-1.-Corps of Engineer s FY 1985-87 (3-Years) Spending (in thousands of dollars) For Construction Technologie s Research to Improve Advanced Incrementa l Design, Evaluations Othe r R&D R&D and/or Needs Analyses Research Tota l -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dams $0 $ 1,02 5 $ 5,015 $ 1,410 $ 7,450 Water Supply Systems o 0 2,565 4,37 0 a 6,935 Waterway5 o 23,350 26,968 23,33 9 a 73,657 Mi I itary Spending with Civil Applic~tion> : Sewer Sy5tems o 2,51 7 0 385 2,902 Highway s o 1,351 1;39 3 3,62 9 6,37 3 IOIAL $0 $28,24 3 $35,59 6 b $32,75 8 b $96,59 7 b PERCENT DISIRltlUllON O.o j 29.2% 36.8% 34.0% Ioo.o x ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a lncludes some bd51L I__t?Sf3df_Ch u~eful for R&D of constructive technologies. b Figure omits dupl SOURCE: Office of cate spending ot projects relevant to more than one infrastructure type Technology Assessment.

PAGE 43

The Corps did no advanced R&D for any of the infrastructure types. Incremental R&D received 29 percent of Corps infrastructure research spending. Research adaptations of known and available technologies for design, evaluations, or needs analyses received about two-thirds-the largest share of Corps spending. Other research received a little more than one-third of Corps infrastructure research spending. Also important is the proportion of the Corps designated R&D spending that went for infrastructure research (see table 2-2). Corps-appropriated funds designated for R&D amounted to $263.7 million for the three fiscal years. Of this total, 36 percent was spent for infrastructure research, and OTA concludes that only about 10.6 percent can be considered spending on R&D to improve infrastructure construction technologies. During the three fiscal years, the Corps spent $12.9 billion on actual construction. Table 2-2 shows that the Corps 0.004 percent on R&D to spent less than one percent of this sum on infrastructure research and improve infrastructure construction technologies. Bureau of Reclamation The Bureau of Reclamation spent $7.4 million during the three fiscal years for research on five infrastructure types --dams, water supply systems, bridges, tunnels, and waterways (see table 2-3). More than one-half of this total (57 percent) was spent for research on dams. Like the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau did no advanced R&D for any of the infrastructure types. Table 2-3 shows that less than five percent of the bureaus spending for infrastructure research was devoted to incremental R&D. The largest proportion (59 percent) was spent for design, evaluations, and needs analyses research relying on known and available infrastructure construction technologies. The remainder (37 percent) was spent for other research. The Bureaus line-item research programs were funded at a total of $33.3 million for the three fiscal years (see table 2-4). Spending for infrastructure research amounted to approximately 22 percent of this total, and spending for R&D on construction technologies amounted to less than one percent. Table 2-4 shows that the Bureaus spending for R&D on 2-9

PAGE 44

Table 2-2-Corps of Engineers Comparisons FY 1985-87 (3-Years) Designated as R&D Construction Dollar s Percent Dollar s Percen t a (in millions ) (in millions ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Total Spending $263.7 100.0% $12,853. 7 100.0% Spending for Research on Included Infrastructure Types: On Construction Technologies: Advanced R&D Incremental R&D $0 28.2 0.0% 10.6 0.0% 0.2 Research to Improve Designs, Evaluations, and/or Needs Analyses 35.6 13.3 003 Other Research 33.8 12.7 0. 3 Total Research $94.8 36.6% 0.8% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: Figure include both civil and military spending and may not add because of rounding. as ending for research on included infrastructure P types as percentages of the totals of spending in the 3 fiscal years. SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

PAGE 45

Table 2-3. -i3ureau of Reclamation FY 1985-87 (3-YEARS) Spending (in thousands of dollars ) For Construction Technologies Research to Improve Adv~nced Incremental Design, Evaluations, Other R&D R&D And/or Needs Analyses Research Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dams Walter Supp Wdterwayb Highways al Bridge s TOTAL y Sys d Oth $0 $330 $2,714 $1,128 $4,172 ems o 0 430 55 485 0 0 61 0 61 r Ro~dwdys o 0 60 0 60 0 0 1,126 1 ,509 a 2,635 $0 $330 $4,33 1 b $2,69 2 b $7,35 3 b PERCENT DISTRIBUTION O.ox 4.5 $ 58.9% 36.6% 100.0% === ======= === ===== ====== ===== === ===== ==== === ========= ==== ==== ==== == ================================================= Includes some basic research useful for R&D of constructive technologies b Figure omits duplicate spending of projects relevant to more than one infrastructure SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

PAGE 46

Table 2-4.-9ureau of Reclamation Comparisons FY 1985-87 (3-Years) Spending Designated as Research Total Agency Budgets Construction Dollar s Percen t a Dollar s Percen t a DolIar s Percen t a (in millions ) (in millions ) (in millions ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total Spending S33.3 loo. % $2,965. 8 100.0 $ $1 ,976.9 100.0% 0.0% 0.01 0.0% 0.02 Spending for Research on Included Infrastructure Types: On Construction Technologies Advanced R&D) $0.0 O.o% Incremental R&D 3 0. 8 Research to Improve Designs, Evaluation s and/or Needs Analyses 4. 3 11. 0 0.1 4 0. 2 Other Research 2. 7 6. 9 0.0 9 0. 1 Total Research $7. 4 22.1% 0.3% 0.4% ===== ==== ==== ==== .--= ==== ===== ===== ===== ==== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== == ================================================= Note: Figures may not add because of rounding. Spending for research on included infrastructure types as percentages of the totals of spendin g in th e b The f SOURCE 3 fiscal years gure shown is for budget outlays Office of Technology Assessment.

PAGE 47

infrastructure construction technologies amounted to 0.01 one percent of the Bureaus total budgets for the three fiscal years and 0.02 percent of the Bureaus spending on actual construction. Federal Hihway Aministration During the three fiscal years, FHWA spent $32.0 million on infrastructure research on highways and bridges. As might be expected, FHWA spent the largest proportion (77 percent) of this total on highway research and the remaining proportion on bridge research (see table 25). FHWA expenditures were the largest amounts spent by any of the organizations on each of these two infrastructure types. Like the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, FHWA did no advanced R&D. Incremental R&D received about one-quarter (24 percent) of FHWAs spending for infrastructure research. Table 2-5 shows that the largest proportion (45 percent) of FHWAS spending for infrastructure research was devoted to design, evaluations, or needs analyses contributing to uses but not advances in known and available infrastructure construction technologies. Other research not considered infrastructure construction researcher development received nearly 31 percent of the FHWAS infrastructure research spending. FHWA spending identified as RDT (Research, Development, and Technology) amounted to a total of $59,2 million for the three fiscal years (see table 2-6). Spending for infrastructure research accounted for more than half (54 percent) of this total. However, spending for R&D to improve construction technologies amounted to only 13 percent of the RDT spending and 1.3 percent of FHWAS budget total for the three fiscal years. It is estimated that total public sector spending in the United States on capital outlays for construction of highways and bridges during the three fiscal years amounted to S74.6 billion (see table 2-6). FHWAs spending for R& Dto advance construction technologies (!$7,7 million) amounted to 0.01 percent of this capital outlay total. 2-10

PAGE 48

Table 2-5.Federal Highway Administration FY 1985-87 (3-Years) Spending (in thousands of dollars) For Construction Technologie s Research to Improve Advanced Incremental Design, Evaluations Othe r R&D R&D And/or Needs Analyses Research TOTAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Highway s $0 $5,26 4 $9,63 5 $9,77 7 $24,67 6 Bridge s o 2,46 9 4,88 7 0 7,35 6 IOIAL $0 $7,73 3 $14,52 2 $9,77 7 $32,03 2 PERCENT DISrRIEkJllON O o o i 24.?% 45.3% 30.5% 100.0% c-=============== = ====.---===========-======= ==== ===== ===== ==== ================================================= --x Excludes HP&R pfogr~m re>earch by St~tes. SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

PAGE 49

lable 2-6.Federal Highway Administrations Comparisons FY 1985-87 (3-Years) Spending Designated as Total Public Sector Spending in th e Research Development U.S. on Capital Outlays fo r and Technology Total Agency Budgets Construction of Highways and Bridges Dollar s Percen t a Dollar s Percen t a Dollar s Percen t a (in mi II ions) (in millions ) (in mill ions ) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tot~l Spending Spending for Re>c~rch on Included Infrastructure Tv~es : $59. 2 100.0% $604. 0 100.0% $74,600. 0 loo.og On Construction technologies: Advanced R&D $ 0 Incremental t&!D 7. 7 0.0% 13.0% 0.0% 1.3% O.ox 0.01 $ Research to Improve Designs, Evaluations and/or Needs Analy5es Other Resedrch 14. 5 24.5% 2.4% 0.02% 9. 8 16.6% 1.6% 0.01% Total Rese~rch $32. 0 54.1% 5.3 $ o.04g ==============.======== ============= ==== ==== ==== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ================================================= Note Exc Figures mtiy not add because of rounding. udes Highwdy Pl~nning ~nd Research (HPtiR) program research by States. a Spending for tk~ecrrch on Included lntrd~tructure Types as percentages of the totals of spending in the 3 fiscdl years SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment

PAGE 50

National Bureau of Standards NBS spent $10.3 million during the three fiscal years on research relevant to the seven infrastructure types, ranking third among the organizations in amount frastructure research (see table 2-7). NBS spent more than any other relevant to tunnels. Unlike the other organizations and consistent with the NBSs of total spending for inorganization on research emphasis on researching basic questions, a very large proportion (93 percent) of the NBSs infrastructure research spending was relevant to more than one infrastructure type and close to three-quarters (73 percent) was relevant to all seven infrastructure types. The largest proportion (46 percent) of the Bureaus infrastructure research spending went to projects classified as design, evaluations, and/or needs analyses. Other research accounted for 29 percent. Construction technologies research-for advanced R&D, incremental R&D, and basic ing. research for R&kD--amounted to 25 percent of the Bureaus infrastructure research spendBasic research for R&D received most of this spending. Spending for infrastructure research accounted for only 1.6 percent of the National Bureau of Standards total budget amount of $645.2 million for the three fiscal years. Table 2-8 also shows that NBS spending relevant to infrastructure construction technologies amounted to less than half of one percent of the total of the agencys budgets for the three fiscal years. National Science Foundation NSF spent $6.5 million for research on the seven infrastructure types (see table 2-9). This ranked NSF fifth among the six organizations in total spending during the three fiscal years. NSF spending was distributed among six of the seven infrastructure types (no research on tunnels was funded). Nevertheless, research on highways and bridges received most of NSFs attention, accounting for 86 percent of its infrastructure research spending. As was true of the other organizations, the largest proportion (51 percent) of NSFs infrastructure research spending went to projects classified as design, evaluations, and/or needs 2-11

PAGE 51

Table 2-7.-National hreau of Standards FY 1985-87 (3-Years) Spending (in thousands of dollars) For Construction Technologies Basic Research to Improve Advanced Incremental Research Design, Evaluations, Other R&D R&D For R&D and/or Needs Analyses Research Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------All 7 Infrastructure Type s $330 $396 $1,867 $3,063 $1,824 $7,480 Dams, Walter Supply dn d Sewer Systems, Tunnels, dlld Waterways only 225 0 255 0 0 0 Highways, Bridge>, Tunnels, dnd kftJtt3rWciy5 only o 275 275 0 0 0 Highwdys, Bridges, dn d Tunnels onl y o 1,204 0 1,204 0 0 Water Supply and S~wer Systems only o 0 0 0 0 0 108 0 100 210 318 575 575 60 160 0 0 0 Bridges onl y Waterways only S2,944 S10,267 28.7% 100.0% $330 3.2% S396 3.9% S1,867 18.2% S4,730 46.0% TOIAL PERCENT DISTRIBUTION --- .-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_-------------=Lz.=============----------------------------------------------------------------------------------SOURCE: Office ot Iechllology Assessment

PAGE 52

Table 2-8.-NationaL Bureau of Standards Comparisons FY 1985-87 (3-Years) Spending Dollars Percent a (in millions) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Total Agency Budget b $645.2 100.0% Soendinz for Research on Included Infrastructure Types: On Construction Technologies: Advanced R&D Incremental R&D Basic Research Research to Improve Designs, Evaluations, and/or Needs Analyses Other Research $ .3 4 1. 9 0.05% 0.06 0.3 4. 7 0. 7 2. 9 0. 5 Total Research $10.3 1.6% ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Notes: Figures may not add because of rounding. a Spending for research on included infrastructure types as percentages of the total of agencys budgets for the 3 fiscal years. b Includes appropriated Unds (56.7%), transfer from other Federal agencies (34.5%), and reimbursable funds received mainly from non-Federal sources (8.8%). SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

PAGE 53

Table 2-9.-National Science Foundation F Y lg85-87 (3-Years) Spending (in thousands of dollars) For Construction Technologie s Research to Improve Advanced Incrementa l Design, Evaluations Othe r RAD RAD and/or Needs Analyses Research Tota l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dams $0 $0 $0 $76 S76 Walter Supply Sybtemh o 0 229 263 a 492 Sewer Systems o 0 0 132 132 Highwdys 273 829 972 199 a 2,273 Bridge s 67 611 1,91 4 72 7 a 3,31 9 Waterways o 0 198 0 198 TOTAL $340 $1,44 0 $3,31 3 $1,39 7 $6,49 0 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION 5.2% 22.2 $ 51.1% 21.5 X 100.0 $ -- _-_________ .---=-== ==== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== = ================================================= a lncludes some bdsic research useful for RtlD of construction technologies SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

PAGE 54

analyses. The second largest spending category R&D for construction technologies accounted for 27 percent of NSFs infrastructure research spending, although all of NSFs R&D projects pertained to highways and bridges. Other research ranked last, but accounted for nearly 22 percent of NSFs infrastructure research spending. NSFs budgets totaled !$4.6 billion for the three fiscal years (see table 2-10). NSFs spending of !36.5 million for infrastructure research amounted to 0.1 percent of this total budget amount. ORGANIZATIONS USING FEDERAL FUNDS Transportation Research Board During the three fiscal years, TRB spent $5.2 million for infrastructure research in projects of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (see table 2-11). Spending was about equally divided for highways and bridges. Research to improve design, evaluations, and needs analyses received close to two-thirds (63.5 percent) of the programs infrastructure research spending. The second largest spending category was for other research. Incremental R&D for construction technologies received only three percent of the programs infrastructure research spending. No funds were spent for advanced R&D on construction technologies. Table 2-12 shows that spending for infrastructure research amounted to less than half (44 percent) of the estimated $11.7 million spent for all research in the Cooperative Highwav Research Program during the three fiscal years. Spending for R&D to advance construction technologies amounted to less than two percent. SDecial Cases and Examr)les Several new infrastructure research programs are briefly described below. The programs are part of the snapshot of current infrastructure research activity because of what R&D they may accomplish in the future and because they are examples of a different approach to infra2-12

PAGE 55

Table 2-10-National Science Foundatio n FY 1985-87 (3-Years) Spending Dollars Percent a (in millions ---------------------------------------------------------------------Total Agency Budget b $4,619. 0 100.0% Spending for Research on Included Infrastructure Types : On Construction Technologies: Advanced R&D Incremental R&D $. 3 1. 4 0.01% 0.03 Research to Improve Designs, Evaluations, and/or Needs Analyses 3.3 0.07 Other Researc 1.4 0.03 Total Research $6.5 0.1% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Notes: Figures may not add because of rounding. a Spending for research on included infrastructure types a s percentages of the total of the agencys budget for 3 fiscal years bE xpen di ture s estimated from allOCatiOIl figures* SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

PAGE 56

Iable 2-il.Transportation Research Board Fy lg85-87 (3-Years) Spending (in thousands of dollars ) For Construction Technologie s Research to Improve Advanced Incrementa l Design, Evaluations Othe r R&D R&D and/or Needs Analyses Research Tota l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Highways $0 $162 $2,25 2 $224 a $2,63 8 Bridge s o 162 1,02 0 1,558 a 2,74 0 IOTAL $0 $162 b $3,27 2 $1,721 b $5,155 b PERCENT DISTRIBUTION O.o i 3.1% 63.5 X 33.4% 100.0 $ =======Z z=z D=. =z==z G=== c=== =------__ Jz===== ==== ==== === ================================================= Includes some b~s b Figure omits dup l SOURCE: Office o f c resedrch ubeful tor R&l) of construction technologies cdte spending of projects relevant to both highways and bridges Technology Assessment.

PAGE 57

Table 2-12.-Transportation Research Boar d FY 1985-87 (3-Years) Spending Dollars Percent a (in millions) Total Estimated Research Expenditures b $11.7 100.0% Spending for Research on Included Infrastructure Types: On Construction Technologies: Advanced R&D $ 0 0.0% Incremental R&D .2 1.7 Research to Improve Designs, Evaluations, and/or Needs Analyses 3. 3 27. 6 Other Research 1.8 15.1 TotalResearc h $5.2 44.4% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Notes: Figures shown are for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Figures do not include funds allocated in fiscal years prior to FY 1985, but spent in FY 1985-87, and may not add because of rounding. a s pe n d i ng for research on included infrastructure cyPes as percentages f h e total of estimated research expenditures for the 3 fiscal years b E xpen d i ture s estimated from allOCatiOKl figures* SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

PAGE 58

structure research in the United States. Although only one applies directly to public works, the programs share three features. They specifically allocate resources for infrastructure research. They fix responsibility for technology advances, including improvements in infrastructure construction technologies. They target key areas of infrastructure R&D that have been identified as those that: (a) are likely to produce particular cost benefits because of current use or particular needs or (b) have the potential for the greatest technology advances. Strategic Highwav Research Program. Four principal characteristics of the 5-year Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP), recently underway after approval by Congress several years ago, merit attention. First, the program focuses specifically on two infrastructure types-highways and bridges --and it is the largest, indeed the only, major independent research program outside a Federal agency with an exclusive emphasis on public works. Second, the program relates spending for infrastructure research to Federal spending for new construction, reconstruction, and repair. Providing a stable income level, 0.25 percent of State-apportioned Federal monies will fund the program at $150 million over five years. Third, the program targets six priority areas for research-asphalt, long-term pavement performance, maintenance cost effectiveness, protection of concrete bridge components, cement and concrete in highway pavements and structures, and chemical control of snow and ice on highways. 6 Fourth and finally, the SHRP agenda was determined in cooperation with the users--public transportation officials. Moreover, a strong effort was made to build broad support for the program among construction trade associations. 7 SHRP must be considered an immediately applicable technology effort. In the terms previously used, the priority areas include incremental R&D on construction technologies; re6 Damian Kulagh, Executive Director, SHRP, persona communication, April 1987. 7 Richard Mudge, Vice President, Apogee Research, Inc., personal communication, May 27, 1987. 2-13

PAGE 59

. search to improve design, evaluations, and needs analyses; and other research not considered infrastructure construction research or development. None of the work appears to be advanced R&D for construction technologies, and much of the research is related to materials. For a more complete description of the organization and structuring of SHRP see chapter eight. Engineering Research Center for Advanced Technology for Large Structural Sy stems t Lehigh U niversity. NSF awarded the Engineering Research Center for Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems (ATLSS) to Lehigh University in 1986. There are currently eleven NSF Engineering Research Centers in the United States designated to do advanced research in different engineering areas (three more centers are expected to be selected by NSF this year). The ATLSS center at Lehigh University will focus on research to assist the construction industries. NSF funding for ATLSS amounted to $1.4 million during the first year and will total $10.4 million over the first five years. Additional initial funding comes from other sources. The State of Pennsylvania contributed $5 million for facilities; $2 million of this was contributed by Pennsylvanias Ben Franklin Partnership Program, which will contribute an additional $1 million over the next five years. The research plan for ATLSS identifies three cross-disciplinary thrust areas--advances in design concepts, innovation in fabrication and construction, and in-service monitoring and protection. Topics identified for investigation include new and better design concepts, new computer tools, high-strength and high-value materials, robotics and automation, and new sensors, coatings, and protective systems. Initial projects on which ATLSS proposed to start work in 1986 included computer-controlled testing, a large-scale multidirectional loading facility for testing, advances in connection technology, a knowledge base for steel structures, development of construction robotics technology, a knowledge-based system for designer-fabricator interface, a knowledge-based system for fatigue and fracture evaluation of steel bridges, and diagnostic corrosion sensors. 2-14

PAGE 60

ATLSSS purposes include all types of construction-buildings as well as infrastructure. While this is a broad focus aimed at all the construction industries, it is clear that various research will be done relevant to the infrastructure types included in this investigation. Based on the descriptions available on ATLSSS program, advanced as well as incremental R&D on infrastructure construction technologies as well as the other types of infrastructure research can be expected to be included. However, it is important to note that no specific emphasis on public works has been stated for this center. Three other university also have some spin-off for construction technologies. The are for Robotics Systems in Microelectronics at the University of Center Center for Engineering Design at Carnegie-Mellon University, at SUNY in Buffalo. centers funded by the NSF may the Engineering Research Center California at Santa Barbara, the and the Earthquake Engineering Centers for Advanced Construction Technology at M.I.T, and the University of Illinois. In 1986, as part of its University Research Initiative Program, the U.S. Army selected and funded from its R&D budget two university centers for advanced construction technology. One is associated with the Center for Construction Research and Education at M.I.T. and the other with the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Each of the two centers is budgeted at $15 million for a 5-year period ($9 million was authorized for the first three years including an FY 1987 appropriation of $3 million and an option of $6 million more for the remaining two years). The research program at M.I.T. has two major components, the first, gy, and the second, called Methodology. The Technology component will labeled Technolofocus on three re search areas --materials and structures, computer applications, and automation and robotics. The Methodology component will focus on two research areas-performance, reliability and maintainability (as one area), and life cycle costing. 2-15

PAGE 61

The University of Illinois program defines five areas of research--construction materials and lightweight structures, nondestructive test and evaluation techniques, explosion effects, computer-based systems, and special technologies for constructed works. The research programs of the two centers, including preliminary project descriptions, provide the best descriptions found of areas suitable for advanced research and advanced R&D, both on construction technologies and for design and evaluations of construction. The Army considers the programs to be grams appear to be aimed at have particular relevance for basic or advanced research, not development as such. The proall types of construction and all major associated activities, but infrastructure construction. While the work is directed at Army responsibilities and military applications, most of the knowledge and technology advances expected to be gained is likely to have civil applications. However, again the emphasis of these programs is not on public works infrastructure. university Transportation Ce nters. The 1987 Federal highway bill contains a section authorizing grants to cover 50 percent of the cost of establishing and operating transportation centers in each of the ten Federal regions in the Standard Federal Regional Boundary System. 8 Infrastructure research is included in the types of activities for the centers. The same program was launched in previous years, but was not implemented because funds were not available. 8 See Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987, Conference Report, House of Representatives, Report 100-27 (March 17, 1987), Section 314. 2-16

PAGE 62

CHAPTER THREE CONSTRUCTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR Three major types of private sector firms are involved with infrastructure construction: construction firms, manufacturers of construction equipment, and producers of construction material. In addition, certain firms manufacture equipment used in construction, such as laserbased construction alignment equipment and data processing equipment for use at construction sites. However this equipment probably adds comparatively little to the overall cost of construction. This chapter describes infrastructure construction-related R&D programs of representative firms from each of the three major categories and summarizes other efforts made by these firms to encourage technological innovation and transfer of information about innovative ideas within the firm. The information is based primarily on interviews with knowledgeable individuals in the firms. The results of OTAs examination are very rough because only a handful of firms involved in infrastructure construction could be contacted in the limited time available and because it was difficult to attribute research and development (R&D) efforts specifically to infrastructure construction rather than to other types of construction or design. However, the results are adequate for showing that a very small fraction of revenues for all types of construction go into privately sponsored R&D at major types of companies connected with construction ( probably less than $1,088 million, or 0.33 percent of the total value of new construction in the United States for 1985) and that construction firms, in particular, do little in the way of R&D. 3-1

PAGE 63

CO NSTRUCTION FIRMS Types of Technological Innovation Eight large construction firms and two engineering firms that build large infrastructure projects were contacted for information about their efforts toward technological innovation. The construction firms included Bechtel Group, Inc.,l o) 11 Brown and Root, Inc.,1 2 Fluo r 1s M or r i s on K n u d s e n 14 Ki e w it Construction Group, Inc. > Corp., 13 th e Mow, Kellogg co> 18 T h e engineering firms er e Corp., 16 th e parsons C Or P 17 and Rust International Corp. Greiner Engineering Sciences, Inc., and Figg and Muller Engineers, Inc. R&D is important at the design level since the design process often forecloses applications of construction R&D.l g Figg and Muller indicated that their firm undertakes project specific research, although the 10 Ti m Killen Manager of Engineering and Construction Technologies, Bechtel National Inc; personal communication, Mar. 27, 1987. 11 Dennis Vanderpool, Manager f communication, Mar. 31, 1987. 12 T. L. Austin, Jr., President and communication, Mar. 18, 1987. 13 Ed Dopheid, Director Of Sales, Apr. 22, 1987. 14 Robert Levy, vice president f communication, Apr. 23, 1987. Construction Technologies, Bechtel National, Inc., personal Chief Executive Officer, Brown and Root, Inc., personal Fluor Construction, Fluor Corp., personal communication. Technology Development, The .M.W. Kellogg Co., personal 15 Martin Kelley, Vice president, Kiewit Construction Group, Inc., Personal communication, Mar. 24, 1987. 16 Mik e Kulchak, Morrison-Knudsen Corp., personal communication, APr. 8, 1987. 17 Otha Roddey, president, parsons Corporation, personal communication, Apr. 22, 1987 18 David Rozendale, president, Rust International Corp., personal communication, APr 23, 1987. 19 Henry L. Michel, president and CEO, Parsons, Brinkerhoff Inc., Personal communication, May 18, 1987. 3-2

PAGE 64

amount expended is confidential. OTA did not among these engineering firms. Some of these ments or budgets, while others do not. find evidence of sizeable expenditures on R&D construction firms have nominal R&D departMoreover, for both each firms business; those other areas where the bulk design and public works projects comprise only a small portion of that have R&D programs address them to technologies applicable to of their business originates. For example, Bechtel has a 300-person R&D department, which monitors technologies developed outside the firm, conducts research and develops new technologies, and explores potential areas for new business. Bechtel does support some projects within the company to develop new technologies with potentially broad applications. Support of these projects is an effort to advance fundamentally the state of the art of construction technology and thus seems to qualify as incremental or advanced construction R&D in the sense described in chapter one. Brown and Root, Kiewit, and Kellogg have programs to monitor new technologies and to communicate information about innovative ideas within the company. However, these programs do not actually develop new technology. Parsons, Fluor: and Rust International have software development programs for scheduling and cost control, which could possibly be classified as construction R&D, but which do not fundamentally advance the state of the art of construction technology. The source at Fluor indicated that in the past. when Fluors clients in the petroleum and hydrocarbon industries were in better financial shape, Fluor had more cash flow to pursue technology developments, such as better rigging and heavy lifting approaches. Some companies support R&D efforts outside the company; for example, Bechtel supports research to develop new technologies at several universities. Also, all except one of the eight firms contacted (Parsons) were listed in 1986 as members of the Construction Industry Institute (CH), a research institute dedicated to improving the cost effectiveness of the U.S. construction industry. Established in 1986, CII provides support for construction R&D at universi3-3

PAGE 65

ties. The annual level of support for CII is $6 million, and much of the research is directed at data systems and management support activities, although one does support development of new construction technology. Total industry .wide expenditures for R&D efforts outside individual companies (such as for university research) do not appear to be substantial. In general, there seem to be four categories of technological innovation by the construction firms: (1) developing new technologies in special, internally funded projects within the company, (2) applying or modifying technologies recently developed outside the firm, (3) combining already existing technologies in novel ways, and (4) providing incremental advances to existing construction techniques. Innovations from categories two, three, and four typically occur in the context of specific construction projects. Examples of innovation from each of these categories are discussed below. Bechtel funds technology development projects within the company, including the development of an expert system to handle onsite welding engineering problems and the development of a three-dimensional design-modeling system. The design-modeling system was developed after Bechtel discovered that the systems of several outside vendors did not meet its needs. The system has infrastructure construction applications, because it can help construction engineers visualize the structure to be constructed, and Bechtel reports that it may attempt to market the system. An example of using technology recently developed outside the firm is Kiewits use of computer-aided drafting at certain job sites. Kiewit had no part in the development of computer-aided drafting but adopted the technology when it became commercially available. In other examples, Bechtel used robotics technology developed at Carnegie-Mellon University in 20 Construction Industry Institute, Annual Report, 1986 (Austin, Texas) Also, Richard L. Tucker, Perfection of the Buggy Whip, The Construction Advancement Address, First Annual Peurifoy Construction Research Award, American Society of Civil Engineers (Boston, MA: Oct. 29, 1986). 3-4

PAGE 66

cleaning up the Three-Mile Island nuclear power plant and also provided some support to the University of Texas to develop an automatic pipe fabrication system. (Neither of the Bechtel examples are known to have infrastructure construction applications, however. ) Kiewit combined technologies in a novel way in the construction of tunnel walls for an underground powerhouse, Here, Kiewit combined steel fiber-reinforced concrete with microsilica shotcrete technology to produce a high-strength, fast-setting concrete tunnel wall. The concrete was applied pneumatically from a hose using existing shotcrete technology. In addition, Bechtel hopes to combine computer-aided design technology for manufacturing plants with automatic pipe fabrication to simplify the design/construction interface. An example of an incremental advance on existing construction techniques is Brown and Roots development of ways to pack water valves in structures more efficiently. This advance does not involve any new technology or fundamentally new construction procedures; instead, it appears to involve closer attention to one aspect of construction in order to do it more efficiently. The advance occurred in construction projects for the power industry and may have applications for sewer systems. Many construction firms have programs to monitor technological developments related to construction, to encourage innovation, or to communicate innovative ideas within the company. Bechtels R&D department does this, and Brown and Root recently formed a competitiveness committee to examine construction techniques and equipment available for construction. Brown and Root also spent several million dollars educating employees at Crosby and Associates quality school to encourage them to find better ways of doing things and to help facilitate sharing innovative ideas in the company. So far, no major successes have resulted for Brown and Root from these programs. Kiewit relays information about innovations in construction projects to other parts of the company at an annual meeting attended by 400-500 executives and key employees. Two days of the meeting are spent reviewing construction methods at individual projects. The 3-5

PAGE 67

microsilica/fiber -reinforced concrete wall described above was discussed at this years annual meeting. In summary, three of the construction firms surveyed do little internal research and development to advance fundamentally the state of the art of infrastructure construction. There is little activity to develop new technologies with potentially broad applications for construction. The firms most often innovate by applying or adapting technology developed outside the firm, by combining existing technologies in new ways, and by incrementally modifying existing construction procedures. Much of the innovation in these categories occurs at the level of individual projects. Based on informal discussions with experts in the construction field, this state of affairs is probably typical throughout the industry .21 Industry wide R&D Exnenditures The total expenditures on R&D by the eight U.S. construction firms are shown in table 3-1. These expenditure estimates are based entirely on discussions with the firms listed above and apply to construction as a whole; not just infrastructure construction. OTA analyzed information supplied by the firms and eliminated expenditures for efforts to find out about, evaluate, or use existing technologies and attempted to eliminate expenditures on research not directly related to construction itself, such as the exploration of new potential areas of business. Ambiguities arose, particularly in the area of software development for scheduling and cost control, The ambiguous expenditures were included in the total R&D expenditures. Thus, the R&D estimates probably overstate actual spending by the construction firms to develop new construc tion technologies. Total 1985 contracts are also shown for each of the firms in table 3-1. Total 1985 contracts refers to the total value of all prime construction contracts, shares of joint ventures, 21 For example, Frederick Krimgold, Virginia Tech, Alexandria, VA, PersOnal communication, Mar. 17, 1987. 3-6

PAGE 68

Table 3-1.RllD Expenditures of Eight Major U.S. Construction Firms Total 1985 Total 1985* Total 1985 Contracts R&D Expenditures R&D Expenditures Company (in millions) (in millions) (percentage of total contracts) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------The Parsons Corp. 8,620. 0 0. 5 Bechtel Group, Inc. 7,364.0 <10 The M.W. Kellogg Co. 6,757.0 0 Morrison-Knudsen Corp. 5,887.7 0 Brown & Root, Inc. 5,578. 7 0 Fluor Corp. 5,127.4 1.5+ Rust International Corp. 5,097.9 4.0 Peter Kiewet Sons, Inc.** 1,322.5 0 3. OTA estimates based on criteria described on preceding page. ** This company is now known as Kiewet Construction Group, Inc. SOURCES: Total 1985 contracts from Engineering News Record, 0.006% ~o.14z o 0 0 0.03%+ 0.08% o The Top 400 Contractors, Apr. 17, 1986, pp. 58-99. R&D expenditures from OTA, based on discussions with the construction firms.

PAGE 69

design/construct contracts, and construction management contracts where the firm is exposed to financial liability similar to that for a general contractor. 22 Many construction firms, including Parsons, Morrison-Knudsen, and Fluor, had over one-half their total 1985 contracts in construction management. Discussions with firms indicate that the quoted total contract amounts are very inexact measures of the amount of construction work done by the firms. However, according to this reckoning, the 1985 contracts for the eight firms totalled $45,752.2 million, and the R&D expenditures totalled less than $16.0 million. Thus, the firms devoted less than 0.04 percent of total contract volume to R&D. Since the firms contacted included the seven largest construction firms in the United States in terms of 1985 contracts, 0.04 percent is a reasonable upper-bound estimate for the fraction of total contract volume devoted to R&D for all construction firms. The total contract volume for the top 400 construction firms in 1985 was !$136.. Assuming that firms outside the top 400 do not spend significant amounts on R&D and billion. that the 0.04 percent is an upper bound to the fraction of total contract volume devoted to R&D, the total expenditures on R&D performed within all construction firms was probably no greater than about $48 million in 1985. This approximate upper limit is consistent with the National Research Councils estimate of $54 million for the total R&D funding level for construction contractors. 23 X? Th e figures for total contracts are from Engineering News Record, The ToP 400 Contrac tors, Apr. 17, 1986, pp. 58-99. 23 National R,eSearCh council, COnStrtlCtiOIl productivity: Proposed Actions by the Federal Government to Promote Increased Efficiency in Construction, (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1986). 3-7

PAGE 70

PRODUCERS OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS Total R&D expenditures by major building materials producers for 1985 was $202.9 million It is not known how much of this amount was expended On evaluative research as oP posed to incremental or advanced R&D to improve construction materials. The figure is used here as an estimated upper bound to the amount spent by manufacturers of construction materials on incremental or advanced R&D for construction. MANUFACTURERS OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Manufacturers of construction equipment typically spend a few percent of sales on R&D activities. Three such manufacturers were contacted about their R&D efforts. One, CMI CorM that specializes n poration, 25 is a relatively small firm ($ 135.2 million in sales during 1985) grading and paving equipment, asphalt recycling equipment, and a few other related types of *7 T h e others equipment. Caterpillar Inc. 28 and Deere and Company* g are much larger firms ($6,725 million and $4,060.6 million in sales during 1985, respectively )30 that manufacture a wider variety of equipment types. Deere, for example, manufactures farm equipment as well as 24 Business Week, Op. cit. Note that this category includes afl types of building materials, not just the construction materials relevant to the kinds of public works discussed in this Staff Paper. Therefore, this estimate is an order of magnitude greater than that in table 9-1 and the accompanying text. 25 Tom Steele, vice president for Engineering Research and Development, CM I Corporation, personal communication, Mar. 24, 1987. 26 B u5 i ne s 5 week, R&D score board, Jun ~ 23, 1986, PP. 139-156. 27 Standard and poors Register of Corporations, Directors and Executives, Volume 1 (Ne w York: Standard and Poors Corp., 1987). 28 chuck G raw ey Director of Research, c~terpill~r, Inc., personal communication, ~~ar. ~ 4 T 1987, 29 R Uss e l S u therland, v ice p r esident for Engineering and Technology, Deere and Corn Pan}> personal communication, Mar. 20, 1987. 30 B u 5 i ne55 week, oP. cit 3-8

PAGE 71

construction equipment. A summary of the total R&D budgets of the three firms appears in table 3-2. Based on discussions with the firms, it appears that all three spend most of their R&D dollars on developing incremental changes to existing products and improving manufacturing ef ficiency. Examples of incremental changes are improvements in engine efficiency to produce more power and improvements in the reliability of equipment. These changes reduce the time and expense required to do construction but do not change the way construction is done by introducing new technologies or processes. CMI and Deere reported working in several specific areas of R&D to develop new technologies or processes for construction. CMI is doing R&D to improve processes and equipment for asphalt recycling (about $1 million per year) and to improve processes and equipment for concrete paving (about $600,000 per year). Deere is developing high-pressure water jets for renovation of bridges (about $100,000 per year) and is doing R&D on applications of electronics, such as electronic control of gearshift mechanisms in scrapers and remote control of construction equipment. The source at Deere estimated that Deere spends about $5-!$6 million per year to develop new construction technology. 31 The source at Caterpillar reported that Caterpillar is also doing R&D on applications of electronics to construction, but declined to comment further on its efforts to develop new technologies. He estimated that Caterpillar spends less than five percent of its R&D funds on advanced R&D. Table 3-2 summarizes the estimated expenditures of the three firms to develop new technologies or processes for construction. These expenditures are for R&D activities that could e in some cases correspond to advanced R&D related to some type of construction (not necessarily infrastructure construction). Because none of the firms could supply exact figures for these types of expenditure, and because the distinction between a new technology and an improve31 Sutherland, oP. cit 3-9

PAGE 72

Table 3-2.-RAD Budgets For Selected Manufacturers of tinstruction Equipment, 1985 (in mill iOnS of dollars) Tot~l R&D Budget Approximate R&D Budget for New Technologies or Processe s Sdles in MdnufaCtuCe r Mi I I ions of Dol Idrs Mi I I ions of Dol Idrs Percentage of Sale s MILLIONS OF DOLLARS PERCENTAGE OF SALES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CMI 135 5. 6 4. 1 1. 6 1.2 0 l)eefe 4,061 223 5.5 6 0.14 Cdtcrpi I Id r 6,72 5 326* 4.8* <16 <0.2 4 :=s==== ==== ==== ===== ===== ===== ==== ==== ===== ==== ==== ===== ==== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ================================================= x Mdnutdcturers fdrm equipment db well as construction equipment IID Excludes R&D expenditures for mdnufdcturing processes Sources: 1985 sales figures for all firms and total R&D budgets for 041 and Deere fro m [otal IUD Budget for Caterpi I Iar from Chuck Grawey. Business Week, RAD Scoreboard, June 23, 1986, pp. 134-156

PAGE 73

gests an upper bound only to the order of magnitude for private expenditures on infrastructure construction R&D. Indeed, some reviewers of this paper contend the amount is overstated. The level of spending by major Federal agencies and agencies that use Federal funds on incremental or advanced R&D for infrastructure construction in 1985 was estimated in chapter two to be $14 million. This corresponds to an upper bound to total (Federal plus private) spending on infrastructure construction R&D of !5129 million, or 0.4 percent of the total value of new infrastructure construction put in place in the United States during 1985. The level of spending by major Federal agencies and agencies that use Federal funds for activities classified by the agencies as infrastructure construction-related R&D for 1985 (which includes management, design, and evaluation research) was found in chapter two to be $103 million. This corresponds to an upper bound to total (Federal plus private) R&D expenditures of !5218 million, or 0.63 percent of the total value of new infrastructure construction put in place during 1985. This upper bound value of new construction is a very optimistic estimate, and the actual percentage of the total spent on R&D is probably much less. CASE STUDY The Complex Process of Implementing an Infrastructure Innovation BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION USING PRECAST, PRESTRESSED CONCRETE PANELS Precast, prestressed concrete panels have been used to replace aging highway bridge decks in the United States since the 1970s. 33 (The technology had been known and used in Europe for 30 years previously. ) The main benefit of using the panels, compared to the conventional method of pouring concrete directly on the bridges superstructure, is that the panels do 33 Mrinmay Biswas, Precast Bridge Deck Design Systems, reprinted from the Journal of the Prestressed Concrete Institute 31, vol. 2, March-April 1986. 3-11

PAGE 74

not require a long curing time. This permits installation of the panels at times of day when traffic levels are low and use of the entire bridge deck when levels are high. It also shortens the total time required to do the deck reconstruction, Thus, precast, prestressed concrete panels are most useful in crowded urban areas where loss of a few lanes on an important bridge during rush hours can cause serious traffic congestion problems. Precast, prestressed concrete panels are made by stretching high-strength steel wires with hydraulic jacks to high tension. Then, high-strength concrete is cast in a form around the wires and allowed to harden. The result is that the tensile load of the panel is carried by the steel wires, so the panel combines the tensile strength of steel with the compressive strength and rigidity of concrete. The process of forming the panels in this way is called pretensioning. The panels can be joined together with steel wires passed through the panels and stretched to high tension. This process is called post-t ensioning. 4 The Frenchman Eugene Freysinnet is generally credited with developing modern con3 S I n t h e late 19QOs, crete prestressing methods. He began work on these methods in the 1920s. bridge construction using precast prestressed elements proved to be an efficient and economical way to replace the bridges destroyed in Europe during World War 11. 36 Prestressed concrete was not used in the United States until the 1950s and 1960s, when it was utilized for bridge construction, primarily for bridges with spans of about 100 feet or less. Use of precast, prestressed concrete members for construction of longer-span bridges (with a method called segmental con3A Th e Encyclopedia Americana, International Edition, vO]. 4, Birmingham to Burlington (Dan bury, CT: Grolier, Inc., 1986), p. 529. 35 Walter Podolnov, Jr and Jean M. LMU her, Construction and Design of prestressed Concrete Segmental Bridges (New York: .John Wiley and Sons, 1982), p. 4, 36 BiS w a S, OP. cit. 3-12

PAGE 75

ment to an existing product can be fuzzy, the quoted amounts should be understood as only suggesting the order of magnitude of expenditures by the firms to develop new technologies and processes for construction. The figures do show that while the fraction of total sales revenues spent to develop new technologies or processes for construction is small, the actual amount of money spent is not trivial. The total R&D expenditure for major farm and construction equipment manufacturers in 1985 was approximately $837.3 million. 32 chinery as well as construction machinery, advanced construction R&D by equipment TOTAL PRIVATE EXPENDITURES FOR Since this figure includes R&D to develop farm mait is an upper limit to expenditures on incremental or manufacturers. CONSTRUCTION R&D Table 3-3 shows the estimated upper limits to construction R&D by construction firms, construction equipment manufacturers, and construction materials producers. The upper limit to the total private spending on construction R&D for 1985 is $1,088 million. This amount represents 0.33 percent of the total value of new construction in the United States for 1985. Table 3-4 shows estimates of the total value of new infrastructure construction for the United States in 1985. It is impossible to determine from the available information the total expenditure by private firms on infrastructure construction R&D. Indeed, since many technologies apply to different types of construction, it may not make sense to attempt to separate infrastructure construction R&D from other types of construction R&D. Nevertheless, if the level of private infrastructure construction R&D is assumed to be in the same proportion to the level of total private R&D for construction as the total value of infrastructure construction in the United States is to total construction in the United States, then the level of private infrastructure construction R&D for 1985 has an upper bound of $115 million. Clearly, this figure sugS2 This was obtained from data in Business Week, oP. cit., with the Caterpillar R&D budget corrected according to information from Chuck Grawey, op. cit. 3-10

PAGE 76

Table 3-3.-Upper Limit to R&D Expenditures by Private Firms For All Types of Construction MilLions of Dollars -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Construction Firms 48 Construction Equipment Manufacturers 837 Building Materials Manufacturers 203 TOTAL $1,088 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Source: Office of Technology Assessment.

PAGE 77

Table 3-4.Approximate Infrastructure Construction Expenditures Based on Data From the Census Bureau for 1985 Expenditure Type of Public Construction (in millions of ciOllars)* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Highways and Streets $19,998 Sewer Systems 7,196 Water Supply Facilitie s 2,664 Miscellaneous 4,512 Total $34,370 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.,. 1986 dollars Source: Adapted from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Value of New Construction Put in Place, C30-86-12, February 1987, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1986).

PAGE 78

struction) did not begin until later-the first such bridge was completed in the United States in 1973.37 The use of precast, prestressed panels for bridge deck reconstruction began as a response to a need in bridge reconstruction, not as a result of any particular technological development. During the 1950s and 1960s, a great deal of highway and bridge construction took place, including work on the interstate highway system. Structures were often built quickly, and the builders did not always anticipate the level of use they would eventually enjoy. Moreover, structures were not always maintained in top condition. Since the 1970s, these bridges have begun toshow significant signs of aging, and many have needed rehabilitation. Furthermore, in many areas no good alternate traffic routes exist for bridges, which are used to capacity during rush hours. Thus, precast prestressed concrete panels have been attractive in many cases because they cause less traffic disruption than conventional redecking approaches. 38 Three basic factors must be weighed when deciding whether to use precast prestressed panels for bridge redecking. The first factor is cost, which depends partly on the size of the job and the uniformity of the bridge panels required for redecking. If needed or if the bridge has variable width or curvature, then panels may to poured concrete because the forms needed to manufacture the panels only a few panels are be very costly relative would be used only a few times. On the other hand, if the bridge is very long and has uniform width and curvature, the forms can be used repeatedly for many panels. The availability of local facilities for manufacturing panels is an additional cost consideration. Finally, the cost of maintaining traffic levels during rush hours by opening and closing The second factor is advantage here since traffic traffic disruption. can pass over them lanes on the bridge can also be high. Precast prestressed panels generally offer a big shortly after they are laid, permitting construc 37 podolnoy and ,~~uller, opt cit., p. vii. 38 James Lutz, project Director, Greiner Engineering sciences, Inc., 13althnore, ~D, Persona l communication, May 6, 1987. 3-13

PAGE 79

tion during the night and traffic flow during the day. Also, bridges can generally be redecked in a shorter total time using panels than by using poured concrete. The third factor is performance of the completed bridge deck. Poured concrete has an advantage in that it bends somewhat in response to the bridge superstructure below it, thereby reducing stresses on the structure. This phenomenon is known as participation. The riding surface of poured concrete is potentially better than that of panels because it can be adjusted very accurately to form a nearly perfect flat surface. Imperfections in a panelled surface can be compensated for to some extent by overlaying asphalt on top of the panels, but long-term problems can result because concrete is generally of controlled conditions. 39 of water and salt seepage through the asphalt layer. Precast prestressed higher quality than poured concrete because it is prepared under more Precast, prestressed concrete panels were used during 1982 and 1983 on the Woodrow Wilson bridge Memorial Bridge across the Potomac River near Washington, DC. Traffic across the is extremely heavy, so safe maintenance of all six lanes of traffic during peak hours, four or five lanes during off-peak hours, and one lane in each direction at night were mandatory during the reconstruction period. The entire concrete deck of the 5,900-foot bridge 40 Since maintenance of traffic was an overriding concern needed to be redecked and widened. and the bridge was long, of uniform width, and without segments was the clear choice of reconstruction method. curvature, use of prefabricated deck A bonus clause in the contract for redecking the Wilson Bridge rewarded the contractor, Cianbro Corporation, for each day the contract was completed ahead of schedule, up to 120 days. The contract required completion of the work within 575 calendar days. The reward was 39 Ibid. 40 James G. Lutz and Dino J. Scalia, Deck Widening and Replacement of Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge, reprinted from the Journal of the Prestressed Concrete Institute, vol. 29, No. 3, May-June, 1984. 3-14

PAGE 80

based on a Federal Highway Administration estimate of the cost of traffic disruption due to construction, reportedly about $10,000 per day, even though six lanes were generally open during rush hours. About 15 percent of the way through the project, Cianbro offered to complete the deck work within 350 calendar days, or 225 days earlier than required by the contract, if paid for the additional costs of hiring more work crews and supervisors and the costs of making more forms for manufacturing panels at the fabrication plant. This additional cost was reportedly about $3,000 per day for the 105 days saved above the 120 days rewarded in the contract. The offer was accepted. Cianbro completed the bridge redecking within 350 calendar days, as prom ised. 4 1 According to a confidential source, if conventional construction methods were used, the project would have taken three years and only three lanes would have been open to traffic throughout the day. James Lutz, Projects Director, Greiner Engineering Sciences, Inc., Baltimore, IMaryland, personal communication, May 6, 1987; and Lutz and Scalia, op. cit. 3-15

PAGE 81

CHAPTER FOUR CONSTRUCTION R&D PROGRAMS IN OTHER INDUSTRIES AND IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES American firms have been preeminent in the world in large-scale construction for many years. Recently, however, smaller-scale construction is becoming increasingly internationalized, and American firms find themselves competing with foreign construction firms even for domestic work. R&D efforts in other industries and in foreign countries provide comparisons and potential alternatives for infrastructure construction R&D programs in the United States. The competitiveness of U.S. firms in international markets or against foreign-based firms in U.S. domestic markets is not a primary concern of this study. Nevertheless, foreign competition has become a major driving force for new and improved technologies in many industries, and could become so for construction. This chapter presents a brief comparison of R&D and innovation of public works construction technology support in the United States with examples from other countries. That comparison highlights some institutional strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. system as well as describing alternatives. RELATIVE EXPENDITLTRES FOR R&D IN OTHER U.S. INDUSTRIES Privately funded R&D expenditures for several major industries are listed in figure 4-1. Electric utilities and construction have markedly lower R&D expenditure percentages than the other industries. In addition to this private support on R&D, many manufacturing industries also perform in-house, federally-supported R&D funded primarily by the Department of Defense. These expenditures are not included in figure 4-1. For example, the aircraft and mk sdes industry received Federal funds equivalent to 12.9 percent of sales volume for R&D, while the electrical equipment industry received 2.6 percent; the machinery industry, 0.75 percent; the 4-1

PAGE 82

.Figure 4-l,Estimated Funding for Construction related RGD in the United Kingdom 20 15 10 5 0 i 80 75 70 20 15 lo 5 0 k b SOURCE: Daniel W. iialpin, Construction Management Consultant to OTA, Final Report Task I, Technology in Architecture, Engineering an d Construction, Mar. 17, 1986

PAGE 83

chemicals and allied products industry, 1.2 percent; and the motor vehicles industry, 0.40 percent. 42 INFRASTRUCTURE R&D PROGRAMS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES OTA examined construction R&D programs in two foreign countries--Japan and the United Kingdom-comparing to the extent possible the expenditures of these countries for construction R&D with those in the United States. One European Community research program, Basic Research in Industrial Technologies for Europe (BRITE), was also examined, since several projects in the BRITE program are relevant to infrastructure construction. Janan In Japan, the Ministry of Construction funds nonmarketable basic research at institutes such as the Public Works Research Institute and the Building Economics Research Institute. The institutes are not connected with universities, but they employ full-time researchers as well o 43 The Ministry of International Trade an d as faculty from universities on a temporary barn. Industry (MITI) funds similar research for transportation. The level of government support for construction research programs is unknown but is reportedly small compared with the amount invested by Japanese construction company laboratories AA The Japanese Government indirectly supports R&D Programs in the construction cOm. 45 For example, if a co m pany laboratories through tax breaks and other institutional means. ~z Adapted b v OTA from ~ational science Foundation, National patterns of Science and Technology Resources 1986, NSF 86-309 (Washington, DC: 1986), p. 55. 43 Neil ,~ Hawkins, Associate Dean for Research, University Of Washington, Personal communication, May 28, 1987. 44 Dan i e 1 w Ha 1 p i n, construction N1 a n a g e m e n t C O n S U 1 t a n t t 0 t h e O f f i c e o f Te ~ h n o I o g y Assessment, Final Report, Task 3, Technology in Architecture, Engineering and Construction, Mar. 17, 1986. s Ibid. 4-2

PAGE 84

pany invests more in a given year in research than its largest R&D investment over the past ten years, it gets a tax deduction of up to ten percent of its total tax. If the R&D investments less than 15 percent higher than the largest R&D investment over the past ten years, 25 percent of the increased portion is deducted from its annual tax. If the annual increase is over 15 percent, the deduction is 50 percent of the increased amount. For further discussion of institutional support for R&D in Japan, see chapter five. R&D expenditures are shown in figure 4-2 for eleven out of the 18 construction firms (worldwide) that enjoyed at least $3 billion in total contracts and at least $16.5 million in foreign business for 1985. The list includes seven Japanese firms; R&D expenditures are known for five of these firms. The five firms spend a little less than one percent of their total contract volume on R&D, in decided contrast to large U.S. firms, whose much smaller expenditures are also shown in figure 4-2. All of the largest Japanese firms have smaller total contract volume than the seven largest U.S. firms, but R&D expenditures for each of the five Japanese firms whose R&D expenditures are known are greater than for any of the U.S. firms. Many of the types of R&D pursued by Japanese firms in recent years were invited by 46 KajimaJs R&D has included a concrete the Japanese government, and they are impressive. finishing robot, a rebar placing robot, wall tile inspection machine, and a five-boom crawler for tunnel work. Taiseis R&D program has included pioneering developments in abrasive waterjet methods for cutting steel, rock and concrete; new tunneling techniques based on the New Austrian Tunneling Method; microcomputer systems for shield tunnel boring machines; an underwater T.V. inspection system; robots for spraying concrete, inspecting wall tiles, and spraying paint on building exteriors; as well as Takenaka has worked on robotic robot, a robot tower crane fox development of computer software for concrete-laying robots. systems for concrete placement and finishing, a paint spraying lifting and positioning steel reinforcing bars for concrete 46 Neil M. HaWkinS, OP. cit. 4-3

PAGE 85

Figure 4-2--Estimated construction related RGD Activity in RGD Facilities in the United Kingdom 20 15 lo 5 0 1 PU6LICSECTOR LQai PRIVATESECTOR M8nut9dum8 EstIma!ed annual actlvlty m 80 75 70 4 20 15 lo 5 0 Ro908rctl -idon s Consultants Source : Daniel W. Halpin, Construction Management Consultant to OTA, Final Report, Task 3, Technology in Architecture, Engineering and Constructionj !lar. 1 7 1986.

PAGE 86

buildings, and a combination crane and concrete placement machine. Shimizus R&D program has included earthquake-resistant walls; clean room technology; processing and disposal of nuclear wastes; automatic installation of ocean platforms; and robots for spraying fireproofing on structural steel in high-rise buildings, and for industrial cleaning, concrete cutting, painting with rollers, and lifting and positioning steel beams. Kumagai Gumi has worked on liquid natural gas storage, new shields and techniques for tunnel boring, novel methods for driving piling, novel methods for building walls by applying hardeners to soil, and robotics for automatic assembly of segments of tunnel lining. A smaller company, Hazama Gumi, Ltd., specializes to a greater extent in infrastructure construction, such as dams, tunnels, railways, highways, subways, airports, waterways and shipyards. Hazama Gumi has an R&D department which has developed an automatic control system for a tunnel boring machine shield using laser and computer technology. Hazama Gumis researchers are interested in acoustic and other sensors for measuring soil properties in real time in front of the shield to allow them to optimize control of rate of material extraction and shield velocity .47 The research programs of the Japanese construction firms contrast markedly with the research programs of U.S. firms. Of the eight U.S. construction firms contacted in this study (see chapter three for details), only Bechtel appears to be doing R&D at a level of sophistication approaching that of the Japanese firms. Even at Bechtel, the amount of such research is less than at the Japanese firms. Much of what could be considered R&D at U.S. firms is software development for scheduling, cost control and other management functions. Enhancements in management functions are important, but do not fundamentally advance construction technology. From discussions to gather information for chapter three, OTA estimates that R&D at U.S. construction equipment manufacturers probably approaches the sophistication of Japanese construction R&D in some cases. 47 James S. Albus, Chief, Robot Systems Division, National Bureau of Standards, Summary Trip Report, July 7, 1985. 4-4

PAGE 87

United Kingdom Public sector funding in the United Kingdom for R&D for construction in general (not just infrastructure construction) comes from a variety of sources, as shown in figure 4-1. The research is performed at several types of facilities, as shown in figure 4-2. It is not known how much of this research is evaluative or design-oriented, and how much is oriented toward development of construction technologies. According to one estimate, the British Government spends about 60 million pounds, or 0.28 percent, of the total construction turnover in the United Kingdom, on R&D for construction. 48 According to a study of construction R&D in the United Kingdom, manufacturers fund most of the R&D in the private sector (see figure 4-1 ). 49 Organizations that do R&D in the private sector are shown in figure 4-2. Total private expenditures on R&D for construction in the United Kingdom is about 90 million pounds, or 0.42 percent of the total construction turnover, according to one estimate. The same analysis estimates that the total expenditure (public plus private) for construction R&D in the United Kingdom is about 0.7 percent of the total construction turnover. Another analysis estimates 0.5 percent. so The overall pattern of construction R&D in the United Kingdom seems similar to that in the United States: most of the private-sector R&D is done by the manufacturers, with construction firms doing very little. It was impossible to do an indepth comparison of United States and United Kingdom efforts in the short time span for this project. 48 ~alpin, OP. Cit. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid. 4-5

PAGE 88

The BRITE Program BRITE is a European for 103 research projects in a pate in the research provide Community (EC) program that provides one-half of the funding variety of technological areas. Industrialists from EC that particithe other half of the funding. The funding level provided by BRITE is 125 million ECU (approximately $125 million U.S.) for a four-year period (19851988). s1 The focus of BRITE is broad, but nine major technological areas are given priority: (1) problems of reliability, wear, and deterioration of materials and systems, (2) laser technology and powder metallurgy, (3) joining techniques, (4) new testing methods, (5) computer-aided design and manufacturing, (6) polymers, composites, and other new materials, (7) membrane science and technology, (8) catalysis and particle technology, and (9) new technologies applied to articles made from flexible materials. 52 Three of the 103 BRITE projects appear to apply directly to infrastructure construction, reconstruction, repair, or routine maintenance. Two of these are in the area of reliability, wear, and deterioration. The titles of these projects are: (1) Electrochemically-based Techniques for Assessing and Preventing Corrosion of Steel in Concrete, and (2) Deterioration Prevention in Reinforced Concrete Structures Subject to Hostile Environments. The other infrastructure construction-related projects are entitled, (1) Improvement of the Lifetime of Woven and Nonwoven Synthetic Materials for Geotextiles, Packaging and Agriculture, (2) Applications in Civil Engineering. W 5A OTA was unable to determine actual funding levek for these Projects. S 1 commission of the European communities, BRITE The Community Programme o f Research in Industrial Technologies Gets Under Way,t Press Release (Brussels: Feb. 4, 1986). 52 Ibid. 53 Complete List of Projects under the First Tranche of the BRITE Programmed, BRITE, European Community (no date). 5A Commission of the European Communities, BRITE: Eight More Projects Selected for Community Support, Press Release (Brussels: June 19, 1986). 4-6

PAGE 89

R&D in other industries and countries suggests models which could potentially be applied to infrastructure construction in the United States. Several models are described here, but further study is needed to examine the models in more detail. The first model is support by the Federal Government for R&D within private construction firms for public works construction. As described earlier in this chapter, many manufacturing industries have substantial R&D efforts funded by the government, primarily the Department of Defense. The problem with this approach as it applies to construction firms is that the firms currently do very little R&D and so would probably not have the facilities or experience to perform much federally-supported R&D, at least for a number of years. Another version of this approach is further support of projects using innovative approaches to construction, perhaps in a format similar to that in the 1982 Surface Transportation Assistance Act, described earlier. A problem here would be the definition of innovative and how to determine if a construction project is really innovative. Japanese construction firms reportedly receive tax breaks for increasing their R&D expenditures, although the main incentive is in the profit margin on jobs within Japan that involve advanced technologies or processes that can then be used on the world market. 55 Th e same approach could be followed in the United States for its construction firms. Of course, tax breaks for U.S. firms need not follow the Japanese format exactly. The European Community program, BRITE, is an example of a combined government industry research program, which could potentially be applied in the United States. The industries that actually participate in the research contribute half of the money, with the expectation 55 Neil M. Hawkins, OP. cit. 4-7

PAGE 90

CHAPTER FIVE INSTITUTIONAL AND POLICY ISSUES The nature and effectiveness of R&D depends to a large extent on the institutional environment in which it is carried out. In the case of public works infrastructure R&D, this environment is characterized by: o Governmental Decentralization-over 38,000 government have a role. o Monopoly-like characteristics --each governmental unit has sole jurisdiction. o Inflexible Procurement Systems o Fragmented Sellers -with the exception of large structures, such as bridges, tunnels, and large dams, most construction is done by a large number of small local firms. o Nature of the Operations-much construction work involves large tonnages of low cost materials; the training and skill levels of construction labor inhibits the use of sophisticated technologies. 56 These factors universally point to the tremendous difficulties in funding, completing R&D on, and disseminating new and worthwhile technologies-particularly where both information and skills are involved. OTA found that Americas traditional inventive abilities and achievements remain unquestioned. A recent article states: The fact remains that the United States is still a creative hothouse. Its laboratories churn out important advances and whole new technologies from biotechnology and fiber optics to superconductivity. And foreign 56 Alan E. Pisarski, The Role of Technology, unpublished draft chapter of a report to the National Council of Public \Vorks, Nlay 1987. 5-1

PAGE 91

students flock to U.S. universities, where they now account for 20 percent of all students and a staggering 55 percent of those studying engineering. So the failure is not American technology--it is American manufacturing. U.S. industry has big trouble when it comes to transforming ideas into products that can be sold on world markets. Thats the missing link in the innovation process. 57 Although U.S. manufacturing firms have difficulties translating invention into innovations and saleable products, the problems and failures are much greater in construction. Technologically, construction has primarily been and is likely to continue to be largely a borrowing industry. Most technological advances originate from or are shared with other industries--little has been invented that is used solely in construction. The invention problem for construction is what technologies to borrow and how to adapt them to construction applications. However, OTA concludes that key elements of the Nations institutional and industrial structures have become incompatible with an ability to capitalize on the benefits of R&D. As examples--the United States has no Federal agency responsible for construction matters comparable to the Japanese Ministry of Construction. Research funding is fragmented and in many cases insufficient to accomplish very much. Construction firms rely for R&D on government, universities, and manufacturing firms that develop and sell the technologies. Little accountability has been required for practical results or benefits in applications obtained from governmentfunded R&D. Tax incentives for R&D in the private construction sector have been largely ineffective; apparently they have been insufficient to offset the disincentives. Regulatory and procurement practices, and the lack of risk sharing, economic incentives, and industrial and intergovernmental cooperation, are powerful disincentives to R&D for many construction companies. Remedies for the institutional impediments to the effective application of public works R&D are as essential for technological progress in infrastructure construction as the R&D itself. With appropriate changes in public institutions and strategies, the private sector 57 Business Week, Apr. 20, 1987> p 56 5-2

PAGE 92

might be able to remedy many R&D problems with little government help, Moreover, it will be extremely difficult for the Federal Government to remedy the problems of infrastructure R&D without changes in the institutional environment and greater attention to economic incentives. Accordingly, this chapter describes the institutional and policy issues that need to be addressed if the United States is to develop a stronger national effort for public works infrastructure R&D. The discussion also identifies other institutional issues that need further investigation and study before it is possible to develop a sound basis for determining public policy alternatives. Finally, while the subject is not addressed in this paper, OTA recognizes that a detailed examination of the economic impacts of R&D in public works infrastructure is necessary for full understanding of the institutional framework. REGULATORY AND PROCUREMENT SYSTEMS Regulatory systems in the United States differ among types of infrastructure. For certain types or categories of infrastructure, government procurement systems are the regulatory systems. As an example of the complexity of the procurement and standard systems, the States set construction standards for water and sewer systems. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency establishes performance standards for water purity. The States consider and may utilize other construction guidelines or standards adopted or recommended by the American Society of Testing Materials, the National Sanitation Foundation, and the American Water Works Association. Other organizations such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Corps of Engineers may become involved. In the case of highways and bridges, the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), has a formal process for review, adoption, and amendment of standards, which individual States may then adopt or use. The Federal Highway .Administration sets standards in cases where Federal funds are used. 5-3

PAGE 93

The Bureau of Reclamation applies a concept of sound and accepted engineering practice in design and construction of small dams and waterways, without a formal process. Some States require licensing for construction of privately owned small dams, which are reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis. The Corps of Engineers has a rigorous internal review process for setting and revising what are referred to as acceptable engineering standards applying to the public works for which they are responsible. Technical reviews for standard-setting are linked to their R&D projects. While the Corps standards are keyed to accepted commercial and industry standards, they also must meet the Corps own criteria. works. public alizing Each of these groups is concerned with one or perhaps two or three types of public Yet a large construction firm may bid on numerous public works projects in different works segments as well as pursue private sector contracts, often in a different area. Re economic payback for the heavy front end costs of developing a sustained R&D program is possible only with economies of scale unavailable to all but the very largest firms, The need to meet different sets of standards poses a formidable obstacle to achieving those economies. Other related problems include the fact that contractors for public works are generally not prequalified, reducing opportunities for R&D investment recovery .58 Moreover, most contracts for infrastructure construction are awarded on a low-bid basis with specifications that are heavily weighted toward existing technologies and experience-based methods. Further analysis is needed to ascertain whether this type of public works infrastructure procurement achieves real economies. It may, in fact, impede technology innovations that could These be cost effective, especially if they reduce life cycle costs. Various agencies have included value engineering clauses in contracts for some years. clauses, effective after contracts are awarded, are intended to provide contractors with an 58 Henry L Michel, president and Chief Executive Officer, parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc, Personal communication, May 18, 1987. 5-4

PAGE 94

incentive to develop new designs or technologies. The usual incentive offered is that the government shares with the contractor any cost savings that result. The Bureau of Reclamation, for example, offers contractors 50 percent of cost savings realized through value engineering. However, OTA was able to identify few new or improved infrastructure construction technologies that have resulted from the value engineering. The one significant technology development attributable directly to value engineering is the use of roller-compacted concrete in the Corps of Engineers gravity dam on Willow Creek in northeastern Oregon. This innovation uses rollercompacted concrete in place of pouring concrete in the normal manner, creating a net saving for the dam of $11.6 million and reducing construction time for the dam by 25 percent. sg Nor did OTA find examples in the United States of a European technique, design competition. In a design competition, contractors bid and are selected on the basis of alternative designs and methods to those of government specifications. This approach is related to value engineering, but applies before, rather than after, contracts are awarded. Recognized problems with building construction regulations are probably analogous and can be used to illustrate the impediments that regulation and procurement systems provide for public works infrastructure construction. Technology innovations in building construction are impeded by a number of factors. First, a wide variance exists in State and local building codes and inspections across the United States, complicating product and construction requirements and adding significant costs for large producers and builders. Secondly, taking a new building product or technology through the model code and State and local code approval processes typically requires considerable time and money, Moreover, code approval processes favor existing producers and technologies in various ways, making it difficult to obtain approvals for new products and technologies. Finally, performance standards, which might encourage inventive59 Paul V. Do brous, Chief of Value Engineering Office, Corps of Engineers, personal communication, April 1987. Also see: Rolled Concrete Triumphs, Engineering News Record, Oct. 21, 1982. Other applications for roller-compacted concrete are discussed in chapter seven. 5-5

PAGE 95

ness and innovation and lower costs, are much more difficult to perspective than commonly used design or prescriptive standards. The extent to which the numerous and varied regulatory administer from a regulatory and procurement systems for infrastructure construction inhibit R&D and technology innovation remains research to identify changes in regulatory and procurement systems that provide incentives for infrastructure R&D and technology innovation could Works Management Program funded by the State of Ohio and located at unclear. Additional might encourage or be useful. A Public the Cleveland State University is just beginning and may illustrate one method of addressing some of these issues. The program will train civil engineers to understand the economic, political, and social, as well as technical aspects of providing public works. The course was developed through consulting with public works officials to determine their needs. SAFETY. OU ALITY. AND LIABILITY CONCERNS OTA found that liability issues are serious impediments to construction technology innovation as well as to R&D. U.S. construction firms are understandably reluctant to take the risks associated with new or different construction methods and materials that are not common practice or in general use. Undertaking R&D is pointless if a firm believes it may not use resulting technologies because of fears of litigation. Thus, to industry, the prospect of litigation often outweighs the possible advantages of new or improved technologies. Liability is not a stand-alone problem. It is linked to and reflects other mutually reinforcing problems, inside and outside the legal system, which adversely affect technology innovations in the construction industries. The nature and extent of these problems are not fully understood and need to be researched to provide a basis for considering solutions. Among the 60 Cleveland State UniverSit~, Public Works Management Program, unpublished program description prepared for the National Workshop on the Role of the University in Public Works Management, Apr. 28-29, 1987. 5-6

PAGE 96

problems are accidents, which are more prevalent on U.S. construction sites than is generally realized. Insurance costs are high, reflecting the risks of liability and litigation. At the same time, public safety concerns related to inspections and quality control are frequently justified. To a greater or lesser extent, each construction project is unique. Large construction sites in particular pose problems of quality control that are much more difficult to address than problems of quality control on factory production lines. Construction is still a craft-based industry; it has never been a high tech industry; and training of workers, especially for maintenance and repair of increasingly advanced systems, is usually minimal. Consequently, cost and performance benefits from more advanced technologies are difficult or impossible to retain. In many cases, as more advanced technologies are used, inspection problems are compounded. For example, to protect themselves, some owners and developers employ private engineering firms to do independent inspections, as they lack confidence in public building inspectors who have neither the knowledge nor experience to keep pace with new or different technologies. The United States does not have a credible, institutional authoritative voice to test and approve new or different construction technologies in a timely and cost effective manner, as some foreign countries do. Moreover, the United States has not institutionalized arrangements for sharing tries. The failure and director of one of NSF risks of new or more advanced technologies, as have some other coun consequences of using new technologies without R&D are cited by the Engineering Research Centers: M both industry and government often implement construction technology without any significant research and development. This in turn has resulted in substantial costs in repairs and corrective measures when these construction technologies fail to perform. In most cases, the research and development is only done after this lack of performance. The cost of subsequent study, repair and litigation is an enormous expense and ineffective way to achieve economy and performance of the infrastructure. A case in point is the utilization of electroslag welds in bridges. Very little research and development was carried out on this process before it was extensively put into use in the 1960s. Failure of the I-79 bridge at Neville Island near Pittsburgh led to banning the use of the method in 5-7

PAGE 97

bridge tension members in 1977 by the Federal Highway Administration. The process is still not accepted for use, and many of the structures with these welds have had costly repairs and retrofits installed. This same experience is repeated often in both private and public sector applications. 1 While tort reform is tempting as a way to mitigate some of the risks of new or different technologies, it will not remedy the underlying technology-related problems associated with liability. EFFEC TIVENESS O F TECHNOLOG Y TRANSFER AND INNOVATION DIFFUSION Movements of technologies from the R&D phase into construction application fall into two categories. The first is technology transfer-moving new or improved technologies from laboratories to innovative firms that can utilize it. The second is innovation diffusion--creating widespread uses of new or improved technologies across infrastructure segment lines. As an example, innovations in dredging equipment developed for the mining industry also are applicable for dredging waterways, ports, etc., but these research efforts are uncoordinated. City public works departments may not use new or improved technologies either because they do not know about them or have other personnel limitations. Moreover, the city may receive bids from numerous small, less sophisticated firms that are similarly uninformed, rather than from largescale infrastructure construction firms with staffs of professional architects and engineers. Research is needed to determine whether or not there are problems different from those already identified. It is also important to explore positive methods, such as incentives, which might be created to improve or speed-up innovations in infrastructure construction. Some new or improved construction technologies appear to be implemented quickly with good results, while others are not. Because of the nature and size of projects, the types of firms and profesG1 John w Fisher, Director of the Engineering Research Center for Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems at Lehigh University, personal communication, May 22, 1987. 5-8

PAGE 98

sionals involved, and vation diffusion may ies that explore these the contracting procedures used, problems of technology transfer or innodiffer among sectors of the industry. A systematic analysis and case studissues could be very useful in identifying the factors involved. PROTECTING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT The role and importance of protecting technologies to further examination. According to one source, the advantage veloping a new or different construction technology lasts, at provide incentives for R&D need that a company receives from demost, for only two projects. At that point, the technology is known and available to other companies. While OTA did not examine procurement or contracting procedures in detail, it was told that specifications for construction contracts written by tion technologies to be used. courage innovative methods. public agencies for large projects frequently specify the construcWhile such specifications provide equality for bidders, they disThis manner of procurement also provides a disincentive for companies to incur costs for R&D from which they may not benefit financially very much nor for very long. On the other hand, the specifications can help diffuse technologies, as procurement or contracting procedures become a vehicle for innovation diffusion. OTA determined that U.S. construction firms infrequently seek patents. The lack of advantage may explain why U.S. firms spend money for environmental scanning (continuously searching the global environment to see what is being used or developed that they may wish to use). They obviously consider such scanning to be more cost and profit effective than R&D and seeking patents. (See chapter 3 for examples. ) This may also relate to the periodic fluctuations in U.S. construction markets, which make financial commitments to R&D difficult or unwise. According to some, the human technical and organizational skills of applying a technology in large-scale construction are far more important than the proprietary advantages of construction technologies themselves which are difficult or impossible to protect. 5-9

PAGE 99

It appears that Japan offers a contrasting case. 62 Japanese construction firms obtain pa t ents numbering literally in the thousands, which may fit their longer time horizon and other differences in strategies for obtaining domestic and international business. co MPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT OF THE U.S. PRIVATE SECTOR During recent years, the competitive environment in the United States has become less hospitable for private companies to undertake R&D for the construction industries generally, As firms have sought to avoid takeovers and be more competitive domestically and internationally, they have focused on short-term profitability. In some cases, an immediate improvement in cash flow and earnings has become a companys primary objective. Often the easiest way to improve short-term profitability is to cut costs by reducing or eliminating operations that do not immediately contribute to profits. R&D operations often fall into this category as such operations. A noteworthy example is Owens-Corning Fiberglass which, faced by a takeover attempt, cut its annual R&D budget in 1986 from approximately $94 million to $48 million and cut its research staff from about 1,000 to 500 employees. Although no data were available on manufacturing firms specifically supporting infrastructure construction, some manufacturers (including Manville Corporation, Owens Illinois, Libby Owens Ford, and U.S. Gypsum) have drastically cut back their R&D efforts supporting other types of construction. 63 The Owens-Corning Fiberglass experience is instructive in showing some of the effects of financial pressures. The companys large exploratory research program, aimed at developing new product lines, was eliminated entirely. Research supporting product lines that the company 62 Information and discussion in this chapter of Japanese Construction activities is based> n part, on information obtained at a meeting of the Committee on the International Construction Industry of the Building Research Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council, April 21, 1987, Representatives of the Japanese Government and four of the largest Japanese construction firms made presentations at the meeting. 63 D r Robert c. Doban, Senior Vice President for Science and Technology, Owens-Cornin g Fiberglass Corporation, OTA interview, Apr. 24, 1987. 5-10

PAGE 100

sold as part of restructuring was also halted. The company narrowed and focused its remaining R&D on short-range objectives supporting business lines that the company retained. It appears that the push for bottom-line profitability to avoid takeovers has had a chilling effect on R&D carried on within many private companies, both those directly threatened, and those fearing a possible take over. This factor may provide a powerful new disincentive for private companies in the United States to undertake R&D activities for the construction industries broadly, including infrastructure construction. And makes cooperative research efforts difficult even among firms resources. the commitment to competition with common needs and limited Many questions remain to be answered about the effects on competition of further internationalization of construction in general, and the effects on the American nese and European companies entering U.S. domestic construction markets in context of technology however, Japanese entries into American construction positive effects. Increased competition could heighten interest in R&D for economy of Japaparticular. In the markets may have construction technologies to gain competitive advantage. In consequence, technology innovations in the United States could be accelerated, and construction productivity and quality could be enhanced. ISSUES NEEDING FURTHER STUDY U.S. federally-funded infrastructure research emphasizes design techniques, evaluations, and other topics pertaining to domestic infrastructure projects. Although essential for good management, these types of research do not advance or support infrastructure construction technologies. Furthermore the amounts of advanced, basic, and incremental R&D for construction technologies being funded by the Federal Government are minimal. The emphasis and priorities as well as organization and magnitudes of infrastructure research pose important issues for Congress to consider. After this initial look at public works construction R&D in the United States, OTA finds a number of issues warranting further study. Among them are: 5-11

PAGE 101

o the complex interrelationships between design and construction processes and materials choice, o the impact of legal issues, such as risk and liability, o identification and analysis of legal issues related to shared risk, o alternative standards setting processes more conducive to innovation, o an in-depth study of the economic framework for industrial and public works R&D, and innovation, and o development of performance and certification standards for acceptance of new technologies to facilitate their use in public works. 5-12

PAGE 102

CASE STUDY Japanese Institutions-A Contrast and A Challenge Although Japan differs from the United States socially and institutionally, an examination of construction technologies R&D in that country shows both similarities and contrasts with the United States. In particular Japan has institutions that employ a strategy of using R&D to create advances in construction technologies that are then used to gain advantages in international markets. Large Japanese construction companies operate in an institutional environment that may enable them both to enter U.S. construction markets and to compete effectively against U.S. companies in foreign markets. This institutional structure includes the establishment of significant R&D capabilities and a market strategy in which R&D and technology innovation play important roles. Construction R&D was observed as a practice of some Japanese construction firms as early as the 1950s, and significant laboratory work was being done by the late 1960s. Around 1974, large Japanese construction companies apparently planned more extensive R&D activities leading to current levels of spending and laboratory-based research, which were achieved by the early 1980s. All this was unlike large U.S. construction firms that continued to do little, if any, R&D. Japanese institutional support for R&D includes: (1) The Japanese Government funds feasibility studies giving initial entrance, intelligence, and influence affecting contract awards. G4 (~) Loan mechanisms from Japanese sources for financing projects in the United States often GA Th e us Government has a simil a r funding mechanism for Ove13eaS Work, but not for domestic work. 5-13

PAGE 103

specify that monies are available only with the choice of a Japanese construction firm and not otherwise. OTA was told that U.S. construction firms may enter into joint ventures with Japanese companies to participate in this advantage. (3) Japanese manufacturers have factories built in the United States by the Japanese construction firms they are allied with in Japan. (4) Japanese real estate investments in the United States are large and growing. When construction is planned as part of a real estate deal, Japanese construction firms may be used. (5) A Japanese banking mechanism has been established in the United States useful for handling construction financing. (6) Significant R&D capabilities located in Japan in large Japanese construction firms focus on specific technologies and applications with some undetermined amount of generic or basic R&D research being done by the Japanese Ministry of Construction. (7) Construction projects in Japan are used to develop technologies. U.S. construction firms are not permitted to participate in these projects. (8) Relationships developed in the United States are used to tap into U.S. technology advances, especially in advanced areas. (9) Subsidiaries and offices of at least five of the six largest Japanese construction firms are now located in the United States with localization or blending efforts by the Japanese companies--for example, Shimizu Construction Co., Ltd. now has offices in 13 cities across the United States. Some projects in the United States have been built by Japanese construction firms, probably drawing on several elements of this structure. AMOUNTS. TYPES. AND STRATEGIES OF R&D Data on private sector R&D expenditures by large American and Japanese construction companies, presented in chapter 4, indicate that company size does not explain why Japanese construction firms do significant amounts of R&D and American firms do not. Measured by dollar or dollar-equivalent value of contracts, six U.S. construction firms led the world in size among the firms doing over !$3 billion in total contract work in 1985. Each US. company did contract work valued at more than $5 billion. Six Japanese companies followed these U.S. firms in rank order of size, each doing between $4 to $5 billion in contract work. The gap between 5-14

PAGE 104

the largest U.S. company and the largest Japanese company in the lineup was S4 billion--considerable difference. Each of the Japanese construction firms spent roughly 1 percent annually (amounting to an average of 8 billion yen, or about $34 million using the 1985 exchange rate) of its contract revenues and employed between 900 and 1,000 people in R&D work. Comparable data for the U.S. companies are incomplete. Moreover, it is uncertain exactly what R&D activities are included in the data available for either the Japanese or American companies. Nevertheless, OTA is certain that American firms spent smaller amounts and undertook less R&D than their Japanese counterparts. American construction firms also appear to do far more environmental scanning than R&D--that is, they look for new or different technologies that others are already developing or using that they might also utilize, rather than creating their own new or different methods, machinery, materials, or components. Japanese construction firms also look at what others are doing; however, their greater emphasis on and expenditures for R&D for innovation appear to be parts of their market strategy. INSTITUTIONALIZED R&D It appears that the Japanese have institutionalized R&D by organizing and integrating operations of large construction firms in a manner that recognizes exactly what technologies to borrow and how to adapt them to construction. It appears that Japanese construction project managers can call for R&D support when they believe it can be useful, and R&D projects may originate from field experience. Design/build contracting arrangements are frequently used, facilitating some of the integrated work, and R&D appears to be connected to specific projects and applications even in large companies. Furthermore, construction projects are planned in a manner that identifies problems on which R&D should focus, often several years in advance. For example, it required at least 8 years to develop or refine technologies to stabilize the seabed for the new Kansai Airport in Osaka Bay. One firm undertook the necessary R&D with rea5-15

PAGE 105

sonable assurance it would receive contract for that portion of the job. The Japanese thus use domestic projects requiring R&D to develop both technologies and the labor skills to apply the technologies. Both are later marketed in competitions for other projects within Japan and in foreign countries. The manner in which the Japanese have institutionalized R&D makes it eminently suitable for translating U.S. inventiveness into construction technologies--something U.S. companies are not doing and are not organized to do. Given the present institutional mechanisms, benefits for the construction industries originating from U.S. inventiveness may be captured more by Japanese companies than by U.S. companies. 5-16

PAGE 106

PART THREE MATERIALS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR THE NATIONS PUBLIC WORKS

PAGE 107

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 6. Introduction to materials R&D for Public Works Chapter 7. Recent materials Developments Chapter 8. Federal Programs Supporting Research on Materials for Public Works Chapter9 Nonfederal Programs for Infrastructure Materials Research Chapter 10. International Research and Development for Infrastructure Materials Chapter 11. Institutional Issues, Research Needs, and Policy Options Materials R&D Bibliography Part Three Appendices: Federal Agencies Program and Project Funding Levels Tables A-1 through A-5

PAGE 108

CHAPTER SIX INTRODUCTION TO MATERIALS R&D FOR PUBLIC WORKS The 1986 report of the National Council on Public Works Improvement (NCPW) noted that, although the basic technology of public works has changed very little in the past 50 years, current developments in science and engineering are capable of making significant contributions to the improvement of every major infrastructure sector in the foreseeable future. The Councils report concluded that new or improved materials can significantly improve the condition of our Nations infrastructure and even minimal efforts could yield substantial benefits, However, they also found that a number of formidable institutional constraints inhibit the application of new technology in the construction industry generally, and especially in public works. Th rebuilding s part of the OTA Staff Paper evaluates the importance of materials R&D efforts to and maintaining our Nations public works, and identifies some of the most recent developments in materials for infrastructure, These include cement and concrete, asphalt, plastics and other synthetics, geotextiles, and paints and coatings (see chapter seven). In addition, it describes current Federal and nonfederal programs supporting materials R&D for public works (chapters eight and nine). The Federal agencies examined include the Departments of Transportation, Commerce, Defense, and the Interior; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the National Science Foundation. Federally-supported highway materials research programs of the 1 National Council on Public Works Improvement, The Nations Public Works: Defining the Issues (September 1986), 6-1

PAGE 109

National Research Council also are discussed. This part also briefly describes foreign R&D programs for infrastructure materials (chapter ten). Finally, it outlines institutional issues and materials research needs that OTA staff identified during the course of preparing the paper, and discusses options for resolving those issues (chapter eleven). This is not an exhaustive review of all aspects of materials R&D for public works. OTA Energy and Materials Program staff relied on an extensive literature survey supplemented with information obtained in meetings and telephone conversations with Federal agencies, trade associations, and companies. Several questions were impossible to address adequately within the time constraints of this survey. In particular, we were unable to quantify the size of the materials R&D needs, or the point at which R&D investment reaches diminishing returns. Instead, w e provide a qualitative discussion of the materials R&D areas that would deliver the biggest bang for the buck, and discuss ways of targeting the available R&D to make it more effective. In addition, we were unable to conduct thorough reviews of foreign R&D and of the constraints introduced by Federal contracting policies. WHAT ARE INFRASTRUCTURE MATERIALS? Materials may be defined as the stuff that things are made of. There are two basic classes of infrastructure materials: 1 ) natural or construction materials, which derive their properties in the field or in use (e.g., asphalt, concrete, cement, stone, sand and gravel, coatings); and 2) manufactured products that are fabricated from materials in a controlled environment and tend to have more consistent properties (such as pipes, gaskets, liners, membranes, filters, hoses, and precast concrete items). OTA*S primary focus in this Staff Paper is on natural and construction materials (see chapter seven). 6-2

PAGE 110

WHAT IS INFRASTRUCTURE MATERIALS R&D? The materials industry and its R&D projects vary widely--from high tech ceramics and composites to such basic materials as sand and gravel. 2 Infrastructure materials R&D includes both basic and applied research. The basic research focuses on the scientific understanding of the characteristics and properties of different materials, their performance in use, their modes of failure (e. g., fracture, deformation, delamination, rutting, slumping, corrosion, etc.), and their interaction with the environment. Applied infrastructure materials R&D examines methods of prolonging and enhancing the performance of materials in place, and of predicting and preventing failure, including the development of nondestructive testing methods. In addition, the materials industry frequently evaluates and adapts technologies or materials developed for other uses to infrastructure needs or to specific local infrastructure problems. In this latter sense, infrastructure materials R&D includes some work that in other fields might be dismissed as neither advanced nor incremental, or perhaps not even research. Research and development on infrastructure materials currently is sponsored and carried out by a number of Federal agencies, and by State and local governments, universities and research centers, trade associations, and corporations. Based on our brief survey, OTA estimates total materials-related R&D to be $53 million to $62 million in FY86, with around $35-!$37 million coming from Federal agencies and programs (see chapter eight) and the remainder from nonfederal sources (chapter nine). Nearly half of the Federal R&D (around $17 million in FY86) is sponsored by the Department of Transportation (DOT). The second largest chunk of 2 The materials industry can be characterized as a mid-day industry--one that is essential to the basics of life, food, shelter, and transportation. At the same time, much of Federallyfunded materials R&D is directed toward academic big physics and high tech projects with litrle application to the needs of the domestic materials industry. Statement of Dr. Rustum Roy, Pennsylvania State University, Hearings on Materials Research and Development Policy, Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation and Materials, House Committee on Science and Technology, 98th Cong., 1st Sess., 1983, at pp. 258-67. 6-3

PAGE 111

Federal materials R&D for public works comes from the Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers ($12-$13 million). Other Federal research efforts are conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency; the National Bureau of Standards, the National Science Foundation; the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; and the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Of the $18 million to $25 million spent annually on nonfederal materials R&D for public works, around 60 to 65 percent is related to highways, roads, and bridges. This is funded by State and local governments and regional transit agencies, as well as professional organizations and trade associations and their affiliated research foundations (e. g., the Asphalt Institute, American Public Works Association). Materials are an important cost component in sewer construction and maintenance, and the larger municipal sanitary districts are a significant source of funding for materials-related research for sewers and wastewater treatment systems. Other sponsors include professional and trade associations; engineering, consulting, and construction firms; and equipment and materials suppliers. Together, these groups spend approximately $3 to $5 million annually on wastewater R&D. Another $1 million in nonfederal funds for materials R&D is devoted to water supply and treatment, primarily by local governments. Finally, around $100,000 to $500,000 in nonfederal R&D is spent annually on materials for water resource projects, waterways, and ports. HOW DOES DOMESTIC MATERIALS RESEARCH FOR PUBLIC WORKS COMPARE TO R&D EFFORTS ABROAD? Successful development of materials and their incorporation in public works projects require a favorable climate and appropriate incentives-both of which are lacking in the United States. Strong incentives are available in other countries to work the bugs out of theory and move new ideas to the marketplace (see the governments encourage innovation chapter ten). In both Japan and Europe, for example, and development through tax incentives or matching 6-4

PAGE 112

funds, and through flexible bidding concepts. Government-industry co-funding assures a companys willingness to commercialize results after research is completed. West Germany, for example, makes public grants available for the introduction of promising innovations into commercial markets. Also in Germany, special linker organizations facilitate innovation by expediting the flow of technical information and contributing to the stimulation of new ideas. 3 In the U. S., industrial materials research and development are product-oriented, and aimed at maintaining a competitive edge. 4 However, the numerous materials programs and researchers, and the inadequate information flow among them result not only in duplication of efforts, but also in gaps in the materials R&D agenda. In comparison, both the Japanese and German governments have agencies that coordinate research and disseminate information. Also, few U.S. universities have construction-related materials programs, and many civil engineers have little or no training in materials science. The opposite is true in Europe and Japan where specialty engineers receive cross-disciplinary trainings An integrated approach to design, engineering, and construction would benefit infrastructure projects by identifying optimal materials for specific projects. An integrated approach also would help facilitate the transfer of information more readily. Although the U.S. is not presently pursuing this approach in any organized manner, other developed nations have established integrated research programs, such as Switzerlands efforts in concrete technology. 6 3 Sherman Gee, Technolo~v Transfer. Innovation and International Comt)etitiveness, New York: J. Wiley & Sons, 1981. 4 Nonproduct-orie nted research generally focuses on software and management systems. 5 Daniel W, Halp in, Tech no IOQV i n A rchitecture, E n~ i neerin Q. and Construction (Contractor Report to OTA, Tasks 1 and 2, chapters 8 and 13, March 17, 1986. 6 Ibid., Chapter 8. 6-5

PAGE 113

CHAPTER SEVEN RECENT MATERIALS DEVELOPMENTS INTRODUCTION Research and development for new materials and improvements in existing materials are of vital importance to our Nations infrastructure, yet U.S. efforts lag far behind needs. This has not always been the case. In the first half of the 20th century, for example, U.S. research in cement and concrete provided the basis for developments in concrete technology throughout the world. Today, Europe and Japan have assumed the leadership role in some areas of cement and concrete research and development (e. g., kiln technology and concrete admixtures), and the U.S. has taken the back seat. A brief description of some of the more recent developments in R&D for cement and concrete, asphalt, and plastics and other synthetics follows. Potential economic and performance benefits of using these new and improved materials could not be quantified within the scope of this brief survey, However, a few examples of research areas with potentially big payoffs are given in chapter one. CEMENT AND CONCRETE Cement 7 is the glue in the most widely used composite material--concretes Concrete is used in larger quantities than any other man-made material, and is the preferred material for civil engineering construction. 7 Portland cement is a dry powder composed of compounds of silica, alumina, lime, and iron oxide, which forms a hardened paste when mixed with water; it generally is used as a binder with aggregate to form mortar or concrete, but also may be used in its paste form as a structural material. 8 Concrete is a mixture of aggregate, water, and a binder (usually portland cement) which hardens to a stone-like condition. The more water used in mixing, the higher the porosity of the hardened concrete. Pores act as crack nuclei, the consequence of which is that the tensile strength and fracture toughness of concrete are usually low. To improve its usefulness, concrete must be reinforced with steel and/or its porosity reduced. 7-1

PAGE 114

The primary advantages of using cement and concrete are that they are durable, versatile, inexpensive and easy to produce. Despite the importance of these materials and their advantages, however, U.S. investments in cement and concrete research have been minimal. According to a 1980 report on the Status of Cement and Concrete R&D in the U.S., Federal and private funding for basic research are inadequate, and only a few universities are involved in R&D efforts. Furthermore, research efforts are fragmented, and the flow of scientific and technological information among cement producers and users and the related governmental, academic and industrial establishments is inadequate. g The same report recommended that government agencies with responsibilities for energy, materials, the environment, and construction should increase their support of long-range fundamental research on the manufacture and use of cement and concrete. It also recommended that efforts should be made to devise an improved mechanism for transferring research results to development and practice. The report further suggested that special attention be paid to studies of: a) basic mechanisms, such as hydration and crystal-phase development in cement, and hardening and strength development in concrete; b) long-term behavior and durability in extreme environments; c) use of energy and resources in producing cement and utilizing concrete products; and d) the interaction of experiment, theory and modeling. Perhaps one of the greatest challenges facing the cement and concrete industry is to produce materials that are both highly durable and economical. Some of the latest developments in cement and concrete materials used for infrastructure are cement-based composites, concrete admixtures, fiber-reinforced concrete, polymer concretes, and high-strength concrete. 9 Frohnsdorff, G. and J. Skalny, Cement in the 1990s: Challenges and O D D ortunitie$, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lend., Volume 310, 1983, p. 18. 7-2

PAGE 115

Blended Cements Blended cements, which have been introduced within the last decade, combine portland cements with one or more different types of reactive byproducts, such as blast-furnace slag, fly ash, or silica fume. The addition of these particulate to portland cement can enhance its strength and increase the durability of steel-containing cement composites used in highways and bridges. Use of these materials, however, depends on local availability. For example, silica fume is a byproduct of the metallurgical operations in the production of silicon metal or ferrosilicon alloys and is available only in limited quantities. The Bureau of Reclamation has conducted field tests of silica fume concrete at American Falls Dam; and the Army Corps of Engineers, Concrete Technology Division, has evaluated and tested concrete containing silica fume and fly ash. Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Fiber-reinforced concrete is concrete made of hydraulic cements containing fine, or fine and coarse, aggregate and discontinuous discrete fibers. Some of the fibers used to reinforce concrete include steel, glass, carbon, nylon, polyethylene, and polypropylene, Fiber-reinforced concrete has the potential to improve the strength and durability of pavements, bridges, dams, and buildings. Also, fiber-reinforced concrete has been used to stabilize rock slopes, armor jetties, and line mine tunnels. Several examples of field applications of fiber-reinforced concrete include: paving applications of steel fiber-reinforced concrete at McCarran International Airport (aircraft parking area), Cannon International Airport (new taxiway), and Fallen Naval Air Station (aircraft apron); dam repair to stop erosion of plunge pool bedrock at May field and Alder Dams, and construction of spillway deflectors on Lower Nionumental Dam and Little Goose Dam on the Snake River. 10 10 AC I C omm ittee 544, State_ ofthe-~rt Report on Fiber Reinforced COn Crete, COn Crete International, May 1982. 7-3

PAGE 116

The addition of small fibers to concrete continues to be researched by both the Federal and private sectors. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is currently funding work in this area, and the Portland Cement Association is doing some R&D on glass fiber-reinforced concrete for use in parking lots Polymer Co ncretes Polymer concrete is to control cracking. a composite material formed by incorporating a polymerll as a binder in a mixture of fine and coarse aggregate; no other cement is used. Many different polymers can be used: acrylics, polyesters, vinyl esters, polyurethane, styrene-butadiene, and polyvinyl acetate and epoxy resin. Current polymer concrete uses include patching and reconstruction of concrete structures; rehabilitation of pre-cast panels on bridges; and application of thin, waterproof, and saltproof overlays on roads. One of the main advantages of using polymer concrete is that traffic is disrupted for shorter periods of time during construction. Thus far, polymer concretes have not found extensive application because the technology has not been perfected and production is costly. Consequently, the polymer concrete industry has not grown in recent years. DuPont, for example, stopped manufacturing this material because the concrete was cracking. Companies like duPont are watching the industry closely so that if a sufficient market develops, they could restart their operations. 12 On the Federal side, the Army Corps of Engineers, through its Repair, Evaluation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation Research Program (REMRR) and its Waterways Experiment Station, has conducted demonstrations of polymer concrete use in repairing concrete structures (e.g., dams). The Bureau of Reclamation also is funding a concrete materials systems research project, that will include polymer concrete development and evaluation. 11 A polymer is a sub5tance made of giant molecules formed by the union of simPle molecules (monomers); for example, polymerization of ethylene forms a polyethylene chain. 12 Bu5iness communications company, nc $ -$ Contractor Report to OTA$ 1986. Strategies of Advanced Materials SuDDliers and 7-4

PAGE 117

Roller Co mpacted Concrete Roller compacted concrete (RCC) requires less cement and lower quality aggregates than conventional concrete. Compaction is used to reduce pore space, thereby decreasing permeability and enhancing durability, 13 The in-place cost of RCC is about one-third 1ower than that of conventional concrete. Also, RCC pavement takes less time to spread than conventional concrete. Roller compacted concrete is suitable for dams and pavements. The Army Corps of Engineers built the worlds first RCC dam (Willow Creek) in the early 1980s; now there are RCC dams under construction all over the world. The first commercial RCC pavement was built in Houston in 1985 for the Burlington Northern Railroads intermodal hub facility .14 The NSF, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation and the Portland Cement Association have funded research and demonstration projects on RCC technology. ASPHALT Asphaltl s is most commonly used as a paving material. Of the 32 million short tons of asphalt produced in 1986, about 70 percent was used for paving. Generally, asphalt R&D efforts have concentrated on improving the performance and workability of the material. According to the Asphalt Institute, some of the activities undertaken by the private sector have focused on several areas: o development and evaluation of asphalt additives to control pavement rutting, thermal cracking, and load-associated fatigue; o improvements in asphalt cement specifications for low temperature behavior, oxi dative hardening, and compatibility with aggregates, and environmental and safety concerns; 13 Halpin, Supra note 5, at p 12 14 New Ways With Concrete, Civil Engineering, May 1985. 15 Asphalt is a bro Wn t. black bituminous substance found in natural beds and? mor e importantly, obtained as a residue in petroleum refining. It consists chiefly of hydrocarbons. 7-5

PAGE 118

o 0 0 0 0 0 refinements in production processes at refinery; development of mix design methods for aspha and traffic conditions; evaluation of the effect of changes in external of hot mix production, compaction equipment phalt concrete; t concrete under various climate ~actors (truck weights, new types and techniques, etc. ) on the asfield performance evaluation of asphalt pavements; development of new uses for asphalt cement, such as in construction of asphalt concrete roadbeds for railroads; and investigation of the chemistry of asphalts.1 6 On the Federal level, the Strategic Highway Research Program (described in chapter eight) proposes to investigate asphalt as it relates to pavement performance, qnd ultimately will develop performance-based specifications for asphalt and asphalt-aggregate mixtures. PL 4 4STICS Radically different pipe production methods provide the greatest potential for plastics use in infrastructure. Up until recently, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe has only modestly penetrated the sewer and water supply pipe market, because it is costly to manufacture and has not met American Society for the Testing of Materials (ASTM) specifications for compression resistance, flexural strength, and other loading parameters. Two recent major breakthroughs in pipe production methods have made it possible to manufacture heavy-duty PVC pipe in bores from 27-60 inches and larger-big enough to compete with concrete in sewer and water pipes. One of the new production keted in the U.S. by methods was developed in Greece by A.G. Petzetakis S.A. and is marAim International. The pipes manufactured using this process are 16 OTA staff meeting with Asphalt Institute executives, March 17, 1987. 7-6

PAGE 119

equivalent in compressive strength and stiffness to solid-wall pipe. The Petzetakis system also cuts materials use by as much as 50 percent.1 7 The Ultra-Rib system is the other new breakthrough for making heavy-duty large-bore, vinyl pipe. This system was developed by Corma, Inc., a Canadian pipe corrugation equipment manufacturer, and Oy Uponor AB, a Finnish pipemaking and equipment company. In the Ultra-Rib system, the pipe is extruded from a specialized die, and then enters a developed by Corma that puts radial stiffening ribs in the pipe at rates more than forming unit twice as fast as for solid pipe. Extrusion Technologies Inc. has entered into the first Uponor process license agreement in the U. S.; they plan to make and sell Ultra-Rib sewer pipe up to 18 inches in diameter by Spring 1987. 18 GE OTEXTILES Geotextilesl g are woven and nonwoven fabrics used in drainage, erosion control, materials separation, and soil reinforcement. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (DOT) was one of the first agencies to use geotextiles, and to evaluate their strength and permeability after one-, twoand six-year intervals. Their test results showed that, while fabric permeability and strength decreased somewhat over time, the geotextiles were still performing satisfactorily after six years. These test results in part influenced the Pennsylvania DOT to include geotextiles as a standard part of drainage system design in locations where open-graded aggregate 17 The Pipe Business Gets a New Shake from Advanced Technology, Modern Plastics, February 1987, pp. 42-43. 18 Ibid p 42. and personal communication to OTA from Mr. Eckstein, Uni-Bell, March Lo, 1987. 19 G eo ~ ex til e s consist of long chain polvmeric filaments or yarns, such as ProPY1ene, PolYethJ~. ene, polyester, polyamide, or polyviny]idenechlor ide formed into a stable network such that filaments or yarns retain their relative position to each other. The fabrics are inert to commonly encountered chemicals. 7-7

PAGE 120

backfill requires protection from adjacent, low-plasticity fine soils that transport easily .20 The Texas State Department of Highways also evaluated the use of geotextiles as a separator between pavement base and subgrade. The evaluation showed that geotextiles are cost-effective in stabilizing lightly-traveled, thin pavements over difficult subgrade. Geotextiles can example, in Muskogee, water treatment plant. In addition, the textiles for streambank also be used in drainage systems and wastewater treatment facilities. For Oklahoma, geotextile liner Army Corps of Engineers, protection, and the Bureau panels were used to repair concrete walls at a Waterways Experiment Station, has used geoof Reclamation has funded a multi-year program to line all of its canals with geotextiles. The fabric linings are erosion, and contamination in arid areas. The geotextile industry has shown tremendous growth. Sales in 1980 to $250 million in 1985. 21 In 1985, the amount of geotextiles American reached about 300 million square meters. ANTICO RROS1ON METHODS 22 The deterioration of steel-reinforced concrete is a serious national problem. A major cause of the used to prevent water loss, increased from $10 million used in Europe and North bridge decks and structural steel members concrete deterioration is the corrosion of embedded black steel reinforcing bars by chloride ions that permeate the concrete chloride ions are derived from de-icing salts applied directly to the bridge decks, rine environments. cover. These or from maZO Materials and Testing Division, Bureau of Construction Quality Control, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Lone-Term Insitu Prot)erties of Geotextile~, January 1983, pp. 2223. 21 Engineering with Fabric, Civil En~ineerinq, December 1985. 22 This section is based o n infornlation received from the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research, Development and Technology, May 22, 1987. 7-8

PAGE 121

New construction provides the best opportunity to protect bridges against corrosion. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), a number of protective systems have proven effective. These include epoxy-coated rebars, corrosion inhibitors incorporated in the steel, and concrete coatings such as epoxies, polymer rebars are the most effective bridge corrosion protection, overlays, and sealers. followed by corrosion Epoxy-coated inhibitors and coatings. Two methods commonly used to rehabilitate older salt-contaminated concrete bridges are overlays and cathodic protection. EDox~-Coated Rebars Epoxy-coated rebars, first used in 1973, became a FHWA-approved protective system in 1976. Forty-six States use epoxy-coated rebars for new bridge deck construction. The fusionbonded epoxy coating forms a protective barrier against the corrosive action of chloride ions. The FHWA is funding research to evaluate epoxy-coated rebars for substructure and superstructure members, as well as epoxy-coated seven-wire strands for prestressed concrete bridge components. Corrosion Inhibitors Corrosion inhibitors such as calcium nitrite are being considered for use in concrete bridge components that cannot be built with epoxy-coated rebars. The FHWA reported that, in the laboratory, these materials effectively reduced corrosion of black steel rebars when chlorides were present in the concrete. A number of structures currently are using this system, CoatinPs A number of States coat non-traffic, non-abrading concrete surfaces with either sealers, penetrants, epoxies, or polymer overlays. These coatings reduce the penetration of chloride ions and water, protect the embedded reinforcing steel, improve the properties of hardened concrete against freeze-thaw deterioration, seal cracks, and strengthen concrete. When used in combina7-9

PAGE 122

tion with quartz aggregate, these types of coatings also can reduce slipperiness on wet or icy surfaces. Overlays According to FHWA, a relatively large number of bridge decks have no builttive systems, but still contain sufficiently few chloride ions that they do not yet need n protecto be replaced. These bridges can be rehabilitated effectively with a good quality overlay that is impermeable to, and thus will prevent additional contamination by, chloride ions and water. A variety of overlay materials, such as latex-modified concrete, high-density low-slump concrete, silica fume concrete, and polymer concrete, can provide 15-20 years of additional bridge deck life with a smooth riding surface. forced cantly. rebars Cathodic Protection Cathodic protection is another technique that concrete components if the concrete is durable has been used to stop corrosion of reinand has not already deteriorated signifiThe technique involves forcing a low-level electric current through the concrete to the to counteract the corrosive current that flows naturally between steel and salt contaminated concrete. Cathodic protection technologies require regular monitoring and maintenance. The Federal Highway Administration recommended the use of cathodic protection in 1982, and this technology now is gaining acceptance by transportation officials, engineers, contractors, etc. The technology for cathodic protection of bridge decks has matured enough that a number of durable systems are available today. About 150 systems have been installed, most of which are on bridge decks. Systems for substructure bridge components are still under intense development. None of the available cathodic protection technologies has been installed for a sufficient period to evaluate long-term durability, however. As part of its research on cost-effective methods for combating corrosion, the Construction Engineering Research Lab, Army Corps of Engineers, developed a breakthrough in cathod7-10

PAGE 123

ic protection -the ceramic anode. This anode makes corrosion protection available at onefourth the cost of previous technologies, and in a size that permits installation in areas previously considered too small. One ampere of current supplied to the ceramic anode will stop corrosion on 500 square feet of uncoated steel. An exclusive license for the ceramic anode patent was awarded to APS Materials, Inc., of Dayton, Ohio, in May 1984. 23 *3 Telephone conversation with paul How~d\~she]l, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL), Army Corps of Engineers, March 1987; and CERL Fact Sheet, September 1986. 7-11

PAGE 124

CHAPTER EIGHT FEDERAL PROGRAMS SUPPORTING RESEARCH ON MATERIALS FOR PUBLIC WORKS The Federal Government directly and indirectly funds a wide range of materials-related R&D for public works, including improved materials for highways, water supply and wastewater treatment systems, dams, airports, and public buildings. Table 8-1 shows the approximate Federal expenditures on materials-related infrastructure R&D in FY86; detailed breakdowns and project lists may be found in the Appendix. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Within the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the primary sponsor of Federal R&D on highways, roads, and bridges. Directly-funded FHWA research includes both internal staff research and external contract research. Total funding for all types of FHWA direct R&D activities was about $30 million in FY86, including administrative expenses (employees salaries and overhead). FHWA estimates that total highway and bridge construction, maintenance and repair R&D was $11.6 million in FY86. 24 Of this, around $2.5 million, or 22 percent, was materials-related. FHWA staff research accounts for about 15-20 percent of FHWA staff time. FHWA administrative contract research is conducted by outside engineering firms, consultants, universities, industry research organizations, and the National Bureau of Standards. Most of FHWAS directly-funded R&D on highway design, construction, operations, and maintenance is performed by the Office of Engineering and Highway Operations Research and 2A Th e FH}VA also conducts research on highway safety and traffic operations. 8-1

PAGE 125

Table 81 FEDERAL INFRASTRUTURE MATERIALS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES FY1986 Federal Agencies Department of Transportatio n Federal Highway Administratio n State HP&R Program NCHRP Other DOT agencies Department of Defense Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Military Facilitie s Other DOD Environmental Protection Agenc y Drinking Water Municipal Wastewate r Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standards Center for Building Technolog y Materials Sciences & Engineerin g National Science Foundatio n Systems Engineerin g Othe r Department of the Interio r Bureau of Reclamatio n Other DOI Department of Agricultur e Forest Service & othe r Millions of Dollar s 2, 5 9.5 (est. ) 3. 2 2. 0 9. 9 2.0-3, 0 N/A* <2. 0 <1. 0 2. 4 N/A* 1.0-1. 2 N/A* 1, 0 N/A* 0. 2 TOTAL 35.0 37.o~~ :< No estimate provided for infrastructure-related materials R&D ** Excludes Federal funding of Strategic Highway Research Program in th e National Academy of Sciences, which could add $30-50 million annually ove r five years

PAGE 126

Development. Their major project areas include research on rigid pavements (concrete and cement) and flexible pavements (asphaltic materials), on protection of steel and other metal reinforcement and structural components from corrosion, and on protection of concrete and asphalt pavements and structures on the evaluation of new and corrosion protection. from corrosion and deterioration. Other materials R&D concentrates or different commercially available materials for construction, repair, Basic research aimed at developing new materials and materials applications for highway use is now probably less than $200,000 per year. The Office of Highway Operations also supports some experimental highway construction and pavement demonstration projects with materials components, but the approximate level of funding is not available. Internal FHWA funding for research on paving materials, including asphalt and concrete, has been cut considerably in recent years in anticipation of the relatively high funding levels for pavement research under the Strategic Highway Research Program (described later in this chapter), and because FHWA believes that State work under the Highway Planning and Research Program (see below) is sufficient. s Based on project summaries provided by FHWA, OTA estimates that about $1.9 on asphalt materials-related research within the FHWA declined from million in FY87. In contrast, in the mid-late 1970s FHWA alone was several million dollars per year. In addition, the engaged part-time number of contract FHWA also in research has been declining, although there has research personnel at the FHWA facility in McLean, oversees the distribution of Federal research funds Highway Planning and Research Program and the National Cooperative $2.7 million in FY85 to direct contract research number of FHWA staff been an increase in the Virginia. to the States under the Highway Research Program. The Highway Planning and Research Program (HP&R) is a cooperative Federal-State research program that finances State highway planning and research efforts under general FHWA 25 See for example, Federal Highway Administration, FCP Annual Progress Report for Year Endin~ September 30, 1985, Project No: 4D, Improved Flexible Binders. 8-2

PAGE 127

oversight and coordination. HP&R funds are 1.5 percent of each States share of Federal-aid highway funds, with an optional 0.5 percent available for urban highway research and planning. Each State decides on the relative allocation of its HP&R funds to planning and research. The average distribution of HP&R funds nationwide is 20 percent for research and 80 percent for planning, with individual State research allocations ranging between 5 percent and 55 percent of State HP&R funds. However, States definitions of research are very broad and often include evaluation of commercially available materials and processes for road construction specifications. FHWA figures indicate that total HP&R funds were $178 million in FY86 and $165 million in FY85. About 30 percent, or $47.3 million was spent on research in FY86, 26 Based o n Hp&R project information, slightly more than the $46.1 million spent in FY85. OTA estimates that materials-related research probably absorbed 10 to 20 percent of that $47.3 million. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) is coordinated by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the FHWA, and the Transportation Research Board (TRB). The respective roles are: the States finance NCHRP by contributing 4.5 percent of their HP&R funds; the Transportation Research Board (TRB) administers the program with the approval of State officials; AASHTOS Select Committee on Research chooses the research activities; and FHWA provides general oversight, and reviews contracts and the technical content of research projects. The NCHRP relies extensively on universities, research foundations, and private firms to conduct research, although there are some contracts with State personnel. The Transportation Research Board estimates that NCHRP funds actually available for research (i.e., excluding TRB-AASHTO administrative expenses) are between $3.5 and $5.5 26 The FHWA estimates of actual State research spending exclude State funds passed through to the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, which were $7.4 million in FY85 and $8 million in FY86. 8-3

PAGE 128

million annually. 27 Estimates of the portion of this allocated to materials-related research vary. One TRB project manager suggested that materials research should include materials characterization as well as materials aspects of pavement performance, construction, design, maintenance, and repair. Based on this definition, he estimated that, on the average, 25 to 30 percent of NCHRP work is materials-related. Actual project figures provided by TRB to OTA suggest that materials-related projects may have totaled as much as 45 percent of total NCHRP research spending for FY85-FY87. These projects include research on: corrosion protection; the evaluation of materials additives; the performance of pavements and structures; and the development of pavement management systems, of techniques for predicting materials performance and failure, and of nondestructive evaluation methods. The Federally Coordinated Program of Highway Research & Development (FCP) was set up in 1971 to coordinate State and Federal activities. FCP covers virtually all of the FHWA staff and contract research, and about 70 percent of State HP&R and NCHRP work. 28 The FCP categorizes State and Federal projects according to overall research goals and reports on progress and publications; it has no separate research budget. OTA estimates that research on infrastructure materials conducted by other DOT agencies and programs probably totals around $2 million per year: 2g o The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) researches the relation of vehicle characteristics and roadway design and construction to aGcident prevention; 27 Funds actually allocated to research vary from year tO year because of multi-Year and phased projects. Of $10.1 million in actual NCHRP project expenditures for FY85-87 reported to OTA by the Transportation Research Board, about $4.6 million was dedicated to materials-related projects. 28 Most of th e remaining 30 percent of Hp&R work focuses On SIXCkil local needs or n~tional problems selected independently by hCHRP committee. 29 Transportation Research Board, A mer icas H i ~h wQvs: Accelerating the Search for Innovation, Special Report 202, 1984, at pp. 36-37, 8-4

PAGE 129

o The Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) supports some research that directly relates to street design and operation; o The Transportation Systems Research program in Cambridge, Massachusetts conducts some materials research as part of studies funded by other DOT agencies, such as an evaluation of high-strength concretes for mass transit tunnels and structural support systems; o The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) sponsors some pavement-related research on airport runways that also could be applicable to highway problems; and o The DOT Office of University Research funds highway transportation research projects through a special grant program. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE The Department of the Army-Corps of Engineers manages the second largest Federal R&D effort on infrastructure materials. This R&D supports the Corps responsibilities for construction and maintenance of water resource projects, dams, locks, waterways, ports, flood control projects, and military facilities. The Corps spends approximately $1.6 billion annually on civil works construction, and an additional $1.4 billion on operations and maintenance. The Corps also spends about $1.5-$2 billion per year for new construction on Army installations, and around $1.8-$2 billion annually in maintenance and repair. Their annual R&D budget for civil works is about $30-$35 million, of which about $9.9 million is materials-related. The Corps also spends at least $2-$3 million annually on military R&D projects relevant to infrastructure materials. The Army Corps of Engineers maintains a broad range of materials science and engineering R&D and technology transfer activities to support its civil and military missions. Their generic materials-related research involves materials characterization, performance evaluation of materials in use, corrosion prevention, and development of maintenance management systems and nondestructive testing methods and equipment, Of particular interest to this survey are the Corps special research and demonstration programs that promote the application of innovative technologies to infrastructure problems. 8-5

PAGE 130

The Repair, Evaluation, year, $35 million effort the Corps civil works. Maintenance, and Rehabilitation Research (REMRR) Program is a sixset up to meet the need for research to meet the growing demands of The Facilities Technology Applications Test (FTAT) Program--a fiveyear, $29 million effort-focuses on transferring advances in operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation technologies from the Corps research laboratories (see below) to Army installations through demonstration projects on energy conservation, building maintenance and repair, pavements, railroad maintenance, and environmental quality. Many of the technologies and methods selected for demonstration in the FTAT Program are derived from the Corps militaryrelated Base/Facility Development and Installation Support Research Programs. 30 In FY87, the Corps initiated a companion program to FTAT, the Technology Transfer Test Bed Program, to promote the application of their R&D resu According to Corps researchers, the multiple fleet the separate appropriations for Corps mi ts in new construction at military installations. military technology transfer programs in part reitary R&D and military construction. The Corps maintains four major research laboratories to conduct its R&D and to provide technical assistance, testing, and other analytical services for its civil and military operations. Eight smaller laboratories provide quality control, as well as detailed testing and analyses of construction and other materials, for investigations, design, and construction of specific civil and military projects. The three major laboratories that carry out infrastructure-related R&D are: the Construction Engineering Research Laboratory in Champaign, Illinois; the Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi; and the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory near Hanover, New Hampshire. so Th e Corps did not provide project lists or estimates Of FY84-FY86 funding for materialsrelated research with potential application to civilian public works under the military-funded Base/Facility Development and Installation Support Research Programs. Therefore, these efforts are not reflected in OTAS estimates of total R&D expenditures for those years in Table 1 and else where. OTA estimates that, in FY87, the Corps may spend from $3-$4 million on materials-related R&D under these programs in three areas: construction materials, maintenance management systems, and pavements and foundations. 8-6

PAGE 131

The Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL), which is associated with the University of Illinois, has primary responsibility for the Corps R&D on buildings and structures and on life-cycle management of Army installations. CERLS major materials-related research emphases are on the performance characteristics of metallic construction components (especially welding technology), and on the evaluation of coatings and other corrosion preventives. One product of CERLS facilities management R&D was the PAVER system--a computerized pavement maintenance and management system for roads and airport runways. PAVER later was adapted for civilian use in cooperation with the American Public Works Association. CERL also does work on water and waste water treatment systems for military facilities. CERLS research budget is approximately $40 million per year, of which about 10 percent or $4 million involves materials-related research relevant to public works. The Waterways Experiment Station (WES) is the largest of the Corps research laboratories. Its research activities encompass materials and techniques for construction, maintenance, and repair of pavements, waterways, dams, ports, and concrete structures, including some work on geotextiles. WES also investigates the effects of coastal and riverine processes on navigation, flood WES rials, ment and erosion control, and coastal and offshore structures and their component materials. concrete research alone is estimated at $1.2 million in FY87. The Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lab (CRREL) focuses on the special mateengineering, and construction problems of cold environments. CRRELS work on paveperformance and subsoil characteristics under extreme cold and temperature variations is useful to the military services as well as to northern State highway agencies. No estimate of CRRELS infrastructure materials R&D budget is currently available, but it is much smaller than programs at other Corps laboratories. iMuch of The Corps materials research is intended to support its construction and maintenance functions and is not directed primarily at the development of new materials. However, if commercially available products are not adequate for, or cannot be adapted to solve 8-7

PAGE 132

the unique problems often encountered in Corps facilities, researchers will develop a new product or technology. As a result of such original problem-oriented research on corrosion prevention, for example, CERL developed ceramic anodes for cathodic protection systems. These anodes are smaller, last longer, and cost less than current siliconiron and graphite anodes. CERL licensed its discovery to a private manufacturer for use on bridges and other structures. The Army, Navy, and Air Force fund other materials research with potential application to public works. For example, both the Navy and the Air Force operate smaller versions of the Corps research laboratories to support their own facilities construction and maintenance programs. No estimates of total or materials-related infrastructure R&D for these programs were provided. In addition, the services have been expanding their support for materials, construction and engineering R&D at university research centers. For example, the Army funds two newly-established Centers of Excellence in Building Construction Technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Illinois. These Centers may conduct research on building construction materials that are also suitable for other categories of public works. Similarly, the Air Force is funding a Center for Cement Composite Materials at the University 31 Detailed information on research at of Illinois with a 3-year grant totaling nearly $3 million. these Centers is not yet available, but they probably will represent a very small portion of DODs research expenditures. Finally, there is probably some spinoff potential for infrastructure materials from R&D on ultra-high-strength concretes and advanced ceramics and composites from the strategic defense initiative program and other military research. For example, work for the Air Force at the National Bureau of Standards Center for Building Technology and elsewhere examines means of reducing porosity in concrete to improve its strength and its resistance to cracking and 31 Chemical and Engineering News, March so, 1987* p 16 8-8

PAGE 133

to corrosive materials. The characteristics of these concretes for defense purposes (hardened structures, runways) are not sufficiently different from those of interest to highway agencies. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funds R&D on drinking water quality and wastewater treatment to support its program and regulatory responsibilities under the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act. Research funds are split between EPAs Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the regulatory programs. EPA budget figures indicate that total R&D funds for drinking water are about $13 million per year, and for wastewater treatment, about $8 million. 32 Research budgets under both programs are projected to increase slightly due to additional efforts arising from reauthorization and amendment of the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1986 and the Clean Water Act in 1987. Under both the regulatory and ORD drinking water programs, EPA has sponsored research projects directly related to the construction, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of water supply systems, such as the corrosion of water pipes and ways to prevent or slow their deterioration. EPA also has studied how pipe deterioration contributes to the contamination of drinking water supplies (through leaching and erosion of contaminants such as copper, lead, lead solder, and asbestos fibers from pipes and joints), and means of prevention. Most of EPAs water supply R&D is conducted at the EPA water research facilities in Cincinnati, Ohio. Their total FY86 drinking water research budget is about $5 million (including salaries, overhead, and extramural research). OTA estimates that expenditures for materials and infrastructure-related drinking water research were less than $2 million, including a $1 million seed money grant to the American Water Works Association Research Foundation. However, R&D directly related to infrastructure construction and repair has now largely been 32 These figures exclude salaries and overhead. 8-9

PAGE 134

discontinued, leaving only a few projects with minor materials components. According to EPA research staff in Cincinnati, total infrastructure and materials-related R&D in FY87 is probably less than $0,2 million. Future research o n drinking water will be directed heavily toward ne w rulemaking to set maximum contaminant levels or specified treatment techniques for some 80 different substances as required by the 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA conducts research on sewers and municipal wastewater treatment systems to its regulatory and grant programs under the Clean Water Act. During the 1970s, EPAs support Cincinnati Water Research Laboratories were extensively involved in R&D on innovative waste water treatment processes and maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation technologies. Changing Federal policies on R&D have largely transformed the municipal wastewater research program into a regulatory support organization that monitors technology developments in the private sector and overseas. Although EPA provides about $2.4 billion annually for new municipal treatment plant construction, their R&D on construction, maintenance, management, and rehabilitation of sewers and wastewater treatment systems has averaged less than !31 million annually in recent years. According to EPA research staff, almost all infrastructure and materials-related R&D projects in the municipal wastewater treatment program have now been zeroed out. Materials-related research under EPAs wastewater programs largely arose out of work on solving specific problems, such as how to prevent corrosion and inflow and infiltration of M personal communications t. OTA from Robert M. Clark, Director, Drinking water Research Division, EPA Water Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. Detailed information on materials-related research was unavailable. Therefore, OTAS estimates of materials and infrastructure-related research include various EPA/ORD projects on water supply systems and drinking water problems that include aspects of system integrity, rehabilitation, materials, or hardware-related water contamination problems. 8-10

PAGE 135

sewers. R & D i n this area included basic research on the 1ong-term performance of materials and the mechanisms of corrosion in order to formulate appropriate corrective strategies. Past materials-related research included work on methods for pipes, and the evaluation of new synthetic and natural fiber ing sewage treatment. However, R&D is increasingly being problems of methods for half of what toxic contaminants in wastewater treatment repair and rehabilitation of sewer filters to remove contaminants durredirected to deal with the growing plants and treatment and disposal sewage sludge. Moreover, both staffing and research funding are now less than they were six years ago. The Innovative/Alternative (1/A) Technology incentive set-asides under the construction grants program 35 of the dollars per year for new search and development. Clean Water Act offer a potential market of several hundred million sewage treatment technologies, but provide no funding for actual reAs a result, many new wastewater treatment processes are now being tested at the full plant In addition to expanded EPA efforts scale rather than at bench or pilot project scale. research done under the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, in the area of hazardous wastes and toxic pollutants may have some relevance to technologies for both drinking water others noted that development of treatment leachate at Superfund sites may prove useful terns. and wastewater treatment. EPA researchers and technologies for removal of contaminants from for water supply and wastewater treatment sysM Corrosion, a severe problem in some areas, can lead to deterioration of sewers and their eventual collapse. Infiltration refers to the permeation of rainwater, as groundwater, into a sewerage system. Infiltration occurs through cracks in pipes, at pipe joints as settling and other movement occur, and where side-branches (laterals) meet the pipe. Inflow is the entry of water from sources such as illegal storm drain connections, or excessive storm water entry at manhole covers. Inflow and infiltration can increase the amount (and costs) of sewage treated by as much as one third, and pose materials-related research problems that can be quite different from those presented by corrosion. 35 Innovative technologies are narrowly defined as new processes not Yet widely accepted in practice that achieve the required sewage treatment levels at lower costs than conventional technologies, and/or save energy. 8-11

PAGE 136

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Within the Department of Commerce, the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) conducts research on infrastructure materials at the Center for Building Technology and the Institute for Materials Sciences and Engineering. Their research is directed primarily toward advancing the fundamental understanding of materials characteristics, composition, and performance; and developing standardized testing methods and The Center for Building Technology on the study of materials that derive their equipment. (CBT) in Gaithersburg, properties in the field, Maryland focuses primarily such as concretes, cements, and paints, as opposed to those that are fabricated off site and thus can be standardized more easily. Although direct appropriations for CBT are !$3-$4 million, they currently spend a total of about $13-$14 million annually. Over sixty percent of their funding comes from other Federal agencies (such as the Department of Energy, Federal Highway Administration, General Services Administration, the Corps of Engineers, and the Air Force). A small percentage comes from outside the Federal Government. CBT estimates that it spends about $2.4 million per year on generic materials research relevant to public works infrastructure and other aspects of construction. Their work has, in the past, made significant contributions to infrastructure construction. For example, research they conducted for the Federal Highway Administration in the early 1970s led to the development of epoxy-coated steel reinforcing bars for highway construction. Much of CBTS current work on concrete is aimed at deriving basic information on the interrelationships between the composition and structure of cements and concretes and their performance in the field, and at developing standardized mathematical descriptions for this information. The results of these efforts will make it possible to conduct more systematic research on concrete and cement, to develop predictive models of performance, and to communicate the results of the research more effectively. In addition, CBT is evaluating the performance of various anti-corrosive surface coatings (mostly paints, but also epoxies and polyurethanes), and the relationship of substrate condition 8-1 ~

PAGE 137

and preparation to service life. Other R&D activities at the Center include earthquake resistance of materials and structures, performance of concrete structures in hostile environments, and development of nondestructive evaluation methods for new and existing structures. The Construction Materials Reference Laboratory, part of the CBT Building Materials Division, is supported and staffed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and AASHTO. It provides a voluntary service to assist construction materials laboratories throughout the nation in evaluating and improving the quality of standard testing procedures for primary construction materials, such as cement, asphalt, aggregates, and soils. The Institute for Materials Sciences and Engineering (IMSE), also in Gaithersburg, houses other NBS research on infrastructure materials. The Metallurgy Division develops methods of measuring the corrosion rates of steel and other metals used in construction. The Polymer Division handles research on plastics, including polymer blends and composites; its work on plastic pipes is especially relevant for public works. The Fracture and Deformation Division provides basic engineering data needed for design through its studies of fracture and deformation strengthening of steel and other structural alloys and its failure analyses of other materials. Estimates of the level of funding of infrastructure-related materials R&D at IMSE were not available, but their total funding is about $22 million annually. The Economic Development Administration of the Department of Commerce funds construction of local public works projects including streets, water supply systems, and wastewater treatment facilities. EDA has a modest research and technical assistance budget, but most of that is spent on planning and socioeconomic studies about economic development. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION The National Science Foundation (NSF) is a major source of funding for university and other private sector research in civil and chemical engineering. Research on infrastructure materials is funded under several NSF programs. The most direct infrastructure research is carried out under the NSF Engineering Directorates Mechanics, Structures, and Materials Engineering 8-13

PAGE 138

Division, and Emerging and Critical Systems Engineering Division. Additional materials research is sponsored by the Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorates programs in ceramics, metallurgy, and polymers, and by the Materials Research Labs and Research Groups. Some water-resources research is funded within the Engineering Sciences programs on Chemical, Biochemical and Thermal Engineering, and Environmental Engineering. Total FY87 funding for the Engineering Program is $162 million, and for mathematical and physical sciences, $464 million. Information provided by NSF indicates that materialsrelated infrastructure research received $1,8 million in FY85 and $0.9 million in FY86. However, OTA has only received a partial listing of the infrastructure-related research under the Engineering Program. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Within the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation constructs, operates, and maintains dams for reclaiming arid and semi-arid kinds in the Western United States. The Bureaus projects often serve multiple purposes, including municipal and industrial water supply, hydroelectric power, irrigation, water quality improvement, flood control, navigation, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement. The Bureau spends $600 to $700 million annually for construction and another $260 million for operations and maintenance (O&M). About 81 percent of construction and O&M costs are reimbursable through contracts with project beneficiaries, although the repayment periods may be very long. Based on a program review document provided by the Bureau, OTA estimates that total materials-related research funding in FY86 was slightly over $1 million. The Division of Research and Laboratory services conducts most of the Bureaus public works R&D; they have an annual budget of approximately $3 million ($825,000 in materials research) and about 130 ongoing projects. Most materials projects are funded for around $100,000 over a multi-year period. Some additional materials research on concrete structures and materials, totaling about $200,000 in FY86, was conducted in the Division of Water and Land Technical Services. Re8-14

PAGE 139

search sponsored by the Program Related Engineering and Scientific Studies program (PRESS), within the Bureaus Denver Engineering and Research Center, includes the performance of cement and concrete in dams and canals, corrosion prevention for metals and concrete, and materials evaluation methods. In addition, the Bureau and the Corps of Engineers have cooperated in several areas of research. The Bureaus R&D program undertakes some original and problem-oriented research, but, as with the Corps of Engineers, a significant share of the effort is devoted to the evaluation of available products and the development of materials specifications for Bureau projects. Also within the Department of the Interior, both the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Bureau of Mines conduct some materials research relevant to infrastructure. The USGS maintains a research and assessment program on water resources, water quality, and water availability for surface and groundwater, which can assist in the planning and design of water resource and water supply projects. The USGS also studies the occurrence and characteristics of minerals used in construction materials. The Bureau of Mines tracks domestic and international mineral production and consumption. The Bureau discontinued support for its asphalt research center in Laramie, Wyoming as part of a privatization initiative; the laboratory now conducts contract research under private ownership. For many years, they also supported a modest research effort in the characteristics and uses of construction and clay materials. With their recent switch in emphasis to strategic and critical materials, however, their support for research on construction materials has been reduced substantially. Estimates of USGS and Bureau of Mines materials R&D are not available. THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) finances construction of roads and water supply and wastewater treatment facilities under several programs. The most notable is the National Forest roads program, which builds and maintains a 320,000 mile road system and adds about 10,000 miles per year, making it the fourth largest road system in the world. Annu8-15

PAGE 140

al Forest Service road-related expenditures are about $750 million. The Transportation Research Board reports that the USFS has funded a small but productive R&D program to reduce its construct ion and maintenance costs and to improve the performance of its road system. 6 USFS expenditures for road-related R&D have been around $0.2 -$0.3 million per year. The TRB report categorized the USFS as the central source of R&D in the U.S. for low volume roads, which are a major part of the public roads system in rural areas. The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) finances construction of rural water supply and wastewater treatment systems through grant and loan programs, but has no supporting research program. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) conducts research on water and soil conservation and constructs small flood and erosion control projects. Some SCS projects may have materials components but OTA has not yet been able to identify them. OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES There are a number of other Federal agencies that fund materials research that may be applicable to infrastructure, but these agencies generally do not segregate their programs or ex penditures in such a way that infrastructure-related research can be identified easily. For example, the Department of Energys Basic Energy Sciences Program is a major sponsor of advanced materials research in the U.S. Over $150 million was allocated to materials sciences research under this program in FY87. Some DOE-funded research on advanced ceramics (including cements and concretes) and on composites clearly has some potential application to construction of public works projects. Research in the area of energy conservation may prove extremely useful in reducing energy costs for wastewater treatment plants and for production of cements, concretes, and asphalts. OTA does not have estimates of the level of research at DOE or other agencies (such as TVA, NASA, HUD) that might be relevant to infrastructure materiS6 Transportation Research Board, SUPM note ~g) at p. 37. 8-16

PAGE 141

als. However, two special short-term projects of note are worth describing here: the National Council on Public Works Improvements and the Strategic Highway Research Program. OTHER FEDERALLY-FUNDED RESEARCH PROGRAMS National C ouncil on Public Works Improvement The Public Works Improvement Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-501) created the National Council on Public Works Improvement as a Federal Advisory Commission to report to the President and the Congress on the state of the nations infrastructure. The legislation directed the Council to analyze: the age and condition of public works; the capacity of public works to I meet current and anticipated economic development; and methods used to finance the construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance of public works. While the Council initially is focusing on transportation, water resources, and waste management, the Act defines public works to include all types of infrastructure. In future reports, the council may include hospitals, schools, jails, courthouses, and space travel and telecommunications facilities. The Councils first report, published in September 1986, presented the results of a broad survey of public works issues and analyses in the categories of decisionmaking, technology, and economics and finance. 38 Th e reports preliminary conclusions On technology emphasize the promise that new materials, construction technologies, and information and communication systems hold for improving the productivity, performance, and durability of public works. The Council will produce two additional reports by 1988 that will analyze the issues identified in the first report and suggest practical approaches to meeting future infrastructure 37 This includes highwa~,s; streets; bridges; mass transportation facilities and equipment; resource recovery facilities; airports; airway facilities; water supply and distribution systems; waste water collection, treatment and related facilities; dams; Federally-owned buildings; docks and ports; waterways; and other facilities critical to economic development. 38 National Council on Public Works Improvement, SUPra note 1. 8-17

PAGE 142

needs. In addition, the Council has commissioned a series of background papers on topics relevant to their legislative mandate. The Council is doing no research of its own on infrastructure materials. The Strategic Highway Research Program The recently-enacted highway bill (P.L. 10017) established the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) as an intensive 5-year program of Federally-funded research on prob lems affecting the nations highways and bridges. SHRP is administered by the National Re39 Materials-related research is the major focus Of this Program. Full funding search Council. for the program has been authorized by the Congress. Using start-up funds, SHRP has completed a two year planning and assessment process to further define projects under the six primary research areas originally identified in the Transportation Research Board report, Americas Hiqhwavs: Accelerating the Search for Innovation The TRB criteria for selection of research areas included gaps in current knowledge, lack of a previous coordinated research effort, and potential for high short-term payoff from new advances. The research areas and approximate levels of funding are: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) asphaltic materials--!$5O million, pavement performance--$5O million, maintenance cost-effectiveness--!$20 million, concrete bridge component protection systems--$l O million, cement and concrete --$ 12 million, and chemical control of ice and snow--$8 million. 39 The National Research Council is [he operational arm of the Federally-chartered National Academy of Science (NAS) and National Academy of Engineering (NAE). 40 Transportation Research Board, SUPr~, note 29C 8-18

PAGE 143

SHRP is administered by an executive committee, and four separate advisory committees oversee the six research areas. The four advisory committees are Asphalt, Long-term Pavement Performance, Maintenance and Snow Control, and Concrete and Bridge Components. SHRP projects will be carried out by both public and private bodies, including Federal agencies, States, universities, trade associations, and private contractors and consultants. Some research may even be conducted overseas. 8-19

PAGE 144

CHAPTER NINE INTRODUCTION Nonfederal NONFEDERAL PROGRAMS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE MATERIALS RESEARCH infrastructure research and development is supported and conducted by both public and private entities. Within the public sector, States, counties, municipalities, regional agencies, and quasi-governmental bodies, such as water districts and turnpike or port authorities, fund R&D projects on materials for public works. Within the private sector, materials research is conducted by investor-owned utilities; universities and other research groups; trade and professional and product This associations; engineering, consulting, and construction firms; materials suppliers; and equipment manufacturers, chapter discusses the types and amount of nonfederal funding of materials research by major treatment infrastructure category: highways, roads, bridges, and tunnels; sewers and wastewater systems; water supply and treatment systems; and water resources projects, including waterways, ports, dams, locks, canals, and irrigation systems. It should be noted, however, that some research is relevant to more than one type of infrastructure, particularly in concrete and cement research. Reliable estimates of total nonfederal spending on either materials-related or general infrastructure R&D are generally lacking. No single group collects data on all public and private infrastructure areas. What estimates of nonfederal infrastructure-related R&D exist were developed for individual reports, such as the estimates derived for the National Materials 9-1

PAGE 145

Advisory Boards study of R&D in the cement and Research Boards estimates of highway research. 41 Based on published estimates of nonfederal concrete industries, and the Transportation governmental spending and on interviews with industry associations, OTA estimates that between $18 million and !$25 million is spent annually on nonfederal materials R&D for public works, primarily for highways and bridges (see table 9-1). 42 This level of investment in R&D is very low compared with the tens of billions of dollars spent annually on infrastructure construction, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation. Nonfederal support for public works R&D also has been declining steadily. Although some new trade associations and university research institutes have been created recently (see below and in chapter eight), the overall level of R&D funding is still very low compared with identified research needs. Moreover, continuity of funding remains a problem for some private research institutes, which are increasingly dependent on Federal grants and contracts as a primary means of support. HIGHWAYS. ROADS. AND BRIDGES Research on materials used in the construction, maintenance, and repair of the nations highways, roads, bridges, and tunnels receives around $11 million to $15 million annually, or almost two-thirds of nonfederal R&D. The primary materials of interest here are cement, concrete, asphalt, steel and other structural and reinforcing materials, protective coatings, sand, gravel, surface treatments, de-icing substances, and geotextiles. 41 National ~Materials Advisory Board, ConCrete Dur~b ii it~~ A Multibillion-Dollar OPO ortun itv, NMAB-437 ( 1987), estimated R&D expenses at 0.3 percent of sales for cement producers and 0.1 percent of sales for concrete producers. The Transportation Research Board, supra note 29, estimated R&D spending for the highway construction and equipment industry at 0.15 percent of sales. These R&D investments are among the lowest of any U.S. industries. AZ This total generally excludes Federal grants and contract funds. Federally-funded & D b y nonfederal entities is included in the totals for the source agencies. 9-2

PAGE 146

Table 91 ESTIMATED ANNUAL NONFEDERAL INFRASTUCTURE MATERIALS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES Infrastructur e Highways, Roads, and Bridges Municipal Sewers and Wastewater Treatment Warter supply and Treatmen t water Resource s j Waterways, and Ports General Materials Researc h Millions of Dollar s 11,6 15. 2 3.05. 0 1.1 0,10. 5 2.03. 0 TOTAL 17.8 24. 8

PAGE 147

Highway materials R&D is the most coordinated area of nonfederal infrastructure materials research. The integrated structure of the programs overseen by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, the Federally Coordinated Program of Highway Research & Development, and the materials industry institutes provides mechanisms for joint research and diffusion of results. Moreover, the technical expertise and research framework underwritten by the Federal Highway program make the limited amount of State-funded research more effective. Nonfederal Government R&D Construction, maintenance and rehabilitation of highways, streets and bridges is primarily a governmental function carried out by States, counties, and municipalities. The modest research programs of nonfederal governments generally are directed at solving local infrastructure problems and at evaluating and testing commercially available products for local use. According to the Transportation Research Board (TRB), States annually spend about $10 million of their own funds on afl highway research. Assuming that State-funded materials research is approximately the same portion of State-funded R&D as in Federal-State cooperative research programs (see chapter eight), OTA estimates that States spend about $2 million annually on highway materials-related projects. State highway departments typically have one or more professionals on staff with responsibility for materials engineering and research. The TRB and the American Public Works Association (APWA) report that some larger county or city public works or roads departments also support independent research on paving materials and corrosion. The TRB estimates that cities and other local government units spend $1 million to $2 million annually on highway research. Materials-related research is probably no more than $100,000-$200,000 of this. Quasi-governmental agencies, such as those that administer Statewide tollwavs or inter. state bridges and tunnels, also maintain research programs. For example, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority has contracted with the Asphalt Institute to assess the reasons for the sudden 9-3

PAGE 148

rutting of asphalt pavement on large sections of the turnpike. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey research program also includes a materials group, but OTA was unable to obtain specific project descriptions within the timeframe of this survey. Estimates of how much such agencies spend on R&D also were not available. Generally, their research is funded out of revenues and user fees which are not subject to the same political exigencies as State and local government research budgets. Professional and Trade Associations A significant share of nonfederal highway materials R&D is supported and coordinated through professional organizations, trade associations, and their affiliated research foundations. However, the primary emphases of these groups is on member services, publications, standards development, and technology diffusion. The largest share of nonfederal materials R&D for roads and technical societies and trade associations representing materials producers bridges comes and suppliers. from These include: the Asphalt Institute, the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) and its Research Foundation, the Portland Cement Association, the American Concrete Institute, and the Steel Structures Painting Council. Most industry trade associations have small staffs and very modest research budgets, but the Asphalt Institute, NAPA, and PCA support a total of $2 million per year in research on the characteristics, performance, and evaluation of materials. Materials-related work in iron and steel, other structural and reinforcing materials, and coatings and other anti-corrosives probably also is on the order of no more than $ 1 -!$2 million annually. Associations of government transportation officials and agencies provide a forum for identification of research needs and priorities and coordinated research efforts, but provide little direct funding for R&D The two major groups in this area are AASHTO, which represents State officials, and the American Public Works Association (A PWA), which represents State and local governments. Almost all of AASHTO materials research is funded through contracts from States or Federal government agencies. The APWA Research Foundation has a total annual 9-4

PAGE 149

R&D budget of between $100,000 and $500,000. The primary focus is improving transportation management and maintenance through professional educational and research programs for its members, although it has sponsored some materials-related contract research. The National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, and National Conference of State Legislatures all have transportation subcommittees and occasionally underwrite research efforts on behalf of their members, but fund very little materials research. Universities and Other Research Centers Many universities have materials or highway transportation research centers. There are no independent estimates of the level of funding for research carried out in materials science and civil engineering programs, but the major source is the Federal government--either directly through contracts and grants or indirectly from State agencies, HP&R funds, or NCHRP contracts. Therefore, the amount spent on research is reflected in those budgets (see chapter eight). At some public institutions, there may be additional funding of research centers by State legislatures. For example, the State of Alabama is providing $600,000 to help support the National Center for Asphalt Research, which is jointly sponsored by Auburn University and the NAPA Research Foundation. Materials Manufacturers and Suppliers Many materials manufacturers and suppliers maintain R&D departments. According to industry representatives, the asphalt, cement, and concrete industries combined probably spend a total of $6-$8 million annually on R&D, in addition to that sponsored by industry research groups, such as the Asphalt Institute. Industry expenditures for materials R&D are significantly lower now than they were six years ago. According to the National Materials Advisory Board, many private cement and concrete companies have closed their research laboratories. There is no estimate of the private R&D budgets for other materials manufacturers and suppliers, but the 9-5

PAGE 150

TRB and other sources estimate that average R&D expenditures in the transportation segment are about 0.15 percent of sales. 43 SEWERS AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS Sewers and wastewater treatment systems use a wide range of construction materials and manufactured products: sewer pipes (concrete, masonry, plastic, iron, steel), seals, liners, gaskets, and pumps in sewer collection systems; and screens, filters, membranes, liners, pipes, pumps, additives, and monitors for treatment plants. Materials are not a major consideration in waste water treatment processes, but are an important cost component of sewer and treatment plant construction and maintenance. Nonfederal research efforts in sewers and wastewater treatment systems have been underwritten by local governments and sewage authorities; professional and trade associations; engineering, consulting, and construction firms; and equipment and materials manufacturers. Large municipal sanitary districts sponsor a lot of R&D, but their efforts are largely problemoriented or focused on evaluation of commercial products, rather than on materials development. The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, the Los Angeles County Sanitary District, and Seattle Metro funded a total of about $3.5 million in support of R&D in 1983, 44 OT A was unable to find more recent estimates of the level of research funded by local agencies. The American Public Works Association, Association of State and InterState Water Pollution Control officials, Association of Municipal Sewerage Agencies, the Control Federation, and the American Society of Civil Engineers are among the groups involved in wastewater treatment. They probably spend a total of $1 m. 43 Transportation Research Board, supra, note ~9> at p 1 c Water Pollution major technical llion to S2 mil44 American p u blic \Vo rks Association, De fi n i n ~ t h e R 0] e O f Fed e ra 1 a n d pr i a te Sec o r Activities in Solving Mun ici Dal Environmental Problems, Workshop Proceedings prepared for EPA, August 11-13, 1983. 9-6

PAGE 151

lion annually on research on wastewater systems management and identification of research needs. A significant portion of these funds come from contracts with EPA and with local water and sewer utilities. The Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association represents many wastewater equipment suppliers. They were unable to provide estimates of either total sales or R&D expenditures for their members. University research centers also conduct some research on various aspects of sewers and wastewater treatment with Federal funds from sources such as EPA and NSF. Municipal wastewater treatment systems have made significant progress in dealing with conventional pollutants, but now face new pollution control requirements and increasing demands on their systems. This will present new challenges in repairing and replacing aging systems, and in upgrading and expanding facilities to meet Federal regulations and to deal with changes in inflow characteristics from residential-commercial toxic wastes. Rehabilitation of sewers to control infiltration still remains a significant problem. WATER SU PPLY AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS A total of about $14 billion was spent for construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of drinking water supply and delivery systems in 1984, primarily by local governments and water utilities. The major cost components are the underground pipe plus excavation and placement. Materials and products include: pipes (concrete, plastic, ceramic, masonry, iron, lead, steel, copper), pipe foundations and liners; seals, pumps and treatment equipment; nondestructive evaluation techniques; and technologies for inplace repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation. Materials-related research areas include the mechanics of internal and external corrosion, the long-term performance of system materials, maintenance requirements and technologies, rehabilitation technologies, failure prediction, and the effects of materials and water additive? on water quality and system life. Nonfederal R&D on materials for water supply systems is primarily conducted by local water utilities, professional and trade associations, engineering, consulting and construction 9-7

PAGE 152

companies, and equipment and supply manufacturers. State agencies R&D efforts are generally aimed at the health effects of pollutants and identifying the source of contaminants. Large public and private water utilities fund some R&D which focuses on solving local water system problems or on evaluating available technology for local use. Any openness to innovation in water supply technology that might be fostered by local financial responsibility for water systems is countered by the strong emphasis placed on the reliability of those systems. Two professional organizations sponsor and coordinate a large share of nonfederal water supply R&D by local water utilities: the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (A WWARF), and the American Public Works Association (A PWA). 45 Th e AWWARF Research Foundation supports approximately !$ 1 million annually in R&D on materials-related aspects of water systems; current efforts focus on corrosion and rehabilitation of water lines. APWA support for water systems research is probably under $100,000 per year. Its most recent research emphasis is on system management, but some past projects have included materials components. Neither group could provide dollar estimates of the R&D activities of their members, but noted that many of the large municipal water systems and investorowned water utilities sponsor extensive research efforts, including some materials R&D. Examples include utilities in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, the District of Columbia, Atlanta, St. Louis, Boston, and New York City. The construction and engineering firms that design and build water systems do little independent R&D, according to a representative of an industry association. There is probably some private investment in new materials-oriented technologies for repair and rehabilitation, but these figures are likely to be proprietary. 45 A w w A R F ~ as founded as a separate research e n t i t Y b Y the American ~V a t e r w o r ~ S Association, which represents public and private utilities that supply about 60 percent of the drinking water in the U.S. and Canada. Congress provided $3 million in FY84-FY86, through EPA, as seed money for AWWARF. The foundation is now funded by subscription fees paid by member water utilities. 9-8

PAGE 153

WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS Water resources projects-waterways, ports, dams, locks, irrigation and flood control facilities, reservoirs, and other multipurpose facilities--probably receive the lowest level of nonfederal R&D support because of the high level of Federal responsibility. Also, the primary materials and products of interest -concrete, stone, aggregate, pipes, coatings, geotextiles, membranes, liners, filters, and structural and reinforcing metals and substances--are shared with other infrastructure types. The special materials-related problems in water resources include channel erosion and infill, embankment stabilization, and corrosion and deterioration of locks, dams, pilings, and other structures. OTA was able to identify about $100,000 in annual nonfederal expenditures on materials R&D for water resources projects. There are a number of municipal agencies and quasi-governmental authorities that administer ports and waterways, and there are some privately-owned dams and flood control facilities associated with industrial or recreation developments and electric power projects. Some of these nonfederal entities undoubtedly sponsor some materials research, but the level of funding is not known. Many of the larger trade and professional organizations have divisions that are dedicated to advancing design, engineering, and materials in construction and maintenance of water resources projects. However, their work generally draws on generic research by materials suppliers, and on work by architecture/engineering and construction firms. 9-9

PAGE 154

CHAPTER TEN INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE MATERIALS In the past decade, international competition in construction technologies and materials has become more intense. During this same period, U.S. industry began to lose its competitive edge in a number of domestic and international markets. The U.S. also became a foreign market for some industrialized countries marketing advanced technologies and materials here. More and more countries will penetrate U.S. technology and materials markets, and our reliance on imports will increase, unless a national commitment is made to change our approach to materials R&D. The following discussion characterizes the orientation and funding of infrastructure materials R&D in Japan, Britain, and Germany, and identifies whatever differences exist. Also, a brief description of specific materials R&D efforts in Europe and Japan is given. JAPAN In Japan, materials R&D is userand applications-oriented. R&D efforts focus on clients needs, and research is done accordingly. Japanese construction and trade industries conduct construction-specific research, and maintain large laboratory facilities. This is in stark contrast to the U.S. where construction companies do little or no R&D, and the designer knows better than the client what is best. Japanese universities also conduct R&D that is separate from, but complementary to, the work being done at construction company laboratories. Duplication of effort usually is avoided. 46 46 Halpin, supra note 5, task 3, chapter 2 10-1

PAGE 155

New materials are a primary focus of Japanese construction R&D. These include materials used for subsurface ground stabilization and for the construction of bridges and buildings. Because ocean development is important for future land expansion in Japan, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) identified advanced construction materials as an integral part of the countrys future marine community program and overall infrastructure. 47 One of the keys to the success of Japanese innovation is government support of private sector R&D. Government support comprises a host of government measures that have an important bearing on private sector investment decisions. Prominent among these measures are a policy designed to improve a firms accessibility to technological information, and fiscal incentives designed to encourage R&D investment, modernization of plants, and technology exports. The MITI and the Science Technology Agency (STA) coordinate R&D efforts, and compile and disseminate data on world economic trends, trade, and industrial developments. Other government agencies set up to facilitate the flow of technical information are the Japan Patent Information Center (JAPATIC) and the Japanese Industrial Technology Association (JITA). JAPATIC was formed in 1971 to serve as a clearinghouse for patent information of both Japanese and foreign origin. The access to this information fosters the transfer of licensing of inventions and helps expedite the innovation process. 48 Although the Japanese governments information policy certainly helps encourage innovation, perhaps the most far-reaching measures enacted are the fiscal incentives. These include tax credits on a firms R&D expenditures, accelerated depreciation of plant and equipment, and tax exemptions on sales of technology products overseas. 4g 47 Strategic Analysis, InC,, New Structural Materials Technologies: ODD0rtUnitif2S for the Use of Advanced Ceramics and Com~osites (Contractor Report to OTA, December 31, 1986), p. 177. 48 Gee, s upra note 3, at PP. 148-152 49 Ibid., pp. 153-154, 10-2

PAGE 156

Another key to Japanese success in technological innovation is their willingness to assimilate, adapt, and improve on R&D conducted elsewhere. In the course of adapting and perfecting other countries technologies, the Japanese develop new innovations and new markets. For example, the Japanese are producing innovative egg-shaped concrete waste treatment digesters using design methods based on prestressed concrete technology developed by a West German firm. Also, the Japanese have been very successful in moving technologies quickly from the research stage to the marketplace. This is due, in part, to the fact that in many cases the basic research was done elsewhere; development simply involves adapting the technology to Japanese standards. In contrast, the U.S. is not normally so well informed about R&D efforts abroad. 50 EUROPE Each European country has its own approach to conducting and funding R&D. The British and German approaches are described here. Britain As in the United States, British R&D efforts tend to be product oriented. Also, a variety of public and private institutions, including government, universities, associations, materials suppliers, and private commercial laboratories conduct materials R&D. Approximately 60 percent of British R&D is funded by the private sector, and 40 percent by the public sector. Materials and component manufacturers finance the majority of private sector R&D efforts, which are aimed at securing a competitive advantage. sl Consequently, the fragmented nature of the w HalPin, Supra note 5, task 3, chapter 2 51 Strategy for Construction R& D, building and Civil Engineering EDCS, United Kingdom, no date. 10-3

PAGE 157

British Britain repair, research community is similar to that found in the U.S. There is no organization in that carries out the function of the MITI in Japan. 52 Much of the research in Britain is driven by the fact that infrastructure is in need of and actual funding levels have been declining over the past several years. Areas of great R&D interest include waste disposal, sewage treatment, and public transportation. Improvements in materials and better nondestructive testing techniques will support R&D advances in these areas, and enhance Britains competitive position in the international construction market. Materials R&D will focus on improving durability and ease of construction and maintenance. 53 Germanv The German government does not operate its own research laboratories but depends on a number of private, nonprofit research institutions and associations for R&D. government, through the Federal Ministry for Education and Science, is the source and as such controls the direction of R&D activity for these nonprofit However, the main funding organizations. The key organizations are the Germany Research Society, the Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Sciences (the largest research establishment in Germany), the Fraunhofer Society for the Advancement of Applied Research, and the Confederation of Industrial Research Associations. These nonprofit institutes often operate as intermediaries between the government and industry, aggregate needs of the private sector, and disseminate R&D results to industrial firms. 54 Most engineering and construction research is conducted in the private sector by either manufacturers, large contractors, or institutes receiving support from the public or private see, 52 HalPin, supra note 5, task 3, chapter 3 53 Ibid. 54 Gee, supra note 3, at p. 158s 10-4

PAGE 158

tor. The role of government ministries, such as the Construction Ministry, the Transportation Ministry, and the Ministry of Research and Technology, is to coordinate and identify national research needs and disseminate research results. For example, a 1981 German government report, The Future Tasks in Construction Research, identified primary research areas for the construction industry. These included development and improvement of construction materials and methods for industry, bridges, tunnels, water resources, and transportation systems. Specific projects included waterproof concrete, corrosion reduction of reinforced concrete, and improved post-tensioning methods. 55 A unique aspect of the German engineering and construction industry is the Gutachten (expertise) system. This system requires that third-party experts (often, university professors who reside in the German State in which a project is designed or built) verify various aspects of the engineering and construction process. Sometimes, large materials testing facilities are used to evaluate the quality of materials and design concepts. These Materialprufungs Anstalten are a source of interface between industry and university faculty. The system encourages a special relationship in which conceptual ideas initially generated at the university are advanced and perfected by industry. Furthermore, university professors act as entrepreneurs and participate as individuals in the patenting process. As a full partner in the patent, a professor can receive large financial rewards and enhance her reputation. Both factors motivate university faculties to conduct R&D. 56 I n contrast, u s patents from university research often belong to the institu. tion (depending on local policy) rather than to the faculty members who did the work. Like the Japanese government, the German government plays an active role in coordinating and directing R&D efforts. Both countries employ a wide participative system for R&D planning. Representatives from government, industry, and nonprofit institutions become 55 HalPin, Supra note 5, chapter 4. 56 Ibid. 10-5

PAGE 159

involved in the planning process through numerous advisory groups and committees. 57 Also like the Japanese, the Germans survey international R&D efforts and disseminate this information to the private sector. Furthermore, considerable attention is devoted to facilitating innovation at all stages of the process. Special linker organizations, such as the Garching Instrument Company, and the Arbeitsgruppe fur Patentverwertung (A RPAT), act to narrow information gaps between research and commercialization. Garching, a for-profit organization, is the primary link between the Max Planck Society and industry. It negotiates agreements with industry, acts as licenser for patents, engages in prototype development, and sometimes performs marketing. ARPAT, which is one of the Fraunhofer Society institutes, acts as a licensing and patent rights broker but does not participate in negotiations between principal parties. The activities of the Garching Instrument Company and ARPAT have no equivalents in the U.S. 58 Besides these activities, the German government stimulates innovation through fiscal measures, which include a variety of tax benefits, such as credits, allowances, and accelerated depreciation, for R&D investments and expenditures. In addition, the government offers public grants to assist companies in introducing innovations into the commercial market. The innovation may be either a product or a process, and, in addition to being technologically new, it must have good commercial promise. Furthermore, the government has made risk capital more easily available to smalland medium-sized companies. One approach used is to provide credits and guarantees to equity investment companies in order to encourage them to invest in technological innovation projects of smalland medium-sized firms. Another approach is to share risks with a private venture capital company for a limited period of time. sg 57 Gee, supra nOte s, at p 1570 58 Gee, supra note 3, at p. 158. 59 Ibid. 10-6

PAGE 160

European community While each European country has its own approach for conducting and funding R&D, the European Community (EC) realizes that maintaining international competitiveness will depend on cooperation among member countries. Accordingly, in 1985, EC created the Basic Research in Industrial Technologies for Europe (B RITE) program. The central objective of the program is to provide an incentive toward the creation of a technological base that Community industries can draw on to maintain international competitiveness over the next decade. Nine major technological areas are given priority: 1) problems of reliability, wear, and deterioration of materials and systems; 2) laser technology and powder metallurgy; 3) joining techniques; 4) new testing methods, including nondestructive, on-line, and computer-aided testing; 5) computer-aided design and manufacturing and mathematical modeling; 6) polymers, composites and other new materials; 7) membrane science and technology; 8) catalysis and particle technology GO Total funding ogy; and 9) new technologies applied to articles made from flexible materials. for the 103 selected research projects is 120 million ECU, 50 percent of which is provided by the EC and 50 percent by the industrial companies participating in the program .61 Several of the selected projects will address infrastructure-related issues. They include Electrochemically based Techniques for Assessing and Preventing Corrosion of Steel in Concrete; Deterioration Prevention in Reinforced Concrete Structures Subject to Hostile Environments; an d Improvements of the Lifetime of Woven and Nonwoven Synthetic Materials for Geotextiles, Packaging and Agriculture. 62 Funding levels for these projects are not known at this time. 60 commission of the European Communities, Basic Research in Industrial Technologies for Europe, information package, no date. Commission of the European Communities, BRITE The Community Programme of Research in Industrial Technologies Gets Under Way, Press Release, Bruxelles, February 4, 1986. 62 Complete List of projects Llnder the First Tranche of the BRITE program me, European Community, no date. 10-7

PAGE 161

EUREKA is another European initiative to improve productivity and competitiveness of Europes industries and economies through closer cooperation among enterprises and research institutes in the field of advanced technologies. It was created in 1985 at the European technology conference. To date, 19 European countries, including the Commission of the European Communities, participate in this initiative. Seventy-two cooperation proposals were adopted as EUREKA projects, which cover a wide range of advanced technologies. These technologies include manufacturing, computing, communications, materials, biotechnology, and advanced forms of transport. Implementation of the projects will cost ECU $3.2 billion over a period of 2-10 years. Two advanced materials projects approved in 1986 are CARMAT 2000 and Light Materials for Transport Systems. The $60 million CARMAT 2000 project will evaluate new materials for car structures over a four-year period. The other approved project, Light Materials for Transportation Systems, is funded at $15 million and will last four years. Little information is available on this project. 63 CEMENT AND CO NCRETE According to the National Materials Advisory Board (NMAB), cement and concrete research and development are declining worldwide, except for Japan. A 1980 NMAB report states that cement and concrete R&D efforts in the U.S. suffer from a lack of intellectual and financial support from pertinent industries and government agencies. In Britain and France, the status of cement and concrete R&D is similar to that in the U.S. In Britain, the Cement and Concrete Association will be cut to one-third of its size, and redirected towards contract research. And, in France, the primary cement industry research institute, CERILH, is closing. In contrast, Japanese building contractors have substantial R&D budgets, and are given 63 Strategic Analysis, Inc., supra note 47, at pp. 32-33 10-8

PAGE 162

additional support from the Japan and the Japanese government. 64 The U.S. cement industry Building Contractors Society, the central coordinating agency, is plagued by obsolete manufacturing facilities, and lags far behind to rely plants. many industrialized nations in the design of efficient plants. Consequently, the U.S. has on new technologies developed primarily in Europe and Japan to modernize existing For example, Germany and Japan are leaders in developing new types of cement kilns. Another recent trend in the cement industry is the increasing number of acquisitions of U.S. cement companies by foreign companies. In 1986, two U.S. companies, Gifford-Hill and Ideal Basic Industries, were purchased by European companies. Also, Martin Marietta phased out all of their cement operations in 1983. Blue Circle Industries Group of Great Britain bought About 60 percent of U.S. cement production Plants in he some of Martin Mariettas plants. U.S. are now owned or controlled by foreign companies. Developments in improving concrete have taken place both here and abroad. The Europeans and Japanese have done substantial work on concrete admixtures, particularly superp1asticizers 66 and high range water reducers. U.S. efforts have focused on polymers in concrete, computer applications in modeling and design, and special concrete applications (e. g., earthquake resistance), as well as compliance with environmental regulations. 67 Japan has done considerable work on polymer concrete, which was first developed by Nippon Telephone and Telegraph (NTT) in the late 1960s. Since then, polymer concrete has 64 Frohnsdorf f and Skalny, supra ote 9< 65 Business communications COrllpany, 1lIC., suPra ote 12 66 Superplasticizers are small organic molecules (no more han 20-25 atoms) used to improve the workability of concrete. The molecules help to disperse water in the concrete so that less water is needed. 67 F r o h n s d o r ff and Skalny, suPra ote 9 10-9

PAGE 163

been used to make manholes for telephone lines and now accounts for over 80 percent of block manholes used by NTT. Polymer concrete is also used to make manholes for sewer systems. 68 Underwater concrete is attracting much attention in Japan. Mitsui Petrochemical first introduced underwater concrete in 1979. Use is increasing in applications such as bridge supports and other structures exposed constantly to water. Because of the increasing demand for this material, the Japanese government formed an ad hoc committee (consisting of ten construction companies and auxiliary organizations of the Transportation Ministry and Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) to establish product standards and create an instruction manual. The Ministries also are actively promoting the use of underwater concrete. 6g ASPHALT 70 The U.S. asphalt industry is confronted with a wider variety of problems caused by climate, terrain, traffic loads, and crude oil qualities, than their European counterparts. Consequently, according to the Asphalt Institute, U.S. asphalt R&D efforts are a valuable source of information to the Europeans in addressing their roadway problems. Pavement rutting is a pronounced problem in Europe. Although there are many ways to solve the problem, the Europeans are focusing on asphalt additives. Two additives that the U.S. Asphalt Institute currently is examining are Styryl (French process) and polyethylene (Austrian process). Finally, the Asphalt Institute mentioned that Germany, France and Holland have government organizations that support asphalt R&D. 68 Strategic Analysis, Inc., supra, ote 47 69 Ibid$, p. 172-77. 70 This section is based on information received from the Asphalt Institute, March 17, 1987 10-10

PAGE 164

PLASTICS Two of the most recent technological breakthroughs in pipe production systems were developed abroad. The system developed by A.G. Petzetakis S.A. of Athens, Greece, reportedly can produce 60-inch plastic (polyvinyl chloride) pipe that is equivalent in compressive strength and stiffness to solid-wall concrete or cast-iron pipe. Aim International is marketing the Petzetakis system in the U.S. The other pipemaking system was developed by Corma, Inc., a Canadian pipe-corrugation equipment manufacturer, and Oy Uponor AB, a Finnish pipemaking and equipment company. Extrusion Technologies, Inc., has entered into the first Uponor process licensing agreement in the U.S. Both of these processes enable polyvinyl chloride pipe to compete with concrete and cast iron pipes for infrastructure applications. l GEOTEXTILES Geotextiles (synthetic fiber fabrics used in geotechnical applications) were first developed in the Netherlands in the 1950s as a result of an ambitious civil engineering construction program--Delta Works. Delta Works was initiated after the catastrophic flood of 1953, which inundated 150,000 hectares of land and killed 2,000 people. Since that time, European and U.S. interests in geotextiles have grown. Today, about 38 U.S. and at least as many European companies manufacture and/or distribute geotextiles. Some of the largest U.S. companies include Amoco Fabrics Company, Dow Chemical, du Pent and Exxon Chemicals Americas. WASTEW.ATER TREATMENT In the United Kingdom, 13 regional water districts have been established to conduct waste water treatment research. These water districts and a limited number of private companies contribute to the operation of the Water Research Centre, which has a staff of over 255 and 71 ~~odern plastics, Supra note 17, at PP. 42-44 10-11

PAGE 165

about 78 major studies underway. Although most of the Centres budget comes from the 13 water districts, the national government also contributes 12 percent of the funding. The Water Research Council of Great Britain recently opened an office in Philadelphia to market British sewer and wastewater management systems and technology to U.S. waste water agencies. A number of large U.S. municipal wastewater treatment authorities fund appreciable R&D on their own (see chapter nine). For example, the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, the Los Angeles County Sanitary District, and Seattle Metro funded a total of about $3.5 million in support of R&D in 1983. However, the public pays for that R&D via user fees, and the type of R&D funded is generally limited to satisfying local needs. 72 The Japanese rely heavily on the central government for sewer and wastewater research, planning, and design, and the government has increased its investment in municipal wastewater R&D significantly in the past six to eight years. The Japan Sewage Works Agency (JSWA) has expanded its total staff from 30 to over 900 employees, and considers municipal wastewater treatment a major focus of the Agencys research program. Unlike its U.S. counterpart, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the JSWA also designs treatment works for municipalities through contract arrangements. In the U. S., design and engineering work is performed largely by private sector firms. The Japanese also have launched a five-year, $30 million collaborative research program involving MITI, JSWA, the Japan Ministry of Construction, universities, and private companies. The goal of the program is to develop a new class of wastewater treatment technology, which, if successful, would meet pressing local needs as well as become a possible new export to the U.S. and Europe. The program supports two simultaneous research efforts: one in biotechnology for waste treatment; and the other, dubbed renaissance, examines a wide range of treatment approaches, including various membrane technologies. U.S. experts note that the prospects for a 72 ~merican public works Assochtion, suPr~ note 44 10-12

PAGE 166

breakthrough in wastewater treatment technology are far from certain, and that any Japanese advances likely would have to be adapted and modified for U.S. conditions. Currently, exports comprise no more than 1-2 percent of Japans wastewater treatment equipment sales. 73 73 personal ~ommun ication with John Convery, U.S. Environmental protection ~gencY, Municipal Wastewater Research Division, Cincinnati, Ohio. 10-13

PAGE 167

CHAPTER ELEVEN INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, RESEARCH NEEDS, AND POLICY OPTIONS In conducting this brief survey of infrastructure materials R&D, OTA identified two sets of issues: those related to the quantity and quality of data about the Federal and nonfederal R&D budgets, and those related to the amount and scope of the R&D itself. The latter include reduced funding for R&D at all levels, insufficient information exchange about R&D projects and programs, mismatches between R&D projects and needs, and government policies and perceptions of risk that inhibit the application of materials research results in public works proj ects. Together, these limit the amount of research conducted, make the research less comprehensive in scope than it might be, and impair the cost-effectiveness of public works improvements. This chapter discusses these issues and the constraints they place on materials R&D, and identifies options for addressing them. This should not be considered a complete list of policy options, but a brief discussion of those that are most apparent given the limited scope of this survey. Because calling for additional R&D funding is a relatively simplistic solution in the face of massive budget deficits, and because OTA was unable to quantify the R&D funding needs, the options discussed below focus primarily on means of making the limited funding that is available more effective. Specific materials areas that could benefit from increased research funding are discussed at the end of this chapter. BUTDGET DATA~ PROBLEM S While Federal agencies were extremely cooperative (sometimes eager) in providing us with their budget figures for R&D, we are unsure about the accuracy and comprehensiveness of 11-1

PAGE 168

some of those figures for the purposes of this survey. Agencies whose primary mission is not infrastructure-related typically do not segregate their programs or expenditures in such a way that research relevant to public works can be identified easily. For example, the Department of Energys Basic Energy Sciences Program is a major sponsor of advanced materials research in the U.S. Some DOE-funded research on advanced ceramics (including cements and concretes) and on composites clearly has potential applications in public works construction. However, that is not the defined goal of the research, and the precise amount that is relevant cannot be identified easily. Other organizations categorize their research by type of infrastructure (e.g., wastewater treatment). When materials R&D is a component of a general infrastructure research effort, its level of funding is not easily separated from a total project budget. In addition, some agencies include administrative expenses (salaries and overhead) in their R&D budgets; others do not. We have identified these reporting differences in the text to the extent possible. Accurate and comprehensive budget data are hard to find for nonfederal infrastructure R&D. No single institution collects data on all nonfederal infrastructure research. Even within relevant industries or infrastructure categories, there is little independent data collection on R&D. Furthermore, companies often treat information on research efforts and funding as proprietary and do not release it. Options for addressing this problem are discussed further in the section on Information Exchange, below. GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND RISKS Government contracting and procurement policies, and public and private sector perceptions of risk may place significant constraints on the amount of infrastructure materials R& D and the implementation of research results. As a result of these practices that impede innovation, and of the extremely high premium placed on the reliability of infrastructure systems, the gap between materials research and practice is more likely to be bridged through gradual adap11-2

PAGE 169

tation of new methods and improvements, with elaborate testing and hesitant modification of existing specifications and acceptance criteria. 74 Government construction standards, procurement specifications, and regulatory requirements shape the environment for research and innovation in public works. The U.S. contracting process divides public works projects into design and construction phases. Construction firms often must bid on projects for which the specifications and materials have been prescribed in regulations and/or selected in advance by design-engineering firms. Design-engineering firms may be unwilling to experiment with new materials because of high liability risks if the material does not perform as expected, or because government agencies may have already established key project specifications by prescription (e.g. so many inches of asphalt) instead of as performance specifications. This division between designer and builder has, in some instances, led to an adversary relationship. Drawing upon a musical analogy, one specialist in engineering and construction technology compared the designer to the musical composer who said, I only compose; its not my fault if the note cannot be played on the tuba. You as a player must solve the problem. In some cases, the architect/engineer has taken a similar position by designing something that is either unplayable or inefficient from a construction and materials point of view. 75 There is a general bureaucratic inertia in continuing to use established procurement specifications and materials testing and construction standards. Development and approval of new specifications or standards can be a lengthy and difficult process that requires substantial research. However, government and private research that might provide the basis for new standards has been declining. Furthermore, it can be costly for established public works personnel, 74 Committee on National Urban Policy, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Counc ii, (Royce Hanson, cd. ) Pers~ectives on Urban 1nfrmtructure, INational Academy Press, 1984, at 206-207. 75 HalPin, supra note j, Tasks 1 and ~, Ch~Pter 4 11-3

PAGE 170

suppliers, and contractors to alter current materials and practices, and any proposed change in procurement specifications and construction standards may become politically charged depending on whose ox will be gored by the change. For example, although granitic or basaltic aggregate may perform better and last longer in road construction than limestone aggregate, a State with a large limestone industry is unlikely to include out-of-state materials in their specifications. The extent to which government contracting and procurement processes actually deter the use of new or improved materials needs to be determined. If significant disincentives are found, means for removing or mitigating them should be developed. The relative costs and benefits of design versus performance standards in public works procurement also merits further analysis. The lack of good performance standards hinders development of new materials because there is no reliable way of evaluating the materials long-term service life and reliability. Because of the complexity of the problem, development of the needed standards requires a large investment in research. 76 In addition, contracts usually are awarded to the lowest bidder, and new materials often have a higher capital cost than conventional ones. While over the long-term these materials might reduce repair and maintenance costs, few analyses of the trade-offs between front-end and life-cycle costs are available. Without some mechanism for considering potentially lower life-cycle costs in the procurement process, bidders proposing the use of improved, but potentially more expensive materials would place themselves at a competitive disadvantage. However, the accuracy of life-cycle costing systems is suspect, and needs additional research. Governments and corporations also perceive a high level of risk in using new materials in public works. First, people place a high premium on the reliability of public works. When you turn on your water faucet you expect water to come out at a reliable pressure, you expect it to be of a consistently potable and healthful quality, and you expect to receive it at a reasonable 76 National Materials Advisory Board, suPra note 410 11-4

PAGE 171

cost. Local governments and their public works contractors are reluctant to use new materials in case the reliability of the system is in some way impaired, and either the quality or the cost of the service is adversely affected. Any openness to innovative technologies that might be fostered by local financial responsibility for water or wastewater systems is countered by the strong emphasis placed on the reliability of those systems. It is easier for public works utilities to justify rate increases for repair and maintenance to preserve the immediate reliability of a system than for the use of innovative materials in construction that might prolong reliability at some time in the future. Moreover, if advanced materials turned out to be less effective than anticipated, the political and economic costs of repair or replacement can be high. Public works agencies and their contractors also are very sensitive to liability risks. If people are injured or property is damaged as a result of materials failure in a public works project (at the extreme, the collapse of a bridge or dam), the liability costs for the materials producer and tester, the construction firm, and the public agency can be financially crippling. Although this risk is probably not so great a deterrent in the use of advanced materials as the possibility of having to bear greater repair costs, it is still a consideration. Some form of incentive is needed to overcome the perceived risks of using new or improved materials in public works. These could take the form of the tax incentives and government co-funding used in Japan, or the grants used in West Germany, or simply some form of guaranteed repair insurance in the event the materials did not perform as well as expected. For example, the Environmental Protection Agencys Innovative/Alternative Technology Program has a 100 percent modification or replacement provision to prevent communities from having to bear the costs of failure of new waste treatment technologies. Better quality control in project design and maintenance and better education for project architects and engineers also are necessary to address conflicts between materials designers and construction contractors, and to alleviate the perceived risks in using new materials. While these 11-5

PAGE 172

are difficult to legislate, relatively simple options such as requiring materials science for civil engineer certification and continuing engineering education would help. The German Getachten (expertise) system described in chapter ten also provides a model for improving quality control. FUNDING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE MATERIALS R&D Infrastructure materials R&D--whether Federal or nonfederal--generally is underfunded compared to the research priorities (based on perceived needs for better materials performance) and to the probable level of investment needed to meet current and anticipated future infrastructure maintenance, repair, and construction needs. There has been a general decline in all Federal civilian R&D during the 1980s due to the budget deficit and the administrations philosophy that civilian R&D is a private sector or State government responsibility. For example, internal FHWA funding for research on paving materials, including asphalt and concrete, has been cut considerably in the past eight years because FHWA believes that State work under the Highway Planning and Research Program (HP&R; see below) is sufficient, and in anticipation of the Strategic Highway Research Programs (SHRP) intensive efforts on pavement performance. Based on project summaries provided by FHWA, OTA estimates that FHWA materials-related research declined from $2.6 mi contrast, in the 1970s, FHWA direct contract dollars per year. lion in FY85 to about $0.9 million in FY87. In research on asphalt alone was several million Also, the Administration has repeatedly proposed the elimination of the National Bureau of Standards Center for Building Technology (CBT). For FY88, the Administration proposes that CBT be combined with the NBS Center for Fire Research, and that the combined budgets be reduced by 40 percent. Congress has previously rejected efforts to cut or eliminate the CBT. Moreover, Federal R&D funding often is tied to the need to evaluate available products for use in Federal projects or to solve particular problems. The Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation have been somewhat insulated from this trend because of their 11-6

PAGE 173

continuing mission-related R&D responsibilities. In other Federal agencies, however, once a project has been completed or a solution for a problem has been found, continuing R&D in that area is more difficult to justify. Nonfederal support for public works R&D by State and local governments and the private sector, also has been declining steadily. Beyond the general economic conditions in many industries today, the low level of nonfederal R&D funding can be attributed either to the lack of Federal support, or to the procurement and liability issues discussed previously, or to corporate perceptions about the low level of return from materials R&D for public works. Although the relatively new trade association and university sponsored research institutes described in chapters eight and nine mark a small reversal in the overall trend, the level of nonfederal infrastructure R&D funding is still very low compared with identified research needs. Also, continuity of funding remains a problem for some private research institutes, which are increasingly dependent on declining Federal grants and contracts as their primary means of support. For example, the primary focus of trade associations historically has been on member services, publications, standards development, and, in a few cases, technology diffusion. Now that declining profit margins have led many companies to cut their contributions to trade associations, research efforts have been cut back. Lack of Federal support is especially a problem for State and local governments. While Federal, State and local government research priorities and policies largely determine the materials and infrastructure needs to be examined, Federal priorities often differ markedly from those of the State and local governments who have to implement the Federal programs. There is little Federal R&D to support State and local programs in the areas of water supply and wastewater treatment, for example. Local governments bear the primary responsibility for drinking water supply, and contribute the bulk of the $6 billion spent annually on the construction, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of drinking water systems. Although the Federal Government (primarily the Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, and Environmental Protec 11-7

PAGE 174

tion Agency) historically has conducted R&D on water supply systems and treatment processes and equipment, little Federal money flows to State or local research efforts. Local government officials have stated that they have refocused their waste water efforts from R&D to construction in order to capture Federal funding under the Clean Water Acts Construction Grants Program. 77 This lack of support fo r local R&D is compounded by the information exchange and technology transfer constraints discussed below. In addition, as noted previously, internal FHWA funding for research on paving materials, including asphalt and concrete, has been cut considerably in the past eight years in anticipation of the SHRP research on pavement performance, and because FHWA believes that State work under the Highway Planning and Research Program (HP&R) is sufficient. Yet the States commitments to research under HP&R varies widely, with individual State research allocations ranging between 5 and 55 percent of State HP&R funds (the remainder goes to planning). Moreover, States definitions of research are very broad and often center on evaluative studies, such as the suitability of available materials and processes for road construction specifications. The low level of private sector R&D on infrastructure materials is due more to corporate perceptions of the costs and benefits of R&D than the lack of government support. Infrastructure materials R&D, even more than most other materials R&D, does not fit the classic industrial or engineering pattern of integrated R&D management, in which process and product development precede a total technological and marketing effort. In the classical, idealized pattern, universities and government research laboratories perform basic research that serves as the foundation for goal-oriented R&D in industrial laboratories. In contrast, materials R&D efforts 77 See, for example, remarks of Robert P. Miele, Los Angeles County Sanitation District, in American Public Works Association Research Foundation, Proceeding of Workshotx Defining the Role of Federal and Private Sector Activities in Solvin q Municir)al Environmental Problems, Airlie House, Va., Aug. 11-13, 1983, at pp 50-52. 11-8

PAGE 175

are highly fragmented and tend to be heavily problem-oriented, especially for infrastructure materials. Much of the necessary basic and systematic research that could lead to advances in materials properties and behavior has been neglected and underfunded. There are many small firms involved which do not have adequate resources to support extensive R&D, and the bulk of the effort is devoted to the evaluation of available products. Further, the public works construction industry traditionally has had a low level of R&D because construction companies typically view themselves as brokers of services; they tend to believe that R&D investments will not confer any significant competitive advantage. They also tend to view these materials as commodities, which implies that any proprietary products resulting from R&D efforts will not have much market penetration (even if they are patented). This is compounded by the fact that public works construction materials, such as cement and concrete, generate a low return and have a long payback period compared to other investments and, consequently, not much profit to allocate to R&D These are high-volume, low-value products, so that even low-cost materials substitutes or additives can add enough to costs to make them uncompetitive. In addition, as discussed previously, the slow certification process and potential liability risks for new materials are significant constraints on private sector R&D. Finally, the construction materials industry does not sponsor much R&D because of local variations in the materials. Because constituent materials (sand, gravel, lime, asphalt, aggregate, etc. ) are obtained from local sources and are highly variable in composition and quality, research often will have only limited geographic applicability, further limiting potential gain from R&D, There is slightly more investment in R&D among equipment companies and materials suppliers associated with chemical companies, which traditionally have been more supportive of research. However, even these companies are deterred by the potential for a low return on investment. For example, as noted in chapter seven, du Pent has deferred further development of polymer concretes until a sufficient market develops. 11-9

PAGE 176

A target the the most good start on making the limited R&D funding that is available more effective is to research agenda more directly to national needs. The initial step is determining what critical needs are. This is especially important for water supply and sewage and waste water treatment systems, which traditionally have been local government responsibilities, and in which the R&D is more fragmented than other infrastructure types with a major Federal role. This would not require an exhaustive inventory of the condition of public works, but could be based on a survey of Federal, State and local agencies responsible for various types of public works about their most pressing problems. For example, SHRP is a targeted program that began with a two-year planning and assessment process to further define gaps in current knowledge (see chapter eight). A similar assessment for other infrastructure types (e.g., wastewater facilities, water supply systems) could eliminate duplication in research efforts and facilitate coordination of projects, and thus get more bang out of the limited bucks available. Innovation centers also can be an excellent means of targeting research. Examples highlighted in this survey include the Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois; the two newly-established, Army-funded Centers of Excellence in Building Construction Technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Illinois; and the Air Forces Center for Cement Composite Materials, also at the University of Illinois. The funding for such centers requires that they focus on particular kinds of research, and thus helps to ensure that the research meets national needs. Incentives also are needed to address the corporate perception that they will receive a low return on investment from infrastructure materials R&D. These could be introduced through tax incentives or the contracting process (e. g., waive the low bidder requirement for companies willing to demonstrate improved materials). Also, governments could co-fund the R&D with some form of guarantee that it would actually be used in projects and/or approved for procurement specifications. 11-10

PAGE 177

., INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER One consequence of the highly fragmented nature of the infrastructure materials R&D industries, and of their limited R&D funding, is that the exchange of information about ongoing and completed R&D efforts is inadequate. Trade and professional associations, journals, and conferences provide forums for the identification of research needs and priorities and the publication of research results. However, these forums usually are organized by type of infrastructure or material. Because the research itself tends to be problem-oriented, there may be little cross-over of information between research groups about new developments in particular types of materials. Information exchange is even more difficult from non-infrastructure research. Thus, an improved form of concrete developed for a purpose not related to public works may be equally useful in dams, or pipes, or other infrastructure applications, yet the infrastructure materials researchers may be unaware of it. Further, corporations often treat information on research efforts and funding as proprietary and do not release it. Finally, local governments--the primary purchasers of infrastructure materials-often lack the resources to participate in trade associations and conferences, or subscribe to journals. As with other issues discussed in this chapter, the lack of information exchange and research coordination is most pressing for water supply, and sewage and waste water systems. At present, highway materials R&D is the most coordinated area of research in the U. S., because of the cooperative nature of Federal and State programs. However, even this coordination is limited to highways, roads, and bridges; communication of the results of materials research for another infrastructure type that may be relevant to highways (e. g., concrete for dams, airport runway pavements) is haphazard. A second problem is the slow rate at which new or advanced materials are accepted by government agencies, architects/engineers, and contractors for incorporation into public works projects. This slow rate of commercialization (or technology transfer from R&D program to 11-11

PAGE 178

public works project) is primarily attributable to the procurement and liability issues discussed previously. It also derives, however, from a lack of knowledge about the materials and how to design for and use them. The annual costs of not using the very best available materials could not be quantified, but must be very large (i.e., billions of dollars) for increased future and maintenance. These problems with information and technology transfer result in an inefficient repair use of what R&D resources are available. Some materials research efforts may be unnecessarily repetitive. In other cases, research funds could be used more effectively in cooperative efforts. At the extreme, a national clearinghouse on R&D for public works, would be most useful. 78 This should include information on planned, ongoing, and completed R&D projects, as well as on the results of using advanced materials and construction technologies in public works systems, both in the U.S. and abroad. Advances in computer technology and software, such as integrated knowledge systems consisting of networked expert systems, simulation models, and databases, could be invaluable in overcoming the inadequate information exchange, and thus in promoting the use of the best available materials. However, development and adaptation of these systems for public works R&D applications, and their acquisition by users, will be expensive. At least, individual agencies or trade associations could provide information exchange and research coordination. Organizations such as the International Union of Research and Testing Laboratories for Materials and Structures (RILEM) and the International Council for Building Research and Documentation (CIB) are becoming increasingly important in facilitating the international exchange of information. including research plans. In the U. S., the National Bureau of Standards and the Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Laboratory are particularly active in RILEM and CIB. 78 Compare the Japanese and German governments, which have agencies that coordinate research and disseminate information. 11-12

PAGE 179

., Domestic programs that provide information exchange include the Federally Coordinated Program of Highway Research & Development (FCP), which was set up in 1971 to coordinate State-Federal activities (see chapter eight), and the American Concrete Institute Committee 123. However, as noted previously, programs oriented toward either a specific infrastructure or material type cannot always capture advances in another area. GAPS IN INFRASTRUCTURE MATERIALS R&D As a result of the limited funding of infrastructure materials R&D, inadequate information exchange and materials commercialization, and procurement practices and perceptions of risk, there are gaps in the R&D agenda These take the form of mismatches between R&D projects and public works materials needs, for particular materials and their value in individual projects, and for making decisions about maintenance versus repair versus replacement. As the primary purchasers of infrastructure materials, Federal, State and local governments research priorities and policies largely determine the materials and infrastructure R&D agenda. Their priorities typically are set by the need to solve specific local infrastructure problems. Yet, the fragmentation of the R&D efforts means that research aimed at special local problems is not coordinated, and limits application of the research results in public works projects. Private sector R&D is stimulated by the existence or perception of a market for new infrastructure materials due to government investment in public works and the availability of funds. But, as discussed previously, infrastructure materials typically generate a low return on investment. Therefore, private infrastructure research has focused on new construction methods and technologies, and largely ignored research on maintenance and repair methods and materials 79 Although the long-term that could prolong the useful life of materials and public works. 79 This is, in part, because pub] ic spend ing programs favored new construction. For example, road and bridge repairs did not qualify for much Federal or State assistance until recently. 11-13

PAGE 180

market for these methods and materials could eventually be more profitable, new construction carries a higher short-term profit for suppliers and contractors. Moreover, deferring R&D until a sufficient market develops is a vicious circle, because the State and local governments, who are the primary purchasers of infrastructure materials, have a high sensitivity to risk and will not consider using a material until it is fully developed. The differences in cost effectiveness between repair and maintenance versus new construction or replacement (e.g., filling potholes or resurfacing) also is a critical consideration in infrastructure investment. In assessing such tradeoffs, public works utilities need to be aware of the full range of materials and technologies and their costs. For example, new materials applied to road surfaces or used in sewer pipes could substantially prolong their lives and reduce maintenance and repair costs. This might make it much easier to amortize high-cost projects over considerably longer periods. Yet, few studies have analyzed the tradeoffs among expenditures for maintenance versus repair versus new construction or replacement, even for well-established materials. Information on how these trade-offs might be affected by the capital and maintenance costs of new materials-related technologies is not available. As noted previously, improved life-cycle costing methods would help to bridge this gap. In terms of more basic research, the gaps in materials-related infrastructure R&D are substantial. There is almost no research on, or expectation of profit from, research toward developing totally new methods of delivering transportation, water supply, and wastewater disposal services. so There even is little e basic research on new materials, such as a totally new material for building roads. Many of the most important research areas are closely related and apply to all materials for public works --concrete, cement, steel, paints and coatings, asphalt, plastics, and organic matrix composites. These research gaps can be narrowed through a better understanding 80 A possible exception here might be the application Of superconductivity to mag-lev transportation. 11-14

PAGE 181

of mechanisms of degradation and corrosion of materials in service, and development of methods for predicting material service life and the performance of materials under use. These are all difficult and complex problems, and are not likely to be tackled by the private sector alone. For both asphalts and cements, there is now a renewed effort aimed at understanding what these materials are; how they derive their properties; and how variations in composition, additives, applications, or environmental conditions can influence their performance in use. However, a critical need continues to be funding of cooperative research efforts on developing international conventions for better standards and measurement for testing and describing asphalt and concrete. This would allow differing properties and compositions to be noted, research results communicated, and materials recreated. Moreover, few agencies or organizations are researching the public works applications of advanced materials (e. g., ceramics and composites) that were not developed specifically for infrastructure. In part, this is because advanced structural materials typically are too costly to 81 Yet, as noted previously, virtually 0 be considered for use in most public works applications. analytical studies have quantified the tradeoff between the front-end costs of these materials and their potential long-term savings in maintenance and repair costs, and service life. Other public works materials R&D needs include: -basic research on the mechanisms of corrosion in underground pipes to reduce repair requirements and the potential for water contamination; -basic research on correcting inflow and infiltration of water and sewer systems; improved deicing and anti-corrosion methods for highways and bridges; the development of certification standards for acceptance of new construction materials and technologies to facilitate their use in public works; 81 See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, New Structural Mnteriols Technologies: Opportunities for the Use of Advnnced Ceramics and Composites, Technical IMemorandum, Sept. 1986. 11-15

PAGE 182

. further analysis of the fieasibility of incorporating performance standards in public works contracting and procurement specifications; development of reliable methods, including nondestructive testing of materials, for assessing the quality or condition of materials in both new and old construction; testing methods to monitor the properties and quality of materials during construction and repair (e.g., asphalt or concrete as they set); cooperative research efforts on developing international conventions for better standards and measurement for testing and describing asphalt and concrete. research on the effects of materials on water quality (for example, the problems associated with solvent migration through certain types of plastic pipes and gaskets, toxicological problems from the interaction of direct and indirect additives to drinking water with materials in the water distribution system); and development of integrated computer systems (networked expert systems, simulation models, and databases) for improving the usefulness of materials research and facilitating the selection of materials for public works construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation. 11-16

PAGE 183

MATERIALS R&D BIBLIOGRAPHY MATERIALS Strategic Analysis, Inc. (OTA contractor), New Structural Materials Technologies: Opportunities for the Us e of Advanced Ceramics and Composites, Advanced Construction Materials chapter, December 31, 1986. Business Communications Company, Inc. (OTA contractor), Strategies of Advanced Materials Supplies and Users, Advanced Construction Materials, 1986. J.E. Carpenter, Applications of High Strength Concrete for Highway Bridges, Public Roads. Materials Research Society, Symposium Proceedings, Microsilica Concrete: A Technological Breakthrough Commercialized, (Elkem Chemicals, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA), Volume 42, 1985. Materials Research Society, Symposium Proceedings, (J. Francis Young, editor), very High Strength Cement-Based Materials, November 27-28, 1984. K. Kendall, A.J. Howard and J.D, Birchall, The Relationship Between Porositv. Microstructure and Strength. and the A D proach to Advanced CementBased Materials, ICI New Science Group, U. K., 1983. Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), New Inorganic Materials, January 1986. State-of-the-Art Report on Fiber Reinforced Concrete, concrete International, May 1982. ICI, Porosity and Its Relationship to the Strength of Hvdraulic Cement Pastes, Proceeding, 1985. Mehta, P. Kumar, The Future of Concrete, Co ncrete Structures. Properties. and Materials. Frohnsdorff, G. and J. Skalny, Cement in the 1990s: Challenges and O DD ortunities, 1983. Office of Research and Development, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, App lications of High Strength Concrete for Highwav Bridges, October 1981. W,C. McBee, Sulfur Concrete A New Construction Material. W.C. McBee, T.A. Sullivan, and H.L. Fike, Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of Interior, Sulfur Construction Materials, Bulletin *678, 1985. Materials and Society, Special Issue: Mineral Economics Symposium, Volume 9, #2, 1985, p. 179. Civil Engineering Department, University of New Mexico at Albuquerque, Proceedings. 1981 Paving Conference. Civil Engineering Department, University of New Mexico at Albuquerque, Proceedings. 1983 Pavinq Conference. B-1

PAGE 184

Sulfur Extended Asphalt as a Paving Material, Chapter 3. Highwav Engineer, H OW Our European Neighbors Tackle Bitumen Road Construction, December 1976. Daniel H. Halpin, Technology in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction, Chapter 8: Concrete Fabrication and Forming Techniques, OTA Contract, February 28, 1986. Brookhaven National Lab, Polvmer Concrete Patching Manual, June 1982 (microfiche). Transpo rtation Research Record, System Construction of Medium-Span Bridges in Prestressed Concrete, Man-Chung Tang, (no date). civil Engineering, Concrete-pavement Recycling Could Slash Rehab Costs 300/0, November, 1981. Civil Engineerinq, Engineering with Fabric, December 1985. civil Engineerinq, New Ways with Concrete, May 1985. Transportation Research Record 871, Full-Span Form Panels for Highway Bridges, Clifford O. Hays, Jr., and John M. Lybas. PCl Jo urnal, Development of the Concrete Technology for a Precast Prestressed Concrete Segmental Bridge, Sept-Oct 1982. PCI Journal, Prestressed Concrete in Transportation Systems, May-June 1980. H. W. Chung, PFA Aggregate Concrete in Prestressed Composite Structures. Nature, Flexural Strength and Porosity of Cements, January 29, 1981. OTA, New St ructural Materials Technologies: Opportunities for the Use of Advanced Ceramics and Co mposites, A Technical Memorandum, September 1986. Metallurgical Plant and Technology, Material-Compatible Solutions Using High-Strength Steels in Bridge Construction, February 1982. National Materials Advisory Board, National Research Council, The Status of Cement and Concrete R&D in the United States, 1980, The Canadian Geotechnical Society, Geotextile and Geomembrane International Information Source, 1984. R. Velkhuijzen Van Zanten (editor), Geotextiles and Geomembranes in Civil Engineerinq, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1986. Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Engineering Fabrics in Transportation Construction, #916. Washington, D, C., 1983. Proceedings of the International Conference Organized by the Institution of Civil Engineers, Flexible Armoured Revetments lncorporatin g Geotextiles, London, March 29-30, 1984.

PAGE 185

. .? Committee on Construction Productivity, Building Research Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council, Construction Productivity. Focus on Asphalt Properties, Better Roads, September 1986. Repairing Concrete with Polymers, The Military Engineer, August 1985. National Research Council, Second North American Conference on Managing Pavements, strategic Highway Research Program FOCUS, February 1987. A New Era in BridgeRebuilding, ENR, January 5, 1984. The Pipe Business Gets a New Shake from Advanced Technology, Modern plastics, February 1987. RESEARCH AND DEVELOMENT National Research Council, New Report, Research to Improve Highway s, page 14, June 1986. American Academy for the Advancement of Science, Report XI: Research & Development 1987, 1986. American Academy for the Advancement of Science, Report IX: Research & Development 1985, 1984. National Science Foundation, Federal Funds for Research and Development. Fiscal Years 1983. 1984 and 1985, Volume XXXIII, Washington, D. C., 1985. Congressional Budget Office, Federal Supp ort for R&D Innovation, April 1984, American Society of Civil Engineers, Research Needs Related to the Nations Infrastructure, Proceedings of the Workshop sponsored by NSF, April 24-26, 1984. Congressional Research Service, Transportation Infrastructure Research, Issue Brief, 2/22/84. House Science and Technology Committee, Subcommittees on Investigations and Oversight, and Transportation, Aviation and Materials, Hearing on Higwav Transportation Infrastructure Research and Technology, May 1984. House Science and Technology Committee, Subcommittees on Investigations and Oversight, and Transportation, Aviation and Materials, Hearings on Transportation infrastructure Research and Technology June 9, 15-16, 1983. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Enqineering Research Laboratory (informational pamphlet). Commission of the European Communities, BRITE (Basic Research in Industrial Technologies for Europe), Information Package, no date. B-3

PAGE 186

GENERAL National Council on Public Works Improvement, The Nations Public Works: Defining the Issues, September 1986. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Americas Highwavs: Accelerating the Search for Innovation, 1984. House Public Works and Transportation Committee, Hearings on How to Solve the Nations Infrastructure Problem, 1985. Congressional Budget Office, Federal Policies for Infrastructure Management, June 1986. Congressional Budget Office, Fed eral Budget for Public Works Infrastructure, July 1985. Congressional Budget Office, Public Works Infrastructure: Policv Considerations for the 1980s, April 1983. Congressional Budget Office, The Interstate Highways Sy stem: Issues and Op tions, June 1982. General Accounting Office, Effective Planning and Budgeting Practices Can Help Arrest th e Nations Deteriorating Public Infrastructure, November 18, 1982. Congressional Research Service, (Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division, Claudia Copeland), Infrastructure: Legislation in the 98th C ongress December 4, 1984, Archived Issue Brief IB83183. Congressional Research Service, (Charlotte Breckinridge), Infrastructure Needs. Policv O ptions and Prop osals: Summar v and Review of Testimon v, Before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearing on Infrastructure/Jobs, January 28, February 2-3, 18, 1983. Congressional Research Service (Research and Development Team; J. Knezo, Coordinator), Research and Development Funding: FY86 and FY87, January 13, 1987, IB86062. Congressional Research Service (Claudia Copeland), Infrastructure: Building and Rebuilding Americas Caoital Plant, Issue Brief IB82129, July 12, 1983. Congressional Ouarterlv, House Votes $10.3 Billion for Transportation, National Research Council, Committee on National Urban Policy, Infrastructure, (Royce Hanson, cd.), National Academy Press, 1984. August 2, 1986. Perspectives on Urban Sherman Gee, Technology Transfer. Innovation. and International Competitiveness. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981. New York Times, Billion Needed for Bridge Repair, Congress is Told by Federal Agency (Martin Tolchin), April 12, 1987. B-4

PAGE 187

PART THREE APPENDICES

PAGE 188

u Ln L-n Nx < 0 0 0 0. 0 fmul b NA VI a c .ul a .L a) p =1

PAGE 189

o 0 0 z o 0 0 0IA 00 0 00 0 00 0 ooommo u o 0 0 0m m (u < w d m < > a 4 d W = n 0 k

PAGE 190

. . . . b Lu

PAGE 191

ho 000 0 Qo 000 0 0 000 0 ... >m Lnoom & N Inuuiu @@-z ** 0 0 0 00 0 a 00 0 0 00 0 0 o-mN 0 @~N 0 ~-pel ** 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 z Om Ulooul o F.U1-nl Ill -b+*eJH a) ** 0 b 0 0 0 0I A 00 00 0 0 oom 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 : 0 0 0 ,. v UJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *. *= 0 0 0 a 0 N m Q 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q@ H* -.. . 3 a UJ x 3 m ,n

PAGE 192

o VJI -a =2 & Oowla fou *obn@ a2n 54 .33 < -. c 0 .U a u L o .d !Vm 3=9 ,. .v : .,. ; 4 5 3 3

PAGE 193

0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 a L& 00 0 00 0 00 0 Ooa 00 0 00 0 O-O-LA 0-s0 hm Pllwm *** *** 0 0 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 o-dom omJQ ~+m E o 0 0 o -? < 000 0 000 0 000 0 u s u L !Jl z 0 m

PAGE 194

o 0 0 000000 0 00000 0 00000 a a o Nin (-4o* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0W 000 0 000 0 000 0 00 o o -P,w*** 8 0 0 N -,,

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EDWWNJPSJ_BRYDQ0 INGEST_TIME 2017-05-22T20:07:14Z PACKAGE AA00055330_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES