Guidelines for Optimizing the Risk and Cost of Materials QA Programs (2017)

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

2017 N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 838 Guidelines for Optimizing the Risk and Cost of Materials QA Programs Hill International, Inc. Philadelphia, PA i n a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h University of Colorado Boulder, CO Diversified Engineering Services, Inc. Raleigh, NC D’Angelo Consulting, LLC Annandale, VA Heritage Research Group Indianapolis, IN Jo Sias Daniel Nottingham, NH Subscriber Categories Construction • Materials • Safety and Human Factors Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide inter- est to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- tiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com- mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer- sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the Academies is an insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of specialists in high- way transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transporta- tion departments and by committees of AASHTO. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research (SCOR), and each year SCOR’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Directors and the Academies. Research projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the Acad- emies and TRB. The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate, other highway research programs. Published research reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to http://www.national-academies.org and then searching for TRB Printed in the United States of America NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 838 Project 10-92 ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 978-0-309-44634-1 Library of Congress Control Number 2017938474 © 2017 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was performed under NCHRP Project 10-92 by Hill International, Inc. Sidney Scott III of Hill International, Inc. and Keith Molenaar of the University of Colorado at Boulder served as co-principal investigators. The NCHRP Program Officer was Edward T. Harrigan. Other members of the research team include: • Matthew Hallowell and Erick Oechler of the University of Colorado at Boulder; • Linda Konrath of Hill International, Inc.; • Cecil Jones of Diversified Engineering Services, Inc.; • John D’Angelo, of D’Angelo Consulting, LLC; • Gerald Huber of the Heritage Research Group; and • Jo Sias Daniel of the University of New Hampshire. The research team extends its gratitude and appreciation to the many DOT representatives who gave their time to participate in the survey and interviews, and to the NCHRP staff and advisory panel for their direction, advice, and support on this effort. CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 838 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Edward T. Harrigan, Senior Program Officer Anthony P. Avery, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Sreyashi Roy, Editor NCHRP PROjECT 10-92 PANEL Field of Materials and Construction—Area of Specifications, Procedures, and Practices Brenda J. O’Brien, Williamston, MI (Chair) Colin A. Franco, Rhode Island DOT, Providence, RI Richard L. Bradbury, Maine DOT, Scarborough, ME Jeffrey Chandler, Ohio DOT, Columbus, OH Carmela T. Davis, Ghirardelli Associates, Inc., La Mesa, CA Gary Fick, Trinity Construction Management Services, Edmond, OK Timothy J. Ruelke, Florida DOT, Gainesville, FL Mark K. Wheeler, Idaho Transportation Department, Boise, ID Richard B. Duval, FHWA Liaison

This research report presents proposed guidelines for optimizing the risk and cost of materials quality assurance programs. Thus, the report will be of immediate interest to engineers in state highway agencies and industry with responsibility for establishing such programs for transportation programs and projects. In the current era of increasingly scarce highway construction funds, state DOTs are strug- gling to provide effective stewardship of assets and to do more with less. Materials quality assurance (QA) practices have been established over many years, with the majority initiated during the construction of the Interstate Highway System. It is believed that many current state DOT materials QA practices may be outdated or disproportionate to what is needed to ensure a quality product and meet federal regulations. With decreasing resources to oversee and administer construction projects that utilize increasingly more sophisticated materials and processes, a review of current materials QA practices was conducted to develop guidelines for establishing a materials QA program that optimizes risk and cost. The objective of this research was to develop a methodology for establishing a materials QA program that optimizes risk and cost by providing appropriate types, levels, and frequen- cies of agency testing and inspection for transportation projects across their full range of type, size, complexity, and project-delivery method. The research was conducted by Hill Inter- national, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, supported by the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado; Diversified Engineering Services, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina; D’Angelo Con- sulting, LLC, Annandale, Virginia; Heritage Research Group, Indianapolis, Indiana; and Dr. Jo Sias Daniel, Nottingham, New Hampshire. The key outcome of this project is proposed guidelines for consideration by the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Materials. The guidelines present a step-by-step analytical frame- work that state DOTs may use to efficiently allocate their QA resources based on analyzing QA costs and the risks of material nonconformance to determine the optimal QA investment point. To develop the framework, the research team assessed the current state of practice of materials QA by conducting a thorough review of relevant research, regulatory requirements, guidance manuals, and other appropriate material on QA and risk management for trans- portation construction projects. This assessment was complemented by a survey of the state DOTs followed by in-depth interviews conducted with eight DOTs. The guidelines provide three levels of optimization to allow for the use of both qualitative and quantitative estimates of cost and risk. Advancing through the levels requires an increas- ing degree of objective information and analysis; users may choose to proceed through each level or to stop after an answer of sufficient precision is found or the quality of the input data does not justify the additional analytical effort associated with the subsequent steps. The F O R E W O R D By Edward T. Harrigan Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

Level 3 optimization process is supported by an Excel-based software tool (available for download at http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3403) that allows explicit comparison of the direct costs of different QA protocols to the associated cost of material failure to arrive at the optimum QA investment point. NCHRP Research Report 838 has two parts—a research report that fully documents the research and a set of guidelines. The research report includes six appendixes: • Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography • Appendix B: Definitions • Appendix C: Survey Results • Appendix D: Interview Questionnaire • Appendix E: State Interview Summary • Appendix F: Demonstration of Level 3 Optimization Process The guidelines include three appendixes: • Appendix A: Current State of Materials QA • Appendix B: Optimization Tool • Appendix C: Case Study Examples of Optimization Process

1 Summary P A R T 1 Research Report 5 Chapter 1 Introduction 5 Background 6 Research Scope and Objectives 7 Report Organization 8 Chapter 2 Literature Review 8 Methodology 8 Content Analysis 29 Summary 30 Chapter 3 Data Collection 30 Survey 34 Interviews 47 Summary 49 Chapter 4 Optimization Model 49 Model Overview 50 Level 1 Assessment 51 Level 2 Assessment 52 Level 3 Assessment 55 Chapter 5 Conclusions 55 Summary of Research Findings 56 Research Product 56 Future Activities and Implementation 59 References 61 Appendix A Annotated Bibliography 71 Appendix B Definitions 73 Appendix C Survey Results 92 Appendix D Interview Questionnaire 105 Appendix E State Interview Summary 120 Appendix F Demonstration of Level 3 Optimization Process C O N T E N T S

P A R T 2 Guidelines 135 Chapter 1 Introduction 135 1.1 Framework Overview 138 1.2 Organization of Manual 140 Chapter 2 Materials QA State of the Practice 140 2.1 Background 140 2.2 Examples of Existing Optimization Strategies 145 2.3 Summary 146 Chapter 3 Level 1: Materials-Based Optimization 146 3.1 Conceptual Framework 146 3.2 Framework Steps 163 Chapter 4 Level 2: Property-Based Optimization 163 4.1 Conceptual Framework 163 4.2 Framework Steps 173 Chapter 5 Level 3: Cost-Based Optimization 173 5.1 Conceptual Framework 174 5.2 Framework Steps 178 5.3 Optimization Tool 179 5.4 Applications of the Optimization Tool 180 Chapter 6 Implementation 180 6.1 Recap of the Optimization Process 180 6.2 Applying the Framework 184 References 185 Appendix A Current State of Materials QA 189 Appendix B Optimization Tool 193 Appendix C Case Study Examples of Optimization Process