|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
N~ASTRUCT IRE
FOR THE 21STCENTURY
Flamework for a Research Agenda
Committee on infrastructure Innovation
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
\\'ashington D.C. 1987
OCR for page R2
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing
Board of the National Research} Council, whose members are drawn from the councils
of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the
Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were
chosen {or their special competencce and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to
procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the
National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute
of Medicine.
The National Academy of Sciences is a priorate, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society
of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the
furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon
the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has
a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical
matters. Dr. Frank Press is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter
of the National Academy of Sciencce, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers.
It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with
the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government.
The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at
meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior
achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy
of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine ~ established in 1970 by the National Academy of
Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the
examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts
under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional
charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to
identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Samuel O. Thier is president
of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences
in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's
purposes of furthering knowledge and ad~rising the federal government. Functioning in
accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the
principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National
Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the
scientific Ad engineering communities. The Council ~ administered jointly by both
Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Prep and Dr. Robert M. White are
chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National R - earch Council.
SPONSOR: This project was sponsored by the National Council on Public Works
Improvement and the National Research Council.
Copies of this report may be obtained from:
National Academy Prep
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418
A charge of S3.00 for postage and handling is required. Supplies are limited.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
COMMITTEE ON INF=STRUCTUBE INNOVATION
LAWRENCE DAHMS, (Chairman), Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, Oakland, California
FLOYD CULLER, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
California
DENOS C; GAZIS, IBM Research Center, Yorktown Heights,
New York
ROBERT HERMAN, University of Texas at Austin, Austin.
Texas
GORDON KING, Stanford University, Stanford, California
MARTIN LANG, Camp Dresser & McKee, New York, New York
THOMAS D. LARSON, The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, Pennsylvania
WALTER R. LYNN, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
GEORGE J. PASTOR, UTDC Corporation, Detroit, Michigan
ERNEST L. PERRY, Perry International, Ltd., Litchfield Park,
Arizona
FRANK RAINES, Lazard Ereres ~ Co., New York, New York
...
111
OCR for page R4
PARTICIPANTS
WORKSHOP ON INF^STRUCTU1lE DYNOVATION
Woods Hole, Massachusetts
June 29- July 2, 1987
JESSE H. AUSUBEL, National Academy of Engineering,
Washington, D.C.
E. ROBERT BAUMANN, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
MICHAEL E. BELL, National Council on Public Works
Improvement, Washington, D.C.
DAVID L. BODDE, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C.
CLARK W. BOLLARD, University of ID~nios, Urbana, Bl~nois
NICHOLAS J. CARINO, National Bureau of Standards,
Ga~thersburg, Maryland
ROBERT A. CRIST, Wiss, Janney, Vintner Associates, Inc.,
Northbrook, Bl~nois
WALTER DIEWALD, National Council on Public Works
Improvement, Washington, D.C.
GERALD DONALDSON, Center for Auto Safety, Washington,
D.C.
WILLIAM L. GARRISON, University of California, Berkeley,
California
NEIL S. GRIGG, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
Colorado
JOHN F. GUINAN, Broome County, Binghamton, New York
MARK HAYNES, U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, Washington, D.C.
KENNETH L`. KRAEMER, University of California, Ovine,
California
DAMEAN KULASH, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C.
DOROTHY LEONARD-BARTON, Harvard Business School,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
JOHN LOEWY, U.S. Senate Environment add Public Works
Committee, Washington, D.C.
CATHARINE Ee LITTLE, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C.
GENE G. MANELLA, Electric Power Research Institute
Washington, D.C.
1V
OCR for page R5
DAVID H. MARKS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
BRUCE MCDOWELL, National Council on Public Works
hnpro~rement, Washington, D.C.
MARK MEO, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
D. KEI,I,Y O 'DAY, Peer Systems, Inc., Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
MILTON PIKARSKY, National Council on Public Works
Improvement, Washington, D.C.
ROBERT E. PRICE, Openaka Corp., Inc., Denville, New Jersey
JOHN C. RICHARDS, M.W. KeHog Co., Hilton Head, South
Carolina
LOUIS A. ROSETTI, Rosetti Associates, Detroit, Michigan
JAMES F. ROETZER, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Wayne,
New Jersey
NANCY S. RUTLEDGE, National Council on Public Works
Improvement, Washington, D.C.
L.R. SHAFFER, U.S. Army Construction, Engineering Research
Lab, Champaign, minios
PHILIP M. SMITH, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C.
ABEL WOLMAN, Professor Emeritus, The Johns Hopkins
University, Baltimore, Maryland
The committee 8~0 wishes to acknowledge contribution by:
COURTNEY RIORDAN, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
RICHARD W. ROTHERY, Consultant, Austin, Texas
WILLIAM STEINWAY, Coleman Research, Orlando, Florida
RICHARD SUI,LIVAN, American Public Works Association,
Chicago, mix
JOEL A. TARR, Carnegi - Mellon University, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
HENRY THORNTON, U.S. Army Engineers, Waterways
Experunent Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi
Y. PAUL VIRMANI, Federal Highway Administration, McLean,
Virginia
RALPH WIGGINS, SchIumberger-DoD Research, Ridgefield
Connecticut
v
OCR for page R6
CO]allTTEE STAFF
Lynne F. Cramer, Study Coordinator
Director
U.S. National Committee for Rock Mechanics
Norman Metzger, StaE Officer
Deputy Executive Officer
National Research Council
NEC COMMISSION LIAISON
John P. Eberhard
Director, Building Research Board
Michael G.H. McGeary
Study Director, Committee on National Urban Policy
Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences, and Education
Stephen Rattien
Deputy Executive Director
Commission on Engineering ~d Technical Systems
Stanley M. Wolf
Senior Program Officer
National Material Advisory Board
Robert E. Skinner, Jr.
Senior Program Officer, Special Projects
Transportation Research Board
SUP PO1tT STAFF
VirgiIiia M. Lyman
Administrative Assistant
U.S. National Committee for Rock Mechanics
Dede Ogden
Special Assistant
Committee on Infrastructure Innovation
V1
OCR for page R7
consents
Daniel W. Oottl~b' Alto
C~theb Associates
Baboon, D.C.
away Evans
Baboon, D.C
dr~ C. Bar
Baboon, D.C.
"~- Ins
Baboon, D.C.
..
vo
OCR for page R8
OCR for page R9
Preface
This report, In~astract~re for the 21st Centory: framework
for a Research Agenda, was prepared at the request of the National
Council on Public Works Improvement (NCPWI). NCPW! was
created by congressional mandate as ~ ad hoc council having
a tw~year life, with the my - ion to report to Congress and the
President on the state of the nation's infrastructure. The mission
has two purposes: (1) to improve understanding of the condition,
safety, and capacity of the nation's public works facilities, and (2)
to enhance the process of resource allocation.
The probe associated with improving our public works in-
frastructure deserve special attention. Various studies have been
conducted which estunate the annual shortfall between investment
requirements ~d available revenues to attain necessary system
upgrades. These estunates vary from $17.4 billion (Congressional
Budget Office, 1983) to $24.6 billion (Joint Econo~ruc Committee
of Congress, 1984) to $71.7 billion (Associated General Contrac-
tors of America, 1983), but all point to large annual shortfall and
a need for action to bridge the shortfall.
Technology opera a partial solution to some of the problems
that face the nation within infrastructure systems. To help meet
L'C
OCR for page R10
its Congressional mandate, the NCPW} asked the National Ret
search Council to address three issues with regard to infrastructure
technology:
promising research areas for the technological improvement
of infrastn~cture;
factors governing the adoption or rejection of technological
innovations; and,
the means for developing and carrying out a national ret
search agenda to foster innovative research for ~nfrastruc-
ture systems.
The charge to the Research Council clearly spanned its insti-
tutional boundaries; the nature of the subject is not simply en-
gineering or urban policy, but demands a spectrum of knowledge
found in different units of the Research Council. Accordingly, the
study was organized as a cross-institutional activity. The mem-
bership of the study committee, the Committee on Infrastructure
Innovation, was derived from nominees proposed by the applicable
Research Council units including the Commission on Engineering
and Technical Systems, the Transportation Research Board, and
the Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Participation within these units came from the Marine Board, the
National Materials Advisory Board, the Building Research Board,
the Board on Geotechnical Engineering, the Water Science and
Technology Board, and the Committee on National Urban Policy.
The committee and pane} members were selected for their
special expertise and experience in all modes of infrastructure,
including highways, water supply, solid waste, mass transit, waster
water treatment, energy utilities, water resources, air transport,
and hazardous waste management. The group was diverse, with
members drawn from government, academia, and industry.
The committee met three times over a fin - month period as a
full committee and several times in subgroups. One of these meet-
ings was organized as a workshop, and included some 33 additional
people who helped the committee greatly in refining and respond-
ing to its task. At the outset, the committee recognized that
its charge was broad and that the committee would have to work
with several limitations, two of which would be time and resources.
More importantly, the committee felt that a larger constituency
than encompassed by the eleven committee members was needed
to address some of the issues included under its charge. Thus, to
x
OCR for page R11
create a comprehensive research agenda on infrastructure and to
design an effective organization to serve as a focus and stimulus
for that agenda, the active involvement of the affected constituen-
cies representing transportation, solid and liquid waste treatment,
water supply, corrununication~, power, and other components of
the infrastructure system would be required. The committee never
saw a realistic way to involve Al of these constituencies In its initial
effort to define a research agenda on infrastructure.
The committee faced a difficult task: to define an ambitious
program in a subject for which definitions differ and for which there
is no single constituency In government, industry, or acade~xua.
believe a reasonable beginning toward this national focus has been
made. It is the result of difficult, expert, and diligent work of a
great many peopIc the committee itself, the workshop attendees,
those who corresponded with the committee, the staff of the Na-
tional Council on Public Works Improvement, and the staff of the
National Research Council.
Lawrence Dahmm, Chairman
Committee on Infrastructure Innovation
act
OCR for page R12
OCR for page R13
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUGARY
3
, 1
1 RESEARCH AND INFRASTRUCTURE INNOVATION-
OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES 4
The Challenge of Rebuilding, 6
The Opportunities for Innovation, 6
Conclusions, 7
2 IDENTIFYING THE OPPORTUNITIES 8
Illustrative Opportunities for Mode Research and
Innovation, 9
Blustrati~re Opportunities for Cro~Cutt~ng Research ~d
Innovation, 18
Conclusions, 26
BARRIERS TO INNOVATION 27
Infrastructure Ch~actermtics that Discourage
Research, 27
Barriers to the Diffusion of l~novati~re Technologies, 29
Encouraging the Diffusion of Innovation, 34
Conclusions, 37
· - ~
OCR for page R14
4 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR A NATIONAL
INFRASTRUCTURE RESEARCH AGENDA..........
Building on Current Programs, 40
Research add Development Across Modes, 43
Lemom Le~ed from the Strategic Highway Research
Program, 44
Moving Beyond Existing Programs, 46
The Implementation Program, 49
Expected Results, 49
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations, 54
REFERENCES
39
51
56
APPENDIX Opportunities for Improving Reliability of Public
Works Using Nondestructive Evaluation 61
X1V
