CHAPTER 5

Summary of Findings and Future Research

Introduction

State DOTs across the country are conducting training to develop knowledge, technical skill sets, and qualifications for effective bridge construction inspection. Some DOTs have dedicated in-house staff for bridge construction inspection, but most state DOTs have used in-house general construction inspectors for bridge construction inspection. State DOTs have also used consultant inspectors, in-house general construction inspectors with consultant augmentation, or consultant inspectors with in-house inspector staff augmentation to conduct their bridge construction inspections.

This synthesis has collected and documented current practices used by state DOTs in bridge construction inspection training. The synthesis includes a thorough literature review, a survey of state DOTs, and case examples. It highlights current practices and identifies areas for potential future research for bridge construction inspection training and resources. The identified knowledge gaps present opportunities for future studies in this field. It should be noted that resources exist for materials sampling and testing for construction materials, such as for concrete acceptance, so they were not included in this synthesis.

Summary of Findings

The primary findings of this synthesis stem from a comprehensive literature review, a thorough online survey of state DOTs, and detailed case examples from six state DOTs. The key findings associated with each data collection method are summarized in the following subsections.

Literature Review

A comprehensive literature review of bridge construction inspection training resources and practices was conducted. There is limited academic literature on bridge construction inspection training and resources. The relevant literature documents analyzed for this synthesis were from the FHWA, NCHRP, and state DOTs. The findings from the literature showed that many state DOTs are finding it challenging to retain experienced construction inspectors, including bridge construction inspectors, which leads to losing valuable construction inspection knowledge and expertise. The high attrition rate is due to a combination of factors, including retirements, workforce reductions, and inspectors leaving for jobs with private companies.

The literature review also showed that the main responsibilities of construction inspectors vary somewhat among state DOTs. The typical responsibilities of construction inspectors include (1) understanding the contract documents thoroughly; (2) monitoring the contractor’s conformance with contract documents; (3) informing the engineer of progress, problems, and

instructions given to the contractor; and (4) exercising good judgment. Although these responsibilities are for general construction inspectors, they also apply to bridge construction inspectors.

The literature review showed that there are various core competencies required of construction inspectors. These competencies can be classified into four groups: (1) academic, (2) technical, (3) personal effectiveness, and (4) workplace competencies. The academic competencies encompass the KSAs acquired in educational environments such as K–12 schooling and higher education. Technical competencies pertain to the specific KSAs required to carry out construction inspection tasks such as bridge foundation inspection, bridge substructure inspection, and bridge superstructure or deck inspection. Personal effectiveness competencies are connected to the KSAs that demonstrate an individual’s personal characteristics. Workplace competencies encompass the overall KSAs required to carry out fundamental job duties. It should be noted that while the findings about competencies are for general construction inspectors, they also apply to bridge construction inspectors.

The literature review indicated that state DOTs have used different methods for training their construction inspectors. The four main training methods are formal training, online training, on-the-job training, and self-paced learning. The formal training methods typically involve instruction provided by a teacher in a traditional classroom setting, teacher-led instruction with hands-on activities, and teacher-led virtual instruction. Formal instruction is often used to provide guidance for new employees and existing staff to improve their KSAs for a particular highway construction project.

The synthesis of the literature also showed that an effective way to train construction inspectors involves using internal and external resources. State DOTs create training programs that focus on their specific inspection procedures. However, for specialized or technical skills, state DOTs often turn to external resources such as NHI to develop and deliver training.

Survey Questionnaire

The survey results showed that 34 state DOTs out of 43 that responded (79%) do not differentiate between bridge construction inspectors and general construction inspectors. Thirty-two state DOTs out of 42 that responded (76%) have used district construction offices as the main organizational structure for bridge construction inspection. Thirty-three state DOTs (77%) have used either in-house general construction inspectors or in-house general construction inspectors with consultant inspector staff augmentation to conduct their bridge construction inspection.

The top responsibilities of bridge construction inspectors indicated by 43 DOT responses are:

• Verifying contractor workmanship for contract compliance (42 DOTs, 98%),
• Understanding the contract documents (42 DOTs, 98%),
• Verifying field activities for compliance with plans and specifications (42 DOTs, 98%),
• Monitoring corrective actions (41 DOTs, 95%),
• Measuring and recording material quantities (40 DOTs, 93%), and
• Ensuring contract requirements and project compliance (40 DOTs, 93%).

For minimum requirements, 29 state DOTs out of 43 that responded (67%) require high school graduation as a minimum educational requirement for a bridge construction inspector. Sixteen state DOTs out of 42 that responded (38%) require a bridge construction inspector to have more than 1 year of experience. The top five certifications used by state DOTs for bridge construction inspection are:

• ACI (21 DOTs, 58%),
• DOT-specific qualification standards (14 DOTs, 39%),
• OSHA (13 DOTs, 36%),

• PCI (13 DOTs, 36%), and
• NHI (13 DOTs, 36%).

The top five core competencies for bridge construction inspectors are:

• Attention to detail,
• Dependability and reliability,
• Critical and analytic thinking,
• Written and oral communication skills, and
• Mathematics.

The top technical competencies for bridge construction inspectors are:

• Familiarity with DOT regulations, policies, and procedures;
• Capacity to understand construction plans, specifications, and contract provisions;
• Knowledge of materials and construction means and methods;
• Background in inspection, material testing, and documentation;
• Understanding QA principles; and
• Proficiency in using construction and inspection tools and technologies (tied with the previous technical competency).

Of 43 DOT responses, 35 state DOTs (81%) conduct in-person training for bridge construction inspectors, and 22 (51%) conduct online/virtual training. Out of 40 DOT responses, 34 state DOTs (85%) have partnered with experienced current or retired DOT employees to develop the training materials, and 23 (58%) have partnered with industry members or consulting firms. More than two-thirds of 43 DOTs that responded have used the following training methods for their bridge construction inspection:

• Informal OJT (38 DOTs, 88%),
• Mentoring (formal or informal) (35 DOTs, 81%), and
• Training led by an instructor in a traditional classroom setting (32 DOTs, 74%).

The main tools and resources used by 41 DOT responses for training bridge construction inspectors are summarized in the following:

• 32 state DOTs (78%) have relied on subject-matter experts or experienced trainers.
• 25 state DOTs (61%) have used inspection technologies such as iPad, mobile devices, drones, and software applications.
• 23 state DOTs (56%) have used bridge construction inspection manuals.
• 20 state DOTs (49%) have used bridge construction inspection checklists for training their bridge construction inspectors.

According to the survey, 31 DOTs have offered the following NHI courses to their bridge construction inspectors:

• FHWA-NHI-132069: Driven Pile Foundation Inspection (12 DOTs, 39%)
• FHWA-NHI-130129: Bridge Construction Inspection (12 DOTs, 39%)
• FHWA-NHI-132070: Drilled Shaft Foundation Inspection (11 DOTs, 35%)
• FHWA-NHI-132043: Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slope (11 DOTs, 35%)
• FHWA-NHI-130128: Bridge Construction Inspection—Prerequisite (11 DOTs, 35%).

Based on 32 DOT responses, the top formal training topics required by state DOTs are:

• Concrete placement and testing (15 DOTs, 47%),
• Plan reading (10 DOTs, 31%),
• Steel reinforcement inspection (5 DOTs, 16%),

• Geotechnical/foundations (pile, pier, etc.) (5 DOTs, 16%),
• Structural inspection (5 DOTs, 16%), and
• Prestressed concrete inspection (5 DOTs, 16%).

The top five formal training topics provided to bridge construction inspectors by 32 DOTs that responded are:

• Plan reading (25 DOTs, 78%),
• Concrete placement and testing (22 DOTs, 69%),
• Steel connection (bolt testing/weld testing) (21 DOTs, 66%),
• Steel reinforcement inspection (20 DOTs, 63%), and
• Geotechnical/foundations (pile, pier, etc.) (20 DOTs, 63%).

Finally, the survey results showed that the annual turnover rate of bridge construction inspectors and general construction inspectors is between 10% and 15%. Based on 40 responses, the top five factors that influence the hiring process of state DOT construction inspectors are:

• Stable employment (32 DOTs, 80%),
• Vacation/leave benefits (28 DOTs, 70%),
• Health benefits (28 DOTs, 70%),
• Retirement benefits (26 DOTs, 65%), and
• Work–life balance (25 DOTs, 63%).

Case Examples

The six state DOTs that served as case examples were those of California, Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. Caltrans emphasized the importance of keeping training materials up-to-date and pertinent to maximize the effectiveness of its training programs. It has implemented a key performance indicator system to monitor the training of its structure construction inspection staff, ensuring that they are equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge for current and future projects. By analyzing inspectors’ performance, Caltrans can identify areas where additional training is needed and provide targeted instruction to build up any core technical knowledge that may be lacking.

GDOT emphasizes the importance of conducting annual training for bridge construction inspectors. This training ensures that inspectors are well-informed and up-to-date with current inspection processes and methods. GDOT has three inspection trainers who travel across the state to assist inspectors with their duties. These resources are crucial for helping inspectors retain the knowledge acquired from the training and apply it effectively and accurately.

CDOT staff have stressed the importance of implementing a bridge inspection training program. Inspectors value training to fulfill their job duties effectively. Training has proven instrumental in standardizing and enhancing bridge inspections at CDOT. The Bridge and Structure Inspection Unit provides support to inspectors, and the various manuals and guides offer them guidance in the field to carry out bridge inspection tasks. These resources are regularly updated to reflect current conditions and are essential for conducting bridge construction inspections effectively.

MDOT prioritizes mentorship and real-time problem solving in its bridge construction inspection program. The program is designed to adapt to various project demands while upholding high inspection standards. MDOT’s training program is consistently evolving and expanding to meet changing training needs and technological advancements. MDOT staff emphasize the importance of investing in training as a means of developing the organization’s greatest assets: its people and their experience.

MnDOT highlights that an effective bridge construction inspection training program enhances the quality of the end products and ensures consistent inspection. MnDOT’s approach to bridge construction inspection combines formal training, practical experience, and strategic resource utilization. MnDOT staff emphasize the importance of continuously improving the construction inspection training program through evaluation measures and involving SMEs.

PennDOT has improved its bridge construction inspection training by emphasizing practical experience and continuous improvement. By providing formal guidance, practical experience, and ongoing professional development, PennDOT aims to cultivate a competent and adaptable inspection workforce. The department’s inspectors play a crucial role in ensuring the safety and reliability of the infrastructure. While not exclusively focused on bridge construction, the construction inspection training equips inspectors with the skills necessary to effectively oversee a wide range of projects.

Potential Future Research

The findings summarized here highlight areas where there are gaps in knowledge and practice. These gaps may be used as a starting point for future research. To improve the use of resources and tools for training bridge construction inspectors, future research could focus on the areas discussed in the following:

1. There is a limited understanding of how to measure and track the effectiveness of bridge construction inspection training. Research to develop templates and guidance to help state DOTs identify and evaluate the key performance metrics of bridge construction inspection training could be helpful.
2. The current state of bridge construction inspection training and qualification standards could be refined and updated. State DOTs primarily depend on their construction manuals and standard specifications for conducting bridge construction inspections. However, these resources may be difficult to apply in practical field settings. There is an opportunity for future research to establish guidance and processes for bridge construction inspection.
3. State DOTs indicated that the difference in classification between general construction inspectors and bridge construction inspectors is not clear. Some state DOTs have dedicated staff for bridge construction inspection, while other state DOTs have used in-house general construction inspectors or consultants to inspect bridges during construction. Future research could investigate the benefits of creating dedicated bridge construction inspectors in state DOTs and developing a training program for bridge construction inspection that would result in national certification.