Department of Civil Engineering
Graduate Program Description
Infrastructure Performance and Reliability

Two year, part time (early evening classes) MS program

Contact Aaron Jennings, Ph.D. for more information

Academic Program Details

The Department of Civil Engineering is launching a new graduate program titled “Infrastructure Performance and Reliability”. This is designed to address compelling educational needs and to be compatible with the emerging research opportunities in Civil Engineering. The program will complement our current undergraduate and graduate programs, and create new opportunities to recruit practicing infrastructure engineers into graduate studies at Case.

It is well known that the infrastructure of the United States requires major new investment if we are to sustain the economic vitality and life styles to which we have become accustomed. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has been one strong voice calling for this commitment and has recently issued several “report cards” on the dire condition of America’s infrastructure. ASCE is an organization that represents 137,000 civil engineers working in government, private consulting, industry and academia, and argues that it is appropriate for the organization to issue infrastructure “report cards” because its members design, construct, operate and maintain the nation’s infrastructure (ASCE, 2005). The Department of Civil Engineering agrees with ASCE’s rationale and assessment of infrastructure condition. However, we are also sensitive to the implications of “report cards”. If a few students in a course perform poorly, one generally looks to the individual students for the cause of the problem. When every student in the class performs poorly, one must look elsewhere. This seems to be the case for ASCE’s infrastructure evaluation. There are many causes for the deterioration of America’s infrastructure, but some of the roots of these problems extens deep into civil engineering education. The current condition of our infrastructure implies that we did not educate engineers to design and operate sustainable infrastructure systems. The academic program proposed here will address this portion of the problem by implementing transformational change in civil engineering education that will help us educate professionals capable of creating efficient, reliable and sustainable infrastructure systems. ASCE Report Cards on American Infrastructure Several organizations such as the American Public Health Association (APHA, 2002) and the National Research Council’s National Council on Public Works Improvement (NCPWI, 1988) have issued “report cards” on America’s infrastructure, but ASCE’s assessments appear to have received the most attention. Recent report card grades are summarized in Table 1. The following is a brief summary of observations cited by ASCE (2001, 2003, 2005) and others to help characterize the nature of our infrastructure difficulties and to justify these less than impressive grades.

On Aviation: Airport capacity has increased by 1% in the past 10 years at America’s 510 “commercial service” airports accounting for 99.88% of all passengers. During this time, air traffic has increased by 37%. Growing airport congestion is increasing the number of flight delays and “near miss” runway incursions. Traffic levels have surpassed pre-9/11 levels and are projected to grow at 4.3% annually through 2015. The FAA estimates that an annual capital investment of $9 billion is required to meet expanding demand.

On Bridges: Approximately 30% of the nation’s 590,750 bridges are classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, and the percentage is significantly higher for urban bridges. It will cost $10.6 billion annually for at least 20 years to eliminate all bridge deficiencies, and at least $7.3 billion annually to prevent the bridge investment backlog from increasing.

On Dams: There were estimated to be 2,100 unsafe dams in the U.S. in 2001. Some of the largest civil disasters in our history (e.g. the 1889 Johnstown event which took 2,209 lives) have resulted from dam failures. The 2003 Silver Lake Michigan dam failure (>$100 million in damages) and the 2004 Mississippi Big Bay Lake dam failure (100 homes destroyed) are recent reminders of the potential for harm. It has been estimated that $10.1 billion is currently needed to address critical non-federal dams that pose direct risk to human life.

On Drinking Water: There are approximately 54,000 aging public drinking water systems in the U.S. Facility replacement and regulatory compliance shortfalls have been estimated to be $11 billion per year. EPA (2002) has estimated that 20-year funding gap for capital and maintenance ranged from 45 to 263 billion. Homeland security issues have almost certainly added to this gap. On Energy: Since 1990 the U.S. power generating capacity has increased at about 7,000 MW per year, which is estimated to be a shortfall of 30%. The addition of at least 10,000 MW/yr is required to keep pace with our annual demand. Serious questions have also been raised about the reliability of our aging transmission system. The August 2003 blackout event (due to instabilities that apparently originated in Ohio) affected 50 million customers in the U.S and Canada. Nevertheless, our annual investment in the electric transmission grid (160,000 miles of high voltage lines) has decreased from $5 billion/yr to $2 billion/yr.

On Hazardous Waste: Modern waste regulations have brought hazardous waste disposal under control and halted most new-site contamination, but many Superfund sites remain and the rate of remediation is not keeping pace with the rate at which new sites are listed. As many as 350,000 sites will require cleanup over the next 30 years at a total cost of $250 billion. Brownfield redevelopment will also require major investment. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has reported that there are 24,987 brownfield sites in 205 American cities currently awaiting redevelopment.

On Mass Transit: Mass transit ridership has increased at a unimpressive rate of 2-3% per year, but mass transport investment would have to increase by 41% just to maintain systems in their present conditions. Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has estimated that it will require investments at an annual rate of $18.9 billion to maintain the status quo and $43.9 billion to reach their “rate to improve” level. The Federal Transit Administration estimates the “to improve” investment need at $20.6 billion per year.

On Public Parks: Public parks, beaches, recreational harbors, etc. anchor tourism and economic development in many communities. The U.S. National Park System hosted more than 266 million visits at its 288 parks in 2003. There is an estimated $6.1 billion in deferred maintenance at these facilities. Only 35% of the systems 12,000 miles of roads are rated in good condition. There is also a great need for maintenance and replacement construction at the nation’s state and municipal park facilities. The Army Corps of Engineers is associated with 4,300 public recreational areas. Of these, more than 90% were constructed before 1980 and 40% were constructed before 1960.

On Rail: The U.S. rail system carries 40% of all intercity freight and provides intercity passenger service to 500 cities in 47 states. Limitations on rail capacity (220,000 miles of track) are creating delays at “chokepoints” and the problem is expected to increase. As much as $195 billion will be required over the next 20 years to maintain and grow our rail system. New technologies such as high-speed rail will increase this investment requirement.

On Roads: Americans traveled 2.85 trillion miles in 2002, 60% of which occurred in urban areas. Approximately one third of U.S. highways are in poor or mediocre condition and contribute to as many as 13,800 fatalities each year. The Federal Highway Commission has estimated that traffic congestion costs our economy $67.5 billion each year in lost productivity and wasted fuel. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) estimates that highway expenditures will have to increase by 43% just to maintain current conditions, and increase by 94% (to $125.6 billion) to reach their “rate to improve” level.

On Schools: It has been estimated that, due to aging, outdated facilities or overcrowding, 75% of America’s school buildings serving over 48 million students are inadequate to meet educational demands. National capital investments of approximately $3,800/student are needed to repair or replace existing facilities. The total cost was estimated to exceed $127 billion in 1999.

On Security: The security of our nations infrastructure has increased since Sept. 11, 2001, but the data needed to assess the current condition is not available. Security performance standards and measures must be developed to gauge the success of infrastructure security engineering. The cost of this is unknown, but as one indication, the 2005 federal budget request for homeland security is $ 40.2 billion (29% higher than the 2003 level).

On Solid Waste: The amount of waste sent to landfills (66% of the 369 million tons generated in 2002) has gradually declined since 1990 and the amount of waste recycled (material or energy recovery) has increased. The number of active municipal landfills fell from 7,683 in 1986 to 1,858 in 2001 although capacity remained nearly constant because of new “mega-landfills”. Several states report that they have less than 10 years worth of landfill capacity remaining within their borders. It is generally accepted that the U.S. must experiment with alternative waste management technologies to reduce the long-term risks of “dry tomb” landfills.

On Wastewater: There are approximately 16,000 major municipal wastewater systems in the U.S. Their facility replacement and regulatory compliance shortfall has been estimated to be $12 billion per year. The Environmental Protection Agency has warned that without improvements in the nation’s wastewater treatment infrastructure, we may lose the water quality gains made since the passage of the 1972 Clean Water Act.

On Waterways: On our inland waterways system (12,000 miles of inland waterways), nearly 50% of the 257 locks have exceeded their design lives and are functionally obsolete. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has estimated the replacement cost at $125 billion. Key channels are inadequate to service the new generation of “mega” container ships and dredging disposal facilities are consuming valuable waterfront real estate.

Every infrastructure problem listed above is represented in the Cleveland area. Cleveland has a water distribution system that is more than 100 years old (its newest water treatment plant was constructed in 1958) and a combined sanitary/stormwater system that continues to pollute its surface waters. The City’s school system is in desperate physical and financial condition. There are approximately 350 brownfields (6,000 acres) within the City (USCOM, 2000) and as many as 40,000 acres of brownfields in Cuyahoga county (GAO, 1996). The Cuyahoga River and Cleveland harbor must be dredged annually to sustain navigability and the disposal of contaminated sediments is consuming desirable lakefront real estate. Historic (but seldom maintained) Shaker dams above University Circle endanger the educational and cultural heart of the city. The city’s inner belt expressways are aging and elements such as “dead man’s curve” are in dire need of replacement. The county’s 885 bridges are rated among the highest traffic volume and poorest condition facilities in the state (Cleveland’s Rockefeller Road Bridge is currently serving as ASCE’s “poster child” for decaying bridges). Cleveland ranks 3rd highest on the list of U.S. cities with children that have elevated blood lead levels (EBBL > 10 g/dL) and (because its population is small relative to New York City and Chicago) has the highest percentage of children with elevated blood lead levels. These problems are not noteworthy because they are unique to Cleveland. Similar conditions exist in many urban areas. The problems are also not being ignored. There are several very effective Cleveland area infrastructure organizations that do an amazing job of keeping the aging system functioning. These organizations will be key partners in the program proposed here. The problems are noteworthy because of the great educational opportunities they imply. We propose partnering with public infrastructure organizations and related private enterprises to craft a new academic program that can focus new expertise and resources on critical Cleveland area infrastructure problems and transform the structure of Civil Engineering education.