te fhwa update to the a aashto jtcp fhwsp.design.transportation.org/documents/jtc...
TRANSCRIPT
ate
ate
A U
pda
A U
pda
FHWA Update to the AASHTO JTCP
FHW
AFH
WA AASHTO JTCP
TCP
TCP
–– Web Briefing
HTO
JT
HTO
JT
April 14, 2011P t St h
AA
SHA
ASH Pete Stephanos
202-366-0027Peter Stephanos@dot [email protected]
ee Agenda – FHWA UpdateU
pdat
Upd
atg p FY2012 DOT Proposed Budget - Pavements Performance Management Initiatives
FHW
A U
FHW
A U Performance Management Initiatives
Infrastructure Health Assessment Project Update Pavement Type Selection/Alternate Bidding Update
CP
CP
––FF Pavement Type Selection/Alternate Bidding Update
MEPDG Related Issues New FHWA Sustainable Highways Tool
TO J
TCTO
JTC Initiative Updates
Warm Mix Asphalt Step Frequency GPR
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Safety Edge Concrete Overlays High RAP Mixtures
Asphalt Mixture Perf Tester Friction Loan Program Intelligent Compaction
AA
ate
ate
A U
pda
A U
pda
DOT Proposed FY2012
FHW
AFH
WA DOT Proposed FY2012
Budget and Program
TCP
TCP
––
udge a d og a
P t St h
HTO
JT
HTO
JT Pete Stephanos
AA
SHA
ASH
ee FY2012 DOT Proposal HighlightsU
pdat
Upd
at
Proposal provides funding to:• Modernize our highway system and create jobs
FHW
A U
FHW
A U • Modernize our highway system and create jobs.
• Focus investment on safety, state of good repair, and livability.
CP
CP
––FF • Establish a performance-based highway program.
• Encourage innovations that will shorten project d li d l t th d l t f
TO J
TCTO
JTC delivery and accelerate the deployment of new
technologies.• Simplify the highway program structure by
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Simplify the highway program structure by consolidating over 55 programs to 5 core programs.
AA
ee FY 2012 OverviewU
pdat
Upd
at
Core Federal-aid highway programs• Safety ($2 5 billion)
FHW
A U
FHW
A U Safety ($2.5 billion)
• National Highway Program ($32.4 billion)• Livable Communities ($4.1 billion)
CP
CP
––FF • Federal Allocation ($1.4 billion)
• Research, Technology, & Education ($641 million)T t ti L d hi A d ($1 3 billi )
TO J
TCTO
JTC Transportation Leadership Awards ($1.3 billion)
“Up-Front” Funding ($27.7 billion) Administrative Expenses ($441 million)
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Administrative Expenses ($441 million)
AA
ee National Highway ProgramU
pdat
Upd
atg y g
Supports Performance Management Process FHWA sets goal areas, measures and targets for
FHW
A U
FHW
A U FHWA sets goal areas, measures and targets for
NHS+ 2 Sub Programs
Highway Infrastructure Performance Program
CP
CP
––FF Highway Infrastructure Performance Program
Formula based ($16.75B) Limited to NHS+ Limitation on new capacity
TO J
TCTO
JTC
Limitation on new capacity Infrastructure condition and operations focus
Flexible Investment Program Formula based ($15 6B)
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Formula based ($15.6B) All Federal-aid roadways and off system bridges Infrastructure focus
AA
64/22/2011
ee Highway Infrastructure Performance U
pdat
Upd
at
State targets set in consultation with FHWA and need to support national goals (within 1 yr of FHWA )
FHW
A U
FHW
A U FHWA set targets)
Every 4 yrs FHWA certifies State process to develop an NHS+ Asset Management Plan
CP
CP
––FF State must have an Asset Management Plan
which: is risk based
TO J
TCTO
JTC identifies existing performance
identifies performance gaps includes analysis of life cycle costs, value for
AA
SHT
AA
SHT includes analysis of life cycle costs, value for investment, risk management
includes a financial plan to fund plan includes strategies to invest funds to achieve targetsAA g g
74/22/2011
ee Highway Infrastructure PerformanceU
pdat
Upd
at
Reports
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
State report to FHWA required annually Condition and performance of NHS+ Progress in achieving State targets
CP
CP
––FF Progress in achieving State targets
Effectiveness of investment strategy
Penalty
TO J
TCTO
JTC
Penalty State targets not met for 2 consecutive years FHWA will work with State to revisit plan
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
Incentive State targets are met for 3 consecutive years
U f d f Fl ibl I t t P f 1AA Use funds for Flexible Investment Program for 1 year
4/22/2011 8
ee Flexible Investment ProgramU
pdat
Upd
atg
Funding to improve the conditions and performance of highways and bridges
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
Fund improvements on any federal-aid highway Fund improvements to any bridge on a public
roadway
CP
CP
––FF roadway
No restrictions on system expansion Additional eligibility:
Fringe and corridor parking facilities
TO J
TCTO
JTC Fringe and corridor parking facilities
Highway R&D and T2 Congestion pricing
T t ti l i
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Transportation planning
No requirement for an Asset Management Plan
AA
94/22/2011
ee For More Information U
pdat
Upd
at
President’s Budget (DOT/FHWA overview and detailed budget account information):
FHW
A U
FHW
A U and detailed budget account information):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview
CP
CP
––FF
DOT Budget Highlights and FHWA Congressional Justification: http://www.dot.gov
TO J
TCTO
JTC
FHWA budget estimate and fact sheets:
AA
SHT
AA
SHT http://www.dot.gov/budget/2012/budgetestimates/fhwa.pdf
AA
1003/31/2011
ate
ate
A U
pda
A U
pda
Performance Management
FHW
AFH
WA g
Initiatives
TCP
TCP
––
Pete Stephanos
HTO
JT
HTO
JT p
AA
SHA
ASH
ee Preparing for a National ApproachU
pdat
Upd
atg
How is performance defined?
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
How is performance monitored?
CP
CP
––FF
Where is the source of data?
TO J
TCTO
JTC How can we manage performance?
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ee Preparing for a National ApproachU
pdat
Upd
atg
How is performance defined?
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
How is performance monitored?
CP
CP
––FF
Where is the source of data?
TO J
TCTO
JTC How can we manage performance?
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ee FHWA ApproachU
pdat
Upd
atpp
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
POOR
CP
CP
––FF
170 inches/mile
POOR
Percentage of NHS vehicle miles travelledIn Good condition
Percentage of NHS vehicle miles travelledIn Good condition
TO J
TCTO
JTC
FAIR
In Good conditionIn Good condition
AA
SHT
AA
SHT 95 inches/mile
GOODAA GOOD
ee NHS Pavement Condition TrendsU
pdat
Upd
at
9%
10%60%
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
7%
8%
9%
40%
50%
onon
CP
CP
––FF
4%
5%
6%
30%
or C
ondi
tio
d C
ondi
tio
TO J
TCTO
JTC
2%
3%
4%
10%
20% Poo
Goo
d
Poor Pavements
Good Pavements
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
0%
1%
0%2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
AA
eeAnnual Improvement – Good Pavements
Upd
atU
pdat
40
States with Annual Improvement in Pavement ConditionPercentage of System in Good Condition
NHS
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
35
32
302929
282930
35
d Pa
vem
ents IS
CP
CP
––FF 27
22
2728
20
25
e in
% o
f Goo
dTO
JTC
TO J
TC
15
20
with
Incr
ease
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
5
10
No.
of S
tate
sAA
02005 2006 2007 2008 2009
ee Annual Decrease in Poor ConditionU
pdat
Upd
at
40
States with Annual Improvement in Pavement ConditionPercentage of System in Poor Condition
NHSIS
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
32
3031
34
27
30
35
or P
avem
ents IS
CP
CP
––FF
23
25
19
2425
27
20
25
se in
% o
f Poo
TO J
TCTO
JTC
15
20
s w
ith D
ecre
asA
ASH
TA
ASH
T
5
10
No.
of S
tate
sAA
02005 2006 2007 2008 2009
ee Distribution of Ride QualityU
pdat
Upd
aty
30%Distribution of NHS Travel on Good Riding Roads
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
25%
30%
el
TravelMileage
Below DOT GoalAt or Above DOT Goal
CP
CP
––FF
15%
20%
iles/
Trav
e
TO J
TCTO
JTC
5%
10%
of N
HS
Mi
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
0%<36% 36%-46% 46%-56% 56%-66% 66%-76% 76%-86% >86%
% o
% of NHS Travel/Mileage on Good Riding RoadsAA % of NHS Travel/Mileage on Good Riding Roads
ee I-95 in VirginiaU
pdat
Upd
atg
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
CP
CP
––FF
TO J
TCTO
JTC
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
VDOT Criteria DelDOT Criteria
ee Preparing for a National ApproachU
pdat
Upd
atg
How is performance defined?
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
How is performance monitored?
CP
CP
––FF
Where is the source of data?
TO J
TCTO
JTC How can we manage performance?
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ee State Performance Monitoring U
pdat
Upd
atg
98.2%94.6%
90.0%
100.0%
yed
Network LevelProject Level
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
58.9%66.1%
71.4%
55 4%60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
es S
urve
yC
P C
P ––
FF
33.9%
55.4%
40.0%
50.0%
%
of A
genc
ieTO
JTC
TO J
TC
16.1%
10 0%
20.0%
30.0%
Perc
ent o
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
0.0%
10.0%
Surface Distress Smoothness Structural Capacity Surface Friction
PAA
Source: NCHRP Synthesis Report 401
ee Surface Distress TypesU
pdat
Upd
atyp
100%93%
89%
RuttingTransverse Cracking
Fatigue Cracking
FHW
A U
FHW
A U 89%
89%77%
64%
Fatigue CrackingLongitudinal Cracking
Map/Block CrackingRavelling
CP
CP
––FF 64%
54%54%
46%
FaultingSpalling
Ravelling/FlushingEd C ki
TO J
TCTO
JTC 46%
36%32%
30%
Edge CrackingOther
Punch OutsShattered Slab
AA
SHT
AA
SHT 30%
27%21%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Shattered SlabDurability Cracking
Pumping
AA 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: NCHRP Synthesis Report 401
ee Condition IndicesU
pdat
Upd
at
Excellent ?Rut Index
FHW
A U
FHW
A U Excellent
Good Fair e
Leve
l?PCR
Crack Index
CP
CP
––FF Fair
MediocreP ce
ptab
le
PCICrack Index
TO J
TCTO
JTC Poor
Very Poor AccPDIPCI
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
PSR Critical Index
Condition Rating
AA PSR Critical Index
ee TXDOT ReportU
pdat
Upd
atp
State ThresholdsGeorgia 75–100 is good to excellent
FHW
A U
FHW
A U Georgia
Iowa MontanaN b k
75–100 is good to excellent60–80 is good, 80–100 is excellent63–100 is good70 89 i d 90 100 i d
CP
CP
––FF Nebraska
New HampshireNorth Carolina
70–89 is good; 90–100 is very good40–100 is acceptableGreater than 80 is good
TO J
TCTO
JTC Ohio
OregonVermont
75–90 is good; 90–100 is very good75.1–98 is good; 98.1–100 is very good for NHS40–100 is acceptable
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
VirginiaWashington
70–89 is good; greater is excellent50–100 is good
AA
ee Preparing for a National ApproachU
pdat
Upd
at
How is performance defined?
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
How is performance monitored?
CP
CP
––FF
Where is the source of data?
TO J
TCTO
JTC How can we manage performance?
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ee What Source of Data Should be Used?U
pdat
Upd
at
HPMS Outside lane only
FHW
A U
FHW
A U Outside lane only
One direction of travel One value for each section
R t d ll
CP
CP
––FF Reported annually
Represents all NHS roadways
State PMS Data
TO J
TCTO
JTC Various lanes
Both directionsShorter sections
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Shorter sections
Updated frequently
AA
ee Difference in Outcome - ExampleU
pdat
Upd
at
40%
50%Percent NHS VMT on Good Pavement
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
10%
20%
30%
State
HPMS
CP
CP
––FF
0%2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
HPMS
P NHS VMT P P
TO J
TCTO
JTC
20%
30%Percent NHS VMT on Poor Pavement
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
10%State
HPMSAA 0%2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
ee Preparing for a National ApproachU
pdat
Upd
at
How is performance defined?
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
How is performance monitored?
CP
CP
––FF
Where is the source of data?
TO J
TCTO
JTC How can we manage
performance?
AA
SHT
AA
SHT performance?
AA
ee Managing PerformanceU
pdat
Upd
atg g
Collective Effort
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
National Goal
I di id l St t T t
CP
CP
––FF Individual State Targets
Program Design
TO J
TCTO
JTC
g g
Linking Accomplishments to Performance
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ee National Performance TrendsU
pdat
Upd
at
4060%
NHS Pavement PerformanceActual vs. DOT Targets
Meeting Target
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
36
38
55%
onal
Tar
get
men
ts
DOT TargetActual
CP
CP
––FF
33 3334
50% g D
OT
Nat
io
Rid
ing
Pave
TO J
TCTO
JTC
30
32
31
30
32
ates
Mee
ting
T on
Goo
d R
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
28
3045%
No.
of S
ta
%VM
AA
2640%2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
ee Six Year State Performance TrendU
pdat
Upd
at
14
Six Year Performance Change in NHS Lane-Miles of Pavement in Good Condition2004-2009 Change in Condition
Conditions Improved Conditions Declined
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
10
12
nt B
and
Conditions Improved Conditions Declined
CP
CP
––FF
8
10
mpr
ovem
enTO
JTC
TO J
TC
4
6
of S
tate
s in
IA
ASH
TA
ASH
T
2No.
oAA 0
> 40% 30%-40% 20%-30% 10%-20% 0%-10% 0%-10% 10%-20% > 20%
6 Yr Change in % Good Pavements
ee InitiativesU
pdat
Upd
at
Performance Management Framework Assessing Infrastructure Health
FHW
A U
FHW
A U Assessing Infrastructure Health
Asset Management Plan Prototype/Trials Support Tier 2 Measure Development
CP
CP
––FF pp p
Pavement Monitoring Guide Tools
TO J
TCTO
JTC HERS-ST Enhancements
Pavement Health Track Tool – RSL
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
Develop Health Monitoring Tool
AA
ee InitiativesU
pdat
Upd
at
Training Awareness Analysis Management
FHW
A U
FHW
A U Awareness, Analysis, Management
Internal FHWA Efforts HPMS Quality Assurance Process
CP
CP
––FF HPMS Quality Assurance Process
Assessment of HERS NHS Pavement Report Template
TO J
TCTO
JTC
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ate
ate
A U
pda
A U
pda
Improving FHWA’s Ability t A I f t t
FHW
AFH
WA to Assess Infrastructure
Health
TCP
TCP
–– Health
N S d d
HTO
JT
HTO
JT Nastaran Saadatmand
202-366-1337Nastaran Saadatmand@dot gov
AA
SHA
ASH
ee Project ObjectivesU
pdat
Upd
atj j
To define a consistent and reliable method to document infrastructure health with a
FHW
A U
FHW
A U to document infrastructure health with a
focus on pavements and bridges on the Interstate System (that can be expanded to
CP
CP
––FF Interstate System (that can be expanded to
the National Highway System)
To develop tools to provide FHWA and State
TO J
TCTO
JTC To develop tools to provide FHWA and State
DOTs ready access to key information
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
35
ee Project ApproachU
pdat
Upd
atj pp
Develop an approach for categorizing pavement and bridges as Good/Fair/Poor that can be used
FHW
A U
FHW
A U bridges as Good/Fair/Poor, that can be used
consistently across the country Good/Fair/Poor will be based on condition data
CP
CP
––FF
Recommend improvements to HPMS and NBI
Develop an approach for assessing the overall
TO J
TCTO
JTC
Develop an approach for assessing the overall Health of a highway corridor Looking for a “visit to the Doctor”
AA
SHT
AA
SHT outcome
Will go beyond condition
AA
36
ee Project StructureU
pdat
Upd
atj
Phase I – Develop a methodology Kick-off meeting
FHW
A U
FHW
A U Kick off meeting
Literature review Identify approach
D l k l f Ph II
CP
CP
––FF Develop work plan for Phase II
Phase II – Conduct a pilot study Collect and review data
TO J
TCTO
JTC
Collect and review data Run sample assessment Document conclusions
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Phase III – Hold national meeting to review
results and discuss preferred methodologies
AA
37
ee Project MilestonesU
pdat
Upd
atj
Jan 2012Oct 2010 Sep 2011Mar 2011
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
Phase I Phase II Phase III
PILOT STUDY
CP
CP
––FF
TO J
TCTO
JTC
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
Key DeliverablesKey Meetings
AA
38
ee Defining Good, Fair, PoorU
pdat
Upd
atg
General, consistent definition
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
Two Options: IRI approach
CP
CP
––FF
Composite index approach
TO J
TCTO
JTC
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ee Option 1. IRI U
pdat
Upd
atp
There is momentum for IRI to be the initial basis for a national pavement performance measure
FHW
A U
FHW
A U pavement performance measure
Recent FHWA and NCHRP 20-24(37) G reports propose Good/Fair/Poor thresholds, consistent with C&P Report thresholds
CP
CP
––FF thresholds
Threshold in C&P Report Category Proposed
Thresholds Category
TO J
TCTO
JTC
& p< 95 Good < 95 Good≤ 170 Acceptable 95 ≤ IRI ≤ 170 Fair> 170 Not Acceptable > 170 Poor
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
A TXDOT study found that less than 10 States use IRI threshold
> 170 Not Acceptable > 170 Poor
AA A TXDOT study found that less than 10 States use IRI threshold of ~170 to trigger “Poor” condition
40
ee Option 2. New Composite MeasureU
pdat
Upd
at
Based on HPMS 2010+ Potential approach use HPMS 2010+ data
FHW
A U
FHW
A U Potential approach - use HPMS 2010+ data
elements to develop new composite measure IRI
CP
CP
––FF
Rutting Faulting
TO J
TCTO
JTC Cracking (fatigue, transverse, cracked slabs,
punchouts) Develop modified PCI using HPMS 2010+ data
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Develop modified PCI using HPMS 2010+ data
Consistent with Tier 2 measure addressed in NCRHP 20-24(37) G AA ( )
41
ee Health Assessment TrackU
pdat
eU
pdat
e
What is it» A means for FHWA to examine
FHW
A U
FHW
A U » A means for FHWA to examine
the overall health of specific corridors and respond to requests for information
CP
CP
––FF q
Vision for the health assessment» A report that summarizes
TO J
TCTO
JTC
poverall health and identifies potential warning signs
» A tool to review metrics and
AA
SHT
AA
SHT examine detailed data
Valuable to agencies that manage t d b idAA
42
pavements and bridges
ee Health AssessmentU
pdat
Upd
at A Potential ToolExamine by combination Select
t
FHW
A U
FHW
A U of routes
and statesroutes or segments using a map
CP
CP
––FF
TO J
TCTO
JTC
Review a quick
AA
SHT
AA
SHT summary of
overall health or more detailedAA
43
detailed information
ee Health AssessmentU
pdat
Upd
at A Potential Tool, continued
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
CP
CP
––FF
TO J
TCTO
JTC
Other tabs could
AA
SHT
AA
SHT provide more
detailed information on condition of a particular assetAA particular asset
ee Pilot ApproachU
pdat
Upd
atpp
Select a three-state pilot corridor
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
Compile Federal data sets for pavements (HPMS 2010+ and NBI)
CP
CP
––FF Compile state data used to develop Federal data
sets
TO J
TCTO
JTC Perform field collection for pavement data (maybe
bridge)
C d d l i f d
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Compare data and measures resulting from data
Identify issues and recommend improvements
AA
45
ee Pilot Corridor U
pdat
Upd
atFH
WA
UFH
WA
UC
P C
P ––
FFTO
JTC
TO J
TCA
ASH
TA
ASH
TAA
46
ee Issues to be Addressed During PilotU
pdat
Upd
at
Consistency between state data and b itt d F d l d t
FHW
A U
FHW
A U submitted Federal data
Consistency between states
CP
CP
––FF
Validity of metrics Calculations
TO J
TCTO
JTC
Good/Fair/Poor thresholds Validity of health approach
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Validity of health approach
AA
47
ee Compare and Discuss AlternativesU
pdat
Upd
at
HPMS
Different Data Sources
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
State
CP
CP
––FF Collected
Diff t M t i O ti
TO J
TCTO
JTC
Option 1
Different Metric Options
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Option 2
Option 3
AA
48
ee National MeetingU
pdat
Upd
atg
Funding to send 1 person from every t t
FHW
A U
FHW
A U state
Meeting to be held in Fall, 2011
CP
CP
––FF
Review outcomes of I-90 pilot Discuss preferred options
TO J
TCTO
JTC
Discuss preferred options Identify next steps
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ate
ate
A U
pda
A U
pda
P t T S l ti
FHW
AFH
WA Pavement Type Selection
TCP
TCP
––
Mark Swanlund202-366-1323
HTO
JT
HTO
JT
AA
SHA
ASH
ee Overview of Pavement Type SelectionU
pdat
Upd
at
Components of Agency ProcessesS l i f l i
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
Selection of alternatives Structural design Economic Analysis
CP
CP
––FF
Primary/Secondary Factors
Contractor-based processes
TO J
TCTO
JTC Alternate Bidding Design Build Long Term Warranty
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Long Term Warranty
Other ( PPP, Value Engineering, BV Contracting, Contract Maintenance)
AA
ee FHWA Memo on Alternate BiddingU
pdat
Upd
at
• Issued November 13, 2008Clarifies and consolidates FHWA policy
FHW
A U
FHW
A U • Clarifies and consolidates FHWA policy
• Applies to Federal-aid on the NHSAlt Bidding is “not encouraged”
CP
CP
––FF • Alt Bidding is not encouraged
• However, many states are doing it….
TO J
TCTO
JTC Equivalent designs
Discount rate Uncertainty
Commodity price adjustments
I/D provisionsM t i l titi
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Rehabilitation strategy
Subjective factors Materials quantities Approval process
AA
ee Alternate Bidding UsageU
pdat
Upd
atFH
WA
UFH
WA
UC
P C
P ––
FFTO
JTC
TO J
TCA
ASH
TA
ASH
T
State has advertised at least 1 alternate bid jobState has not utilized alternate biddingAA State has not utilized alternate biddingState did not reply to survey
ee FHWA Next StepsU
pdat
Upd
atp
Reviewing state experience with lt t biddi SEP 14 t
FHW
A U
FHW
A U alternate bidding – SEP 14 reports
Identifying key issues that need to be
CP
CP
––FF y g y
addressed
Have identified 4 issues
TO J
TCTO
JTC Have identified 4 issues
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ee Issue #1U
pdat
Upd
at
Issue: States may not be taking enough t i th i d i t
FHW
A U
FHW
A U steps in their design process to ensure
that sound engineering and economic i i l id d i th i
CP
CP
––FF principles are considered in their
pavement type selection decision.
TO J
TCTO
JTC
Response: Issue PTS guidance and
AA
SHT
AA
SHT p g
provide technical assistance.
AA
ee Issue #2U
pdat
Upd
at
Issue: More states are using alternate biddi b t FHWA’ iti i till t
FHW
A U
FHW
A U bidding, but FHWA’s position is still to
“not encourage” its use.
CP
CP
––FF
Response: New guidance will recognize
TO J
TCTO
JTC
p g galternate bidding as viable option for pavement type selection.
AA
SHT
AA
SHT p yp
AA
ee Issue #3U
pdat
Upd
at
Issue: Use of alternate bidding needs to b d d SEP 14 i i
FHW
A U
FHW
A U be done under SEP-14, requiring
approval by FHWA.
CP
CP
––FF Response: FHWA proposes to
“graduate” alternate bidding to an
TO J
TCTO
JTC accepted practice.
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ee Issue #4U
pdat
Upd
at
Issue: Alternate bidding practice varies th t h
FHW
A U
FHW
A U across the country, some approaches
do not provide a competitive bidding i t
CP
CP
––FF environment
Response: FHWA proposes to issue
TO J
TCTO
JTC consider additional guidance to
recommend best practices for alternate
AA
SHT
AA
SHT bidding to provide a competitive
bidding environment
AA
ate
ate
A U
pda
A U
pda
MEPDG Related Items
FHW
AFH
WA MEPDG Related Items
TCP
TCP
–– Tom Yu – Concrete Model Calibration202-366-1198T Y @d
HTO
JT
HTO
Chris Newman Preservation
AA
SHA
ASH Chris Newman - Preservation
ate
ate
A U
pda
A U
pda
FHW
AFH
WA
Evaluation of R lib t d MEPDG
TCP
TCP
–– Recalibrated MEPDG JPCP Distress Models
HTO
JT
HTO
JT JPCP Distress Models
AA
SHA
ASH
ee BackgroundU
pdat
Upd
atg
An error in the assumed value of coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the calibration bar
FHW
A U
FHW
A U thermal expansion (CTE) of the calibration bar
resulted in overestimating CTE of LTPP PCC sections by about 0.8 micro-strains per ⁰F
CP
CP
––FF
PCC pavement responses are sensitive to CTE; a major change in CTE requires recalibration of the distress models
TO J
TCTO
JTC distress models
MEPDG JPCP performance models were recalibrated (NCHRP 20 07) to ensure the results
AA
SHT
AA
SHT recalibrated (NCHRP 20-07) to ensure the results
are reasonable and free of any bias
AA
ee AssumptionsU
pdat
Upd
atp
The current MEPDG (Ver 1.0/1.1) performance models give reasonable results
FHW
A U
FHW
A U performance models give reasonable results
when used with the old, inflated CTE values
C
CP
CP
––FF CTE depends on aggregate type; on
average, we should see about 0.8 10-6/ F drop in CTE from the correction:
TO J
TCTO
JTC drop in CTE from the correction:
Old average CTE: 5.4 10-6/⁰F Corrected average CTE: 4 6 10-6/⁰F
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Corrected average CTE: 4.6 10 / F
AA
ee ExpectationsU
pdat
Upd
atp
Recalibrated models with the new CTE values should provide similar results as the
FHW
A U
FHW
A U values should provide similar results as the
old models with old CTE values
f
CP
CP
––FF No significant change in design thicknesses
should result from the correction
TO J
TCTO
JTC
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ee ProblemsU
pdat
Upd
at
The revised JPCP cracking model typically predicts dramatically less cracking than Ver.1.0
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
The new design thicknesses are typically 0.8 to 1.4 in less than the old
Similar results (as the old model) are obtained only for thin
CP
CP
––FF ( ) y
sections: design thickness less than 8.5 in
The revised JPCP faulting model over-predicts faulting,
TO J
TCTO
JTC especially for high traffic
Less faulting is expected for lower CTE The magnitude of over-prediction is significant for high traffic,
AA
SHT
AA
SHT e ag tude o o e p ed ct o s s g ca t o g t a c,
especially if no edge support is provided
AA
ee Possible ConsequenceU
pdat
Upd
atq
High risk of under-designing pavement, especially for heavy traffic
FHW
A U
FHW
A U especially for heavy traffic
A 0.5-in reduction in the required slab thickness reduces traffic capacity by about 50%
CP
CP
––FF p y y %
A 1.0-in reduction in the required slab thickness reduces the traffic capacity by a factor of 3 (i.e., b t 1/3rd f th i i l it )
TO J
TCTO
JTC about 1/3rd of the original capacity)
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ee Effects of slab thickness on traffic capacity (MEPDG)U
pdat
Upd
at 15
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
10
b cr
acki
ng
CP
CP
––FF
perc
ent s
lab
10.5 in11.0 in11.5 in
TO J
TCTO
JTC 5
Aver
age
p
12.0 in
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
00 20 40 60 80 100 120 140AA 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Traffic, million ESALs
ee Trend in Thickness ErrorU
pdat
Upd
at
2.5
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
2.0
on, in
CP
CP
––FF
1 0
1.5
s redu
ctio
TO J
TCTO
JTC
0 5
1.0
Thickness
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
0.0
0.5 T
AA
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Design thickness, in
ee Effects of CTE Drop on Calculated DamageU
pdat
Upd
at
0.3520‐07
Version 1.0
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
0.25
0.30
CP
CP
––FF
0 15
0.20
Dam
age
TO J
TCTO
JTC
0.10
0.15
Fatigu
e
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
0.00
0.05
AA 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168 180 192 204 216 228 240
Months
ee Comparison of Cracking ModelsU
pdat
Upd
at
90
100
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
70
80
ked
CP
CP
––FF
50
60
t Slabs Crac
TO J
TCTO
JTC
30
40
Percen
t
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
10
20
V1.0
20‐07
AA 0
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
Fatigue Damage
ee Typical DesignU
pdat
Upd
atFH
WA
UFH
WA
UC
P C
P ––
FFTO
JTC
TO J
TCA
ASH
TA
ASH
TAA
ee Comparison of Cracking ModelsU
pdat
Upd
atg
25V1.0
20‐07
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
20
ked
Needed
CP
CP
––FF
15
Slab
s Crack
TO J
TCTO
JTC 10
Percen
t S
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
5
AA 0
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000
Fatigue Damage
ate
ate
A U
pda
A U
pda
FHW
AFH
WA “Consideration of Pavement
Preservation in Mechanistic-
TCP
TCP
–– Preservation in MechanisticEmpirical Design and Analysis of
P t St t ”
HTO
JT
HTO
JT Pavement Structures”
AA
SHA
ASH
ee NCHRP Project 20-07, Task 251U
pdat
Upd
at
“Consideration of Pavement Preservation in Mechanistic Empirical Design and Analysis
FHW
A U
FHW
A U Mechanistic-Empirical Design and Analysis
of Pavement Structures” March 2009 Applied Pavement Technology
CP
CP
––FF March 2009, Applied Pavement Technology
States the case for considering the t ib ti f ti i t
TO J
TCTO
JTC contributions of preventive maintenance
activities in the MEPDG process, and describes both short-term and long-term
AA
SHT
AA
SHT describes both short-term and long-term
approaches to accomplish that.
AA
ee Preventive Maintenance in DesignU
pdat
Upd
at
Preventive maintenance is part of most agencies’ pavements program should
FHW
A U
FHW
A U agencies pavements program – should
influence the decisions made in pavement design.
CP
CP
––FF design.
Treatments are being performed to prevent moisture infiltration or to restore surface
TO J
TCTO
JTC moisture infiltration or to restore surface
characteristics – these will have some effect over time on the structural performance of
AA
SHT
AA
SHT over time on the structural performance of
the pavements
AA
ee Next Steps?U
pdat
Upd
at
Report describes how to incorporate preventive maintenance treatments into pavement design –
pFH
WA
UFH
WA
U maintenance treatments into pavement design adjustment or modification of performance models.
Provides seven recommendations for additional
CP
CP
––FF Provides seven recommendations for additional
research or improved tracking of treatment application and performance.
TO J
TCTO
JTC What can FHWA and AASHTO consider in
upcoming activities to incorporate the observations and recommendations of the report into the
AA
SHT
AA
SHT and recommendations of the report into the
MEPDG?
AA
ate
ate
A U
pda
A U
pda
Highway Sustainability
FHW
AFH
WA Rating Tool, INVEST
TCP
TCP
––
Katherine Petros202 493 3154
HTO
JT
HTO
JT 202-493-3154
AA
SHA
ASH
ee What is a sustainable highway?U
pdat
Upd
atg y
Satisfies functional requirements Fulfills transportation goals and needs (e g
FHW
A U
FHW
A U Fulfills transportation goals and needs (e.g.
congestion reduction) Addresses development and economic growth
CP
CP
––FF
p g Reduces impacts
Environment
TO J
TCTO
JTC Consumption of resources
Addresses environmental, economic, and social equity dimensions (triple bottom line)
AA
SHT
AA
SHT equity dimensions (triple bottom line)
Addresses sustainability from planning through operationsAA
77
ee FHWA’s Sustainable HighwaysU
pdat
Upd
at Self Evaluation Tool
Encourage sustainable highway projects
FHW
A U
FHW
A U Encourage sustainable highway projects
Help agencies measure sustainability f ff
CP
CP
––FF and quantify tradeoffs
Provide a framework for communicating
TO J
TCTO
JTC
Provide a framework for communicating with stakeholders about sustainability
E t bli h th d f l ti
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Establish a method for evaluating
sustainable highways
AA
78
ee Sustainable Highways ToolU
pdat
Upd
atg y
Working Title:IN-VEST - Infrastructure Voluntary
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
A web-based self-evaluation tool for measuring
IN VEST Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Tool
CP
CP
––FF A web-based self-evaluation tool for measuring
sustainability over the life cycle of a transportation project or program — from system
d j t l i th h d i d
TO J
TCTO
JTC and project planning through design and
construction, to operations and maintenance
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
Website address—www.sustainablehighways.org
AA
eeWhat are some of the Tool’s characteristics?
Upd
atU
pdat
Web-based Credits based on best practices
FHW
A U
FHW
A U Credits based on best practices
Each credit assigned a point value based on expected sustainability impact
CP
CP
––FF
p y p In coordination with ASCE effort Other sustainable highways tools used as
f
TO J
TCTO
JTC references
(GreenLITES, I-LAST, Greenroads)
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ee What the Tool is NOT…U
pdat
Upd
at
The tool is not final. W ki B t i
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
We are working on a Beta-version. The tool is not required.
Use is purely voluntary
CP
CP
––FF Use is purely voluntary.
TO J
TCTO
JTC
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ee Sustainable Highway CreditsU
pdat
Upd
atg y
System Planning (SP) Agency wide management /planning of highways
FHW
A U
FHW
A U Agency-wide management /planning of highways
System/Network evaluation Project Development (PD)
CP
CP
––FF Project Development (PD)
Environmental Review, project planning, design, and construction
TO J
TCTO
JTC Project evaluation
Operations and Maintenance (OM)A id h t t d i t i
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Agency-wide approach to operate and maintain
system System/Network evaluationAA System/Network evaluation
82
eeFHWA BETA VERSION
Home PageU
pdat
Upd
atHome Page
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
CP
CP
––FF
TO J
TCTO
JTC
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
eeFHWA BETA VERSION
Learning TabU
pdat
Upd
atLearning Tab
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
CP
CP
––FF
TO J
TCTO
JTC
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
eeFHWA BETA VERSION
Browsing TabU
pdat
Upd
atBrowsing Tab
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
CP
CP
––FF
TO J
TCTO
JTC
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
eeFHWA BETA VERSION
Scoring TabU
pdat
Upd
atScoring Tab
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
CP
CP
––FF
TO J
TCTO
JTC
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
eeSystem Planning & Processes Credits
Upd
atU
pdat
SP-1 Comprehensive & Integrated Planning
SP-8 Travel Demand Management
FHW
A U
FHW
A U g g
SP-2 Environmental Management System
SP-3 Context Sensitive
gSP-9 Safety ManagementSP-10 Air Quality
Management
CP
CP
––FF Solutions
SP-4 Equity AnalysisSP-5 Integrated
T t ti L d
gSP-11 Greenhouse Gas
EmissionsSP-12 Climate Change Effects
TO J
TCTO
JTC Transportation Land
Use PlanningSP-6 Multimodal
Transportation
SP-13 Noise Reduction Management Plan
SP-14 Financial Sustainability
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Transportation
SP-7 Professional Development
AA
ee Project Development Credits: Project PlanningU
pdat
Upd
at
PD-1 Cost Benefit Analysis
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
PD-2 Highway and Traffic Safety PD-3 Context Sensitive Solutions
CP
CP
––FF PD-4 Lifecycle Assessment
PD-5 Lifecycle Cost AnalysisPD 6 Freight Mobility
TO J
TCTO
JTC PD-6 Freight Mobility
PD-7 Educational Outreach
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ee Project Development Credits: Project DesignU
pdat
Upd
at
PD-8 Habitat RestorationPD-9 Runoff Flow Control
PD-19 Historical, Archaeological, and C lt ral Preser ation
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
PD-10 Runoff QualityPD-11 Ecological ConnectivityPD-12 Low Impact Development
Cultural PreservationPD-20 Scenic, Natural, or
Recreational QualitiesPD-21 Low-Emitting Materials
CP
CP
––FF PD-13 Recycled Materials
PD-14 Renewable EnergyPD-15 Site VegetationPD 16 Pedestrian Access
PD 21 Low Emitting MaterialsPD-22 Energy EfficiencyPD-23 Traffic Systems,
Management and Operations (TSMO)
TO J
TCTO
JTC PD-16 Pedestrian Access
PD-17 Bicycle AccessPD-18 Transit & HOV Access
Operations (TSMO)PD-24 Long-Life PavementPD-25 Pavement and Structure
Reuse
AA
SHT
AA
SHT euse
PD-26 Stormwater Cost AnalysisPD-27 Thermal Pavement
AA
ee Project Development Credits: Project ConstructionU
pdat
Upd
at
PD-28 Contractor WarrantyPD 29 St t P ll ti
PD-34 Quality Control PlanPD 35 Reduced Energy
FHW
A U
FHW
A U PD-29 Stormwater Pollution
Prevention PlanPD-30 Environmental Training
PD-35 Reduced Energy Materials
PD-36 Waste ManagementPD 3 E h k B l
CP
CP
––FF PD-31 Equipment Emission
ReductionPD-32 Fossil Fuel Reduction
PD-37 Earthwork BalancePD-38 Environmental
Management System
TO J
TCTO
JTC PD-33 Construction Noise
MitigationPD-39 Tracking Environmental
Commitments
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
eeTransportation System Management, Operations & Maintenance Credits
Upd
atU
pdat
OM-1 Pollution Prevention Plan
OM-8 Mobility OM-9 Safety
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
OM-2 Pavement Management System
OM-3 Bridge Management
OM 9 SafetyOM-10 Snow & Ice ControlOM-11 Renewable Energy UseOM-12 Sustainability Plan
CP
CP
––FF
g gSystem
OM-4 Paved Surfaces Management System
OM 5 T ffi C t l
OM-12 Sustainability PlanOM-13 Alternative Fuel Fleet OM-14 Recycle and Re-useOM 15 Ecological Connectivity
TO J
TCTO
JTC OM-5 Traffic Control
Infrastructure Maintenance
OM-6 Cleaning and Litter
OM-15 Ecological Connectivity
AA
SHT
AA
SHT OM-6 Cleaning and Litter
OM-7 Roadside Infrastructure Maintenance
AA
ee OM-2 Pavement Management SystemU
pdat
Upd
at
Goal Make pavements last longer and perform better by preserving and maintaining them
FHW
A U
FHW
A U by preserving and maintaining them.
Points 1 – 10 pointsDescription The agency shall have a pavement management
system (PMS) A pavement management system is a
CP
CP
––FF system (PMS). A pavement management system is a
formal systematic process of preserving and rehabilitating a particular pavement or network of pavements.
TO J
TCTO
JTC
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ee OM-2 Pavement Management SystemU
pdat
Upd
at
Have a Plan (1 point)M t diti t l t t
Requirements
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
Measure pavement condition at least every two years Document decision criteria for timing rehabilitation Record when rehabilitation occurs
CP
CP
––FF Measure Performance (3 points)– Track pavement network
performance using two common metrics: Overall network condition using common metrics
TO J
TCTO
JTC
g Number and fraction of rehabilitation actions scheduled
on time and delayed Set and Achieve Goals (6 points)
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Set and Achieve Goals (6 points)
Set quantifiable goals relating to the two metrics, including when these goals are to be achieved
Monitor progress towards goals; show measureableAA Monitor progress towards goals; show measureable advancement towards goals.
eeAchievement Levels
Upd
atU
pdat
How will success be measured?
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
Achievement levels are included in Beta version
CP
CP
––FF
Look similar to LEED Rating system Bronze (base level)
TO J
TCTO
JTC Bronze (base level)
Silver (level 2) Gold (level 3)
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Gold (level 3)
Platinum (top level)
AA
ee Next StepsU
pdat
Upd
atp
Beta version released Fall 2010
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
Requested input from the transportation community in testing and improving the
CP
CP
––FF tool
Evaluating feedback
TO J
TCTO
JTC Making website improvements
Release revision (Version 1 0)
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Release revision (Version 1.0)
Target date: April 22, 2011
AA
ate
ate
A U
pda
A U
pda
FHW
AFH
WA
Website address—
TCP
TCP
–– Website addresswww.sustainablehighways.org
HTO
JT
HTO
JT
AA
SHA
ASH
ate
ate
A U
pda
A U
pda
Initiative Updates
FHW
AFH
WA Initiative Updates
Warm Mix Asphalt Step Frequency GPR
TCP
TCP
–– a sp a t
Safety Edge
C t O l
Step eque cy G
Asphalt Mixture Perf Tester
F i ti L P
HTO
JT
HTO
JT
Concrete Overlays
High RAP Mixtures
Friction Loan Program
Intelligent Compaction
AA
SHA
ASH
ee Warm Mix AsphaltU
pdat
eU
pdat
e p
Allows a reduction in asphalt
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
mixture production & placement temperatures
CP
CP
––FF Benefits:
Provides better compactionReduce worker fatigue
TO J
TCTO
JTC
educe o e at gueReduces fossil fuel consumptionReduces CO2e & other emissionsLonger paving season
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Allows for longer hauling distances
Benefits with High RAP
AA
ee Warm Mix AsphaltU
pdat
Upd
atp
Various technologies are used, which allows
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
the plant mix to be produced and compacted at lower temperatures…
CP
CP
––FF Typical production temperature reduction 30 to 75ºF
WMA Technologies:
TO J
TCTO
JTC Foaming Processes
Wax-like Additives
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Chemical Additives
Hybrids
AA
ee Warm Mix AsphaltU
pdat
eU
pdat
e p
First public demo in US in 2004
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
WMA projects have been completed in 40 StatesAt least 10 States have adopted
CP
CP
––FF At least 10 States have adopted
permissive specifications
TO J
TCTO
JTC
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ee WMA WorkshopsU
pdat
Upd
atp
NAPA/FHWA Sponsored EventsA h lt I D th
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
Asphalt In Depth Recycled Materials, WMA, & Construction
Nashville TN
CP
CP
––FF Nashville, TN
June 1-2, 2011 www hotmix org/asphaltindepth
TO J
TCTO
JTC
www.hotmix.org/asphaltindepth 2nd International Conference on WMA
St. Louis, MO
AA
SHT
AA
SHT St. Louis, MO
October 11-13, 2011 www.hotmix.org/warmmixAA
ee What Is the Safety Edge?U
pdat
Upd
aty g
it allows a vehicle to re enter theWh d h lt t th
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
30 degree beveled pavement edge shaped during the paving processasphalt or concretelocated where the pavement interfaces
with a graded material
it allows a vehicle to re-enter the pavement with greater stability and less l f l l i i d d
When used on asphalt pavement the extruded shape can improve pavement
CP
CP
––FFshaped during the paving process asphalt or concrete with a graded material. loss of control resulting in reduced
crashes edge durability.
TO J
TCTO
JTC
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ee Basic PrincipleU
pdat
Upd
atFH
WA
UFH
WA
UC
P C
P ––
FFTO
JTC
TO J
TCA
ASH
TA
ASH
T
Without a Safety EdgeAA Without a Safety Edge
ee Basic PrincipleU
pdat
Upd
atFH
WA
UFH
WA
UC
P C
P ––
FFTO
JTC
TO J
TCA
ASH
TA
ASH
T
With S f t EdAA With Safety Edge
ee Safety ImpactsU
pdat
Upd
aty p
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
CP
CP
––FF
TO J
TCTO
JTC ReasonablySafe
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ee Costs of the Safety Edge U
pdat
Upd
at
HardwareA i t l $3000
Paving ProcessN h i i
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
Approximately $3000 per shoe
Reusable
No change in paving speed
No additional operation
CP
CP
––FF Reusable
Material Minor additional asphalt
No additional operation Minimal monitoring
Surface Details
TO J
TCTO
JTC Minor additional asphalt
(depends on shoulder condition)
Surface Details No change in
smoothness/ride quality
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ee Safety Edge Construction WebinarU
pdat
Upd
atFH
WA
UFH
WA
UC
P C
P ––
FFTO
JTC
TO J
TCA
ASH
TA
ASH
TAA
ee Step-Frequency GPR (SF-GPR)U
pdat
Upd
atp q y ( ) SF-GPR is a promising NDT
t h l f t l ti
FHW
A U
FHW
A U technology for pavement evaluation
Advantages
CP
CP
––FF
Wide detection range Full coverage of a traffic lane in 2 passes
TO J
TCTO
JTC
g 2-D and 3-D imaging capability Continuous calibration
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ate
ateThe APE
A U
pda
A U
pda
FHW
AFH
WA
TCP
TCP
––H
TO J
TH
TO J
TA
ASH
AA
SH
ee Current status of APEU
pdat
Upd
at
Current applications – ready for demonstrations and implementation
FHW
A U
FHW
A U implementation
Pavement layer thickness Moisture detection
V id d t ti
CP
CP
––FF Void detection
Variations in material properties (AC density)
Future applications
TO J
TCTO
JTC
pp AC stripping Layer debonding
Rutting evaluation (2 D & 3 D imaging)
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Rutting evaluation (2-D & 3-D imaging)
Detection and quantification of cracking Depth of dowel bars, tie bars, and reinforcing steel
AA
ee Concrete OverlaysU
pdat
Upd
aty
Guide to Concrete Overlay Solutions
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
One day Workshops Overlay Types & Uses
CP
CP
––FF Project Evaluation & Selection
Overlay DesignC t M t i l S ti
TO J
TCTO
JTC Concrete Materials Section
Work Zones under Traffic Overlay Construction
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Overlay Construction
Accelerated Construction Specification ConsiderationsAA p
ate
ate System of Concrete Overlays
A U
pda
A U
pda
Concrete OverlaysThinner Thicker
FHW
AFH
WA
Bonded Overlay System Unbonded Overlay System
TCP
TCP
––
Bonded Concrete
Bonded Concrete
Bonded Concrete
Unbonded Concrete O l f
Unbonded Concrete O l f
Unbonded Concrete O l f
HTO
JT
HTO
JT Overlay of
ConcretePavements
Overlay of Asphalt
Pavements
Overlay of CompositePavements
Overlay of Concrete
Pavements
Overlay of Asphalt
Pavements
Overlay of CompositePavements
AA
SHA
ASH
Bond to existing pavement is Existing pavement servesBond to existing pavement is integral to design.
Existing pavement serves only as a base.
ee High RAP UseU
pdat
Upd
atg
Increase application to 25% RAP in all t l
FHW
A U
FHW
A U pavement layers
Supporting national research efforts
CP
CP
––FF
Supporting industry initiatives ETG activities
TO J
TCTO
JTC
ETG activities Field testing and evaluation
S ifi ti d l t
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Specification development
AA
ee AASHTO RAP Survey ResultsU
pdat
Upd
aty
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
CP
CP
––FF
TO J
TCTO
JTC
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
ee Asphalt Mixture Performance Tester (AMPT)U
pdat
Upd
at
Machine Specifically for Testing
FHW
A U
FHW
A U p y g
Engineering Properties of AsphaltMixtures:• Dynamic Modulus
CP
CP
––FF Dynamic Modulus
• Flow Number• Fatigue Test (potential)
TO J
TCTO
JTC
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
115
ee AMPT Pooled Fund Study TPF-5(178)U
pdat
Upd
aty ( )
• Objectiveso Procure AMPT for highway agencies
FHW
A U
FHW
A U o Procure AMPT for highway agencies
o Provide training on AMPTo Support national AMPT implementation
CP
CP
––FF pp p
• Progress and Scheduleo Four AMPTs delivered, four more ordered
TO J
TCTO
JTC
o ou M s del ve ed, ou o e o de edo More AMPTs to be ordered in 2011o Four training course completed
AA
SHT
AA
SHT o Two additional courses planned in 2011
AA
116
ee AMPT Pooled Fund Study TPF-5(178)U
pdat
Upd
at
• Participants o Maine o Pennsylvania
FHW
A U
FHW
A U • Participants
o Alabamao Colorado
C i
o Maineo Marylando Nevada
N
o Pennsylvaniao Tennesseeo Utah
Vi i i
CP
CP
––FF o Connecticut
o Floridao Georgia
o New Hampshire
o New Jersey
o Virginiao Wisconsino Wyoming
TO J
TCTO
JTC
go Illinoiso Kansaso Kentucky
o New Yorko North
Carolina
y go Ontarioo FHWA – Lead
agency
AA
SHT
AA
SHT o Kentucky
o Oregonagency
AA
117
ee Application of Performance TestingU
pdat
Upd
at
Mix Design and Evaluationo Identify potential performance issues
FHW
A U
FHW
A U o Identify potential performance issues
Pavement Designo Engineering properties for MEPDG
CP
CP
––FF g g p p
Construction Acceptanceo Performance based specifications
TO J
TCTO
JTC
p Performance Monitoring
AA
SHT
AA
SHT
AA
118
ee Friction Loan ProgramU
pdat
Upd
atg
Equipment available for loan to states
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
Technical assistance is provided Equipment:
CP
CP
––FF q p
Circular Texture Meter Dynamic Friction Tester
TO J
TCTO
JTC
Dynamic Friction Tester Griptester
Contact: Bob Orthmeyer
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Contact: Bob Orthmeyer [email protected]
AA
ee Intelligent Compaction InitiativeU
pdat
Upd
atg p
Intelligent Compaction Equipment Loan/Demo (TPF5 128)
FHW
A U
FHW
A U Loan/Demo (TPF5-128)
Demo Projects (MN, NY, MS, MD, GA, IN, TX KS)
CP
CP
––FF TX, KS)
Best Practice Documents: (1)Asphalt Materials and (2) Soils
TO J
TCTO
JTC (1)Asphalt Materials and (2) Soils
Analysis Software and MN DOT Effort to standardize data
AA
SHT
AA
SHT standardize data
AA
ee Intelligent CompactionU
pdat
Upd
atg p
Active Pooled Fund Project12 St t
FHW
A U
FHW
A U
12 States Demonstrate and Evaluate Application www intelligentcompaction com
CP
CP
––FF www.intelligentcompaction.com
Holding Regional Workshops Provide State Demonstrations
TO J
TCTO
JTC Provide State Demonstrations
Developing Manual Best practices
AA
SHT
AA
SHT Best practices
Review of Technologies Use of IC to reduce density testingAA y g
ee Initiative ContactsU
pdat
Upd
at
Warm Mix Asphalt Tom Harman
tom harman@dot gov
Step Frequency GPR Tom Yu
tom yu@dot gov
FHW
A U
FHW
Matt Corrigan [email protected]
Safety Edge
Asphalt Mixture Perf Tester Jeff Withee
CP
CP
––FF Andy Mergenmeier
[email protected] Chris Wagner
Friction Loan Program Mark Swanlund
[email protected] Bob Orthmeyer
TO J
TCTO
JTC Concrete Overlays
Sam Tyson [email protected]
Hi h RAP Mi t
Bob Orthmeyer [email protected]
Intelligent Compaction Lee Gallivan
AA
SHT
AA
SHT High RAP Mixtures
John Bukowski [email protected]
Audrey Copeland
THANK YOU!THANK YOU!