Research & Innovation Implementation Program Building on Success for PennDOT

PennDOT’s Research & Innovation Implementation Program Where We Were… What We Did: Developed the Research & Innovation Implementation Program Expanded capacity to serve customers throughout PennDOT and beyond Advanced implementation to more than just completed research project findings Where We Are Going: Building on successes Serving current and future customers Helping PennDOT achieve key strategic goals and objectives

Research & Innovation Implementation Program Timeline Built Infrastructure Broadened Awareness, Use and Impact Strengthened and Extended Application of System Evolution of a System

Early Years… Identify Innovation A new product/process fulfills a genuine need Planning Develop strategy for deploying innovation Communication Spread word of the Innovation Institutionalization Becomes the NEW way of conducting business Implementation Program Goals The Research & Innovation Implementation Program was created to: Maximize PennDOT’s return on investments in research Communicate & deploy research project findings Communicate & deploy “successful practices” from the field Advance PennDOT’s strategic goals and objectives

Early Years… Building the Infrastructure Innovations and research results: From concept to reality Successful Field Practices Implementation Program Manager Ready to Implement? Completed Research Projects No Yes Not Yet Develop Transfer Package Implement & Evaluate! Provide Feedback More Work Needed FHWA, AASHTO, and Other Sources Built Infrastructure Met goal to build innovation and implementation infrastructure Share Developed communication and training vehicles to share knowledge and experiences Identify Worked to identify successful research projects for widespread application Engage Teamed with District QC’s and fostered innovation

Innovations and research results: From concept to reality Developed a Checklist to determine “Winning Innovations” Early Years… Building the Infrastructure

Innovations and research results: From concept to reality Early Years… Building the Infrastructure Transfer Packages

Planning Deputate BPR Bureau of Planning & Research As Our Program Developed… Through BPR, more organizations “joined the team” including: Vance & Renz, LLC BT Harder, Inc Mary Treisbach Pennoni Associates Inc The Implementation Consultant Team 11 Engineering Districts Safety Administration Deputate Administration Deputate Local/Area Deputate Aviation Deputate BOMO BHSTE Design Highway Administration Deputate

Middle Years… Increasing Awareness, Use & Impact Broadened implementation projects and processes Developed wider engagement across the Department Became a resource to “get things done” Value added: increased effectiveness and implementation of higher impact research results

Middle Years… Innovations Implemented Some of the 30+ innovations implemented in : Bridge Maintenance Academy Challenge Exam Study Guide Defensive Driving Course Safer Driver Actions at Stop Signs Snow Academy Winter Leadership Presentations

Recent Years… Strengthening and Extending Implementation Initiatives with Greater Scope, Impact, & Value Strategic Focus Winter Services Strategic Plan Pavement Academy Maintenance Executive Development Program Special Point Examination Planning Workforce Development Safety Productivity

Innovations Implemented Some of the innovations implemented in : Driver Sanctioning: Special Point Exam Maintenance Executive Development Program (MEDP) Case Studies Motorcycle Rider Self-assessment of Risk Pavement Academy Pavement Marking Handbook Winter Services Strategic Plan

Looking Ahead… In addition to communicating and deploying research results, PennDOT plans to: – Continue to grow and expand successful Implementation system – Continue to foster technology transfer and statewide communication Implementation of key initiatives like WSSP – Develop performance metrics for process improvement – Look for new ways to support strategic thinking with actionable plans

Contact Information Michael Bonini PennDOT Research Program Manager (717) THANK YOU!

Deploying Research in the Region II States S uccessful Methods to Implement Results Tuesday July 27, 2010 Moy Biswas North Carolina

Front End Implementation –Only upon repeated insistence (i.e., 2x4) of customers, should a project be started –Research Projects are Selected Rigorously Based on Need and Urgency –Primary user serves as the Chair of the project Steering & Implementation Committee (StIC) –Supporting users serve as Members –Senior Manager Champions serve as Friends –FHWA & other agency people are included

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECALIBRATION OF THE ASPHALT LAYER COEFFICIENT DAVID TIMM, PHD, P.E. KENDRA P. DAVIS

Main Objectives  Using 1993 AASHTO method for flexible pavement design: Determine the sensitivity of the layer coefficient on the resulting HMA thickness.  Recalibrate the layer coefficient for newer HMA mixes, and compare that value to the currently used layer coefficient of 0.44.

2003 and 2006 Test Data from the NCAT Test Track Structural Study used to achieve the objectives 2003 and 2006 Test Data from the NCAT Test Track Structural Study used to achieve the objectives

It was determined that the layer coefficient be recalculated to provide the greatest potential savings in HMA thickness using advance construction methods, gradation requirements, paving materials, and the results from the AASHTO Road Test.  Instead of 0.44, the calculated layer coefficient was  The 0.54 layer coefficient results in a 18% layer thickness reduction.

Implementations of Results  August 11, ALDOT requests approval from FHWA DA to use the 0.54 layer coefficient on binder and wearing layer designs  September 10, FHWA DA granted approval to use 0.54 as layer coefficient on binder and wearing layer designs with the exception of OGFC layers  September 17, ALDOT Directive sent to all Division Engineers to use 0.54 as layer coefficient on binder and wearing layer designs, starting January 2010 with the exception of OGFC layers

Estimated ALDOT Projects Cost Savings  Estimated HMA tonnage that would have been awarded in projects to date, if the 0.44 layer coefficient was used: 2,064,508 Tons  Actual total HMA tonnage awarded in projects to date using the 0.54 layer coefficient : 1,749, 583 Tons  Estimated reduction in HMA tonnage as a result of using the 0.54 layer coefficient: 314,925 Tons  Estimated cost savings to date : $ 22,740,734

Technical Contact (PI) – David Timm, PHD, P. E. (334) 844 – 6282 ALDOT Contact – Jeffrey W. Brown (334)

North Carolina DOT Pavement Preservation Chip Seal Research Projects ► Aggregates (2004) – Optimizing Gradations ► Rolling (2006) – Quantifying the Benefits of Improved Rolling ► Emulsion (2007) – Analysis of Polymer Modified Emulsions Completed Mix Design (2008) – New Chip Seal Mix Design Method Field QC Test (2009) – Field Testing System for Chip Seal Fog Seal (2010) – Fog Seal Effectiveness for Chip Seal High Volume Application (2011) Use of Chip Seals to High Volume Roads by Using Polymer-Modified Emulsions Ongoi ng

Chip Seal Specimen Fabrication Using Mini-scale Chip Seal Spreader

Third Scale Model Mobile Loading Simulator (MMLS3)

Laser, PATTI, Digital Imaging

Key Implementation Points ► Importance of uniform gradation ► Fine content less than 1.5% Aggregate Rolling Use of Pneumatic tire roller and combination rollers Optimal number of rolling coverages of three No rolling required for the bottom layer of triple seal Recommended Rolling Protocols: Two roller case: Two combination rollers side-by-side Three roller case: Two pneumatic tire rollers side-by-side followed by one combination roller

Combination Roller

Key Implementation Points – Cont’d ► Use of polymer modified emulsion (PME) strongly ► Excellent aggregate retention, bleeding, and rutting performance of PME chip seals ► Excellent aggregate retention performance of PME chip seals at low temperatures ► Life Cycle Cost Analysis shows PME to be cost effective on condition that the service life of the PME is two years longer than that of an unmodified chip seal. Emulsion

Louisiana DOTD Comparative Evaluation of Subgrade Resilient Modulus M r, from Non-Destructive, In-situ, and Laboratory Methods LTRC Contact: Mark Morvant / Doc Zhang Performed field and Laboratory tests Used four soil different moisture-dry unit weights Nine construction projects

Louisiana DOTD Field Tests DCP CIMCPT FWD Dynaflect

Louisiana DOTD Outcome Incorporate in the LADOTD design manual Verification through field projects

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Bridge Strengthening with Post Installed Shear Studs Contact: Jamie Bewley-Bird Existing bridge non-composite single span steel girder Installed Adhesive Anchor shear studs to obtain partial composite action Minimum traffic disruption From HS12, Load rating increased to HS33

North Carolina DOT Placement of Detection Loops on High Speed Approaches to Traffic Signals

Research Objectives Investigate best practices, theories and trends Investigate best practices, theories and trends Using simulation, model various detection loop placements Using simulation, model various detection loop placements Field evaluate alternative vehicle detection loop placements Field evaluate alternative vehicle detection loop placements

Best Available Technology Appears to be the D-CS Software Developed by Jim Bonneson at TTI

Existing Controller Cabinet Modified to Incorporate D-CS Software

Results of Field Evaluation of Various Technologies Probabilities of No Vehicles in Dilemma Zones In addition to reducing incidence of vehicles in the dilemma zone, the D-CS controller reduced the average delay time for opposing traffic all five simulated sites In addition to reducing incidence of vehicles in the dilemma zone, the D-CS controller reduced the average delay time for opposing traffic all five simulated sites

Implementation The North Carolina Department of Transportation is currently in discussions with current controller software provider about the price of incorporating D-CS software into the next version of their existing controller software package The North Carolina Department of Transportation is currently in discussions with current controller software provider about the price of incorporating D-CS software into the next version of their existing controller software package

 Sandra Q. Larson, Iowa Department of Transportation

 1. Include implementers and technical experts in the early concepting of the research project.  2. Include the implementers and technical experts throughout the research project as members of the Technical Advisory Committee.  3. Throughout the project develop champions for the research solutions at multiple levels within the agency, and beyond (FHWA and industry).

 4. If money will be needed to implement the research results, determine the funding source early in the research and plan for the actual implementation.  5. Include critics of the research ideas early in the research project.  6. Make sure whoever has the responsibility for action items, actually knows that they have that responsibility.

 7. Get upper management support for the research solutions.  8. Develop technology transfer ideas early and follow through with them.  9. Keep the greater transportation audience informed about the project’s progress & results, and include throughout the project (esp FHWA and industry).  10. Communicate, communicate, communicate.

 Non-Destructive Evaluation of Bridge Decks  Intelligent Compaction of HMA and soils/granular subbases  PCC Pavement Surface Characteristics Pooled Fund  Rumble Strips and Stripes  Triple Plow Blades  Teen Driver Safety

 Bridge Office and Research Bureau representation at initial meeting with Rutgers University reps  Bridge Office and Research Bureau (along with Chief Engineer) determined that a project to test several different NDE technologies should be used to evaluate 9 bridge decks, 6 of which had bridge deck construction projects immediately following the evaluation, FHWA concurrence

 Bridge Office and Research Bureau worked together throughout the contracting and research project with Rutgers  Champions for the project were in the Bridge Office, Research Bureau, and also included the Chief Engineer  Rutgers gave a project results presentation to DOT and FHWA staff, and also a shorter presentation to upper DOT management

 The final report for the project is being reviewed  Several implementation and next step discussions were held between the Bridge Office, Engineering Bureau, Research Bureau and Chief Engineer  A second phase research project will soon begin to evaluate several key bridge decks; Bridge Office is lead, Wiss, Janney, Elstner (WJE) selected to do research and eventually we will establish an in-house testing and evaluation program with WJE guidance; FHWA concurrence

Impact echo (IE) & Ultrasonic Ground penetrating radar (GPR) – Ground Antenna Ground penetrating radar (GPR) – Air Antenna Half-cell corrosion potential Non Destructive Evaluation

 Several Partnership for Geotechnical Advancement (PGA) meetings & research projects over several years between university researchers, DOT technical representatives and management, and FHWA resulted in the recent IC initiatives  2 workshops and a webinar in 2008, 2009 and 2010 on Intelligent Compaction (IA DOT hosted)  Three IA demo construction projects in 2009 were completed, IC technologies used on site but not for acceptance (subbase, subgrade, HMA overlay)

 Three IA pilot HMA IC projects in 2010 utilizing developmental specifications  One possible IA clay soil IC grading project in fall 2010  Looking for a project for IC subbase  New pooled fund starting August 6, 2010 ◦ “Technology Transfer for Intelligent Compaction Consortium (TTICC)” ◦ Solicitation #1262; IA, KY, PA, OH, UT, VA, WI ◦ Conference Call/Webinar Aug 6 to launch pooled fund ◦ IC Workshop October 2010, including a field visit

 The cover article in ENR Magazine was published in July 2009, focusing on this specific IC research project  for more info on the workshops/webinars/ IC efforts

 Top 10 Ways to Ensure Research Results are Implemented  Are we making a difference through our efforts?  Successful implementation Measurements ◦ New practices adopted ◦ Spec developed or changed ◦ Demo/pilot construction projects ◦ Quality improved ◦ New law passed ◦ Safety improved ◦ Condition information improved

 For more info on any of these projects/pooled funds/implementation efforts contact: ◦ Sandra Larson at ◦ look online at:

61 Research Implementation & Best Practice AASHTO Research Advisory Committee Meeting July 27, 2010 Rick Collins, P.E. (512)

62 Agenda  Purpose  Challenges  Next Steps

63 Purpose  To continually improve TxDOT in all facets by accelerating research implementation and enhancing best practices. “The value of an idea lies in the using of it.” Thomas Alva Edison

64 Purpose Sunset Advisory Commission, Feb  “TxDOT should establish an internal program to capture, disseminate and archive useful examples of Division and District staff best practice.”

65 Duties  Assists with implementation of research results.  Measures application and effectiveness of applying research results.  Coordinates the use of equipment that has been developed through the research program.  Serves as implementation director on appropriate research projects.

66 Duties  Solicits research ideas.  Communicates with universities on issues TxDOT is dealing with, that might lend themselves to research.  Works with Divisions in pushing innovation.

67 Duties  Serves as a conduit Between the Districts and Region to summarize best practices and new ideas; relays this information to Divisions and other Regions in a consistent manner. For the consistent application of new policies, specifications and standards, and provides feedback between the Districts and Divisions.

68 Challenges  Clarity of Information  Process  Documentation  Information Sharing  Time

69 Challenges  Clarity of Information Which research projects should we implement? Which district is this best suited for? What are the expected benefits?  Process How should this be coordinated? What’s the process if I need money?

70 Challenges  Documentation Hasn’t this been tried before? What were the results?  Information Sharing Who else has done this? Who should I contact?

71 Challenges  Time I don’t have the people to do this. I don’t have enough time to figure it out.

72 Next Steps  Determine the Status of Reports Can it be implemented? How?  Implementation Plan

73

74 Next Steps  s “To-the-point”  Status  Benefits  Points-of-contact  Links to detailed info

75 Next Steps  Liaison Assistance Follow up  Website Follow up Information Best Practices Projects status

76 Next Steps  District Visits / Project Visits  Meetings TAP RMC RLT Regional Office Meetings  Communicate with Universities

77 Next Steps  Market the Program Internally Externally

78 Program Needs  Champion volunteers  Effective Communication

79 Conclusion “Do, or do not! There is no try.” -- Yoda

80 Conclusion Thank You Questions?