1. MnDOT Experience with the Integration Process Tim Clyne January 24, 2012 AFK50(2) Subcommittee Meeting

2. Luke Johanneck Shongtao Dai Lev Khazanovich Maureen Jensen Bruce Tanquist Acknowledgements

3. MnPAVE o Many Related Research Projects (mostly unbound materials) Previous M-E Research Studies o 2004 HMA & PCC Calibration o Low Temperature Cracking DARWin-ME Evaluation PCC Design Catalogue Lingering Questions and Issues Presentation Outline

4. Developed in 2001 by Bruce Tanquist Currently on version 6.1 Inputs – Climate, Structure (materials), Traffic Output – Fatigue Cracking & Rutting MnPAVE

5. Overlay design module Reduction in modulus due to cracks Unsaturated soil properties Best value granular materials 5 seasons Reliability Statewide hands-on training MnPAVE Unique Features

6. MnDOT Districts use MnPAVE more as comfort level grows o Not standard practice yet, but will be in the next 1-2 years o We developed MnPAVE 10+ years ago, then paused because MEPDG was coming State Aid system (cities & counties) use MnPAVE as standard practice MnPAVE Use

7. Evaluate default inputs Identify deficiencies in the software Sensitivity analysis Evaluate the prediction capabilities of the MEPDG Recalibrate performance prediction models for Minnesota conditions 2004 Calibration for HMA & PCC

8. MnPAVE does not address thermal cracking MEPDG model is OK, but not great TPF-5(080) and TPF-5(132) improving models & testing capabilities Low Temperature Cracking

9. Develop Mixture Specification o Mix Design o Quality Assurance Fracture Mechanics Approach

10. ILLI-TC Model Modeling can provide: True performance prediction (cracking vs. time) Input for maintenance decisions Insight for policy decisions

11. M-E Evaluation

12. 120-day trial period o Will soon get single user license Compared results to MEPDG v 1.1 Checking past MnROAD cells DARWin-ME Evaluation

13. 1:1 Inputs Darwin defaults MEPDG defaults PCC Sensitivity HMA Runs MnROAD Mainline Traffic DARWin-ME vs. MEPDG

14. Objective: Develop a design catalogue that further refines the MEPDG design for a limited number of rigid pavement projects that, taken together, form a basis for all the projects built in the State of Minnesota. JPCC Thick Whitetopping (> 6”) Simplified PCC Design Catalogue

15. Basic tiers of traffic levels Basic regional climate Shoulder width Base/subbase type and thickness PCC mix properties Joint spacing (12-foot vs. 15-foot) Drainage Basic tiers for aggregate coefficient of thermal expansion Critical Inputs to Consider

16. MnDOT has been conducting many E* tests o Intend to incorporate into ME Design MnDOT is acquiring IDT test fixture for LTC Where We’re At

17. Still having issues with climate data General Issues to Resolve

18. Stabilized Full Depth Reclamation o Which stabilizer to use? o Bound (pavement)or unbound (base) material? o Should we test E* or M r ? General Issues to Resolve

19. MEPDG is not for the casual user Not ready yet for deployment Total cost of ownership o Calibrate & validate each new version Barriers to Full Implementation

20. Materials & Design “play well” together Construction personnel (inspectors & contractors) are the missing link We don’t do a good job of educating them on what’s important and why Our specs may not be set up to achieve the performance we design for Enterprise Risk Management Integration

21. Tim Clyne MnROAD Operations Engineer 651-366-5473 tim.clyne@state.mn.us