1. MEPDG Overview & National Perspective CRSI Expert Task Group Meeting July 29, 2008 Gary Crawford Federal Highway Administration Office of Pavement Technology

2. Outline 1.The Beginning 2.Local Implementation Efforts 3.Integration of MEPDG into Practice 4.Enhancements 5.Summary

3. It’s Done; In Reality, It’s the Beginning!! April 2007 Irvine Workshop

4. Should we wait until its PERFECT? 1958; Road Test initiated 1962; AASHO Road Test complete 1972; Interim Design Guide 1986; Update 1993; Update 2007; still not perfect. 1989; LTPP initiated 1998; MEPDG initiated 2007; MEPDG delivered Time, yrs. 4 10 24 31 45 AASHTO Guide MEPDG

5. Should we wait until its PERFECT? If we wait until there are no more changes, we will never use it. If we wait for perfection, it will be impractical and cost will restrict its use. NO There is NO perfect procedure & it will never be perfect!

6. Outline 1.The Beginning 2.Local Implementation Efforts 3.Integration of MEPDG into Practice 4.Enhancements 5.Summary

7. Hawaii Alaska Timeframe for Implementation Using 2

8. Hawaii Alaska Timeframe for Implementation Using 2 1 – 3 yrs 17

9. Hawaii Alaska Timeframe for Implementation Using 2 1 – 3 yrs 17 4 – 7 yrs 9

10. Hawaii Alaska Timeframe for Implementation Using 2 1 – 3 yrs 17 4 – 7 yrs 9 > 7 yrs 1

11. Hawaii Alaska Timeframe for Implementation Using 2 1 – 3 yrs 17 4 – 7 yrs 9 > 7 yrs 1 No/Skipped 23

12. Does SHA Use or Plan to Use MEPDG?

13. What factors are largest hindrance to implementation? States with no plans to implement Traffic data collection (6) Trained Staff (6) Material Characterization (5) Limited Staff (2) Lack of test sections (2) Climate data (1) Value added designs (1) Ability to replace models (1)

14. What factors are largest hindrance to implementation? States that plan to implement Material Characterization (20) Trained Staff (19) Traffic data collection (14) Lack of test section monitoring (14) Calibrating models (11) Limited Staff (5) Climate data (4) PMS data (1) Need to revise spec’s (1)

15. What efforts should be done at national level? States with no plans to implement Training (2) Calibration (2) Climate data (1) Traffic data inputs (1) Value added designs (1) Material characterization (1) Implementation guidance (1)

16. FHWA Summary of Agency Plans Efforts to Implement MEPDG 2007

17. Implementation Areas & Technology Transfer Training & communications within & between departments Traffic Materials Construction Calibration

18. Technology Transfer & Implementation Products Remember Products: Management video Interactive CD for software Implementation notes Training course Guide text & appendices. User’s Manual in support of software.

19. Important Activities for Implementation Training Courses: Determining inputs & using software Communication: Departments need to know what information is needed & how it is used. Establish sensitivity of inputs to distress Identify problem areas to reduce frustration with software use

20. MEPDG – Local Validation/Calibration Tools Manual of Recommended Practice for Calibration of M-E Based Models 1.Confirming or adjusting the global calibration factors. 2.Detailed and practical guide to complete local calibration. MEPDG Software Itself NCHRP Project 1-40B

21. Previous & On-Going Studies 1.NCHRP 9-30 – Experimental Plan for Calibration & Validation of HMA Performance Models for Mix & Structural Design. 2.NCHRP 9-30(001) – Conduct Pre-Implementation Studies & Database Enhancement. 3.NCHRP 1-40D – A review of the M-E PDG software & prediction methodology; & Correcting errors/blunders in the software. 4.NCHRP 1-40B – Local Calibration for the Recommended Guide for M-E Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures.

22. Previous & On-Going Studies Calibration Documents: NCHRP Digest 284, December 2003; Refining the Calibration & Validation of HMA Performance Models: An Experimental Plan and Database. NCHRP Digest 283, December 2003; Jackknife Testing – An Experimental Approach to Refine Model Calibration and Validation. FHWA: Use of PMS data for local calibration. FHWA: Use of deflection basin data in the MEPDG.

23. Outline 1.The Beginning 2.Local Implementation Efforts 3.Integration of MEPDG into Practice 4.Enhancements 5.Summary

24. Integration into Practice How do I get this input level 1 or 2 for design? A Major Issue – The Unknowns!!  Determination of properties & other inputs.  Factors affecting properties needed for design!!!! Source of MaterialsSource of Materials ContractorContractor Construction EquipmentConstruction Equipment 4-Day NHI Course for MEPDG Software Training

25. Outline 1.The Beginning 2.Local Implementation Efforts 3.Integration of MEPDG into Practice 4.Enhancements 5.Summary

26. DARWin-ME Project Solicitation Project Solicitation Proposal Package Distributed July 1, 2008 Provides business case for supporting DARWin-ME production software effort Funding commitments  18 agency participants required at $100,000/agency  Total budget $1,800,000 15 – 18 month development cycle DARWin-ME will be based on:  Items identified by DARWin Task Force  Independent source code review  Joint Technical Committee on Pavements (JTCoP) input

27. AASHTO DARWin-ME Enhancements (ver 2.0) Efficiency Increased software speed Optimized for thickness Functionality SI units Limit traffic growth to level of service User Friendliness New GUI Input library database Batch mode function Import FWD backcalculation results Creation of new weather files with EICM Import traffic data from outside software Input validation checks Output select structural responses Stability Fix existing and new “bugs”

28. Outline 1.The Beginning 2.Local Implementation Efforts 3.Integration of MEPDG into Practice 4.Enhancements 5.Summary

29. Summary Implementation Considerations: Regional design features not included in global calibration. Regional defaults that are different from global defaults. Design criteria as compared to measured values included in calibration.

30. Summary 77% of states plan to use MEPDG 54% plan to use MEPDG for statewide design catalogs 56% have plans to implement within 7 years Largest hindrance to implementation is: Material Characterization (50%) Trained Staff (48%) Traffic Data (35%) Monitored Test Sections (35%) Local Calibration (28%)

31. Thank you. Any Questions?