2. Implementation of Darwin – ME Chris Wagner, PE July 26-29, 2010 Kansas City, MO

3. Hawaii Alaska Does SHA Use or Plan to Use MEPDG? N0 -12 YES - 40 2007 Survey

4. Where are we now?

5. State implementation activities Validation Activities Status of DARWin ME Planned Activites for DARWin ME

6. 6 Software Capabilities-Import Raw Data Climate: icm files Traffic: AHTD Traffic Monitoring Data

7. 7 Software Capabilities-Traffic Data Check

8. 8 Software Capabilities-Materials E*

9. 9 Software Capabilities- Retrieving Data Very similar tools will be included in DARWin ME

10. Indiana DOT HMA Materials Characterization Dynamic Modulus District - 6 Nom Max Aggregate Size - 3 Binder Type – 3 Binder Characterization 3 Binders DSR data Traffic Data WIM Station Data Analyzed Load Spectra defined by Volume

11. Sensitivity of Inputs for Concrete ParameterRoughnessFaulting Percent Slabs Cracked Permanent Curl/Warp Effective Temperature Difference VS Joint SpacingVS Dowel Bar DiameterMS NS Pavement ThicknessSMSVS Modulus of RuptureSNSVS Modulus of ElasticitySNSVS 20-year/28-day RatioSNSVS Indiana DOT: MEPDG Guide for Designers What to Change for Design?

12. Good Calibration and Implementation Document Montana DOT http://www.mdt.mt.gov/research/projects/pave/pave_model.shtml Major Findings: Preservation Practice Extend Performance Most models adequate for design Re-calibrate unbound materials rutting

13. Continued MEPDG Validation at Auburn University

14. S11– As Built – Fatigue Cracking at Auburn University

15. Continued Validation at Auburn University

16. What about Polymers?

17. Strain Response Looking at Strains Directly at Auburn University

18. Darwin-ME output

19. DARWin ME Sneak Peek

20. DARWin ME — Improvements Redesign GUI using.NET 3.5 framework in C# User configurable screens Agency defined data libraries Input control at the central office Expansion capabilities for new analysis engines Improved display on large or multiple monitors Improved error handling stability and error display Multiple project editing Handicap accessibility options Improved reporting (stability, speed and quality) Utilities for importing previous version files, third party data Multiple language extensibility

21. DARWin ME —Improvements Efficiency Increase software speed Automated thickness optimization Batch mode Sensitivity Functionality SI version Traffic caps Stability Correct reported bugs (Task Force directed) Improve error handling

22. Enterprise Software

24. Material Property Inputs

25. Traffic

26. Error Checking

27. Multiple Project Edit

28. Batch Mode

29. XML File Formats

30. Integrated Reports

31. DARWin ME Development Status Milestones Percent Complete, Date of Completion Kick-Off100% User Requirements Spec & Review/Approval100% Preliminary Design Review100% System Requirement Spec & Review/Approval100% Requirements Tracebility Matrix100% Critical Design Review100% Implementation & Integration Process Audit40%, 7/31/10 Test Readiness Review80%, 6/15/10 Testing Process Audit0%, 9/30/10 Software Alpha Test0%, 8/15/10 Software Beta Test0%, 10/15/10 Acceptance Test0%, 11/30/10 Release0%, 12/31/10

32. DARWin ME planned activities Unveiling Session at 2011 TRB Roll out webinar FHWA web training 2011 FHWA On-site training Traffic Workshops

33. Indiana DOT Experience Road AASHTO 93 Thickness Result MEPDG Thickness Result Estimated Contract Saving ($) Actual Contract Saving ($) Total Savings ($) I-46516”-18’ PCCP14”-18’ PCCP$1,475,000 I-465 Ramps ( )12.5”-18’ PCCP11”-18’ PCCP$112,000 $1,000,000 I-465 Ramps ( 40/Wash. St) 12.5”-18’-PCCP12.5”-18’PCCP$0 I-80(mainline)16”-18’-PCCP14”-18’-PCCP$361,000$775,170 I-80(Ramp)12”-18’-PCCP10.5”-18’-PCCP$520,000 SR 1415”-HMA13.5”-HMA$333,000 $155,440 US 23111”-18-PCCP10”-18’-PCCP$333,000 $0 US 231-Ramp10”-18’-PCCP9.5”-18’-PCCP$28,000 US 23115.5”-HMA13”-HMA$557,000 $0 SR 6216”-HMA13”-HMA$403,000 $420,548 US 23111”-18’-PCCP10”-18’-PCCP$178,000 $04,300,000 Total Estimated Savings = $10 Million Total Estimated Savings = $10 Million

34. Evolution The MEPDG is not perfect…..BUT; The MEPDG provides a reasonable and structured platform for continuous improvement.

36. Utah Department of Transportation Michael Fazio 2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri

37.  Objectives  Process  Ideas  Implementation  Tracking  Case  Return on the Investments  Conclusions 2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri

38.  Explain UDOT’s performance measures for attending TRB annual meeting 2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri

39.  Show leaders a return on travel cost investment  Maximize return on investment on TRB attendance 2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri Performance Measures Objectives

40. 2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri

41.  Attendees Selection  Distribution of Information  Pre-TRB Meeting  Attendance  Submitting List of Selected Ideas for Implementation 2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri

42.  Senior Leadership  Presenting Papers  TRB Committee Members  Critical Initiative Technical Experts  Invited to Poster Sessions  Based on Travel Budget 2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri

43.  Must bring back at least two ideas  Must be Implementable 2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri

44.  Presenters  Description/Notes  Champion/Resources  Implementation Plan  Schedule  Status  Accomplishments  Cost/Benefit Ratio  Savings 2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri

45.  Present ideas to Senior Leaders  Project tracking/status form  Provide implementation plan  Report implementation progress 2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri

48.  Show return on the investment  Quantifiable  Non-quantifiable 2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri

49.  Cable median barrier  SPMT for accelerated bridge construction  Real time legal advice for NEPA  Automated survey of pavement distress  Efficiency in asset management  Activity based travel demand model  Inclinometer instrumentation for transportation projects  Overlay edge rut MMQA data run off the road  New tools for safety analysis 2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri

50.  Idea from TRB meeting  Presented to Senior Management for Implementation  Installed in area with high accident rate and mortality rate because of median crossing 2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri

52.  Segment 1  length: 7.51 miles  project cost: $1,130,000  service life: 15 years  2002-2004 Cross-over crashes, fatal and serious injury: 17  2005-2007 Cross-over crashes, fatal and serious injury: 2 2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri

53.  Segment 2  length: 10.2 miles  project cost: $1,950,000  service life: 15 years  2002-2004 Cross-over crashes, fatal and serious injury: 18  2005-2007 Cross-over crashes, fatal and serious injury: 2 2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri

54.  TRB Annual Meeting is infused with new ideas and technology ready for implementation  New technologies and ideas presented at TRB can improve DOTs business  Attending DOTs personnel can collect ideas  TRB meeting attendance performance measures can justify the travel costs 2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri