Deploying Research in the Deploying Research in the Region II States Region II States

SSuccessful Methods to uccessful Methods to Implement ResultsImplement Results

Tuesday July 27, 2010Tuesday July 27, 2010Moy BiswasMoy Biswas

North CarolinaNorth Carolina

Front End ImplementationFront 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 ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECALIBRATION OF THE ASPHALT LAYER RECALIBRATION OF THE ASPHALT LAYER COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT

DAVID TIMM, PHD, P.E.KENDRA P. DAVIS

Main ObjectivesMain Objectives

Using 1993 AASHTO method for flexible Using 1993 AASHTO method for flexible pavement design:pavement design:Determine the sensitivity of the layer coefficient Determine the sensitivity of the layer coefficient on the resulting HMA thickness. on the resulting HMA thickness.

Recalibrate the layer coefficient for newer HMA Recalibrate the layer coefficient for newer HMA mixes, and compare that value to the currently mixes, and compare that value to the currently used layer coefficient of 0.44. used layer coefficient of 0.44.

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

It was determined that the layer coefficient be It was determined that the layer coefficient be recalculated to provide the greatest potential recalculated to provide the greatest potential savings in HMA thickness using advance savings in HMA thickness using advance construction methods, gradation requirements, construction methods, gradation requirements, paving materials, and the results from the AASHTO paving materials, and the results from the AASHTO Road Test .Road Test .

Instead of 0.44, the calculated layer Instead of 0.44, the calculated layer coefficient was coefficient was 0.540.54..

The 0.54 layer coefficient results in a The 0.54 layer coefficient results in a 18%18% layer thickness reduction. layer thickness reduction.

Implementations of ResultsImplementations of Results

August 11, 2009 August 11, 2009 - ALDOT requests approval from - ALDOT requests approval from FHWA DA to use the 0.54 layer coefficient on FHWA DA to use the 0.54 layer coefficient on binder and wearing layer designsbinder and wearing layer designs

September 10, 2009 September 10, 2009 - FHWA DA granted approval - FHWA DA granted approval to use 0.54 as layer coefficient on binder and to use 0.54 as layer coefficient on binder and wearing layer designs with the exception of OGFC wearing layer designs with the exception of OGFC layerslayers

September 17, 2009September 17, 2009 - ALDOT Directive sent to all - ALDOT Directive sent to all Division Engineers to use 0.54 as layer coefficient Division Engineers to use 0.54 as layer coefficient on binder and wearing layer designs, starting on binder and wearing layer designs, starting January 2010 January 2010 with the exception of OGFC layerswith the exception of OGFC layers

Estimated ALDOT Projects Cost Estimated ALDOT Projects Cost SavingsSavings Estimated HMA tonnage that would have been awarded Estimated HMA tonnage that would have been awarded

in projects to date, if the 0.44 layer coefficient was in projects to date, if the 0.44 layer coefficient was used: used: 2,064,508 Tons2,064,508 Tons

Actual total HMA tonnage awarded in projects to date Actual total HMA tonnage awarded in projects to date using the 0.54 layer coefficient : using the 0.54 layer coefficient : 1,749, 583 Tons 1,749, 583 Tons

Estimated reduction in HMA tonnage as a result of using Estimated reduction in HMA tonnage as a result of using the 0.54 layer coefficientthe 0.54 layer coefficient: : 314,925 Tons314,925 Tons

Estimated cost savings to date : Estimated cost savings to date : $ $ 22,740,73422,740,734

Technical Contact (PI) – David Timm, Technical Contact (PI) – David Timm, PHD, P. E.PHD, P. E. (334) 844 – (334) 844 – 62826282 timms@auburn.edu timms@auburn.edu

ALDOT Contact – Jeffrey W. BrownALDOT Contact – Jeffrey W. Brown (334) 353- 6940 (334) 353- 6940 brownje@dot.state.al.us brownje@dot.state.al.us

North Carolina DOTNorth Carolina DOTPavement PreservationPavement Preservation

Chip Seal Research ProjectsChip Seal Research Projects

► AggregatesAggregates (2004) (2004) – – Optimizing GradationsOptimizing Gradations► RollingRolling (2006) – Quantifying the Benefits of Improved Rolling (2006) – Quantifying the Benefits of Improved Rolling► EmulsionEmulsion (2007) – Analysis of Polymer Modified Emulsions (2007) – Analysis of Polymer Modified Emulsions

CompletedCompleted

• 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

OngoingOngoing

Chip Seal Specimen Fabrication Chip Seal Specimen Fabrication Using Mini-scale Chip Seal Using Mini-scale Chip Seal

SpreaderSpreader

Third Scale Model Mobile Loading Simulator (MMLS3)

Laser, PATTI, Digital ImagingLaser, PATTI, Digital Imaging

Key Implementation PointsKey Implementation Points

► Importance of uniform gradationImportance of uniform gradation► Fine content less than 1.5%Fine content less than 1.5%

AggregateAggregate

RollingRolling

• 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 RollerCombination Roller

Key Implementation Points – Key Implementation Points – Cont’dCont’d

► Use of polymer modified emulsion (PME) stronglyUse of polymer modified emulsion (PME) strongly► Excellent aggregate retention, bleeding, and rutting Excellent aggregate retention, bleeding, and rutting

performance of PME chip sealsperformance of PME chip seals► Excellent aggregate retention performance of PME Excellent aggregate retention performance of PME

chip seals at low temperatureschip seals at low temperatures► Life Cycle Cost Analysis shows PME to be cost Life Cycle Cost Analysis shows PME to be cost

effective on condition that the service life of the PME effective on condition that the service life of the PME is two years longer than that of an unmodified chip is two years longer than that of an unmodified chip seal. seal.

EmulsionEmulsion

Louisiana DOTDComparative Evaluation of

Subgrade Resilient Modulus Mr, fromNon-Destructive, In-situ, and Laboratory

Methods LTRC Contact: Mark Morvant / Doc Zhang

• Performed field and Laboratory tests• Used four soil types• @ different moisture-dry unit weights• Nine construction projects

Louisiana DOTDField Tests

• DCP• CIMCPT• FWD• Dynaflect

Louisiana DOTDOutcome

• Incorporate in the LADOTD design manual

• Verification through field projects

Kentucky Transportation CabinetKentucky Transportation CabinetBridge Strengthening withBridge Strengthening with

Post Installed Shear Studs Post Installed Shear Studs Contact: Jamie Bewley-BirdContact: 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 DOTNorth Carolina DOTPlacement of Detection Loops on High Placement of Detection Loops on High Speed Approaches to Traffic SignalsSpeed Approaches to Traffic Signals

Research ObjectivesResearch Objectives

• Investigate best practices, theories Investigate best practices, theories and trendsand trends

• Using simulation, model various Using simulation, model various detection loop placements detection loop placements

• Field evaluate alternative vehicle Field evaluate alternative vehicle detection loop placementsdetection loop placements

Best Available Technology Appears to be the Best Available Technology Appears to be the

D-CS Software Developed by Jim Bonneson D-CS Software Developed by Jim Bonneson at TTIat TTI

Existing Controller Cabinet Modified to Existing Controller Cabinet Modified to Incorporate D-CS SoftwareIncorporate D-CS Software

Results of Field Evaluation of Various Results of Field Evaluation of Various TechnologiesTechnologies

Probabilities of No Vehicles in Dilemma Zones

Probability of No VehiclesIntersection Direction Control 1000' 450' 180'

Swift Creek WB NQ4 83.3 75.9 83.3D-CS 81.5 84.2 87.0

EB NQ4 59.1 78.7 69.3D-CS 76.3 74.8 84.4

US-17 SB Existing 73.0 77.8 62.7NQ4 60.0 66.7 77.1D-CS 74.7 47.2 91.8

NB Existing 58.5 51.6 87.2NQ4 81.9 66.8 85.3D-CS 58.8 64.1 83.8

NC-280 EB Existing 66.3 67.4 72.6NQ4 57.7 64.9 72.1D-CS 65.9 61.0 79.3

WB Existing 65.5 66.7 49.4NQ4 67.6 69.4 89.8D-CS 62.1 68.9 84.5

• In addition to reducing incidence of vehicles in the dilemma zone, the D-CS 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 controller reduced the average delay time for opposing traffic all five simulated sitessimulated sites

ImplementationImplementation

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