Research & Innovation Implementation ProgramBuilding 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 ProgramManager

Ready toImplement?

Completed Research Projects

No

Yes

Not Yet

Develop Transfer Package

Implement&

Evaluate!

Provide Feedback

More Work

Needed

FHWA, AASHTO, and Other Sources

Built InfrastructureMet goal to build innovation and implementation infrastructure

ShareDeveloped

communication and training

vehicles to share knowledge and

experiences

IdentifyWorked to identify successful research

projects for widespread application

EngageTeamed 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

BPRBureau 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 BHSTEDesign

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 2007-2008:

• 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 ImplementedSome of the innovations implemented in 2009-2010:

• 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… 2011-2012

• 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 BoniniPennDOT Research Program Manager

(717) 772-4664mbonini@state.pa.us

http://www.vancerenz.com/researchimplementation

THANK YOU!

Deploying Research in the Region II States

Successful Methods to Implement Results

Tuesday July 27, 2010Moy 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

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 0.54.

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

Implementations of Results August 11, 2009 - ALDOT requests approval from

FHWA DA to use the 0.54 layer coefficient on binder and wearing layer designs

September 10, 2009 - 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, 2009 - 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 timms@auburn.edu

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

North Carolina DOTPavement 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

Ongoing

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 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 CabinetBridge 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 DOTPlacement of Detection Loops on High Speed Approaches to Traffic Signals

Research Objectives

• Investigate best practices, theories and trends

• Using simulation, model various 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

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 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

Sandra Q. Larson, Iowa Department of Transportation

Iowa’s Research & Technology Implementation Program

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).

Top 10 Ways to Ensure Research Results are Implemented

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.

Top 10 Ways to Ensure Research Results are Implemented Con’d

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.

Top 10 Ways to Ensure Research Results are Implemented Con’d

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

Examples of Successful Research Implementation

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

Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE) of Bridge Decks

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

Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE) of Bridge Decks con’d

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

Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE) of Bridge Decks con’d

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)

Intelligent Compaction (IC) of HMA and soils/granular subbases

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

Intelligent Compaction (IC) of HMA and soils/granular subbases con’d

The cover article in ENR Magazine was published in July 2009, focusing on this specific IC research project

http://www.eerc.iastate.edu/publications.cfm for more info on the workshops/webinars/ IC efforts

Intelligent Compaction (IC) of HMA and soils/granular subbases con’d

Intelligent Compaction (IC) of HMA and soils/granular subbases con’d

Intelligent Compaction (IC) of HMA and soils/granular subbases con’d

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

Summary of Iowa’s Research & Technology Implementation Program

For more info on any of these projects/pooled funds/implementation efforts contact: ◦ Sandra Larson at sandra.larson@dot.iowa.gov or ◦ look online at:

http://www.iowadot.gov/research/index.htm

61

Research Implementation & Best Practice

AASHTO Research Advisory Committee MeetingJuly 27, 2010

Rick Collins, P.E.rcollins@dot.state.tx.us

(512) 416-4731

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

PurposeSunset Advisory Commission, Feb. 2009

“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 InformationWhich research projects should we

implement?Which district is this best suited for?What are the expected benefits?

ProcessHow should this be coordinated?What’s the process if I need money?

70

Challenges

DocumentationHasn’t this been tried before?What were the results?

Information SharingWho 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 E-mails

“To-the-point”StatusBenefitsPoints-of-contactLinks to detailed info

75

Next Steps Liaison

AssistanceFollow up

WebsiteFollow up InformationBest PracticesProjects status

76

Next Steps District Visits / Project Visits Meetings

TAPRMCRLTRegional Office Meetings

Communicate with Universities

77

Next Steps Market the Program

InternallyExternally

78

Program Needs

Champion volunteers

Effective Communication

79

Conclusion

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

80

Conclusion

Thank You

Questions?