Thomas Harman

1
Understanding Highway Authorization, the
Recovery Act, the Role of Research in Meeting
our Nations Needs 2009 Guest
LectureMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing,
MIApril 7th 2009

• Thomas Harman
• Team Leader Senior Pavement Engineer
• Federal Highway Administration - Resource Center
• Pavement Materials TST

2
or simplyAuthorization, ARRA, Innovation

• Tom
• Dr. Emin Kutays friend

3
SIX Questions

1. What is the current state of the Highway Funding?
2. What are the main factors driving authorization?
3. What are the goals of the ARRA?
4. What will happen to our construction program over
   the next 18 months?
5. What is the difference between technology
   transfer and technology deployment?
6. Where do you see researchs role in meeting our
   Nations challenges?

4
Our Visit

• Part 1 Highway Bill (Re) Authorization
• Part 2 ARRA of 2009
• Part 3 Pavement Innovations
• Part 4 The Role of Research
• Quiz, ?

5
Part 1 Highway Bill(Re) Authorization
6
Legislative Question

• Q. In which act of Congress do we receive
  funding?
• Appropriations
• Authorization
• Ratification
• Filibuster

7
US Transportation Consumer (Thats You) Household
Expenditures
Other 26 (Insurance, entertainment, education,
personal care, tobacco products, etc.)
Transportation 18
Healthcare 6
Housing 32
Food 13
Apparel Services 4
Source Bureau of Transportation Statistics
8
US Personal Mode of Travel
2.1
91.2
6.7
Private Vehicles
Public Transportation
Other
Source Bureau of Transportation Statistics
9
FederalAid Highway Program Jurisdictional
Control of the Roads
State 20.4
Federal 3.1
Local 76.5
Source Bureau of Transportation Statistics
10
Functional Classification
Eligibility for Federal Financial Assistance
4 Million Miles of Public Roads in United States
Other 20
Local Rural Minor Collectors 76
NHS 4
Interstate 1 (Included in NHS )
Ineligible
Eligible
11
Characteristics of the Federal-aid Highway
Program

• Federally assisted, State administered
• Requires States to have highway agency
• Matching requirements
• Reimbursable program

12
SAFETEA-LuSafe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act A Legacy for Users

• On August 10, 2005, President George W. Bush
  signed SAFETEA-Lu.
• 252.6 billion authorized over 5 year (2005-2009)
• Federal-aid Highways - 201.6 Billion 80
• Public Transportation - 45.2 B
• Highway Motor Vehicle Safety - 5.8 B

13
Legislative Lesson

• SAFETEA-Lu Authorization 2005
• This BILL authorized FHWA to continue the Federal
  Aid Highway program. No Funds are included in
  the BILL. (meaning Contract Authority)
• DOT funding Obligation BILL (Appropriations)
• Each year Congress passes funding BILLS to
  obligate funds for use.
• This is done by other committees than those that
  create the Authorization BILL

14
Highway Trust Fund

• Federal-aid Highway Act of 1956
• Established Trust Fund to collect revenue to
  pay for the authorizations, FY 1957 to 1972
• Appropriations Bills draw in the Trust Fund

• SAFETEA-LU
• Extended authorizations for FY 2005 to 2009
• Extended Trust Fund through FY 2011

15
Trust Fund Federal Gasoline User Investment The
Gas Tax was last increased under President Reagan
18.4 / gallon
0.1
L.U.S.T. Trust Fund
2.86
15.44
Highway Account
Mass Transit Account
Effective October 1, 1997
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust
Fund (1986)
16
Cost of User Investment per Gallon
National Average Total Price 2.03/ gal
Average State Tax - .21
Federal Tax - .184
Maryland, Ave Regular 2.00/ gal Michigan,
Ave Regular 2.08/ gal
March 27, 2009
17
Highway Trust Fund Receipts Highway Account FY
2007
Diesel 8.3
Gasoline Gasohol 20.6
Truck Sales - 3.8
Truck Use - 1.0
Tires - 0.5
Other - 0.025
Total 07 Receipts 34.3 Billion
18
SAFETEA-Lu Highway Account within the Trust Fund
SAFETEA-Lu OL
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Fiscal Year
19
Highway Trust Fund Future?

• Something WILL happen this year
• USDOT position ???
• Bush Admin no increase in user fee (tax)
• AASHTO proposal10/gal indexed to inflation

20
2 Words about Our Nations Transportation System
Freight
21
Damage vs. Axle Weight5 of traffic causes
almost 60 of damage
Traffic distribution
Damage distribution
22
Networks Intermodal
23
National Freight Corridors
24
Commerce
Billions of Dollars
2002
2006
2035
25
Tonnage

• In the US, an average 53 million tons of freight
  was moved each day in 2002

Million of Tons
2002
2006
2035
26
Safety significant discussion of separation
Source NHTSA
27
Changes

• Congestion and Freight are driving factors
• Increased traffic and loadings (super-singles)
• Environmental Concerns (sustainability)
• ex. Use of bag-houses at production facilities,
  increase in recycled materials
• Performance Measures tied to Funding
• Supply sources (asphalt, polymers, aggregates)
• Escalating materials costs
• Production changes
• ex. Drum plants vs. batch plants vs Warm Mix
• Staff reductions Shifting roles
• Personnel experience shortages

28
The Commission

• Created in 2005
• SAFETEA-Lu Section 1909
• The Commission was created because, as Congress
  declared, it is in the national interest to
  preserve and enhance the surface transportation
  system to meet the needs of the United States for
  the 21st century.
• The Commission expired on July 7, 2008

29
The Commission Debate

• What will be the Future Demands on NTS?
• How does the NTS Function Today?
• What are the long-term Investments Needs?
• Capital Investment Principles
• Tied to specific system wide performance
  objectives
• Assessed for benefits and costs
• Influenced by economic, environmental, and energy
  considerations
• What Revenue Sources are Available?
• What are the Barriers to Achieving the Vision?...

30
2005 Revenue Sources
31
The Commission-Barriers

• Ineffective Investment Decisions
• Lack of Performance Standards
• Congressional Earmarking
• Lack of Requirements for Benefit-Cost Analysis
• Inflexibility in Funding Arrangements
• Distribution Method of Highway Funding (through
  State to Local) Q. Priorities?
• Regulatory Restrictions Limiting Tolling on
  Interstate
• Institutional Arrangements Impacting Planning

32
Input into Reauthorization

• Increased State Flexibility
• Narrower/Deeper Federal Role
• Simplification of Federal Programs
• Decisions based on Performance Merit
• Encouragement of Innovation
• Encourage Public-Private Partnerships
• Direct Pricing of Road Use
• Empowering Customers

33
2 - Many OptionsCommission, AASHTO, ARTBA,
NAPA, ATN

• General Themes
• New Investment Strategy
• Surface Transportation Legislation (Intermodal)
• Safety / Freight / Commerce
• Freight Corridors, or Critical Commerce Corridors
• Performance Based (Risk) Program
• Merit (Benefit-Cost) System Investment
• Preservation Growth
• Innovative Program Delivery
• Performance Contracting
• Public Private Partnerships / Concessions
• Sustainability

34
2 - Many OptionsAASHTO Surface Transportation
Authorization

• 545Billiion Blueprint for Authorization
• 375B for highways over 6 years
• 56 annual increase from SAFETEA-Lu
• Calling for a 5 limit on Congressional
  Earmarking, ?
• 1. Authorization Reform Agenda
• Federal programs must be focused on national
  interests, and transportation investments must
  be performance-based and outcome-driven
• 2. Sustainability
• Partnering, Planning, Green Practices
• 3. Multi-Modal Plan for Freight
• Strategic Plan for investments
• Goals/Outcomes
• Expanding our economy, Greener, Improving the
  quality of life for our growing population.

Allen Biehler Secretary PennDOT New AASHTO
President
35
The Source of _at_ll WWWisdom

• USDOT, FOCUS, REFORM, RENEW
• http//www.fightgridlocknow.gov
• FHWA, SAFETEA-Lu
• http//www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/
• The Commission, SAFETEA-Lu Report
• http//www.transportationfortomorrow.org/informati
  on/
• AASHTO, Financing
• http//finance.transportation.org/?siteid64pagei
  d2648
• ARTBA, Reauthorization
• http//www.artba.org/tmaw/reauthorization_update.h
  tm
• Americas Transportation Network, Reauthorization
• www.americastransportationnetwork.com
• NAPA, SAFETEA-Lu Reauthorization
• http//vocusgr.vocus.com/grspace2/WebPublish/contr
  oller.aspx?SiteNameNAPADefinitionHomeXSLHome
  SV_SectionHome

36
Part 2 ARRA
37
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA)
Enacted February 17, 2009
38
American Recovery Reinvestment
Acthttp//www.fhwa.dot.gov/economicrecovery/
39
Setting the Stage

• " ... For everywhere we look, there is work
  to
• be done. The state of the economy calls for
• action, bold and swift, and we will act not
  only to create new jobs, but to lay a new
  foundation for
• growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the
  electric grids and digital lines that feed our
  commerce and bind us together
• All this we can do. All this we will do.
• Inaugural Address Jan. 20, 2009

40
Control

• "I claim not to have controlled events, but
  confess plainly that events have controlled me."

41
Main Objectives of the Act

• Job preservation and creation
• Infrastructure investment
• Energy efficiency and science
• Assistance to unemployed, and
• State and local fiscal stabilization

42
Highway Portion Distribution of Funding

• 27.5 billion available through Sep. 30, 2010
• Amounts allocated before apportionment
• 550 M Federal Lands Highway and Indian
  Reservation Program
• 310 M Indian Reservation Roads Program
• 170 M Park Roads and Parkway Program
• 60 M Forest Highway Program
• 10 M Refuge Roads Program
• 40 M FHWA Oversight

43
Use It or Lose It Provisions

• First Redistribution
• Fifty percent of funds apportioned to the State
  excluding funds sub-allocated must be obligated
  within 120 days or the remainder will be
  redistributed.
• Second Redistribution
• After 1 year all unobligated balances of
  apportioned funds, included funds sub-allocated,
  will be redistributed.
• Recipients of redistributed funds will have until
  Sept. 30, 2010 to obligate.

44
Federal Roll

• Title 23 USC 145 describes the "sovereign rights"
  of the States in the selection of Federal-aid
  projects
• However, the FHWA needs to review the eligibility
  and cost-effectiveness of all projects to ensure
  that public funds are being spent in a prudent
  and reasonable manner and that these projects
  result in high quality, cost-effective
  construction and preferably resulting in as
  little disruption to the traveling public
  possible.
• This will be especially important in the
  implementation of any economic recovery program
  given the potential for a large number of
  projects that must be reviewed in a limited
  period of time.

45
General Approaches

• Step-back and review projects in the "pipeline"
  to ask "what are the project goals?"
• What should be changed or added (innovations) to
  meet those goals without jeopardizing the let
  dates?

46
General Approaches

• Consider meaningful preservation projects that
  can be put together and bid quickly.
• FHWA Office of Asset Management
• http//www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/in
  dex.htm
• Foundation for Pavement Preservation
• http//fp2.org/

47
General Approaches

• Group projects in geographical areas and bid as
  one contract.
• Look at "building-out" integrated ITS
  infrastructure that can increase traffic
  throughput capacity and emergency response.

48
General Approaches

• Need to address QC/QA requirements with the
  expanded program.
• Make sure we get quality work done.

49
General Approaches

• Many of the construction/consultant jobs will
  require skill levels.
• Need to address personnel training/certification
  efforts.

50
General Approaches

• Contractor/consultant availability.
• Address contracting/selection/procurement
  protocols.
• Maximize use of "open-end" contracts
• Maximize use of design/build

51
Key

• Need early and continuous communication with
  the construction industry (contractors,
  fabricators, producers) to get their input on how
  to make this work best and to identify where are
  the "hurdles" that need to be overcome.

52
Status

• Funds Obligate as of 4-6-09
• 5,059,000,000 of the
• 26,810,000,000
• 1,602 transportation projects have been
  authorized!
• GOAL 50 in 120 days
• Date of apportionment is March 2, 2009
  therefore, the redistribution will take place on
  June 30, 2009.

19
53
Part 4 Role of Research (Yes, I know I
skipped 3)
54
What is the role of Research?

• Increase you knowledge
• Put off going in to the real world
• Increase you career potential
• Get Mom or Dad to cover a few more years
• Expand fundamental understanding
• Increase dating potential
• To understand why?
• To figure out how?

55
Part 3 Pavement Innovations
56
Deployment Plant a S.E.E.D.

• Specification
• Education
• Economic Drivers

57
Control

• "All my life I have tried to pluck a thistle
  and plant a flower wherever the flower would grow
  in thought and mind."

58
How do you rate yourself?Self-assessment
No Somewhat Yes

• 1. Innovator
• Think outside the box
• 2. Willingness to try something new
• Do not resist change
• 3. Champion for new technologies
• Always looking for a better way
• Number of States that routinely construct
  Concrete Pavements?...more than 100,000 sq
  yd/year ____

59
2005 ACPA State BenchmarkSquare Yards of
Concrete Pavement (millions)
Michigan
32 States routinely place Concrete Pavement
gt 100,000 sq yards / year
60
Legal Stuff

• This presentation is given in the interest of
  technology exchange
• The US Government (FHWA) does not endorse
  products or manufacturers
• Trade or manufacturers names appear in this
  presentation only because they are considered
  essential to the objective of this presentation
• Special Thanks Angel Correa, Fred Faridazar,
  Joe Huerta (FHWA) and Rob Rasmussen Mauricio
  Ruiz (The Transtec Group)

61
Innovations in
Production/ Placement
Agency/Owner Acceptance
Monitoring/ Preservation
Structural Design
Materials/Mix Design
Q. Where is our area of greatest risk?
62
DISCUSSION TOPICS

• STRUCTURAL DESIGN
• MATERIALS/MIX DESIGN
• CONSTRUCTION
• QUALITY ASSURANCE
• ASSET MANAGEMENT

63
WWW.TRB.ORG/MEPDG
64
Limitations Huge Extrapolation
65
Effect of Joint Spacing
20 ft
18 ft
17 ft
15 ft
66
Effect of Dowel Diameter on Faulting
67
Assessment of Innovation

• Number of years since introduction
• Number of Commercial Manufacturers
• of Contractors with Innovation
• of States allowing Innovation
• Studies documenting Benefit / Standards

68
Assessment of Innovation MEPDG
NCHRP 1-37A
AASHTOware
Version 1.0
Implementation Plans
States hosting workshops (40)
69
Coefficient Thermal Expansion (CTE) of Cement
Concrete

• Critical Input in the
• MEPDG

70
CTE for Concrete Pavement

• Developed in early 1990s by Dr. Steve Foster
  (FHWA)
• Adopted by AASHTO as TP60-00 in 2000
• Will become a full standard this year
• Critical input in MEPDG (part of LTPP Database)
• FHWA is conducting ruggedness testing of
  commercial units by
• Pine Instruments
• Gilson Equipment
• Instrotek

71
CTEs
Research Prototype - FHWA
Pine Instruments
InstroTek
Gilson
72
Assessment of Innovation - CTE
Developed in 1990s
Commercially in US 2006
States specifying (0)
73
DISCUSSION TOPICS

• STRUCTURAL DESIGN
• MATERIALS/MIX DESIGN
• CONSTRUCTION
• QUALITY CONTROL
• ASSET MANAGEMENT

74
CONSTRUCTION INNOVATIONS

• Automated Dowel Bar Inserter
• Elliptical Dowels

75
Dowel Bar Inserter, DBI
76
Dowel Bar Inserter
77
Potential Benefits?

• No basket
• Increase speed of construction
• Increase safety in workzone
• avings
• Quality?

78
Assessment of Innovation - DBI
Contractors (with)
States (allow)
79
Elliptical Dowels
http//www.pavement.com/dowelcad/
80
(No Transcript)
81
Why Consider Elliptical Shapes?

1. Reduce Bearing Stress
2. Engineer Dowel Spacing
3. Reduce Cost

82
Dowel Bar Test Results
Dowel Bar Type Average Concrete Bearing Stress
20 less material
Round Round Elliptical
Elliptical (1.23 in2) (1.77 in2) (1.43 in2)
(2.08 in2)
83
Assessment of Innovation - EDB
Mid 1990s
States that allow it 0
84
DISCUSSION TOPICS

• STRUCTURAL DESIGN
• MATERIALS/MIX DESIGN
• CONSTRUCTION
• QUALITY ASSURANCE
• ASSET MANAGEMENT

85
QUALITY ASSURANCE INNOVATIONS

• Dowel Bar Locator
• Real-time Smoothness Indicator
• Maturity
• AVAs
• Smart Curing System
• HIPERPAV
• Smart Rollers (Soils)

86
LO
LOCATION OF DOWEL BARS
87
MIT SCAN Magnetic Tomography Technology
88
MIT-Scan

• Developed by Magnetic Imaging Tools, GmbH
• Based on the principles of pulse induction
• Advantages
• Works on fresh or hardened concrete
• Real-time, automated data analysis
• Very accurate
• Reliable
• Efficient (1-2 min per joint)

89
(No Transcript)
90
Assessment of Innovation - MIT
Developed in Germany late 1990s
Dresden, Germany
Demoed in US 2001
States specifying tech (NC, FL, NYSTA, MTO)
States Demo tech (2009)
91
GSIGOMACO Smoothness Indicator Revolution in
Profiling
92
GSI - Determines Elevation / ProfileGOMACO
Smoothness Indicator
Slope Sensor
2 Sonic Sensor (36 apart)
93
GSI taking readings behind a Paver
94
GSI vehicle is located in front of the
texture/cure machine
95
4 GSI traces mountedto a GOMACO 3000 paver
96
Comparison GSI Cox Profilograph
GSI PRI 23.5
Cox PRI 23.6
Top Trace Cox Profilograph
Bottom Trace GSI
97
Potential Benefits?

• Real-time information
• Reduce Risk (Agency/Contractor)
• Reduce grinding to meet ride spec
• Economic
• Improve Quality

98
Assessment of Innovation - GSI
Developed 2000
Commercially 2003
Contractors (with)
States (allow)
99
Real-Time Smoothness Measurements on Concrete
Pavements During Construction
100
RoboTex

• Ultra-light weight
• Line laser
• Provides
• Pavement Profile
• Surface Texture
• Key Noise Research

101
Assessment of Innovation - Robotex
Prototype for Noise Research
States (demo 18)
102
Maturity Method
( ASTM C 1074 )
103
Measuring Devices
104
Reestablishing Maturity Curve

• Factors Affecting Maturity
• Cement
• Fly Ash
• Admixtures
• W/C ratio
• Mix type
• Aggregate gradation

105
Assessment of Innovation - Maturity
Concept developed in late 1940s
ConCure, IRD, Nomadics, Onset
ASTM Standard 1987
States with protocols (13)
States demo tech (32)
106
Air Void Analyzer (AVA)

• An apparatus that measures the air-void
  characteristics of fresh concrete
• A 2002 Focus Technology

107
Air Void Analyzer allows

• More control of air-void characteristics in fresh
  concrete
• Quantify the air-void structure in the field
• Rapid QC/QA testing, useful for concrete placed
  in extreme climates

Spacing Factor
108
AVA Equipment
AVA
misc
(Photo Couresty of DBT)
109
How the AVA works

• A cement mortar sample is placed in the analysis
  liquid. They are stirred together.
• The air bubbles contained in the mortar are
  released.
• Large bubbles riseto the surface faster than
  small ones.

(Photo Couresty of DBT)
110
AVA Limitations

• Equipment is sensitive to vibration. Testing
  needs to be performed in a quiet environment,
  like a permanent structure.
• Small sample size
• Air characteristics are calculated based on
  assumed volume fractions. Sample excludes
  aggregate larger than 6 mm (0.24 in).

111
Assessment of Innovation - AVA
Concept developed in Germany
Commercially available in US
States that tried AVA (16)
States requiring spacing factor (11)
States specifying AVA (KS)
112
RapidAir 457

• Air Void Analyzer
• Linear Traverse Modified Point Count

113
RapidAir 457ASTM C 457 (EN 480-11)

• Automated
• Air Content
• Specific Surface Area
• Spacing Factor

114
Assessment of Innovation - RapidAir 457
Concept developed in early 1990s
Commercially available in US
4 Case Studies Sweden, EU, WR Grace
States requiring spacing factor (11)
States specifying RapidAir (0)
115
Smart Curing System
1-Wire Weather Station
1-Wire USB Adapter
GPS Receiver (PCMCIA Card)
Laptop
1-Wire Humidity Probe
116
What happens if we are late?
117
Smart Curing System

• Weather Station Sensors Models (Math)

118
Smart Curing System

• Provide the paving crew with Real-time
  information

119
Smart Curing System

• Helping Assure Performance

120
Potential Benefits?

• Automation Real-time information
• Reduce Risk (Agency/Contractor)
• Economic
• Improve Quality

121
Assessment of Innovation Smart Cure
Transtec Group owns Prototype
1996
3 States have tried it
122


123
JCP Stress and Strength Development
Magnitude of Stress or Strength
Magnitude of Stress or Strength
Time since Construction
Time since Construction
Scenario 1 Cracking should not occur
Scenario 2 Cracking may occur
124
Assessment of Innovation HIPERPAV 0
HIPERPAV 1996
FHWA The Transtec Group
HIPERPAV II 2005
States spec use (OH)
States hosting workshops
25 Contractors use it as a tool
125
Intelligent Compaction Systems
Key Question, Can we make the compaction process
work smarter not harder? -- Jim Musselman
(FL DOT)
126
NCHRP 21-09
July 2006
Caterpillar
Ammann
127
NCHRP 21-09
128
Mn/DOT QC Procedure using IC Data
129
Potential Benefits?

• Real-time information
• Increase speed of construction
• Increase safety in workzone
• Reduce Risk (Agency/Contractor)
• Economic
• Improve Quality

130
Assessment of Innovation - IC
Developed in Europe 1980s
Commercially in US 2001
States specifying tech (MN)
States Demo tech (2009)
131
How did we rate?Assessment of the Concrete
Pavement Industry
No Somewhat Yes

• 1. Concrete Pavement Innovator
• Concrete Pavement Community
• 2. Willingness to try something new
• Concrete Pavement Community
• 3. Champion for deploying() new technologies
• Concrete Pavement Community

132
Harmans Innovation Scale, HIS

• After 10 years of being commercially available,
  less than 50 of States that routinely construct
  concrete pavement (16 out of 32) are using the
  innovation.
• The innovation has been commercially available
  less than 10 years with limited adoption.
• More than 16 States are using the innovation.

133
How did we rate?GOAL 16 States within 10 years
Green Light!
13 Innovations Develop Com. States H.I.S. H.I.S. H.I.S.
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion 1990s 3 0
Automated Dowel Bar Inserter 1980s 26 22
String-less Paving ??? ??? ???
Elliptical Dowels 1990s 14 0
MIT Scan 1990s 8 3
Real-time Smoothness Indicator 2000 6 0
Robotex (Texture) 2005 4() 0
Maturity 1940s 22 13
AVA 1990s 10 1
RapidAir 457 1990s 8 0
Smart Curing System 1996 3 0
HIPERPAVE 1996 13 1
Smart Rollers (Soils) 1980s 8 1
134
How did we rate?Assessment of the Concrete
Pavement Industry
No Somewhat Yes

• 1. Concrete Pavement Innovator
• Concrete Pavement Community
• 2. Willingness to try something new
• Concrete Pavement Community
• 3. Champion for deploying() new technologies
• Concrete Pavement Community

135
Part 4 Role of Research, by a super
example.
136
The Philosophy of Change

• What you cannot enforce, you do not command.

Socrates 469BC-399BC
137
Lessons Learned from Superpave
138
Play to Win!

• The Rules of Results
• 1. You cant control the results you get
• You can, however, influence the results
• 2. The results you are getting are the results
  you should be getting
• 3. If you want to change the results you are
  getting, you have to do something differently

139
Tipping Points

• Law of the Few
• Stickiness Factor
• Power of Context

140
Tipping Points

• Law of the Few
• Anyone can make a difference
• Stickiness Factor
• Memorable Message, ex.???
• Power of Context
• Human beings are a lot more sensitive to their
  environment than we may seem
• Good example

141
Superpave System

• Performance-Based
• Purchase Specification
• Design and Analysis Tool

ASPHALT INSTITUTE
Asphalt U-P Groups
142
Battle Cry!

• 1980s Theyve taken the stickies out of the
  asphalt!
• Our current practices are not holding up to
  todays increasing traffic and changing
  materials!

143
What was ?

• 5 year, 1987 to 1992
• 150 million dollars
• 50 million-asphalt
• Product driven!!!
• Research program

• State DOT driven
• Congressional support
• Full-time staff
• Dedicated researchers

144
Matrix Approach, versions A-1

• The challenge is to develop a purchase
  specification
• It has to be implement-able,
• Both from a Agency and from a Industry standpoint

Dr. Dave Anderson SHRP Researcher Penn State
145
SHRP PG Binder Purchase Specification, v G-7
WHEN WHAT HOW WHERE
Construction Safety Pump-ability Rutting Flash Point Rotational Visc DSR 230 min 3 Pa-s max T(high)
Early (RTFO) Rutting DSR T(high)
Late (PAV) Fatigue Low-Temp DSR BBR DT T(int) T(low)
PG 64-22
146
A rose by any other name

• But the Monk fish used to be called the Slime
  fish?
• And MiDAS became

Frank Francois Then Executive Director AASHTO
147
Superpave

• The final product of the SHRP asphalt program
  area is Superpave, which stands for

Superior Performing Asphalt Pavements
ASPHALT INSTITUTE
Asphalt U-P Groups
148
Implementation

• In 1991, Congress passed the Inter-model Surface
  Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
• 155B over 6 years

149
Strong Agency support of Product

• We are all incrementalist at heart, change is
  fast and sudden

150
Implementation

• 1991 ISTEA Highway Bill
• 108 million / 6 years SHRP Implementation
  (including LTPP)
• FHWA Lead OTA

• T2 Commandments
• Knowledge
• Resource
• Recognition

151
Superpave System c 1992
FINISH
152
Paul MackNew York State - Retired
Imperfection should never stall
implementation. You can still drink from a
chipped cup.
153
Established CLEAR Goals

• FHWA working in partnership with AASHTO and
  Industry established clear targets for
  implementation
• By 2000 Superpave will be finalized and
• By 2005 Superpave will be fully implemented.

154
Implementation Activities

• National/Regional Organizations
• FHWA Expert Task Groups
• Binder, Mixture, Models, Communications
• Regional User-Producer Groups
• Superpave Lead States Program

155
Then vs. Us Today

• Lessons Learned

156
Then versus Us Today

• Fixed time, 5 years
• Dedicated Funds
• Agency Driven
• Legislative Support
• Executive Committee
• Dedicated Staff
• Built on Existing
• Empirical-ish in Nature
• Timing was right

• Open time frame
• Multiple ources
• Industry Driven
• Legislative support
• Roadmaps / ETGs
• Teams/Individuals
• Can Build on Existing
• GREAT Models!
• Timing?

157
Then versus Us Today

• Lessons Learned
• Battle Cry What are we solving?
• Stickiness Factor Name it.
• Both the Problem the Solution
• Commitment
• Clearly Defined Goals When?
• Executive buy in / advocacy
• U/P Groups Benchmarking
• System Approach

158
To reduce Risk we must?...

• What is your Battle Cry!???

159
The Quiz

• I need a volunteer

160
SIX-ish Questions

1. What is the current state of the Highway Funding?
2. In the 1996 season, who won the Spartan/Illini
   football game 42 to 14?
3. What are the main factors driving authorization?
4. What are the goals of the ARRA?
5. What will happen to our construction program over
   the next 18 months?
6. What is the difference between technology
   transfer and technology deployment?
7. What University of Michigan football player won
   the Heisman Trophy in 1940?
8. Where do you see researchs role in meeting our
   Nations challenges?

161
The Beginning
162
Thank YouCheese!
163
Jan 2007
164
Jan 2008
165
Jan 2009