Integrated Delivery of SHRP 2 Renewal Research Projects (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

41 In te g ra te d D e liv e ry o f S H R P 2 R e n e w a l R e s e a rc h P ro je c ts — F in a l R e p o rt J u n e 2 0 1 4 CHAPTER 3 Integration of Renewal Projects Overview of Approach The in-depth reviews of the renewal projects provided valuable insight into different ways in which the projects and products could be logically grouped for implementation at the functional/technical level and/or administrative/program level. Nearly all of the aspects/features of the renewal projects identified as a basis for grouping the products were included in the expanded summaries document, and that information was used to develop a preliminary integration/packaging matrix and a corresponding framework/process for the integration tool. Because highway agencies use different approaches to implement research products and because individuals within an agency have unique perspectives and interests regarding implementation, outreach with SHA representatives and other stakeholders was performed to identify typical implementation processes and to assess the feasibility of an integrated approach to renewal product implementation. This outreach included several teleconference interviews with a broad collection of AASHTO members and a half-day workshop targeted to mid- and upper-level engineers and managers within various highway agencies. Based on the results of the outreach activities, it was determined that each renewal project should be further evaluated to identify target audiences for the tool and to develop a specific set of user needs for which the renewal products would have direct application and could be of benefit. This evaluation led to the development of a revised packaging/integration matrix, which in turn provided the basis for a highly conceptualized and visualized model for the tool. This chapter describes the activities undertaken to integrate the renewal projects and products for complementary use in rapid renewal projects. It also presents case studies that describe actual highway projects in which renewal products were tested and/or implemented and that demonstrate how other renewal products could have been used on those highway projects. Lastly, it presents and discusses the various benefits associated with integrated implementation of renewal products, as well as some of the major barriers/challenges involved. Preliminary Integration/Packaging Matrix and Tool Framework/ Process Early development of the integration/packaging matrix focused on four aspects/features of the renewal projects. These included (a) the highway life-cycle phase in which a product is suitable for use (simplified to the five phases shown in Figure 3.1), (b) the type of highway asset on which a product is applied or used, (c) the specific end user(s) who would benefit from the product (see Figure 3.1), and (d) the type of benefit sought or expected from the end user. Placing items (a) and (c) across the top rows of a table and items (b) and (d) along the first two columns of the table, a basic integration/packaging matrix was developed. The matrix was then populated by listing the renewal projects in each cell having products applicable to the scenario of the cell.

42 In te g ra te d D e liv e ry o f S H R P 2 R e n e w a l R e s e a rc h P ro je c ts — F in a l R e p o rt J u n e 2 0 1 4 Tables 3.1 and 3.2 show example cut-outs of the preliminary matrix that was developed for functional/technical-level application. Table 3.1 shows the renewal projects that would be pertinent to pavement assets covering users throughout the entire highway life cycle, while Table 3.2 shows the renewal projects that would be pertinent to the final design phase covering all five asset item areas. The numbers listed in the cells of these tables represent the renewal project numbers. Figure 3.1. Five basic phases in the highway life cycle and targeted end users. Using this preliminary integration/packaging matrix, a basic framework/process for the integration tool was developed. As illustrated in Figure 3.2, the process filters through the entire set of Renewal projects and identifies those that are relevant to the scenario defined by the user. The sequence in defining the scenario would be at the discretion of the user, and, as more information about the scenario is provided by the user, a more concise list of Renewal projects is developed via the integration/packaging matrix. After the relevant Renewal projects are identified for the user’s scenario, the user would then be able to view the specific types of products (e.g., manuals, specifications, software programs, webinars) available for each project and select the products to be implemented. Outreach to Stakeholders and Targeted Users Two types of outreach were planned and performed in the study. The first type of outreach involved teleconference interviews with selected members of various AASHTO subcommittees, including Construction, Design, Maintenance and Asset Management (combined), Right-of- Way/Utilities, Bridges/Structures, and Materials. The second type of outreach was a workshop conducted as part of the TRB Annual Meeting. Details of each outreach activity, including important ideas and suggestions made by participants, are presented in the sections below.

43 In te g ra te d D e liv e ry o f S H R P 2 R e n e w a l R e s e a rc h P ro je c ts — F in a l R e p o rt J u n e 2 0 1 4 Teleconferencing with AASHTO Subcommittee Members The teleconference interviews were scheduled and conducted between December 21, 2012 and January 7, 2013. The primary objectives of the interviews were to (a) develop a better understanding of how highway agencies go about putting national-level research products into practice and determine to what extent an integrated approach to product implementation is used, and (b) determine the appropriateness of the preliminary integration framework/process in terms of the needs and interests of highway agency representatives and identify improvements to the framework/process.

Table 3.1. Example Cut-out of Preliminary Integration/Packaging Matrix: Renewal Projects Pertinent to the Pavements Asset Type. Asset Item Product Benefit/ Highway Needs Highway Life-Cycle Phase Planning & Programming Project Development—Scoping & Prelim. Design Project Development—Final Design Planners/ Programmers Project Mgrs Designers ROW Engineers Utilities Engineers Railroad Liaisons Env Engineers Project Mgrs Designers ROW Engineers Utilities Engineers Railroad Liaisons Env Engineers Geotech Engineers PS&E Engineers Pavement/ Shoulder Structures Improved Asset Mgt & Planning/ Programming 23, 26 6F, 23, 26 6F, 23, 26 23, 26 Improved Hwy Operational Efficiency/LOS 5, 9, 11, 23, 26 9, 11 5, 6F, 9, 11, 21, 23, 26 9, 11 5, 6, 6F, 9, 11, 21, 23, 26 5, 6E, 9, 11, 21, 23, 26 Increased Safety 26 3 6F, 26 3 6F, 26 3, 6E, 26 Accelerated Proj Development & Cost Schedule 5, 9, 23 3, 9 5, 7, 9, 10, 23 3, 9 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 23 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 23 Improved Project/Asset Performance 5, 9, 23, 26 2, 3, 9 2, 5, 7, 9, 21, 23, 26 2, 3, 9 2, 5, 7, 9, 21, 23, 26 2 3, 5, 6E, 7, 9, 21, 23, 26 Reduced Project/Asset Life-Cycle Cost 5, 9, 26 3, 9 5, 9, 21, 26 3, 9 5, 9, 21, 26 3, 5, 6E, 9, 21, 26 Increased Hwy Sustainability 21 21 21 21 Asset Item Product Benefit/ Highway Needs Highway Life-Cycle Phase Contracting & Construction Asset Preservation Contract/Construction Mgrs Construction Engineers Materials Engineers Maintenance/Preservation Engineers Asset Mgrs Pavement/ Shoulder Structures Improved Asset Mgt & Planning/Programming 23 23 6F, 23, 26 6F, 23, 26 Improved Hwy Operational Efficiency/LOS 5, 9, 11, 21, 23 5,6, 6B, 6C, 6E, 9, 11, 21, 23 6, 6, 6B, 6C, 6E, 21 5, 6B, 6C, 6F, 23, 26 5, 6, 6B, 6C, 6E, 6F, 23, 26 Increased Safety 3 3, 6C, 6D, 6E 6C, 6D, 6E 6C, 6D, 6F, 26 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, 26 Accelerated Proj Development & Cost Schedule 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 23 3, 5, 6, 6B, 7, 9, 10, 23 5, 6, 6B, 7 5, 6B, 23 5, 6, 6B, 23 Improved Project/Asset Performance 3, 5, 7, 9, 21, 23 2, 3, 5, 6B, 6C, 6D, 6E, 7, 9, 21, 23 5, 6B, 6C, 6D, 6E, 7, 21 5, 6B, 6C, 6D, 23, 26 2, 5, 6B, 6C, 6D, 6E, 23, 26 Reduced Project/Asset Life-Cycle Cost 3, 5, 9, 21 3, 5, 6B, 6C, 6D, 6E, 9, 21 5, 6B, 6C, 6D, 6E, 21 5, 6B, 6C, 6D, 26 5, 6B, 6C, 6D, 6E, 26 Increased Hwy Sustainability 21 21 21 Note: Numbers listed in the table cells are the Renewal project numbers (e.g., 9 equals project R09).

45 Table 3.2. Example Cut-out of Preliminary Integration/packaging Matrix: Renewal Projects Pertinent to the Final Design Phase in the Highway Life Cycle Asset Item Product Benefit/Highway Needs Staged Adoption/Use (Project-Level) Project Development—Final Design Project Managers Designers ROW Engineers Utilities Engineers Railroad Liaisons Environmental Engineers Geotech Engineers PS&E Engineers (Const/Mtls Engineers) Pavement/ Shoulder Structures Improved Asset Mgt & Plann/Program 6F, 23, 26 23, 26 Improved Hwy Operational Efficiency/LOS 9, 11 5, 6, 6F, 9, 11, 21, 23, 26 5, 6E, 9, 11, 21, 23, 26 Increased Safety 3 6F, 26 3, 6E, 26 Accelerated Proj Development & Const Schedule 3, 9 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 23 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 23 Improved Project/Asset Performance 2, 3, 9 2, 5, 7, 9, 21, 23, 26 2 3, 5, 6E, 7, 9, 21, 23, 26 Reduced Project/Asset Life- Cycle Cost 3, 9 5, 9, 21, 26 3, 5, 6E, 9, 21, 26 Increased Highway Sustainability 21 21 Bridge/ Culvert Structures Improved Asset Mgt & Plann/Program 6A 6A Improved Hwy Operational Efficiency/LOS 9, 11 6, 9, 11 9, 11 Increased Safety 3, 4 4, 19A, 19B 3, 19A, 19B Accelerated Proj Development & Const Schedule 3, 9 6, 7, 9, 10 3, 7, 9, 10 Improved Project/Asset Performance 2, 3, 4, 9 2, 4, 6A, 7, 9, 19A, 19B 2 3, 6A, 7, 9, 19A, 19B Reduced Project/Asset Life- Cycle Cost 3, 4, 9 4, 6A, 9 3, 6A, 9 Increased Highway Sustainability 4 4 Tunnel Structures Improved Asset Mgt & Plann/Program Improved Hwy Operational Efficiency/LOS 6 Increased Safety 3 3 Accelerated Proj Development & Const Schedule 3 6 3 Improved Project/Asset Performance 3 3 Reduced Project/Asset Life- Cycle Cost 3 3 Increased Highway Sustainability

46 Utilities & ROW Improved Asset Mgt & Plann/Program Improved Hwy Operational Efficiency/LOS 1C 1C Increased Safety 3 1 1 1 3 Accelerated Proj Development & Const Schedule 3, 15B 1, 1A, 15B 1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 15B 1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 15B 1B 1B 3, 15B Improved Project/Asset Performance 3 3 Reduced Project/Asset Life- Cycle Cost 3, 15, 15B 15, 15B 15, 15B 15, 15B 3, 15, 15B Increased Highway Sustainability Roadside & Traffic Features Improved Asset Mgt & Plann/Program Improved Hwy Operational Efficiency/LOS Increased Safety 3 3 Accelerated Proj Development & Const Schedule 3 3 Improved Project/Asset Performance 3 3 Reduced Project/Asset Life- Cycle Cost 3 3 Increased Highway Sustainability Railroads Improved Asset Mgt & Plann/Program Improved Hwy Operational Efficiency/LOS Increased Safety 3 3 Accelerated Proj Development & Const Schedule 3, 16, 16A 16, 16A 16, 16A 16, 16A 16, 16A 3, 16, 16A Improved Project/Asset Performance 3 3 Reduced Project/Asset Life- Cycle Cost 3 3 Increased Highway Sustainability Note: Numbers listed in the table cells are the Renewal project numbers (e.g., 9 equals project R09).

47 Figure 3.2. Example illustration of the preliminary integration framework/process. A total of six interviews were performed—one for each subcommittee, except the maintenance and asset management subcommittees, which were combined into one—with each interview lasting approximately 1 hour. Although eight to ten members from each subcommittee were chosen and requested to participate in the interviews (primarily on the basis of geographical representation and coverage of the many specific areas of technical expertise), the actual number of participants ranged from three to five. Each interview was facilitated and documented by key members of the APTech team (including consultants with specific subject matter expertise). Listed below are key points gleaned from the teleconference interviews.  Generally, implementation of a new technology or research result within an agency is led by the appropriate technical area. A research office may lead this effort, but more often their responsibility is to provide assistance to the technical areas. Occasionally, initiatives are issued as directives from administrators (upper management), but the technical area is responsible for implementation.  Integrated implementation of renewal products is generally going to happen at the upper- management level. At the functional/technical level, implementation usually occurs one technology at a time so that the effects can be clearly observed. Agencies that have high collaboration among divisions may have greater potential for integrated implementation. Integration/ Packaging What Asset Type is Involved? What Phase in the Highway Life Cycle is of Interest? Who are the Intended End Users? What is the Specific Scope of Application (highway project type, project size/length, highway facility type, highway setting, etc.)? What are the Highway Needs/Product Benefits Sought? Implementation Scenarios

48  Agencies like the idea of coordinated implementations, such as pooled-fund studies, lead states, peer exchanges, and scanning tours.  Subject matter area/technical area should be included as an evaluation portal in the proposed R31 tool.  There is a lot of research and a lot of new technology/information to absorb, to the point that agencies feel overloaded. The R31 tool should enable users to quickly and easily navigate to their destination (find and access desired content), with the ability to screen out products and information not wanted.  The R31 tool should be dynamic, with updated links provided over time to allow users real-time access to the most recent content. This is critical.  Problem/constraint identification and needs should be an evaluation portal, allowing the user to identify his or her specific problem that needs to be solved (or at least addressed by the available renewal products).  The stage in the highway life cycle is important and needs to be considered in the evaluation process (possibly as a portal). Users will need the ability to consider the use of renewal products in a project several years prior to its actual implementation in the field. If a certain renewal product is identified at the design stage of the project, it may be too late to fully realize the benefits of the product.  Once desired products are identified, there should be access to webinars and other forums for detailed information on the products as well as available resources (FHWA, AASHTO, or other funding mechanisms and/or assistance programs) to help the agency implement the products.  The R31 tool needs to be able to quickly grab the attention of the user, and this can be done with a hook that goes to directly solving the user’s problem. Another way to grab attention is to feature the latest technology buzz (what’s the newest thing and how has it worked); this will be of greatest interest to the “up-and-comers,” the ones who really want to move the agency forward.  The tool needs to provide a platform for the more careful-minded user to evaluate the real benefits and costs of the product in comparison with how the agency currently does things. A rating system using benefit-cost ratio was suggested for inclusion in the tool.  Tool usability is key, and an important component will be the ability to post results and comments by others regarding product implementation (including descriptions, successes, lessons learned, and cost-effectiveness).  Risk assessment is key in the decision of whether to implement new technologies. Bigger/global innovations, like SuperPave, usually involve much greater risk and require upper-management decision-making, while smaller innovations usually involve lower risk and can be instituted at the functional level. Risk assessment must look at probable rewards/benefits and the associated costs. Also, speed of implementation can offset risk; bigger/global solutions may need more time in order to be sold.  Key challenges/barriers to integrated implementation include risk, cost to implement, internal agency issues (lack of interoffice collaboration, turf protection, different

49 priorities among offices, organizational constraints), contractor and other stakeholder issues, lack of champions, and lack of clarity as to the latest standards. Consider Utah DOT’s “Ideas to Practice” concept, where the DOT sends staff to TRB, and, upon return, they are requested to present on two new ideas learned there. The DOT tracks the various ideas and develops estimates of cost savings, which can then be considered with respect to implementation in their own state.  Suggest contacting Leslie Tribelhorn (MT) on the Technical Committee on Cost Estimating to inquire about the data interface associated with the AASHTO TRNS*PORT program. TRB Workshop 166 TRB Workshop 166 (Visualizing and Customizing Tools for Implementation of SHRP 2 Renewal Products) was conducted at the TRB Annual Meeting on the afternoon of Sunday, January 13, 2013. The primary goals of the workshop were to (a) familiarize participants with the renewal projects and products and the different ways in which they can be implemented on a highway project and/or adopted into highway practice, and (b) engage participants in discussions that would help further mold the vision for the integration tool. The 3-hour workshop was facilitated by key members of the APTech team SHRP 2 staff. Attendance at the workshop varied, with full participation by 15 to 17 individuals and partial participation by another eight to 10. The participants represented a mix of backgrounds, including a few mid- to upper-level state highway agency (SHA) representatives, various SHRP 2 and FHWA staff, and consultants involved in SHRP 2 Renewal projects and the AASHTO- sponsored renewal product implementation project. The workshop consisted of four basic parts, as follows:  Overview of SHRP 2 and introduction to R31.  Overview of renewal projects and products (expanded summaries).  Description and discussion of preliminary integration/packaging matrix and tool framework/process.  Description and discussion of proposed web-based integration software/tool. Table 3.3 provides a summary of the major comments and ideas conveyed in the workshop. This information and the information from the teleconference interviews provided the basis for refining the integration/packaging matrix and the tool framework/process, as described in the next section.

50 Revision of Integration/Packaging Matrix and Tool Framework/ Process Identification of Problems/Constraints and Corresponding Needs The SHRP 2 Renewal products have the potential to address many different needs within a highway agency, as well as needs among other stakeholders involved in the highway renewal process (e.g., contractors, consultants, utility companies, railroads). Although the proposed integration tool would effectively leverage the renewal products for a multitude of end users, the primary recipients of the tool are considered to be those within the highway agency who collectively provide for and maintain an operable highway system for the traveling public. These end users can be grouped into the following two audiences:  Middle-Level Management and Technical Staff: This user group consists of front-line managers, supervisors, engineers, and other technical professionals within an agency who are responsible for carrying out the various functional aspects of highway renewal at the project, corridor, or network level.  Executives and Upper-Level Management: This user group consists of high-level administrators and decision makers within an agency who are responsible for setting policies and defining the practices and standards for achieving highway renewal. Table 3.3. Summary of Major Comments and Ideas Expressed in TRB Workshop 166 Discussion Topic Workshop Comments Product Implementation  State highway agencies are looking for information and solutions that will make their job of constructing, operating, and maintaining highways easier. The process of implementing new products and technologies, such as those coming out of the SHRP 2 Renewal program, requires hard facts and bottom-line expected benefits regarding those products. The more hard facts and the greater the delta associated with a particular SHRP 2 product, the greater the likelihood of states implementing it.  One of the key components in product implementation is getting authoritative buy-in from upper-level management. Some important approaches for achieving buy-in include:  Education. Many of the DOT key decision makers don’t often get to go to conferences/workshops, so it would be very worthwhile to take the product to the local level via workshops, demos, and other forums or types of outreach (e.g., ABC workshops for bridges). A two-pronged approach to education—higher-level general session for upper-level management and more detailed technical session for mid- to lower-level managers and engineers—is often quite successful.  Biggest bang for the buck. A face-to-face meeting with a selected DOT staff covering the various aspects of the product, including the benefits as compared to the conventional agency strategy, can often generate enthusiasm and interest in the product.  Risk and Risk Mitigation. Many SHAs do the same old thing, because there is little chance of repercussions if things fail. On the flip side, some agencies may be inclined to do implementations because they have nothing to lose (they are in desperate need).

51 Discussion Topic Workshop Comments  A stepwise approach to product implementation should be considered for each product. An analogy to this is the implementation of a highway project, which begins with planning, goes to design, and then to construction.  The real goal in product implementation is to push the use of the product to the level that it becomes standard practice.  It’s important to know what kind of structure and what kind of tools can provide for the most effective dissemination and use of Renewal products.  An Executive Information Portal should be fully considered, along with the use of pod e- mails and YouTube animated videos (YouTube videos integrated into tool, if content available for high-level buy-in).  Some DOTs get a great amount of benefit from attending webinars. Research managers often have a different source for information than high-level directors.  It is recommended that notes from past implementation planning workshops (e.g., R09, R10, R26, and R15B) be reviewed to get further ideas about implementation. Also, it is important to know the boundary of SHRP 2 research that is not being implemented (e.g., R01). Application of Tool for Different Project Scenarios  It is important to know what kind of project delivery method (e.g., design-build, design- bid-build, warranty) and what kind of specs (e.g., performance specs) will be used, as this may provide greater opportunities for implementation of some products.  It is also important to consider what drives a user to want to try something different. For instance, a user may foresee problems with the conventional approach/strategy on a particular project.  It is imperative to know what the specific problem(s) is on a project, so that potential product options can be identified.  Project managers may have a unique perspective to share on the impetus of doing something different. Barriers/Challenges  There are issues to be considered concerning where the R31 web-based software will reside and how it will be maintained/updated.  The state feedback from the R31 teleconferences with AASHTO members is valuable and should be carefully considered. Although they may have expressed trepidation regarding the concept of integration, this can be overcome by showing DOTs the process through examples.  It is important to have a good fix on the benefits of the products. It’s not enough to just say that Product X will increase safety; there is a need to be specific about how the product will increase safety and to be able to show tangible evidence of the benefit. This will be a true challenge, and the work behind it is probably outside the scope of R31.  Analyses have not really been done concerning additional initial costs associated with product, the long-term costs, and the quantifiable benefits. Data will be needed for a determination of whether the product is cost-effective or not. Proposed Software Tool  It is imperative that the integration tool be simple. It should not include a bunch of equations and a lot of text, as these will scare off many potential users.  The use of project characteristics to define/drive the process (i.e., start from a project perspective) is desirable. This could be another portal (i.e., entry point into the evaluation process) within the tool. An example might be “I need to implement a highway project in 9 months. What SHRP 2 products are available that might help make this happen?” It is recommended that the project team define 20 to 30 project scenarios that cover different physical aspects, different stakeholder aspects, and different types of project delivery.

52 Discussion Topic Workshop Comments  There are two different ways for implementation to occur. One is at the project or functional level; the other is at the central-office or program level. The tool should recognize this and allow for use by both types of users.  A concern was expressed about the dependencies of the tool as it relates to research and technologies that are taking place outside of SHRP 2. For example, a user may want to implement a product from R04, but there may be related information from FHWA or other sources that would also be valuable. Questions such as “Which bridge project is a candidate for R04?” “Should the tool point the user to the FHWA tool?” and “Should the tool provide a Related Links button?” were posed. The SHRP 2 response to this concern was that the boundaries of the tool need to be limited to SHRP 2 and that this is what the project team was charged with doing.  The tool should contain or provide access to decision-making tools and specifications to give confidence to agencies.  The key to the tool is giving the agency user the ability to define a specific problem to be solved. It is also critical that the tool be able to show examples of implementing multiple products successfully (i.e., show full-delivery process versus 2 or 3 products implemented individually).  A “lessons learned” or “recommendations” page would be of great value to some agencies. It was pointed out that innovation often comes out of an open-minded approach to trying things. With home runs come a fair share of duds. The tool should give users insight into what others have done and what the results have been.  The tool should be people-driven and information-driven and should fully recognize who the audience is.  The tool needs to recognize who the experts are at AASHTO and FHWA. It should reference these experts, so that tool users have a quality source for pursuing additional information.  Cost aspects are critical. The tool should make pilot data and other data available and should include the ability to do cost-benefit analysis. It should be able to produce a simple single number by which to make a decision (e.g., above a certain number, the answer to “should we implement” will be yes; below that number, the answer will be no). For each audience, a specific set of user needs were developed for which the renewal products have direct application and could be beneficial. Tables 3.4 through 3.8 list the user needs developed for the middle-level management and technical staff audience corresponding to each of the five renewal product areas. Use of the renewal products for this audience represents a functional/technical-level application (technical discipline application) involving lower levels of risk. As seen in these tables, the user needs have been grouped into the following user needs categories:  Project scoping  Strategy selection  Preliminary design  Final design

53  Specifications  Construction  Evaluation/testing Tables 3.9 through 3.13 list the user needs developed for the executives and upper-level management audience corresponding to each of the five renewal product areas. Use of the renewal products for this audience represents an administrative/program-level application (operational application [e.g., administrative direction, policy-related assistance, standards and criteria]) involving higher levels of risk. The user needs have been grouped into the following categories:  Project scoping practices  Strategy selection practices  Design practices  Specifications development  Construction practices  Maintenance practices  Evaluation/testing practices  Education/training  Research/development/implementation Revised Integration/Packaging Matrix The established user needs and user needs categories listed in Tables 3.4 through 3.8 were incorporated into the preliminary integration/packaging matrix to produce a more effective and practical mechanism for product integration. Specific revisions included replacing the product benefits/highway needs criterion with the user needs categories, adding a few more potential end users at the functional/technical level, and repopulating the matrix by listing for each cell the combinations of renewal project and user need that would be applicable to the scenario of the cell. For instance, if the third user need listed for renewal project R05 (see Table 3.6)— “Suitability of PCP/modular pavement as a preservation/rehabilitation treatment (i.e., intermittent repairs and/or slab replacements) for an existing concrete pavement”—was deemed appropriate for a scenario, then the identification number 5-3 (Renewal project R05, user need 3) was entered for that cell.

54 Table 3.4. Functional/Technical-Level Needs Summary for NDT Area Renewal Projects Project User Needs (Needs Category) R06 The product of this study was a final report that provided recommendations to SHRP 2 for programming additional research funds for NDT in a variety of applications. Hence, the product does not address any project-level user needs. R06A 1. Identification of suitable NDT devices/tools for evaluating and detecting concrete bridge deck deterioration (specific distresses [e.g., delamination, corrosion, vertical cracking, concrete degradation] and overall condition), based on device/tool performance ratings for accuracy, repeatability, speed, ease of use, and cost (Strategy Selection). 2. Procedures and illustrations for using various NDT devices/tools to evaluate concrete bridge deck deterioration (Evaluation/Testing). R06B 1. Standard of practice for identifying chemical admixtures in fresh PCC using the Attenuated Total Reflectance Fourier Transform Infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy device, and procedures for operating the ATR-FTIR spectroscopy device in the field (Evaluation/Testing). 2. Standard of practice for determining titanium content in traffic paints using the X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectroscopy device and procedures for operating the XRF spectroscopy device in the field (Evaluation/Testing). R06C 1. Identification of a suitable NDT device/tool for real-time monitoring of the quality of HMA paving mats, either immediately after mat placement (measurement of localized cold spots) and/or during mat compaction (measurement of density) (Strategy Selection). 2. Procedures and illustrations for using various NDT devices/tools to measure and evaluate in real time the quality of HMA paving mats (Evaluation/Testing). 3. Model specification information that can be used in developing quality control (QC) and/or quality assurance (QA) specifications for the PAVE-IR thermal profile measurement system (Specifications). (Note: Model specification is still under development). 4. Model specification information that can be used in developing QC and/or QA specifications for the GPR density measurement system (Specifications). (Note: Model specification is still under development). R06D The anticipated products of the study (low-speed impact echo/spectral analysis of surface waves [IE/SASW] and high-speed GPR) exhibited limitations in the ability to identify delamination between HMA layers. Further development/refinement of each device is required before implementation can occur. Hence, the products do not currently address any project-level user needs. R06E 1. Procedures for using various non-contact, real-time profile measuring systems to measure the profile and compute the smoothness of new PCC pavement (Evaluation/Testing). 2. Model specification information that can be used in developing QC specifications (as part of a quality management plan [QMP]) for non-contact, real-time profile measuring systems for concrete paving (Specifications). R06F 1. Procedures and illustrations for using high-speed continuous deflection equipment to collect deflection data and to analyze the data to support network-level pavement management activities (e.g., identifying structurally deficient/weak areas that can be investigated further at the project level, calculating a “structural health index” that can be incorporated into a PMS) (Evaluation/Testing). R06G 1. Identification of suitable NDT devices/tools for conducting condition assessments of tunnel linings, based on device/tool performance ratings for accuracy, detection depth, deterioration mechanisms detected (e.g., moisture intrusion, delaminations and spalling, voids), and tunnel lining types (Strategy Selection). 2. Procedures and illustrations for using various NDT devices/tools to evaluate tunnel linings (Evaluation/Testing).

55 Table 3.5. Functional/Technical-Level Needs Summary for Bridges Area Renewal Projects Project User Needs (Needs Category) R04 1. Design concepts, details, considerations, and guidance for a variety of ABC technologies (prefabricated bridge elements/systems and corresponding bridge movement techniques and equipment) for possible use in accelerated renewal of existing bridges (40- to 130-ft spans) (Preliminary Design, Final Design). 2. Sample standard plans and detail sheets that can be adapted for use in the construction plans of a bridge renewal project that will incorporate ABC technologies (Final Design). 3. Reference specification (recommended AASHTO-formatted) information that can be used in developing load and resistance factor design (LRFD) design specifications for ABC elements and systems (Specifications). 4. Reference specification (recommended AASHTO-formatted) information that can be used in developing LRFD construction specifications for ABC elements and systems (Specifications). 5. Procedures associated with ABC construction, including fabrication of elements, subsystems, and components off alignment and movement of the system into place using proper equipment (Construction). R19A 1. Identification of suitable bridge system alternatives that satisfy project requirements and selection of optimum alternative based on assessment of cost-effectiveness (life-cycle cost analysis [LCCA]), performance, and other factors (Strategy Selection). 2. Design concepts, details, considerations, and procedures for systematically designing new and existing bridge systems (and their various elements, subsystems, and components) for service life and durability (Preliminary Design, Final Design). 3. Procedures associated with construction of long-life bridges and the various elements, subsystems, and components (Construction). R19B The anticipated products are not currently available and limited information exists about them. Hence, they do not address any project-level user needs. Table 3.6. Functional/Technical-Level Needs Summary for Pavements Area Renewal Projects Project User Needs (Needs Category) R02 1. Geoconstruction technologies that are the best options for a roadway project involving embankment construction over unstable soils or working platform improvement (Strategy Selection). 2. Expected cost of a geoconstruction technology identified as a candidate for a roadway project (Project Scoping/Cost Estimating). 3. Design details and procedures for a geoconstruction technology selected for a roadway project involving embankment construction over unstable soils or working platform improvement (Preliminary Design, Final Design). 4. Reference specifications (existing or example) information that can be used in developing material, system, and/or construction specifications for a geoconstruction technology selected for a roadway project (Specifications). 5. Construction procedures for a geoconstruction technology selected for a roadway project and QC/QA methods typically used for the technology (Construction). R05 1. Structural design (thickness, joints, reinforcement, etc.) for PCP/modular pavement used as a preservation/rehabilitation treatment (intermittent full-depth repair and/or slab replacement application) for an existing concrete pavement (Preliminary Design, Final Design).

56 2. Structural design (thickness, joints, reinforcement, etc.) for PCP/modular pavement used as a rehabilitation/reconstruction treatment (continuous application) for an existing concrete or asphalt pavement (Preliminary Design, Final Design). 3. Suitability of PCP/modular pavement as a preservation/rehabilitation treatment (i.e., intermittent repairs and/or slab replacements) for an existing concrete pavement (Strategy Selection). 4. Suitability of PCP/modular pavement as a rehabilitation/reconstruction treatment (i.e., continuous application) for an existing concrete or asphalt pavement (Strategy Selection). 5. The procedures associated with constructing (i.e., fabricating panels at the plant and installing them at the jobsite) PCP/modular pavement for a rehabilitation/reconstruction application (Construction). 6. The procedures associated with constructing (i.e., fabricating panels at the plant and installing them at the jobsite) PCP/modular pavement for a preservation/rehabilitation application (Construction). 7. Model specification information that can be used in developing material, panel fabrication, and panel installation specifications for the PCP/modular pavement technology selected for preservation/ rehabilitation (i.e., intermittent application) of an existing concrete pavement (Specifications). 8. Model specification information that can be used in developing material, panel fabrication, and panel installation specs for the PCP/modular pavement technology selected for rehabilitation/reconstruction (i.e., continuous application) of an existing concrete or asphalt pavement (Specifications). R21 1. Structural design (thickness, joints, reinforcement, etc.) for a proposed long-life HMA/PCC or PCC/PCC composite pavement (new or reconstructed roadway) (Preliminary Design, Final Design). 2. Feasibility and cost-effectiveness of HMA/PCC or PCC/PCC composite pavement as a long-life pavement option on a new roadway project or a roadway reconstruction project (Strategy Selection). 3. Guide specification information that can be used in developing material and/or construction specifications for long-life HMA/PCC or PCC/PCC composite pavement selected for a new roadway or roadway reconstruction project (Specifications). 4. Procedures associated with constructing a long-life HMA/PCC or PCC/PCC composite pavement for a new roadway or roadway reconstruction project (Construction). R23 1. Suitable long-life rehabilitation options (including reconstruction [removal/replace]) for an existing asphalt, concrete, or composite pavement (Strategy Selection). 2. Preliminary/approximate structural design (thickness, primarily) of different long-life rehabilitation options (including reconstruction [removal/replace]) for an existing asphalt, concrete, or composite pavement, as a basis for rehabilitation type selection (Preliminary Design). 3. Guide specification information that can be used in developing material and/or construction specifications for the long-life rehabilitation option (including reconstruction [removal/replace]) selected for an existing asphalt, concrete, or composite pavement (Specifications). R26 1. Suitability of pavement preservation as a life-extending activity (functional and/or structural) for an existing asphalt, concrete, or composite pavement on a high-traffic road (Strategy Selection). 2. Suitability and cost-effectiveness of different preservation treatments as a life-extending activity (functional or structural) for an existing asphalt, concrete, or composite pavement on a high-traffic road (Strategy Selection).

57 Table 3.7. Functional/Technical-Level Needs Summary for Utilities/Railroads Area Renewal Projects Project User Needs (Needs Category) R01 1. Identification of utility-locating/characterizing technology for use in a roadway project (Project Scoping/Cost Estimating). R01A 1. Procedures/tools for tracking and evaluating utility installation data for a roadway project (Preliminary Design). (Note: Tool is still under development) 2. Procedures/tool for providing notification of changes in utility information or status within the right- of-way (Preliminary Design, Final Design). (Note: Tool is still under development). R01B The anticipated products of the study (prototype utility detection systems [multi-antenna GPR and TEM]) require more R&D, as the incremental benefits they may provide are far outweighed by their costs. Hence, they do not address any project-level user needs. R01C The anticipated products of the study (prototype utility detection systems [acoustic locator and radio- frequency identification [RFID] tag]) did not work. Hence, they do not address any project-level user needs. R15 The key product of the study is a final report with best practices for improving coordination between utility companies and highway agencies. The product is a program-level product. Hence, it does not address any project-level user needs. R15B 1. Tools for management of utility conflicts and relocation (Preliminary Design). 2. Procedures for tracking utility conflict resolution and milestones (Construction). 3. Communication and coordination of utility conflict information with stakeholders (utility owners, one- call providers) (Construction). R16 1. Master project agreement between railroad and highway agency for roadway project that involves railway (Project Scoping/Cost Estimating). 2. Preliminary engineering agreement for reviews of roadway project that will cross a railroad right-of- way (Preliminary Design). 3. Model project agreements for typical areas where roadway projects impact railroads (resurfacing, highway overpass, warning devices, pipe and wire) (Strategy Selection). R16A 1. Coordination of activities for a roadway project that will cross a railroad right-of-way (Construction).

58 Table 3.8. Functional/Technical-Level Needs Summary for Project Management/Delivery Area Renewal Projects Project User Needs (Needs Category) R03 1. Procedures for performing a risk assessment of schedules and identifying alternatives that provide the lowest levels of risk while still maintaining the desired project schedule (Project Scoping/Cost Estimating, Preliminary Design). 2. Fatigue mitigation strategies, tools, and practices that can be put into place on a rapid renewal highway project that uses a construction scheduling approach with increased risk of worker fatigue (Preliminary Design, Construction). R07 1. Suitability of using performance specifications on a particular rapid renewal project (Strategy Selection). 2. Guide specification information that can be used in developing a performance specification for HMA pavement (design [if applicable], materials, and construction) as part of a design-bid-build, design- build, or warranty type project (Specifications). 3. Guide specification information that can be used in developing a performance specification for PCC pavement (design [if applicable], materials, and construction) as part of a design-bid-build, design- build, or warranty type project (Specifications). 4. Guide specification information that can be used in developing a performance specification for precast/modular concrete pavement (materials, fabrication, and installation) as part of a design-bid- build project (Specifications). 5. Guide specification information that can be used in developing a performance specification for pavement (design, materials, construction, maintenance, and handback) as part of a design-build- operate-maintain project (Specifications). 6. Guide specification information that can be used in developing a performance specification for pavement foundation (embankment fill, subgrade, subbase) (equipment and construction) using roller- integrated compaction monitoring technology (Specifications). 7. Guide specification information that can be used in developing a performance specification for PCC bridge deck (design [if applicable], materials, and construction) as part of a design-bid-build or design- build project (Specifications). 8. Guide specification information that can be used in developing a performance specification for work zone traffic control (traffic management plan and construction sequence) (design, materials, and construction) as part of a rapid renewal project (Specifications). R09 1. Risk register and procedures for identification, assessment, and analysis of project risk involved in a roadway project (Project Scoping/Cost Estimating). 2. Procedures for risk management and contingency planning (Strategy Selection). R10 1. Five-Dimensional Project Management (5DPM) strategies, tools, and procedures for managing complex roadway projects (Project Scoping/Cost Estimating, Preliminary Design). R11 1. Workzone Impacts and Strategy Estimator (WISE) tool to assess impacts of a roadway project on corridors/networks (Project Scoping/Cost Estimating). 2. Performance measures and decision support systems to evaluate the impacts of work zones in a roadway project (Preliminary Design). 3. Strategies for roadway projects to minimize disruption due to work zone impacts (Strategy Selection). 4. Operational scenarios and mitigation strategies for work zone impacts (Construction).

59 Table 3.9. Administrative/Program-Level Needs Summary for NDT Area Renewal Projects Project User Needs (Needs Category) R06 The product of this study was a final report that provided recommendations to SHRP 2 for programming additional research funds for NDT in a variety of applications. Hence, the product does not address any program-level user needs. R06A 1. Bridge deck NDT devices/methods that can be considered for adoption (or evaluated further) by a highway agency (Evaluation/Testing Practices). R06B 1. Construction testing equipment/methods for verifying/quantifying construction material composition that can be considered for adoption (or evaluated further) by a highway agency (Evaluation/Testing Practices). R06C 1. Construction testing equipment/methods for HMA paving mat quality that can be considered for adoption (or evaluated further) by a highway agency. (Evaluation/Testing Practices). 2. Model specification information that can be used in developing highway agency QC and/or QA specifications or provisions for HMA paving layer uniformity (Specifications Development). (Note: model specifications are still under development). R06D The anticipated products of the study (low-speed impact echo/spectral analysis of surface waves [IE/SASW] and high-speed GPR) exhibited limitations in the ability to identify delamination between HMA layers. Further development/refinement of each device is required before implementation can occur. Hence, the products do not currently address any program-level user needs. R06E 1. Construction testing equipment/methods for PCC pavement smoothness that can be considered for adoption (or evaluated further) by a highway agency (Evaluation/Testing Practices). R06F 1. Pavement structural condition continuous NDT devices/methods that can be considered for adoption (or evaluated further) by a highway agency (Evaluation/Testing Practices). 2. Research problem statements that can be used by a highway agency to sponsor additional research on the accuracy, capabilities, and limitations of continuous NDT equipment and determine if the technology should be adopted into practice (Research/Development/Implementation). R06G 1. Tunnel lining NDT devices/methods that can be considered for adoption (or evaluated further) by a highway agency (Evaluation/Testing Practices).

60 Table 3.10. Administrative/Program-Level Needs Summary for Bridges Area Renewal Projects Project User Needs (Needs Category) R04 1. Design concepts, details, considerations, and guidance for a variety of ABC technologies (prefabricated bridge elements/systems and corresponding bridge movement techniques and equipment) that can be considered for adoption (or evaluated further) by a highway agency (Design Practices). 2. Reference specification (recommended AASHTO-formatted) information that can be used in developing highway agency LRFD design and construction specifications or provisions for ABC elements and systems (Specifications Development). 3. ABC construction procedures (including fabrication of elements, subsystems, and components off alignment and movement of the system into place using proper equipment) that can be considered for adoption (or evaluated further) by a highway agency (Construction Practices Toolbox). 4. Training materials on ABC that can be used in a 1-day training course for agency staff (Education/Training). (Note: Training materials are still under development). R19A 1. Long-life bridge system selection process (including LCCA) that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Strategy Selection Practices). 2. Design concepts, details, considerations, and procedures for long-life bridge systems (and their various elements, subsystems, and components) that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Design Practices). 3. Long-life bridge construction procedures that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Construction Practices Toolbox). R19B The anticipated products are not currently available and limited information exists about them. Hence, they do not address any program-level user needs.

61 Table 3.11. Administrative/Program-Level Needs Summary for Pavements Area Renewal Projects Project User Needs (Needs Category) R02 1. Geoconstruction technologies that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Construction Practices Toolbox). 2. Geoconstruction technologies selection process/tool (GEOTECH TOOLS Selection and Guidance System) that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Strategy Selection Practices). 3. Geoconstruction technology design guidance that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Design Practices). 4. Reference specification information that can be used in developing highway agency specifications or provisions for certain geoconstruction technologies (Specifications Development). R05 1. PCP/modular pavement technology that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Construction Practices Toolbox, Maintenance Practices Toolbox). 2. PCP/modular pavement structural design procedures that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Design Practices). 3. Model specification information that can be used in developing highway agency specifications or provisions for PCP/modular pavement (Specifications Development). 4. Webinar (1.5 hours) on PCP/modular pavement technology that can be presented to agency staff (Education/Training). R21 1. Composite HMA/PCC and/or composite PCC/PCC pavement technology that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Construction Practices Toolbox). 2. Composite HMA/PCC and/or composite PCC/PCC design procedures (mechanistic-empirical) and tools (Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide [MEPDG] version 1.3000:R21 and revised AASHTO DARWin-ME) that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Design Practices). 3. Sample specification information that can be used in developing highway agency specifications or provisions for composite HMA/PCC and/or composite PCC/PCC pavement (Specifications Development). 4. Training materials on composite HMA/PCC and PCC/PCC pavements that can be used in a training course for agency staff (Education/Training). (Note: Training materials are available from SHRP 2). R23 1. Long-life rehabilitation treatment selection process/tool (Guidelines for Long-Life Pavement Renewal scoping tool) that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Strategy Selection Practices). 2. Long-life rehabilitation treatment types that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Construction Practices Toolbox). 3. Long-life rehabilitation design procedures that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Design Practices). R26 1. Preservation treatments/strategies for high-volume roads that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Maintenance Practices Toolbox). 2. Preservation treatment/strategy selection process (i.e., evaluation criteria, selection matrices, life-cycle costing, etc.) for high-volume roads that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Strategy Selection Practices). 3. Webinar (1.5 hours) on preservation treatments/strategies for high-volume roads that can be presented to agency staff (Education/Training).

62 Table 3.12. Administrative/Program-Level Needs Summary for Utilities/Railroads Area Renewal Projects Project User Needs (Needs Category) R01 1. Utility-locating/characterizing technologies that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Design Practices). R01A 1. Utility data management tool that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Design Practices). (Note: Tool is still under development). R01B The anticipated products of the study (prototype utility detection systems [multi-antenna GPR and TEM]) require more R&D, as the incremental benefits they may provide are far outweighed by their costs. Hence, they do not address any program-level user needs. R01C The anticipated products of the study (prototype utility detection systems [acoustic locator and RFID Tag]) did not work. Hence, they do not address any program-level user needs. R15 1. Best practices/strategies for minimizing utility-related construction delays that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Design Practices). R15B 1. Utility tracking and analysis tool (utility conflict matrix, utility conflict data model and database) that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Design Practices). 2. Procedures for tracking utility conflict resolution and milestones that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Construction Practices Toolbox). 3. Training materials on utility conflict matrix and management that can be used in a 1-day training course for agency staff (Education/Training). R16 1. Master agreements between highway agencies and railroads that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Scoping Practices, Design Practices). 2. Webinar (1.5 hours) on best practices for expediting highway agency−railroad agreements that can be presented to agency staff (Education/Training). R16A 1. Best practices and model processes for highway agency-railroad interactions that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Scoping Practices, Design Practices).

63 Table 3.13. Administrative/Program-Level Needs Summary for Project Management/Delivery Area Renewal Projects. Project User Needs (Needs Category) R03 1. Fatigue mitigation strategies, tools, and practices that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Design Practices, Construction Practices Toolbox). R07 1. Guide performance specification information that can be used in developing highway agency specifications or provisions for HMA, PCC, and precast/modular concrete pavements, pavement foundation (embankment fill, subgrade, subbase), PCC bridge deck, and work zone traffic control (Specifications Development). 2. Performance specification implementation guidelines for executives and project managers (Research/Development/Implementation). 3. Performance specification implementation guidelines for specification writers (Research/Development/Implementation). 4. Webinar (1.5 hours) on performance specifications that can be presented to agency staff (Education/Training). R09 1. Risk management process/tool for achieving improved project performance that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Scoping Practices, Design Practices). 2. Training materials on risk management that can be used in a 2-day training course for agency staff (Education/Training). 3. Webinar (1.5 hours) on risk management that can be presented to agency staff (Education/Training). R10 1. 5DPM strategies, tools, and procedures for managing complex roadway projects that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Scoping Practices, Design Practices). 2. Training materials on 5DPM methods that can be used in a training course for agency staff (Education/Training). 3. Webinar (1.5 hours) on 5DPM methods that can be presented to agency staff (Education/Training). R11 1. Roadway project impact assessment tool (WISE) that can be considered for adoption (or further evaluated) by a highway agency (Scoping Practices, Design Practices). 2. Training materials on WISE tool that can be used in a training course for agency staff (Education/Training). 3. Webinar on WISE tool that can be presented to agency staff (Education/Training).

64 Table 3.14 shows an example cut-out of the revised matrix for functional/technical-level application. It lists the renewal project and user need combinations that would be pertinent to pavement assets covering users throughout the entire highway life cycle. A similar integration/packaging matrix was also developed for administrative/program- level application using the established user needs and user needs categories provided in Tables 3.9 through 3.13. Table 3.15 provides an example cut-out of this matrix as it pertains to the bridges/structures asset item. Case Study Examples Several of the renewal projects included test sites, field demonstrations, pilot applications, or other activity to test the effectiveness of the product and to gauge its readiness for implementation. Some of these events were carried out as part of actual highway projects according to the highway life-cycle phase(s) for which the product is applicable. To illustrate how renewal projects and products could be combined for complementary use in rapid highway renewal, two specific highway projects were identified from the renewal project literature to serve as examples for integrated implementation of renewal products. These projects are discussed below.

65 Table 3.14. Example Cut-Out of Revised Functional/Technical-Level Integration/Packaging Matrix: Renewal Project and User Need Combinations Pertinent to the Pavements Asset Type Asset Item User Needs Category Project Delivery (project/corridor-level application) Project Development–Preliminary Design and Final Design Contracting and Construction Project Managers Roadway Designers Traffic and Safety Engineers Bridge/ Structure Designers Pavement Designers ROW & Utilities Engineers and Railroad Liaisons Environmental Engineers Geotech Engineers Specification Engineers Contract/ Construction Managers Construction Engineers Materials Engineers Pavement/ Shoulder Structures Project Scoping/Cost Estimating 3-1, 9-1, 10-1, 11-1 3-1, 9-1, 10-1, 11-1 11-1 2-1 2-1 3-1, 9-1, 10-1, 11-1 Preliminary Design 3-2, 10-2, 11-2 3-2, 10-2, 11-2 11-2 2-2, 23-1 2-2 3-2, 10-2, 11-2 Strategy Evaluation/Selection (Construction, Rehab, Preservation) 7-1, 9-2, 11-3 7-1, 9-2, 11-3 7-1, 11-3 2-3, 5-1, 5-2, 7- 1, 21-1, 23-2, 26-1, 26-2 2-3, 7-1 9-2, 7-1, 11-3 Final Design 3-3 3-3 2-4, 5-3, 5-4, 21-2 2-4 3-3 Specifications (Materials/Systems, Design, Construction) 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 7-5, 7-6, 7-8 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 7-5, 7-6, 7-8 7-8 2-5, 5-5, 5-6, 6C-3, 6C-4, 6E- 2, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 7-5, 21-3, 23-3 2-5, 7-6 2-5, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5- 8, 6C-3, 6C-4, 6E-2, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 7-5, 7- 6, 7-8, 21-3, 23-3 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 7-5, 7-6, 7-8 2-5, 5-5, 5-6, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 7-5, 7-6, 7-8, 21-3, 23-3 2-5, 5-5, 5-6, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 7-5, 7-6, 7-8, 21-3, 23-3 Construction Procedures 3-4, 11-4 3-4, 11-4 11-4 2-6, 5-7, 5-8, 21-4 2-6 2-6, 5-7, 5-8, 21-4 3-4, 11-4 2-6, 5-7, 5-8, 11-4, 21-4 2-6, 5-7, 5-8, 21-4 Strategy Evaluation/Selection (Testing Tools) 6C-1 6C-1 6C-1 6C-1 Evaluation/Testing Procedures (New Infrastructure) 6B-1, 6C-2, 6E-1 6B-1, 6C-2, 6E-1 Evaluation/Testing Procedures (Existing Infrastructure) 6F-1 (continued on next page)

66 Table 3.14. Example Cut-Out of Revised Functional/Technical-Level Integration/Packaging Matrix: Renewal Project and User Need Combinations Pertinent to the Pavements Asset Type (continued) Asset Item User Needs Category Program and System Management (network-level application) Program and System Support Asset Preservation Program Development Research/Materials Engineers IT Professionals Maintenance/ Preservation Engineers Bridge/Structure Managers Pavement Managers Utilities Managers Planners Programmers Pavement/ Shoulder Structures Project Scoping/Cost Estimating 2-1 2-1 2-1, 3-1, 11-1 Preliminary Design 2-2, 23-1 23-1 3-2, 11-2 Strategy Evaluation/Selection (Construction, Rehab, Preservation) 2-3, 5-1, 5-2, 7-1, 21-1, 23-2, 26-1, 26-2 21-1, 23-1, 23-2 5-1, 26-1, 26-2 5-1, 5-2, 21-1, 23-2, 26-1, 26-2 5-1, 11-3, 21-1 5-1 Final Design 2-4, 5-3, 5-4, 21-2 Specifications (Materials/Systems, Design, Construction) 2-5, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 7-2, 7- 3, 7-4, 7-5, 7-6, 21-3, 23-3 7-5 7-5 Construction Procedures 21-4 Strategy Evaluation/Selection (Testing Tools) 6C-1 Evaluation/Testing Procedures (New Infrastructure) 6B-1, 6C-2, 6E-1 Evaluation/Testing Procedures (Existing Infrastructure) 6F-1 6F-1 6F-1 Note: Numbers listed in table cells are a combination of the renewal project number and the user need numbers provided in Tables 3-4 through 3-8 (e.g., 3-1 represents renewal project R03 and the first user need listed for R03 in Table 3.8).

67 Table 3.15. Example Cut-Out of Administrative/Program-Level Integration/Packaging Matrix: Renewal Project and User Need Combinations Pertinent to the Bridges Asset Type Asset Item User Needs Category Project Delivery (administrative/program-level application) Project Development–Preliminary Design and Final Design Project Management Director Project Design Director Traffic and Safety Director Bridge/ Structure Design Chief Pavement Design Chief ROW & Utilities Director & Railroad Coordinator Environmental Design Director Geotech Design Chief PS&E Chief Bridge/ Culvert Structures Scoping Practices 9-1, 10-1, 11-1 9-1, 10-1, 11-1 Strategy Selection Practices 19A-1 Design Practices 3-1, 9-2, 10-2, 11-2 3-1, 9-2, 10-2, 11-2 11-2 4-1, 19A-2 2-3 Specifications Development 7-1 4-2, 7-1 2-4, 7-1 2-4, 4-2, 7-1 Construction Practices Toolbox 3-2 3-2 4-3, 19A-3 2-1 4-3, 19A-3 Evaluation/Testing Practices 6A-1 6A-1 Maintenance Practices Toolbox Education/Training 9-3, 9-4, 10-3, 10-4, 11-3, 11-4 9-3, 9-4, 10-3, 10-4, 11-3, 11-4 7-4 4-4, 7-4 7-4 4-4, 7-4 Research/Development/ Implementation 7-2, 7-3 7-2, 7-3 7-2, 7-3 7-2, 7-3 (continued on next page)

68 Table 3.15. Example Cut-Out of Administrative/Program-Level Integration/Packaging Matrix: Renewal Project and User Need Combinations Pertinent to the Bridges Asset Type (continued) Asset Item User Needs Category Project Delivery Program & System Management Contracting & Construction Asset Preservation Planning & Program Development Contracts/Construction Management Director Construction Chief Materials Chief Maintenance/ Preservation Chief Asset Management Director Planning Director Programming Director Research Head Information Technology Head Bridge/ Culvert Structures Scoping Practices 9-1, 10-1, 11-1 2-2 Strategy Selection Practices 19A-1 19A-1 19A-1 Design Practices 3-1, 9-2, 10-2, 11-2 4-1, 19A-2 4-1, 19A-2 3-1 4-1, 19A-2 Specifications Development 2-4, 4-2, 7-1 4-2, 7-1 7-1 4-2, 7-1 Construction Practices Toolbox 3-2 2-1, 4-3, 19A-3 4-3, 19A-3 3-2 4-3, 19A-3 Evaluation/Testing Practices 6A-1 6A-1 6A-1 6A-1 6A-1 6A-1 Maintenance Practices Toolbox Education/Training 9-3, 9-4, 10-3, 10-4, 11-3, 11-4 4-4, 7-4 4-4, 7-4 7-4 4-4, 7-4 Research/Development/ Implementation 7-2, 7-3 7-2, 7-3 7-2, 7-3 7-2, 7-3 Note: Numbers listed in table cells are a combination of the renewal project number and the user need numbers provided in Tables 3-4 through 3-8 (e.g., 4-1 represents Renewal project R04 and the first user need listed for R04 in Table 3.10.

69 Example 1: Missouri Route 141 Roadway Improvement Project Background The performance specifications developed under R07 were demonstrated as part of highway projects in three locations. These included a roadway improvement project on Route 141 in Chesterfield, Missouri, a bridge rehabilitation project on Route 208 in Spotsylvania and Louisa Counties in Virginia, and an HMA pavement resurfacing project on US-90 (Frontage Road) in Iberia Parish in Louisiana. Although each of these projects could have served as a case study example, the Missouri Route 141 project was selected for its wide-ranging scope. This project was undertaken to reduce congestion, increase safety, and alleviate flooding problems throughout the 2.1-mi length from Ladue Road to Olive Road. A $65 million reconstruction project, it involved several stages of work between 2009 and 2012, including right-of-way acquisition, major grading operations, utility relocations, construction of two major interchanges containing various bridges and roadways, and construction of the mainline pavement (both PCC and HMA). Renewal Product Implementation The R07 demonstration took place during the grading stage and involved working with the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), the contractor, and an equipment provider to demonstrate earthwork QC/QA performance measurement technologies, including roller- integrated compaction monitoring (RICM) technology in combination with mechanistic-related QA testing methods (e.g., plate load tests, dynamic cone penetration [DCP] tests, and borehole shear tests). Specific goals of the demonstration project were as follows (Scott et al. 2013):  Identify suitable QA/QC testing technologies to improve test frequency and construction process control.  Develop effective reporting, analysis, and evaluation protocols.  Link the design approach with construction monitoring and the proposed statistical analysis framework and develop performance models that include a long-term performance aspect.  Study the impact of contract delivery mechanism on the responsibilities and actions of parties involved.  Assess the cost-benefit of implementing the performance specification.  Improve the proposed earthwork and proof mapping performance specifications. The results of the field testing phase of the project were used to evaluate the proposed earthwork performance and proof mapping specifications. One of the key attributes of the proposed specifications was the use of mechanistic-based performance measurements and the geospatially referenced RICM data. This approach eliminates traditional moisture/density testing with a nuclear gauge and requires the contractor to field control the operation around performance design values.

70 Some of the key outcomes from the demonstration project included the following (Scott et al. 2013):  Traditional nuclear density testing results are not necessarily repeatable between the QC and QA agents. Further, the RICM measurement values are not well correlated to percent relative compaction or moisture content.  Alternative in situ testing methods, including plate load testing, lightweight deflectometer testing, and dynamic cone penetration testing, provide quality measurements of support conditions.  Final acceptable procedures based on proof rolling with a loaded dump truck can be replaced with RICM proof mapping. Using RICM eliminates the need to use loaded trucks, provides integrated measurements, and is faster with greater coverage.  Challenges remain with implementation of RICM and alternative testing methods due to lack of training and accepted specifications. Integrated Implementation of Renewal Products The large scope of the Route 141 roadway improvement project would have presented many opportunities for using other SHRP 2 Renewal products in a complementary fashion. For example, in addition to using the R07 geotechnical performance specifications as part of the grading work, the R07 performance specifications for PCC and HMA paving could have been used to ensure a more equitable balance between pavement cost and performance. Likewise, the R07 bridge deck performance specifications could have been applied to the construction of the various bridges included in the project. The R02 Web-Based Guidance and Selection System could have been used to explore the possibility of employing one or more of the 46 geoconstruction technologies in the R02 toolkit. Other SHRP 2 products that could have been implemented on the Route 141 project include the GOMACO GSI and Ames RTP concrete paving profiler devices developed under R06E (Real-Time Smoothness Measurements on Portland Cement Concrete Pavements During Construction) and the GPR and IR technologies from R06C (Using Both Infrared and High- Speed Ground-Penetrating Radar for Uniformity Measurements on New HMA Layers). The utility relocation effort could have been enhanced using utility-locating equipment identified from the R01 SAULT selection tool. Additional applications could have included using one or more of the 13 project management tools comprised by 5DPM as outlined by R10 (Project Management Strategies for Complex Projects) and using the worker fatigue risk assessment/mitigation practices developed under R03 (Identifying and Reducing Worker, Inspector, and Manager Fatigue in Rapid Renewal Environments). Based on project requirements, the tool framework of SHRP 2 R31 would be able to provide recommendations and supporting information on combining these products for complementary implementation.

71 Example 2: Washington State I-5 Pavement Rehabilitation Background The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) applied the R23 project scoping tool (Guidelines for Long Life Pavement Renewal) to the rehabilitation of a 12-mi stretch of I-5 in the WSDOT northwest region. The existing pavement consisted of jointed plain concrete (JPC) pavement originally built in 1966 and subsequently overlaid with hot-mix asphalt (HMA). Rehabilitation was needed due to significant faulting at the JPC joints, leading to reflective cracking through the asphalt overlay. Several factors influenced the WSDOT decision to implement R23 research products. A rapid renewal strategy was needed to meet the project schedule and minimize disruption. In order to fix the problem, the rehabilitation design had to provide a long-life solution in a cost-effective manner. The R23 products were identified as tools that could support rapid renewal with a long- life solution. At the same time, WSDOT needed to minimize risk and ensure that best practices were followed as part of its renewal strategy. Because the rehabilitation was supported by federal funding as a shovel-ready project, WSDOT needed to move it forward quickly, with a target of getting the project to contract within 4 months. As a result, a pavement design solution was needed that could be developed immediately. Meanwhile, WSDOT also needed to keep the project within a $25 million budget. In order to identify a cost-effective solution, WSDOT followed the R23 guidelines for long-life pavement renewal, as well as using a web-based scoping tool that was one of the key research products developed as part of R23. Renewal Product Implementation In identifying potential rehabilitation practices and techniques for the project, WSDOT had initially considered a mill-and-fill option of the existing asphalt, but this solution would have a relatively short service life. This did not meet project requirements, which included targeting a pavement design life of 50 years. An alternative was to look at a full rebuild, pulverizing the existing pavement structure and placing a 10.5-in. overlay of either HMA or PCC, but this approach would have been more expensive. Instead, using the R23 scoping tool, WSDOT was able to objectively identify a crack-and-seat overlay as the recommended rehabilitation solution. With an 8-in. HMA overlay, the projected life-cycle cost of the rehabilitation treatment was $22.7 million, compared to $27 million for an HMA rebuild or $31.8 million for a PCC rebuild. This approach would fit within the available budget while still providing the desired design life. Although the R23 scoping tool indicated a crack-and-seat overlay was the best solution based on the resources available, WSDOT still had questions about the approach. The northwest region office had little experience with cracking and seating and needed to feel comfortable that it could be a viable option. Fortunately, because the R23 products also included guide specifications, best practices, and other references, enough technical documentation was available to overcome WSDOT’s lack of experience with this rehabilitation technique. Since the R23 scoping tool provided reasonable recommendations, which WSDOT confirmed by consulting with experts and performing its own checks on the proposed design, the decision was made to proceed with the crack-and-seat approach.

72 Implementing the R23 research products helped WSDOT identify a renewal strategy and to successfully complete this rehabilitation project. The scoping tool allowed WSDOT to select a design that saved over $4 million in life-cycle costs compared to the next best alternative and that could be implemented as a rapid renewal project. Road user costs were also reduced, as the recommended crack-and-seat overlay design significantly reduced the number of traffic closures compared to the rebuild options. To overcome resistance to change and lack of experience with an unfamiliar renewal strategy, the R23 tools helped WSDOT feel comfortable that it could successfully carry out the project. Integrated Implementation of Renewal Products For this project, WSDOT implemented R23 as a stand-alone product, but it could have also been applied in conjunction with other SHRP 2 Renewal products. For example, products from R07 (Performance Specifications for Rapid Renewal) could have been used to specify performance goals as part of the implementation of the renewal strategy recommended by R23. Additionally, risk management approaches could have been identified and applied using the risk manual from R09 (Guide for the Process of Managing Risk on Rapid Renewal Contracts). To evaluate project construction while maintaining the rapid renewal timeline, products from R06 (A Plan for Developing High-Speed, Nondestructive Testing Procedures for both Design Evaluation and Construction Inspection) could have also been considered, such as the GPR and IR technologies from R06C (Using Both Infrared and High-Speed Ground-Penetrating Radar for Uniformity Measurements on New HMA Layers). Again, based on project requirements, the tool framework of SHRP 2 R31 would be able to provide recommendations and supporting information on combining these products for complementary implementation. Benefits of Integrating Renewal Products The SHRP 2 Renewal focus area includes an abundance of products with the potential to improve existing infrastructure renewal practices. The traditional approach of implementing a single product at either the functional/technical level or administrative/technical level will certainly be used by many highway agencies as a way of ensuring that a product is effective and is providing the types of benefits expected of the product. Another approach, however, can and should be considered by agencies, and it includes implementing a single product or a combination of products that can address multiple needs. Integrated application of renewal products can provide a more efficient means for putting the products to use to address real agency needs and can help maximize the return on investment from the SHRP 2 Renewal research program. The following are some of the more specific benefits anticipated from the integrated use of products:  Ability to define and characterize a particular project and identify products with the potential to address the various needs of the project.

73  Ability to prioritize which products to implement, based on the relative importance of different needs, the perceived value of each product in addressing the needs, and the perceived risk of implementing each product.  Opportunity to save additional time (accelerated project performance), money (reduced project costs and/or user costs), and/or lives (reduced fatalities and injuries), beyond what implementation of single product to address a single need would provide.  Improved communication and interaction between divisions/offices within a highway agency and greater use of a team approach toward addressing problems and issues confronted by the agency.  Greater understanding by individuals within the different divisions/offices of the importance of using new technologies to improve the business of transportation. Barriers/Challenges to Implementation of Renewal Products There are many expected barriers and/or challenges to the implementation of renewal products. These barriers include the ones identified for each renewal project, as described in the expanded summaries in Appendix A, as well as barriers created when trying to address multiple needs within an agency. Presented below are some of the more significant barriers/challenges and suggested ways of overcoming them. Barriers to Implementation of a Single Renewal Product to Address a Single Need  Implementation Readiness: The implementation or deployment of a product/technology works better if it is not labeled as experimental. Contractors are reluctant to invest in or deploy experiments if they aren’t assured that there’s some long-term requirement or payoff. To ensure maximum use of the renewal products, it is important that the tool only include those products that have passed the experimental stage. In addition, there must be transparency about the degree of readiness of the product, as defined by the amount of actual usage of the product, the number of pilot or trial applications performed and the corresponding results, and/or the level of industry acceptance (as a general practice or actual standard).  Market Impacts: Occasionally, the implementation of a product/technology into practice can give substantial favor to one industry group over another or one stakeholder over another (e.g., increased market share, advantages in the bidding or construction process). This can often lead to disputes and complaints by the group or stakeholder who will be negatively impacted. It is important to emphasize that the renewal products are first and foremost intended to help agencies achieve rapid renewal of their highway assets and that, for the most part, the renewal products pertain to a wide range of stakeholders. It is also important to identify situations where this issue could arise and specific steps that could be taken to avoid problems.  Lack of Resources and Staff: Highway agencies are continually asked to do more with less and, more often than not, to continually improve the conditions and performance of

74 the highway system. This often has the effect of refocusing money, people, and equipment to accomplishing the bare essential tasks, which in turn constrains the ability to innovate and try new ideas. The key to overcoming this barrier is to clearly convey and demonstrate the benefits of using a particular product, both in terms of the agency’s work processes and functions and the transportation infrastructure.  Lack of Knowledge and/or Training: It is expected that most of the potential users of renewal products will have had limited or no exposure to the products. Thus, a huge educational gap exists that must be filled so that the users are fully informed about the products and provided the necessary training in the use of the products. Hence, it is important that an emphasis be placed on the availability of webinars, workshops, training courses, demonstrations, and other technology transfer events.  Internal Resistance to Change: Human nature is generally inclined toward doing things the same old way or ever so gradually adapting to new ways of doing things. There can be a variety of reasons for resistance to change, but it often pertains to the time, resources, and staff required to make a change, the uncertainty and perceived risk of making the change, and the concern of being taken out of the current comfort zone and having to establish a new comfort zone. To help garner interest in the renewal products and a willingness to try them, it is critical that they be clearly described and effectively demonstrated, so potential users are made fully aware of what the product is and what it can do for them. Barriers to Single/Integrated Implementation of Renewal Products to Address Multiple Needs  Lack of a Champion or Multi-Discipline Leader: The different groups (i.e., divisions, offices, sectors) within a highway agency are frequently not familiar with the practices of the other groups, and the different groups usually have very different transportation goals and priorities. In addition, at the executive and upper-management level, the priorities are often concentrated on identifying transportation needs, securing funding to satisfy those needs, administering the various programs for implementing transportation projects, and managing the agency’s many business units, people, and resources. To implement renewal products so that they address multiple needs, a champion (or two) is needed who can be a voice and facilitator for the cause of cross-cutting implementation. This individual should have a good understanding of the needs and business practices of the different groups and have the ability to bring together leaders from those different groups to identify integrated implementation opportunities.  Increased Effort, Time, and Costs: The more products or technologies to be incorporated into a project, the greater the effort and time that is required to obtain buy-in and commitment from the involved groups and to receive approval from upper management. In addition, with more products comes a higher cost to secure those products for use. Unless a golden opportunity arises, a very measured approach to integrated implementation should be taken early on involving either single-product implementation

75 that addresses two or three needs or an integrated implementation that also addresses only two or three needs.  Increased Uncertainty and Risk: The more products or technologies to be incorporated into a project, the higher the level of uncertainty and risk. This is particularly true if the products have an overlapping effect on the outcomes of the project, making it difficult to discern what works and what doesn’t. To minimize this uncertainty and risk, it is advisable that the multiple needs being addressed in a project are quite different and that the implementations would result in independent outcomes that can be closely examined by the groups involved.  Selling Issues: Global or comprehensive solutions are harder to sell than smaller or individually focused solutions, primarily for the above-mentioned reasons. Although greater resistance will be encountered in selling the global approach, it is important to understand that global solutions can be sold, but they generally need more time.