Implementation of the AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide and Software (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.

48 Dear Survey Recipient, The Transportation Research Board (TRB) is preparing a synthesis on Implementation of AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) and software. This is being done for NCHRP, under the sponsorship of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration. The purpose of this questionnaire is to identify and summarize the implementation practices of highway agencies for the AASHTO MEPDG and accompanying software, AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ (formerly, DARWin-ME). This survey is being sent to the pavement design engineer or the person who is leading or has led the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ implementation effort for all state highway (including Puerto Rico and District of Columbia) and Canadian provincial and territorial agencies. If you are not the appropriate person at your agency to complete this questionnaire, please forward it to the correct person. The results of the study will be incorporated into a synthesis of highway agency practice in the implementation of the MEPDG and AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ software. The synthesis will highlight agency practices and lessons learned, with the intent of aiding the implementation process for those agencies that have yet to or are in the process of implementing the MEPDG/ AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ software. Please complete and submit this survey by February 8, 2013. We estimate that it should take approximately 30 minutes to com- plete. If you have any questions or problems related to this questionnaire, please contact our principal investigator Dr. Linda Pierce at 505.796.6101 or lpierce@appliedpavement.com. Questionnaire Instructions • If you are unable to complete the questionnaire, you can return to the questionnaire at any time by reentering through the survey link as long as you access the questionnaire through the same computer. Reentering the survey will return you to the last completed question. • If the survey requires completion by multiple people in your agency, each person should complete their portion of the survey. Once the survey is closed, the Principal Investigator will combine the surveys from each individual for a single agency response. If any discrepancies exist, the agency will be contacted for clarification. • Survey navigation is conducted by selecting the “prev” (previous) or “next” button at the bottom of each page. Thank you for your time and expertise in completing this important questionnaire. Definitions The following definitions are used in conjunction with this questionnaire: • Agency districts/regions—this describes the different geographic areas of responsibility within a given agency. • Agency division/section—this describes the various areas within a given agency and includes such divisions/sections as materials, construction, roadway design, planning, and maintenance. • Catalog design—predetermined pavement thickness design table developed to simplify the pavement design process. Catalog designs generally include common traffic loading, environmental and/or subgrade conditions, and the corresponding recommended pavement layer (e.g., surfacing and base) thicknesses. • Champion—a person responsible for and actively evaluating/implementing the AASHTO MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™. • Concurrent design—agency conducts the pavement design using both the agency’s current pavement design procedure and the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™. • CRCP—Continuously reinforced concrete pavement. • Implementation—MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ (all or part) has been adopted for use in your agency. • JPCP—Jointed plain concrete pavement. • ME—mechanistic-empirical. • Pavement ME Design™—accompanying AASHTOWare software for the MEPDG. • PCC—portland cement concrete pavement. • MEPDG—AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide: A Manual of Practice. APPENDIX A Questionnaire

49 General Information 1. Respondent details: Name: Title: Agency E-mail: Phone: 2. Which of the following new construction pavement types are used by your agency (select all that apply)? □ Thin asphalt (< 6.0 in.) over unbound aggregate □ Thick asphalt (> 6.0 in.) over unbound aggregate □ Asphalt over subgrade/stabilized subgrade □ Asphalt over cementitious stabilized layers (e.g., lime, lime-fly ash, cement) □ Composite pavements (new asphalt over new concrete) □ JPCP □ CRCP □ Others (please specify): 3. Which of the following preservation, restoration, and/or rehabilitation treatment types are used by your agency (select all that apply)? □ Asphalt overlay of an existing asphalt-surfaced pavement □ Mill and asphalt overlay of an existing asphalt-surfaced pavement □ Asphalt overlay of and existing concrete-surfaced pavement □ Mill and asphalt overlay of an existing composite (asphalt over concrete) pavement □ Bonded JPCP concrete overlay □ Unbonded JPCP concrete overlay □ Bonded CRCP overlay □ Unbonded CRCP overlay □ Hot in-place recycle without an asphalt overlay □ Hot in-place recycle with an asphalt overlay □ Cold in-place recycle without an asphalt overlay □ Cold in-place recycle with an asphalt overlay □ Full-depth reclamation without an asphalt overlay □ Full-depth reclamation with an asphalt overlay □ Crack or break and seat with an asphalt overlay □ Crack or break and seat with a concrete overlay □ Rubblization with an asphalt overlay □ Rubblization with a concrete overlay □ Dowel bar retrofit □ Diamond grinding □ Others (please specify): 4. Which pavement design method is used by your agency (select all that apply)? New Construction Rehabilitation Method Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Concrete AASHTO 1972 □ □ □ □ AASHTO 1986 □ □ □ □ AASHTO 1993 □ □ □ □ AASHTO 1998 Supplement □ □ □ □ AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ □ □ □ □ Agency empirical procedure □ □ □ □ American Concrete Pavement Association □ □ □ □ Asphalt Institute □ □ □ □ ME-based design table/catalog □ □ □ □ Other ME procedure (please specify): □ □ □ □ Other (please specify): □ □ □ □ 5. Does your agency intend on implementing the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™? □ No □ MEPDG/DARWin-ME has been implemented or is currently being evaluated (please skip to question 7)

50 6. You indicated your agency does not plan on implementing the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™, please identify why not (check all that apply)? □ Current practice is acceptable □ Limited availability of personnel □ Limited knowledge/experience in mechanistic-empirical design □ Limited support from upper management □ Too costly □ Too time-consuming □ Waiting for more agencies to implement □ Other (please specify): 7. Has your agency or does your agency intend on implementing all or part of the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ (select all that apply)? □ New flexible pavement □ New JPCP □ New CRCP □ Asphalt concrete overlay of existing flexible pavement □ Asphalt concrete overlay of existing JPCP □ Asphalt concrete overlay of existing CRCP □ Asphalt concrete overlay of fractured JPCP □ Asphalt concrete overlay of fractured CRCP □ Bonded concrete overlay of existing JPCP □ Bonded concrete overlay of existing CRCP □ JPCP overlay of existing flexible pavement □ CRCP overlay of existing flexible pavement □ Unbonded JPCP overlay of existing JPCP □ Unbonded JPCP overlay of existing CRCP □ Unbonded CRCP overlay of existing JPCP □ Unbonded CRCP overlay of existing CRCP □ All of the above □ If your agency has not or does not intend on implementing all pavement designs contained in the MEPDG/ AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™, could you please explain why? 8. If your agency has not yet implemented all or part of the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™, when do you intend on implementing? □ Within 1 year □ 1 to 2 years □ 2 to 3 years □ 4 to 5 years □ Longer than 5 years □ MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ has been implemented Agency Organizational Information 9. Which of the following best describes your organizational structure related to pavement designs? □ Centralized (pavement designs are conducted, reviewed, and approved by the central (headquarters) office). □ Decentralized (pavement designs are conducted, reviewed, and approved at the district/region office). 10. Within your department, how effective is coordination across various agency functions (e.g., construction, design, maintenance, materials, pavement design, pavement management, planning, traffic, headquarters, and districts/regions)? □ Consistent coordination across all agency functions (e.g., open discussion and access to data and information). □ Limited coordination across all agency functions (e.g., we coordinate, but obtaining data and information can be challenging). □ No coordination across all agency functions (e.g., no coordination/interaction). □ Other (please specify): 11. What additional work is required to justify implementing a new pavement design procedure (select all that apply)? □ No additional work is required □ Evaluate economic impact □ Determine benefits over existing procedure □ Evaluate applicability to current conditions □ Establish an oversight committee to evaluate/approve the procedure □ Develop an implementation plan □ Develop a training plan □ Obtain buy-in from other agency divisions □ Obtain approval from upper management □ Other (please specify):

51 Data Availability for MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ 12. Are your agency definitions for pavement distress similar to those defined in the FHWA Distress Identification Manual for LTPP? Performance Indicator Do Not Use Yes No Smoothness (IRI) □ □ □ Asphalt pavements □ □ □ Longitudinal cracking □ □ □ Alligator cracking □ □ □ Thermal cracking □ □ □ Reflective cracking □ □ □ Rut depth □ □ □ JPCP □ □ □ Transverse cracking □ □ □ Joint faulting □ □ □ CRCP □ □ □ Punchouts □ □ □ 13. Is the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ related data readily available? Data Availability Not Available Difficult to Obtain Readily Available Existing Pavement Structure (type and thickness) □ □ □ Material Properties □ □ □ Traffic □ □ □ Condition Data □ □ □ 14. Is the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ data available electronically? Data Availability Not Available Difficult to Obtain Readily Available Existing Pavement Structure (type and thickness) □ □ □ Material Properties □ □ □ Traffic □ □ □ Condition Data □ □ □ Pavement Design Development 15. What division/section is responsible for developing pavement designs? □ Design Office □ Maintenance Office □ Materials Office □ Planning Office □ Research Office □ Other (please specify): 16. Who in your agency conducts the pavement design (select all that apply)? □ Engineer □ Licensed Engineer □ Technician □ Consultant □ Other (please specify): 17. Does your agency require the consultant to use the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™? □ Yes □ No specific procedure is required □ Required design procedure includes (please specify): 18. Are all MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ data inputs made available to the consultant (e.g., traffic information, material properties, calibration coefficients)? □ Yes □ No 19. Which position approves the recommended pavement design (select all that apply)? □ District/Region Engineer □ Planning Director

52 □ Research Director □ State Design Engineer □ State Maintenance Engineer □ State Materials Engineer □ State Pavement Engineer □ Other (please specify): MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ Implementation Process 20. For the personnel conducting the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™, what was their level of expertise in mechanistic-empirical practices/procedures during the evaluation/implementation process? □ No knowledge/experience □ Limited knowledge/experience (e.g., had heard of it, but was not very familiar with the details of AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™) □ Somewhat knowledgeable/experienced (e.g., had been exposed to AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ procedures via webinars, papers/reports, training classes, and conferences) □ Very knowledgeable/experienced (e.g., had conducted ME designs) □ Other (please specify): 21. What were the deciding factors for implementing the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ (select all that apply)? □ Improved reliability in prediction of pavement condition □ Potential cost savings □ Evaluation of local materials □ Evaluation of new materials □ Evaluation of local traffic conditions □ Evaluation of special loading conditions (e.g., dedicated haul road, overload) □ Ability to model the effects of climate and materials aging □ Improved characterization of existing pavement layer parameters □ Improved link to pavement management □ Other (please specify): 22. What activities would aid in the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ implementation effort (select all that apply)? □ Dedicated MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ website for sharing technical information □ Ability to share AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ databases with other agencies □ Training in ME design principles □ Training in methodology for obtaining MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ inputs □ Training in AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ □ Training in how to modify pavement sections to meet design criteria □ Training in interpretation of AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ software results □ Assistance with calibrating models to local conditions □ Establishment of an expert task or user group □ Other (please specify): 23. Is there an MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ champion in your agency? □ No □ Yes 24. Please identify champion’s position within the agency (select all that apply) □ District/Region Engineer □ Planning Director □ Research Director □ State Design Engineer □ State Maintenance Engineer □ State Materials Engineer □ State Pavement Design Engineer □ State Pavement Engineer □ Other (please specify): 25. Does your agency have an oversight/review committee that assists in the implementation process (e.g., determined what/ when/how to implement)? □ No □ Yes 26. Please identify members of the oversight/review committee □ District/Region Engineer □ Planning Director

53 □ Research Director □ State Design Engineer □ State Maintenance Engineer □ State Materials Engineer □ State Pavement Design Engineer □ State Pavement Engineer □ Other (please specify): 27. Prior to adoption or implementation, who was involved in the evaluation of the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ (select all that apply)? □ Construction Office □ Design Office □ Maintenance Office □ Materials Office □ Planning Office □ Pavement Design Engineer □ Pavement Management Engineer □ Research Office □ Traffic Office □ Other (please specify): 28. Whose buy-in was required to implement the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ (select all that apply)? □ Chief Engineer □ District/Region Engineer □ Legislature □ Pavement Oversight Committee □ Pavement Design Engineer □ Pavement Director □ Planning Director □ Research Director □ Secretary of Transportation □ State Design Engineer □ State Maintenance Engineer □ State Materials Engineer □ State Pavement Engineer □ Transportation Commission □ Other (please specify): 29. Once the technical decisions were made to implement the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™, were there any additional decisions/efforts required prior to adoption? □ No □ Yes 30. Select additional decisions/efforts required prior to adoption (select all that apply). □ Acceptance/evaluation by the information technology (IT) department □ Address local agency concerns □ Address industry concerns □ Agency vote □ Other (please specify): 31. Which pavement types (by functional class) will be or have been evaluated using the MEPDG (select all that apply)? Note that by selecting a row containing “All” implies that the subset rows are included. Pavement Type Do Not Use All Functional Classes Local Roads Collectors Minor Arterials Principal Arterials Interstates All new designs □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Asphalt □ □ □ □ □ □ □ JPCP □ □ □ □ □ □ □ CRCP □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Other (please specify): □ □ □ □ □ □ □ All overlay designs □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Asphalt over asphalt □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Asphalt over JPCP □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Asphalt over CRCP □ □ □ □ □ □ □

54 Asphalt over JPCP (fractured) □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Asphalt over CRCP (fractured) □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Bonded PCC/JPCP □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Bonded PCC/CRCP □ □ □ □ □ □ □ JPCP over JPCP (unbonded) □ □ □ □ □ □ □ JPCP over CRCP (unbonded) □ □ □ □ □ □ □ CRCP over JPCP (unbonded) □ □ □ □ □ □ □ CRCP over CRCP (unbonded) □ □ □ □ □ □ □ JPCP over asphalt □ □ □ □ □ □ □ CRCP over asphalt □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Other (please specify): □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Restoration □ □ □ □ □ □ □ JPCP restoration □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Other (please specify): □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 32. What level of input has been adopted for each of the following (select all that apply)? Note that by selecting a row containing “All” implies that all subset rows are included. Input Do Not Use Default Value Regional Value Site-Specific Value All traffic □ □ □ □ Vehicle class distribution □ □ □ □ Hourly adjustment factors □ □ □ □ Monthly adjustment factors □ □ □ □ Axles per truck □ □ □ □ Axle configuration □ □ □ □ Lateral wander □ □ □ □ Wheelbase □ □ □ □ All materials □ □ □ □ All asphalt layers □ □ □ □ Mixture volumetrics □ □ □ □ Mechanical properties □ □ □ □ Thermal properties □ □ □ □ Asphalt surface layers only □ □ □ □ Mixture volumetrics □ □ □ □ Mechanical properties □ □ □ □ Thermal properties □ □ □ □ Asphalt base layers only □ □ □ □ Mixture volumetrics □ □ □ □ Mechanical properties □ □ □ □ Thermal properties □ □ □ □ All concrete layers □ □ □ □ Poisson’s ratio □ □ □ □ Unit weight □ □ □ □ Thermal □ □ □ □ Mix □ □ □ □ Strength □ □ □ □ All chemically stabilized layers □ □ □ □ Poisson’s ratio □ □ □ □ Unit weight □ □ □ □ Strength □ □ □ □ Thermal □ □ □ □ All sandwiched granular layers □ □ □ □ Poisson’s ratio □ □ □ □ Unit weight □ □ □ □ Strength □ □ □ □ Thermal properties □ □ □ □ All non-stabilized base layers □ □ □ □ Poisson’s ratio □ □ □ □ Modulus □ □ □ □ Sieve analysis □ □ □ □

55 All subgrade layers □ □ □ □ Poisson’s ratio □ □ □ □ Modulus □ □ □ □ Sieve analysis □ □ □ □ All bedrock layers □ □ □ □ Poisson’s ratio □ □ □ □ Unit weight □ □ □ □ Strength □ □ □ □ 33. Does your agency use nationally or locally calibrated prediction models (select all that apply)? Note that by selecting a row containing “All” implies that all subset rows are included. Model Do Not Use National Calibration Local Calibration Plans for Local Calibration/ Verification All asphalt models □ □ □ □ IRI □ □ □ □ Longitudinal cracking □ □ □ □ Alligator cracking □ □ □ □ Thermal cracking □ □ □ □ Rutting (asphalt layer only) □ □ □ □ Rutting (total) □ □ □ □ Reflective cracking □ □ □ □ All JPCP models □ □ □ □ IRI □ □ □ □ Transverse cracking □ □ □ □ Joint faulting □ □ □ □ All CRCP models □ □ □ □ IRI □ □ □ □ Punchouts □ □ □ □ 34. Where has your agency focused the implementation effort (select all that apply)? □ Materials characterization □ Traffic □ Climate □ Identification of existing pavement layers □ Performance prediction of existing pavement structure □ Local calibration □ Training □ Other (please specify): 35. Has your agency developed/conducted any of the following (select all that apply)? Feature In-house Consultant Academia Implementation plan □ □ □ Training materials □ □ □ Agency-specific user manual □ □ □ Concurrent designs □ □ □ Materials library □ □ □ Traffic library □ □ □ Pavement performance library □ □ □ Model validation □ □ □ Catalog designs □ □ □ Test sites □ □ □ Review group/committee □ □ □ Comparison of impact due to differences between agency and LTPP distress definitions □ □ □ Other (please specify): 36. If yes, and you checked any of the boxes above and your agency is willing to share this information, please add the URL where it can be accessed, attach the document to this survey, or e-mail Dr. Pierce at lpierce@appliedpavement.com so she can make arrangements to obtain a copy.

56 37. What type of MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ training program is available for your agency’s personnel (select all that apply)? □ None □ Agency-developed training program □ Consultant conducted training □ NHI training □ Self-taught □ Self-taught with champion or supervisor oversight □ University developed classes □ Other (please specify): 38. What, if any, issues have impeded the implementation of the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ (select all that apply)? □ No issues □ Availability of pavement performance data □ Availability of traffic data □ Availability of materials data/materials characterization □ Availability of information related to the existing pavement structure □ Funding restrictions □ Limited time available □ No designated champion □ Resistance to change from current procedures □ Justification of benefits for implementing more advanced procedure □ Additional issues (please specify below) 39. What benefits has your agency accrued due to implementation of the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ (select all that apply)? □ Has not yet been quantified □ Improved reliability of design recommendations □ Improved characterization of local materials □ Improved characterization of existing pavement layers □ Improved characterization of traffic □ Improved confidence in distress prediction □ More economical designs 40. Indicate cost savings. _____________$/mile and/or _____________$/year 41. Please provide any challenges or lessons learned during the evaluation and implementation of the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™. 42. What insight have you gained that can be shared with other agencies to ease the implementation effort (e.g., calibration of a particular model was not needed, traffic characterization by functional class was appropriate)? 43. What has your agency spent on implementation? □ Nothing, besides the cost of the software license □ < $100,000 □ $100,000 to $500,000 □ $500,000 to $1,000,000 □ $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 □ > $2,000,000 44. What has your agency spent on calibration? □ Nothing □ < $100,000 □ $100,000 to $500,000 □ $500,000 to $1,000,000 □ $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 □ > $2,000,000 45. What year did the implementation process begin? 46. What year did you complete implementation? 47. Do you have any reports, memos, internal documentation, or other comments you would like to share regarding implementa- tion of the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™?