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.

57 1. Responding agencies. Reponses to the questionnaire were received from forty-seven U.S. highway agencies and nine Canadian provinces (or a 90% response rate). The agencies that responded to the survey include: • Alabama DOT • Alaska DOT & Public Facilities • Alberta Transportation • Arizona DOT • Arkansas Highway & Transportation Department • British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure • California DOT • Colorado DOT • Connecticut DOT • Delaware DOT • Florida DOT • Georgia DOT • Hawaii DOT • Idaho TD • Illinois DOT • Indiana DOT • Iowa DOT • Kansas DOT • Kentucky Transportation Cabinet • Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development APPENDIX B Responses to Questionnaire • Maine DOT • Manitoba Infrastructure & Transportation • Maryland State Highway Administration • Massachusetts DOT • Michigan DOT • Minnesota DOT • Mississippi DOT • Missouri DOT • Montana DOT • Nevada DOT • New Brunswick Department of Transportation & Infrastructure • New Hampshire DOT • New Jersey DOT • New Mexico DOT • New York DOT • North Carolina DOT • North Dakota DOT • North West Territories • Ohio DOT • Oklahoma DOT • Ontario Ministry of Transportation • Oregon DOT • Pennsylvania DOT • Prince Edward Island Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal • Puerto Rico Highway & Transportation Authority • Quebec Ministere des Transports • Saskatchewan Highways & Infrastructure • South Carolina DOT • South Dakota DOT • Tennessee DOT • Texas DOT • Vermont DOT • Virginia DOT • Washington State DOT • West Virginia DOT • Wisconsin DOT 2. Which new construction pavement types are used by your agency? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Thick asphalt (>6.0 in.) over unbound aggregate 80.7 46 Jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP) 77.2 44 Thin asphalt (6.0 in.) over unbound aggregate 71.9 41 Asphalt over cementitious stabilized layers 50.9 29 Asphalt over subgrade/stabilized subgrade 36.8 21 Composite pavements (new asphalt over new concrete) 31.6 18 Continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) 15.8 9 Other1 28.1 16 1Predominant response—chip seal over unbound/bound layer(s). 3. Which preservation, restoration, and/or rehabilitation treatment types are used by your agency? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Asphalt overlay of an existing asphalt-surfaced pavement 94.7 54 Mill and asphalt overlay of an existing asphalt-surfaced pavement 89.5 51 Diamond grinding 77.2 44 Asphalt overlay of an existing concrete-surfaced pavement 73.7 42 Mill and asphalt overlay of an existing composite (asphalt over concrete) pavement 61.4 35 Rubblization with an asphalt overlay 61.4 35 Full-depth reclamation with an asphalt overlay 59.6 34

58 Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Dowel bar retrofit 59.6 34 Cold in-place recycle with an asphalt overlay 50.9 29 Unbonded JPCP concrete overlay 47.4 27 Crack or break and seat with an asphalt overlay 36.8 21 Other1 24.6 14 Hot in-place recycle without an asphalt overlay 19.3 11 Bonded JPCP concrete overlay 17.5 10 Hot in-place recycle with an asphalt overlay 17.5 10 Rubblization with a concrete overlay 15.8 9 Full-depth reclamation without an asphalt overlay 14.0 8 Cold in-place recycle without an asphalt overlay 12.3 7 Unbonded CRCP overlay 10.5 6 Crack or break and seat with a concrete overlay 7.0 4 Bonded CRCP overlay 3.5 2 1Responses included: rubblization, microsurfacing, chip seal and gravel overlays, asphalt overlay and geogrid, ultra-thin bonded asphalt overlay, asphalt rubber open-graded friction course, full- and partial-depth concrete repair, tie bar retrofit, crack sealing, joint resealing. 4. Which pavement design methodology is used by your agency? Answer Options New Construction Rehabilitation Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Concrete AASHTO 1972 7 2 5 1 AASHTO 1986 1 0 2 0 AASHTO 1993 35 23 31 19 AASHTO 1998 Supplement 4 11 4 8 AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ 12 10 10 7 ACPA — 5 — 4 Agency empirical procedure 7 1 9 3 Asphalt Institute 1 — 3 — ME-based design table/catalog 1 3 0 3 Other ME procedure1 8 3 6 2 Other2 5 7 7 8 1Texas CRCP-ME and FPS21, Idaho Winflex, WSDOT Everpave, Dynatest ELMOD, Illinois DOT ME, Kentucky ME, Colorado thin bonded overlay, Alaska flexible ME, CalME, Shell ME, MnPAVE. 21981 revision of AASHTO 1972, Westergaard equation, Caltran’s design methodology, PCA 1984. 5. Does your agency intend on implementing the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ has been implemented 5.3 3 MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ is being evaluation 80.7 46 No 14.0 8 6. You indicated your agency does not plan on implementing the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™, please identify why not? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Current practice is acceptable 8.8 5 Other1 5.3 3 Too costly 5.3 3 Waiting for more agencies to implement 5.3 3

59 Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Limited availability of personnel 1.8 1 Limited support from upper management 1.8 1 Too time consuming 1.8 1 Limited knowledge/experience in mechanistic-empirical design 0.0 0 1Do not agree with much of the modeling, too many bugs, too costly to implement at this time, and pavement performance not accurately predicted for asphalt pavements. 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)? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count New flexible pavement 82.5 47 New JPCP 71.9 41 Asphalt overlay of existing asphalt pavement 70.2 40 Asphalt overlay of existing JPCP 63.2 36 Asphalt overlay of fractured JPCP 50.9 29 Unbonded JPCP overlay of existing JPCP 42.1 24 JPCP overlay of existing asphalt pavement 40.4 23 Asphalt overlay of existing CRCP 29.8 17 Bonded concrete overlay of existing JPCP 26.3 15 New CRCP 24.6 14 Asphalt overlay of fractured CRCP 22.8 13 Unbonded JPCP overlay of existing CRCP 22.8 13 CRCP overlay of existing asphalt pavement 15.8 9 Unbonded CRCP overlay of existing JPCP 15.8 9 Bonded concrete overlay of existing CRCP 14.0 8 Unbonded CRCP overlay of existing CRCP 14.0 8 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?1 22.8 13 1In the process of evaluating the MEPDG, lack of dedicated resources, not all pavement types are used, current practice is acceptable, limited knowledge/experience in ME design, too costly, traffic volumes are not that high, problems with the asphalt rutting model and longitudinal cracking model, issues with longitudinal and alligator cracking or longitudinal cracking for JPCP, poor experience with some design types. 8. If your agency has not yet implemented all or part of the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™, when do you intend on implementing? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Within 1 year 10.5 6 1 to 2 years 15.8 9 2 to 3 years 26.3 15 4 to 5 years 14.0 8 Longer than 5 years 8.8 5 MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ has been implemented 5.3 3 9. Which of the following best describes your organizational structure related to pavement designs? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Centralized—Pavement designs are conducted, reviewed, and approved by the central/headquarters office. 57.9 33 Decentralized—Pavement designs are conducted, reviewed, and approved at the district/regional office. 22.8 13

60 10. Within your department, how effective is coordination across various agency functions? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Consistent coordination across all agency functions (e.g., open discussion and access to data and information). 45.6 26 Limited coordination across all agency functions (e.g., we coordinate, but obtaining data and information can be challenging). 33.3 19 No coordination across all agency functions (e.g., no coordination/interaction). 0 0 Other1 3.5 2 1Review of major project pavement designs by committee, and consistent coordination between some agency functions. 11. What additional work is required to justify implementing a new pavement design procedure (select all that apply)? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Determine benefits over existing procedure 49.1 28 Develop a training plan 43.9 25 Develop an implementation plan 42.1 24 Evaluate applicability to current conditions 36.8 21 Obtain approval from upper management 29.8 17 No additional work is required 19.3 11 Evaluate economic impact 17.5 10 Establish an oversight committee to evaluate/approve the procedure 14.0 8 Obtain buy-in from other agency divisions 8.8 5 Other (please specify) 14.0 8 1Review of major project pavement designs by committee, and consistent coordination between some agency functions. 12. Are your agency definitions for pavement distress similar to those defined in the FHWA Distress Identification Manual for LTPP? Answer Options Do Not Use Yes No Response Count Smoothness (IRI) 2 40 3 45 Asphalt Pavements 1 24 3 28 Longitudinal cracking 7 32 3 42 Alligator cracking 0 36 6 42 Thermal cracking 4 28 8 40 Reflective cracking 6 30 6 42 Rut depth 0 38 5 43 JPCP 2 18 3 23 Transverse cracking 2 35 3 40 Joint faulting 4 33 4 40 CRCP 6 11 2 19 Punchouts 14 15 2 31 13. Is the necessary MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ related data readily available? Answer Options Not Available Difficult to Obtain Readily Available Response Count Existing Structure (type & thickness) 3 13 31 47 Material Properties 4 25 17 46 Traffic 2 16 28 46 Condition Data 4 10 32 46

61 14. Is the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ data available electronically? Answer Options No Division/Section Only Agency-wide Response Count Existing Structure (type & thickness) 15 21 10 46 Material Properties 17 27 2 46 Traffic 10 16 20 46 Condition Data 11 12 23 46 15. What division/section is responsible for developing pavement designs? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Design Office 35.1 20 Materials Office 28.1 16 Maintenance Office 1.8 1 Planning Office 0.0 0 Research Office 0.0 0 Other1 17.5 10 1Pavement management division, district/region office, geotechnical section, materials office, and consultant. 16. Who in your agency conducts the pavement design (select all that apply)? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Licensed Engineer 54.4 31 Engineer 50.9 29 Consultant 42.1 24 Technician 12.3 7 Other1 5.3 3 1Licensed pavement management engineer, and roadway designers. 17. Does your agency require the consultant to use the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Procedure other than AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ is required 28.1 16 AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ is required 3.5 2 No specific procedure is required 10.5 6 18. Are all MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ data inputs made available to the consultant? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count No 19.3 11 Yes 17.5 10 19. Which position approves the recommended pavement design (select all that apply)? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count State Pavement Engineer 38.6 22 District/Region Engineer 24.6 14 State Materials Engineer 14.0 8 State Design Engineer 8.8 5 Planning Director 1.8 1

62 Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Research Director 0.0 0 State Maintenance Engineer 0.0 0 Other1 29.8 17 1Construction engineer, FHWA Division on federal projects, committee approval, Design Director, Assistant Executive Director for Infrastructure, district office, Planning/Engineering Director, Transportation Engineer Specialist, project committee, no formal approval. 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? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Somewhat knowledgeable/experienced (e.g., had been exposed to ME design procedures via webinars, papers/reports, training classes, and conferences) 50.9 29 Very knowledgeable/experienced (e.g., had conducted ME designs) 7.0 4 Limited knowledge/experience (e.g., had heard of it, but was not very familiar with the details of ME design) 5.3 3 No knowledge/experience 0.0 0 Other1 14.0 8 1Still evaluating, no formal designs being conducted, between “somewhat” and “very experienced,” and not currently using MEPDG. 21. What were the deciding factors for implementing the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ (select all that apply)? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Improved characterization of existing pavement layer parameters 57.9 33 Potential cost savings 49.1 28 Evaluation of local materials 49.1 28 Improved reliability in prediction of pavement condition 47.4 27 Ability to model the effects of climate and materials aging 45.6 26 Evaluation of new materials 40.4 23 Evaluation of local traffic conditions 35.1 20 Evaluation of special loading conditions (e.g., dedicated haul road, overload) 31.6 18 Improved link to pavement management 24.6 14 Other1 24.6 14 1Forensic investigations, still evaluating, MEPDG not implemented, no support for DARWin AASHTO 93, utilizing the latest in the “State of the Practice,” improved materials characterization. 22. What activities would aid in the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ implementation effort (select all that apply)? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Training in AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ 61.4 35 Assistance with calibrating models to local conditions 61.4 35 Dedicated MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ website for sharing technical information 59.6 34 Training in interpretation of AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ results 56.1 32 Training for obtaining MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ inputs 54.4 31 Training in ME design principles 49.1 28 Training in how to modify pavement sections to meet design criteria 43.9 25 Establishment of an expert task or user group 42.1 24 Ability to share AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ databases with other agencies 29.8 17 Other1 15.8 9 1Training in how to model non-standard materials, reduced software cost, full confidence in models, a message board for getting advice, and bouncing ideas off of other designers (could be part of design website or user group mentioned above), connecting the Canadian user group with an American user group, training on how to continuously calibrate with pavement materials and pavement management data.

63 23. Is there an MEPDG champion in your agency? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Yes 57.9 33 No 22.8 13 24. Please identify champion’s position within the agency (select all that apply). Answer Options Response Percent Response Count State Pavement Engineer 19.3 11 State Pavement Design Engineer 15.8 9 State Materials Engineer 7.0 4 State Design Engineer 1.8 1 Research Director 0.0 0 District/Region Engineer 0.0 0 Planning Director 0.0 0 State Maintenance Engineer 0.0 0 Other1 24.6 14 1Pavement design committee, State/Pavement Research Engineer/Manager, Design, Materials, and/or Construction Engineer, Pavement Design Coordinator, Pavement Director, Assistant Highway Program Manager, Geotechnical Engineer, Chief Engineer, Pavement Structure Engineer. 25. Does your agency have an oversight/review committee that assists in the implementation process (e.g., determined what/when/ how to implement)? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count No 26 55 Yes 21 45 26. Please identify members of the oversight/review committee. Answer Options Response Percent Response Count State Pavement Design Engineer 68.2 15 State Materials Engineer 54.5 12 State Pavement Engineer 40.9 9 District/Region Engineer 27.3 6 Research Director 22.7 5 Planning Director 4.5 1 State Design Engineer 0.0 0 State Maintenance Engineer 0.0 0 Other1 63.6 14 1Design, Materials, and/or Construction Engineer, Assistant Chief Engineer, Traffic Engineer, FHWA, Geotechnical Engineer, Concrete and Asphalt Engineers, Pavement Management Engineer, Research Engineer/Director/Manager, Field Engineer, Industry, ME Design team (Materials, Pavement, and Geotechnical Engineers), and region/district pavement designers. 27. Prior to adoption or implementation, who was involved in the evaluation of the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ (select all that apply)? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Materials Office 69.6 32 Pavement Design Engineer 63.0 29 Research Office 41.3 19 Pavement Management Engineer 37.0 17

64 Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Design Office 26.1 12 Traffic Office 23.9 11 Planning Office 8.7 4 Construction Office 4.3 2 Maintenance Office 4.3 2 Other1 34.8 16 1Final decision not yet made, MEPDG not implemented yet, Chief Engineer, Rutgers University, Geotechnical Office, Pavement Design Coordinator, traffic, materials and pavements will all be involved in future implementation, and Consultant and Industry representatives. 28. Whose buy-in was required to implement the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ (select all that apply)? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Chief Engineer 55.3 26 State Pavement Engineer 40.4 19 Pavement Design Engineer 36.2 17 State Materials Engineer 29.8 14 State Design Engineer 17.0 8 District/Region Engineer 14.9 7 Pavement Oversight Committee 14.9 7 Pavement Director 12.8 6 Research Director 8.5 4 Legislature 2.1 1 Planning Director 2.1 1 Secretary of Transportation 2.1 1 Transportation Commission 2.1 1 State Maintenance Engineer 0.0 0 Other1 42.6 20 1Director of Technical Services, Geotechnical Engineer, Pavement Management Engineer, Industry, consensus of materials office and pavement section, Deputy Secretary, not implemented or under evaluation, IT, Project Planning Director, Chief Engineer, Operations Director, Commissioner, State Construction and Materials Engineer, and local FHWA Division. 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? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count No 52.5 21 Yes 47.5 19 30. Select additional decisions/efforts required prior to adoption (select all that apply) Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Acceptance/evaluation by the information technology (IT) department 50.0 12 Address industry concerns 45.8 11 Address local agency concerns 4.2 1 Agency vote 0.0 0 Other1 45.8 11 1Rigorous calibration effort, software application for rehabilitation treatments and new construction, expense of license, design inputs (e.g., traffic, materials), how our business processes need to change in order to produce a design (e.g., requesting and delivering traffic inputs and the processes of iterative design—what can be changed, when the design is complete), Treasury Board approval for spending funds, what type of output do we get, is it realistic, and will it get the buy in needed internally and externally, a traffic study, and a study to provide very limited dynamic modulus curves.

65 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. Answer Options Do Not Use All Functional Classes Local Road Collector Minor Arterial Principal Arterial Interstate Response Count All new designs 3 7 2 6 5 9 8 17 Asphalt 1 20 2 7 8 16 15 33 JPCP 1 16 0 5 6 14 14 30 CRCP 13 1 0 1 1 2 2 16 All overlay designs 4 6 0 3 3 5 6 15 Asphalt over Asphalt 1 20 0 2 5 14 15 33 Asphalt over JPCP 3 14 0 2 2 11 11 27 Asphalt over CRCP 10 4 0 1 1 3 3 17 Asphalt over JPCP (fractured) 4 13 0 2 2 7 7 24 Asphalt over CRCP (fractured) 10 2 0 1 1 1 1 13 Bonded PCC/JPCP 8 5 0 0 0 3 3 16 Bonded PCC/CRCP 12 1 0 0 0 1 1 14 JPCP over JPCP (unbonded) 5 6 0 1 1 7 8 19 JPCP over CRCP (unbonded) 10 1 0 0 0 2 3 14 CRCP over JPCP (unbonded) 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 CRCP over CRCP (unbonded) 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 JPCP over Asphalt 2 7 0 1 1 8 6 17 CRCP over Asphalt 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 Restoration 8 1 0 1 1 1 1 10 JPCP restoration 3 9 0 3 4 5 6 17 Other1 13 1Full-depth reclamation. 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. Answer Options Do Not Use Default Value Regional Value Site-specific Value Response Count All traffic 4 4 10 5 18 Vehicle class distribution 0 5 13 16 23 Hourly adjustment factors 1 12 10 3 22 Monthly adjustment factors 0 12 13 4 23 Axles per truck 0 15 9 5 23 Axle configuration 0 18 3 2 23 Lateral wander 1 16 5 1 23 Wheelbase 0 19 2 1 22 All materials 5 1 7 3 12 All asphalt layers 3 2 8 4 15 Mixture volumetrics 0 3 18 6 21 Mechanical properties 0 7 14 5 21 Thermal properties 0 16 4 0 19 Asphalt surface layers only 4 1 4 3 10 Mixture volumetrics 0 3 14 7 18 Mechanical properties 0 7 11 5 18 Thermal properties 0 12 4 0 16 Asphalt base layers only 3 0 4 4 10

66 Answer Options Do Not Use Default Value Regional Value Site-specific Value Response Count Mixture volumetrics 0 4 15 7 19 Mechanical properties 0 9 11 5 19 Thermal properties 0 11 4 0 15 All concrete layers 4 5 8 1 17 Poisson’s ratio 0 17 4 2 20 Unit weight 0 9 13 6 20 Thermal 0 14 4 3 19 Mix 0 4 13 9 19 Strength 0 4 14 8 19 All chemically stabilized layers 8 4 6 1 18 Poisson’s ratio 1 10 2 4 16 Unit weight 1 5 7 4 16 Strength 1 4 9 5 17 Thermal 1 13 0 1 15 All sandwiched granular layers 7 3 7 2 18 Poisson’s ratio 2 11 2 4 17 Unit weight 2 6 9 4 17 Strength 2 6 9 6 17 Thermal properties 2 12 1 2 14 All non-stabilized base layers 4 3 6 4 15 Poisson’s ratio 0 18 3 3 23 Modulus 0 5 16 8 24 Sieve analysis 0 5 17 6 22 All subgrade layers 4 2 5 6 15 Poisson’s ratio 0 19 3 1 22 Modulus 0 5 17 11 24 Sieve analysis 0 8 14 9 23 All bedrock layers 8 6 3 7 22 Poisson’s ratio 2 12 1 3 17 Unit weight 2 11 2 3 17 Strength 2 10 2 4 17 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. Answer Options Do Not Use National Calibration Local Calibration Plans for Local Calibration Response Count All asphalt models 5 8 5 15 27 IRI 0 6 7 11 17 Longitudinal cracking 2 6 1 11 16 Alligator cracking 0 6 5 11 17 Thermal cracking 0 8 1 11 16 Rutting (asphalt layer only) 1 5 4 9 16 Rutting (total) 1 6 4 12 18 Reflective cracking 2 6 3 9 16 All JPCP models 6 8 4 14 26 IRI 0 4 3 7 10 Transverse cracking 0 6 0 7 10 Joint faulting 1 6 0 6 11

67 Answer Options Do Not Use National Calibration Local Calibration Plans for Local Calibration Response Count All CRCP models 17 3 2 4 23 IRI 1 1 0 1 2 Punchouts 1 1 0 1 2 34. Where has your agency focused the implementation effort (select all that apply)? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Materials characterization 81.4 35 Traffic 65.1 28 Local calibration 65.1 28 Training 48.8 21 Performance prediction of existing pavement structure 44.2 19 Identification of existing pavement layers 41.9 18 Climate 23.3 10 Other (please specify)1 11.6 5 1Research project with university to develop implementation plan, and evaluating/have not implemented. 35. Has your agency developed/conducted any of the following (select all that apply)? Answer Options In-house Consultant Academia Response Percent Training materials 9 9 3 17 Traffic library 19 8 6 25 Model validation 9 8 14 25 Implementation plan 15 7 11 27 Agency-specific user manual 8 7 2 13 Materials library 17 7 18 31 Pavement performance library 17 5 3 20 Test sites 14 4 10 22 Concurrent designs 18 1 1 19 Review group/committee 19 1 3 19 Comparison of impact due to differences between agency and LTPP distress definitions 7 4 4 10 Catalog designs 8 1 1 9 Other1 10 1Still under development, differences between distress definitions and those in MEPDG, but impact comparison has not been conducted, and we have only worked on proper translation so that calibration can occur. 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. • Idaho http://itd.idaho.gov/highways/research/archived/reports/RP193Final.pdf • Ontario https://www.raqsa.mto.gov.on.ca/login/raqs.nsf/363a61d9cd2584da85256c1d0073eb7a/67c10c29044dc0a985257af40057 1528/$FILE/Ontario’s%20Default%20Parameters%20for%20AASHTOWare%20Pavement%20ME%20Design%20-%20 Interim%20Report%20(FINAL%20NOV%202012).pdf Traffic information: www.icorridor.org (Login: pavement; Password: Mepdg123) • Indiana http://www.in.gov/dot/div/contracts/standards/ • Quebec http://intranet/documentation/Publications/Banque-publications/DocumentsBPM/rtq10-01.pdf

68 37. What type of MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ training program is available for your agency’s personnel (select all that apply)? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count NHI training 37.0 17 Self-taught 30.4 14 Self-taught with champion or supervisor oversight 30.4 14 Consultant conducted training 28.3 13 None 15.2 7 Agency-developed training program 13.0 6 University developed classes 6.5 3 Other1 26.1 12 1Only one pavement designer in the state, so there is not an agency-wide effort for training, FHWA, decision not yet made, AASHTO webinars, university developed overview class, purchased AASHTO service units for training, MEPDG manuals and AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ software, will be implementing further consultant conducted training, and planning on more formal training course in the future. 38. What, if any, issues have impeded the implementation of the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ (select all that apply)? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Limited time available 67.4 29 Availability of materials data/materials characterization 46.5 20 Availability of pavement performance data 39.5 17 Availability of traffic data 34.9 15 Funding restrictions 32.6 14 Availability of information related to the existing pavement structure 30.2 13 Resistance to change from current procedures 20.9 9 Justification of benefits for implementing more advanced procedure 20.9 9 No designated champion 11.6 5 No issues 7.0 3 Additional issues that have impeded implementation1 32.6 14 1Local calibration, software availability, designs are too thin to be plausible for some cases, limited confidence in distress prediction, changing versions of the software, effort required to implement (viewed as a monumental task), Industry questioning validity of local calibration results, known limitations of the software and its models that haven’t been addressed/fixed to date, time for consultant to finish work, learning curve is long and steep, MEPDG designs require thicker asphalt than our current agency practice, however MEPDG designs require thinner concrete than our current agency practice, and not impeded so much as just taking a measured approach, of which time is a factor. 39. What benefits has your agency accrued due to implementation of the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ (select all that apply)? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Has not yet been quantified 71.8 28 Improved characterization of local materials 15.4 6 Improved confidence in distress prediction 15.4 6 Cost savings 12.8 5 Improved characterization of existing pavement layers 12.8 5 Improved characterization of traffic 12.8 5 More economical designs 10.3 4 Improved reliability of design recommendations 5.1 2 Additional benefits1 23.1 9 1Have not yet implemented, the research work accomplished to date on pavement performance data has allowed us to modify our existing AASHTO Design procedure and assign a structural layer coefficient of 0.54 for asphalt concrete layers, used as a tool to help validate our design tables, good information exchange with other agencies, in-house knowledge about pavements, not convinced implementation is worth the effort; however, working toward it at a slow pace to collect distress.

69 40. Indicate cost savings. Answer Options Response Count Cost Savings $/year 1 $10 M 41. Please provide any challenges or lessons learned during the evaluation and implementation of the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™. • Calibration is very time consuming and run time of software is objectionable. • Do not assume that all of the existing pavement layer/materials properties are readily available from as-built plans and other records to perform local calibration. An agency should confirm this before deciding to move forward with implementation. If the data are not available and the agency wants to locally calibrate, then that agency needs to plan an expensive field sampling/ testing effort. • Challenge in bringing everyone to the table. We have used research projects to do some of the work, but didn’t have the software in hand when that started so some of the work was not productive. • Obtaining reliable pavement condition data. There have been changes over time that have not been consistent. The guide is too complex for most practicing engineers. It will require significant training for our engineers to use with confidence. • The comfort level that the designers have with the AASHTO 1993 Guide and shifting the way of thinking to the way the MEPDG evaluates the design and presents performance outputs. • Significant amounts of work needed to be done for material characterization. • Recommend design tables need to be developed to avoid widely varying inputs and output across all districts, and minimize design variability. • Full implementation across all regions will be difficult due to shrinking workforce, budget cuts, and added effort to conduct training for MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™. Agency will continue evaluating and implementing MEPDG/ME where practical from a headquarters level and particularly use the software as an analysis tool. • Realistic timelines are needed for the calibration/validation process. • Major challenge is lack of resource to do local calibration and training to regional staff. • ME is forcing us to make pavement design a more department-wide effort. This is good from the standpoint that employees (e.g., material experts) who may not have understood how their area impacted pavement designs now see a connection between what they do and the final cross section. A general lack of specific knowledge about the models used in ME can be a hindrance. Use of existing design procedures for a long period has created a feeling of comfort that when confronted with the complexity of ME, there is resistance to change. • Resistance to change from empirical design to AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ by district officers. • Traffic is the most important thing that has to be resolved. Have a buy-in early on from the executive staff. Show the executive staff the benefits. The AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ is not perfect but a lot better than the AASHTO 1993 Guide. Have a committee to oversee the implementation but only the chair of the committee making the final decision. Be open-minded. Do not make the design to the precision of 0.1 in., be realistic. Know well about construction and its limitations. Deal with materials office and geotechnical engineering office early on. • How can we evaluate new materials if the new materials are not locally calibrated? In-place materials rarely have the same properties as design materials. In-place material properties are an unknown. How can we differentiate between total rutting and AC rutting. Do we need to cut a trench? Our condition rating has 30 years of data, will of the department abandon these data to only collect MEPDG data, this is questionable. Our department’s success to date regarding pavement design makes change difficult. We are not comfortable with the risk of thinner pavements. • Seems the program is still evolving. • Pavement management gap in terms of performance predictions, materials, and traffic. The outdated empirical methods were based on serviceability (smoothness). Those designs were never validated in terms of performance. • “Software version changes.” Working with other bureaus (specifically the bureau in which the traffic section resides) has been difficult, simply because of boundaries and unfamiliarity of one with the other, and the work that they do. • Don’t rush the process. We thought we’d be ready several years ago, then backed off. When we finally implement, to some degree anyway (within the next few months, most likely), we’ll feel more assured of what we’re doing. 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)? • We are planning an extensive field sampling/testing effort to provide data for our local calibration effort. We envision using backcalculated moduli values to characterize material stiffness properties instead of laboratory derived values to populate materials libraries. • Need a plan from the get go otherwise efforts are too ad hoc. It’s a large task therefore also recommend an internal working group to tackle all issues (i.e., need reps from materials, traffic, and pavements). • Default axle-load spectra works well for WSDOT. • If you calibrate using local sites, only select sites where very good materials properties, traffic data, climate information, and pavement management data can be readily obtained. • Local calibration of rutting and cracking is important. • Use of committees with appropriate departmental experts helps to arrive at appropriate inputs. Buy-in is improved because they have had a say in the process.

70 • Traffic is such a key component, and has changed significantly from previous design methods, that it requires its own analysis or research project. • This is a pavement design. Be practical. Do not chase to a precision of 0.1 in. layer thickness. • Do it in-house. You and only you know the policies in the department. Don’t outsource the efforts. Local calibration is a plus but should not be the requirement to implement the MEPDG. Eighteen LTPP sections or research sections will not be enough to calibrate the models. To wait to complete the matrices to do the complete local calibration will take years. It is better to do verification/validation of selected pavement sections with good pavement history. Provide training to the pavement engineers, in-house and external. Work together with the pavement associations. • Traffic is such a key component, and has changed so significantly from previous design methods, that it requires its own analysis or research project separate from other types of work such as sensitivity analysis, and materials testing. • Make a plan. Change it as you go. Map out the big picture. Get others involved (regions/districts, other sections, other bureaus, other divisions). Get help. Don’t expect it to be a miracle program and don’t try to design a Swiss watch. It’s still pavement. Trust your instincts and engineering judgment. Don’t expect your traffic (or any other) data to be better now than it was before. 43. What has your agency spent on implementation? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Nothing, besides the cost of the software license 9.8 4 Less than $100,000 31.7 13 $100,000 to $500,000 29.3 12 $500,000 to $1,000,000 19.5 8 $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 4.9 2 More than $2,000,000 4.9 2 44. What has your agency spent on calibration? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Nothing 24.4 10 Less than $100,000 29.3 12 $100,000 to $500,000 31.7 13 $500,000 to $1,000,000 9.8 4 $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 4.9 2 More than $2,000,000 0.0 0 45. What year did the implementation process begin? See response to question 46. 46. What year did you complete or anticipate completing implementation? Agency Begin Implementation Complete Implementation Estimated Years to Implement Alabama 2009 2015 6 Alberta 2008 2017 9 Arizona 2011 2013 2 British Columbia 2006 2015 9 Colorado 2006 2014 8 Connecticut 2010 2015 5 Florida 2006 2009 3 Hawaii 1 2016 — Idaho 2008 2014 6 Indiana 2002 2009 7

71 Agency Begin Implementation Complete Implementation Estimated Years to Implement Iowa 2006 2014 8 Kansas 2012 2014 2 Kentucky 2000 2014 14 Maine 2012 2013 1 Manitoba 2007 2015 8 Maryland 2008 2014 6 Michigan 2011 2014 3 Missouri 2005 2008 3 Nevada 2007 2015 8 New Jersey 1998 2017 19 New Mexico 2008 2013 5 New York 2010 2016 6 North Carolina 2003 2013 10 Ohio 2008 1 — Oklahoma 2004 2016 12 Ontario 2011 2016 5 Oregon 2006 2009 3 Quebec 2008 2020 12 South Carolina 2008 2018 10 Tennessee 2007 2016 9 Vermont 2002 2018 16 Virginia 2007 1 — Wisconsin 2004 2013 9 1No response. 47. Do you have any reports, memos, internal documentation, or other comments you would like to share regarding implementation of the MEPDG/AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™? • Colorado: The bid package for consultant services is available upon request. • Indiana Internal documentations available upon request. • Michigan Evaluation of 1-37A Design Process for New and Rehabilitated JPCP and HMA Pavements, http://www.michigan.gov/ mdot/0,4616,7-151-9622_11045_24249-204916—,00.html. Characterization of Truck Traffic in Michigan for the New Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide, http://www. michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_Research_Report_RC-1537_316196_7.pdf. Quantifying Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Values of Typical Hydraulic Cement Concrete Paving Mixtures, http:// www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_Research_Report_RC1503_228603_7.pdf. Pavement Subgrade MR Design Values for Michigan’s Seasonal Changes, http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151- 9622_11045_24249-221730—,00.html. Backcalculation of Unbound Granular Layer Moduli, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_Research_Report_ RC-1548_363715_7.pdf. • Oregon http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP_RES/Pages/publications.aspx. • South Carolina http://www.clemson.edu/t3s/scdot/pdf/projects/final%20671.pdf. • Wisconsin http://wisdotresearch.wi.gov/whrp.

Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation