Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:


Pages 23-37

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 23...
... 23   3.1 Introduction This chapter presents current practices used by state DOTs to evaluate product performance through established state DOT PEPs. To collect the most up-to-date information on the evaluation processes used by state DOTs, a web-based national survey was distributed to the members of the NTPEP Technical Service Program and the AASHTO COMP, which includes representatives from all 50 state DOTs and the Washington, DC, DOT.
From page 24...
... 24 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes 2 15 16 27 38 39 0 10 20 30 40 50 Other Rely on evaluations from other transportation agencies Informal agency product evaluations Formal agency PEP Using A/QPL Use of AASHTO's National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP) Number of DOT responses Figure 7.
From page 25...
... State of Practice Survey 25   Yes, 38% No, 62% Figure 9. Dedicated full-time staff for PEPs (n 5 42)
From page 26...
... 26 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes The survey respondents were asked to identify the benefits of implementing a state DOT PEP. Figure 12 summarizes the results of this question.
From page 27...
... State of Practice Survey 27   respondents stated that they have relied on product evaluation from third parties (19 DOTs, 45%) , other transportation agencies (18 DOTs, 43%)
From page 28...
... 28 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes inspection staff to evaluate their products. The Illinois and Maryland DOTs have used third-party SMEs to evaluate their products.
From page 29...
... State of Practice Survey 29   The survey respondents were asked to identify and explain whether their agencies have specific product evaluation policies. Approximately three-fourths of the DOT respondents have policies in place to evaluate their products.
From page 30...
... 30 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes members of interest feel it is potentially beneficial, it goes on the list with the name of the [Department] evaluator to be contacted when/if it is used.
From page 31...
... State of Practice Survey 31   Yes, 76% No, 24% Figure 20. Approaches to evaluating innovative products (n 5 42)
From page 32...
... 32 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes • Drainage (31 DOTs, 74%) , • Adhesives (31 DOTs, 74%)
From page 33...
... State of Practice Survey 33   The survey respondents were asked whether their agencies have an APL or QPL, and 41 DOT respondents (98%) indicated that they do have an APL or QPL in place.
From page 34...
... 34 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes 3.5 Product Evaluation Resources Most state DOTs (41 out of 42 DOT responses, 98%) have used the AASHTO NTPEP (see Figure 25)
From page 35...
... State of Practice Survey 35   33.3% 38.1% 47.6% 71.4% 81.0% 0 5 10 15 20 AASHTO product evaluations DOT product evaluations State-patented products State proprietary products Links to state resources/agency product lists and/or procedures Number of DOT responses Figure 28. Components of AASHTO UP3 (n 5 21)
From page 36...
... 36 State DOT Product Evaluation Processes Additionally, the UP3 components related to AASHTO product evaluations are used by seven DOTs (33%) out of 21 respondents, and the components related to state DOT product evaluations are used by eight DOTs (38%)
From page 37...
... State of Practice Survey 37   their products; 36 DOTs have used laboratory testing; 32 DOTs have used field testing; and 23 DOTs have used pilot testing. Most of the 42 DOT respondents allowed the product manufacturers and representatives to submit an application for product evaluation.

Key Terms



This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.