implementation of darwin – me chris wagner, pe july 26-29, 2010 kansas city, mo

Implementation of Darwin – ME

Chris Wagner, PEJuly 26-29, 2010

Kansas City, MO

Hawaii

Alaska

Does SHA Use or Plan to Use MEPDG?

N0 -12

YES - 40

2007 Survey

Where are we now?

• State implementation activities• Validation Activities• Status of DARWin ME• Planned Activites for DARWin ME

6

Software Capabilities-Import Raw Data

Climate: icm files

Traffic: AHTD Traffic Monitoring Data

7

Software Capabilities-Traffic Data Check

8

Software Capabilities-Materials E*

9

Software Capabilities- Retrieving Data

Very similar tools will be included in DARWin ME

Indiana DOT HMA Materials Characterization

Dynamic Modulus • District - 6• Nom Max Aggregate Size - 3• Binder Type – 3

• Binder Characterization• 3 Binders DSR data

• Traffic Data• WIM Station Data Analyzed• Load Spectra defined by Volume

Sensitivity of Inputs for Concrete

Parameter Roughness Faulting Percent Slabs Cracked

Permanent Curl/Warp Effective Temperature Difference VS VS VS

Joint Spacing VS VS VS

Dowel Bar Diameter MS MS NS

Pavement Thickness S MS VS

Modulus of Rupture S NS VS

Modulus of Elasticity S NS VS

20-year/28-day Ratio S NS VS

Indiana DOT: MEPDG Guide for Designers

What to Change for Design?

Good Calibration and Implementation Document

Montana DOT

http://www.mdt.mt.gov/research/projects/pave/pave_model.shtml

Major Findings:• Preservation Practice Extend Performance• Most models adequate for design• Re-calibrate unbound materials rutting

Continued MEPDG Validation

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

11/9

/20

06

12/9

/20

06

1/8/

200

7

2/7/

200

7

3/9/

200

7

4/8/

200

7

5/8/

200

7

6/7/

200

7

7/7/

200

7

8/6/

200

7

9/5/

200

7

10/5

/20

07

11/4

/20

07

12/4

/20

07

1/3/

200

8

2/2/

200

8

3/3/

200

8

4/2/

200

8

5/2/

200

8

6/1/

200

8

7/1/

200

8

7/31

/20

08

Date

Ru

t De

pth

, mm

0.E

+00

1.E

+06

2.E

+06

3.E

+06

4.E

+06

5.E

+06

6.E

+06

7.E

+06

8.E

+06

ESALs

S11MEPDG

at Auburn University

S11– As Built – Fatigue Cracking

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

4010

/10

/200

6

1/18

/20

07

4/28

/20

07

8/6/

200

7

11/1

4/2

007

2/22

/20

08

6/1/

200

8

9/9/

200

8

12/1

8/2

008

3/28

/20

09

Date

Bot

tom

-Up

Fat

igue

Cra

ckin

g, %

of L

ane

MEPDG

Measured


Continued Validationat Auburn University

What about Polymers?

Strain Response Right Gauge

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5

Time, sec

Long

tidin

al M

icro

stra

inLooking at Strains Directly


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0

Microstrain

Per

cen

tile

Average+15-15N3 2003N4 2003N3 2006N4 2006


Darwin-MEoutput

DARWin ME Sneak Peek

DARWin ME — Improvements

Redesign GUI using .NET 3.5 framework in C#• User configurable screens• Agency defined data libraries• Input control at the central office• Expansion capabilities for new analysis engines• Improved display on large or multiple monitors• Improved error handling stability and error display• Multiple project editing• Handicap accessibility options• Improved reporting (stability, speed and quality)• Utilities for importing previous version files, third party data• Multiple language extensibility

Enterprise Software

Material Property Inputs

Traffic

Error Checking

Multiple Project Edit

Batch Mode

XML File Formats

Integrated Reports

DARWin ME Development Status

MilestonesPercent Complete, Date of Completion

Kick-Off 100%

User Requirements Spec & Review/Approval 100%

Preliminary Design Review 100%

System Requirement Spec & Review/Approval 100%

Requirements Tracebility Matrix 100%

Critical Design Review 100%

Implementation & Integration Process Audit 40%, 7/31/10

Test Readiness Review 80%, 6/15/10

Testing Process Audit 0%, 9/30/10

Software Alpha Test 0%, 8/15/10

Software Beta Test 0%, 10/15/10

Acceptance Test 0%, 11/30/10

Release 0%, 12/31/10

DARWin ME planned activities

• Unveiling Session at 2011 TRB• Roll out webinar• FHWA web training 2011• FHWA On-site training• Traffic Workshops

Indiana DOT Experience

RoadAASHTO 93 Thickness Result

MEPDG Thickness Result

Estimated Contract Saving ($)

Actual Contract Saving ($)

Total Savings ($)

I-465 16”-18’ PCCP 14”-18’ PCCP $1,475,000 I-465 Ramps ( ) 12.5”-18’ PCCP 11”-18’ PCCP $112,000 $1,000,000I-465 Ramps ( 40/Wash. St) 12.5”-18’-PCCP 12.5”-18’PCCP $0 I-80(mainline) 16”-18’-PCCP 14”-18’-PCCP $361,000 $775,170

I-80(Ramp) 12”-18’-PCCP 10.5”-18’-PCCP $520,000

SR 14 15”-HMA 13.5”-HMA $333,000 $155,440US 231 11”-18-PCCP 10”-18’-PCCP $333,000 $0US 231-Ramp 10”-18’-PCCP 9.5”-18’-PCCP $28,000

US 231 15.5”-HMA 13”-HMA $557,000 $0SR 62 16”-HMA 13”-HMA $403,000 $420,548US 231 11”-18’-PCCP 10”-18’-PCCP $178,000 $0 4,300,000

Total Estimated Savings =

$10 Million

EvolutionThe MEPDG is not perfect…..BUT;

The MEPDG provides a reasonable and structured platform for continuous improvement.

TRB Annual Meeting Performance Measure

Utah Department of Transportation

Michael Fazio

2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri

In This Presentation Objectives Process Ideas Implementation Tracking Case Return on the Investments Conclusions


Presentation Objectives Explain UDOT’s performance

measures for attending TRB annual meeting


TRB Annual Meeting Attendance

Show leaders a return on travel cost investment

Maximize return on investment on TRB attendance


Performance Measures Objectives

Costs


Process Attendees Selection Distribution of Information Pre-TRB Meeting Attendance Submitting List of Selected Ideas for

Implementation


Attendees Senior Leadership Presenting Papers TRB Committee Members Critical Initiative Technical Experts Invited to Poster Sessions Based on Travel Budget


Participant Requirement Must bring back at least two ideas Must be Implementable


TRB Form Presenters Description/Notes Champion/Resources Implementation Plan Schedule Status Accomplishments Cost/Benefit Ratio Savings


Implementation Present ideas to Senior Leaders Project tracking/status form Provide implementation plan Report implementation progress


Rate of Implementation

Ideas Implemented0

50

100

150

200

250

300

TRB Annual Meeting

TRB


Cost Benefits Show return on the investment Quantifiable Non-quantifiable


Some Implemented Projects

Cable median barrier SPMT for accelerated bridge construction Real time legal advice for NEPA Automated survey of pavement distress Efficiency in asset management Activity based travel demand model Inclinometer instrumentation for

transportation projects Overlay edge rut MMQA data run off the

road New tools for safety analysis


Example: I-15 Cable Barrier Installation in Utah County

Idea from TRB meeting Presented to Senior Management for

Implementation Installed in area with high accident

rate and mortality rate because of median crossing


I-15 Cable Barrier Installation Statistics

Segment 1 length: 7.51 miles project cost: $1,130,000 service life: 15 years 2002-2004 Cross-over crashes, fatal

and serious injury: 17 2005-2007 Cross-over crashes, fatal

and serious injury: 2


More Statistics Segment 2 length: 10.2 miles project cost: $1,950,000 service life: 15 years 2002-2004 Cross-over crashes, fatal

and serious injury: 18 2005-2007 Cross-over crashes, fatal

and serious injury: 2


Conclusion TRB Annual Meeting is infused with

new ideas and technology ready for implementation

New technologies and ideas presented at TRB can improve DOTs business

Attending DOTs personnel can collect ideas

TRB meeting attendance performance measures can justify the travel costs



QUESTIONS?

implementation of darwin – me chris wagner, pe july 26-29, 2010 kansas city, mo

Documents

traffic slide

output slide

mo slide

volume slide

survey slide

enterprise software

auburn university slide

error checking slide