Joint Technical Committee on Pavements and DARWin-ME

1. Joint Technical Committee on Pavements and DARWin-ME Presentation to Subcommittee on Design: July 2010 Judith Corley-Lay

2. Presentation Outline • Report on DARWin-ME project. • Report on Recent Meeting of JTCOP and follow-up activities. • Research Needs Statements from JTCOP and request for support from SCOD. • Issues for consideration by SCOD. 2

3. Part 1: DARWin-ME

4. DARWin-ME Task Force • Purpose of DARWin-ME: software implementation of MEPDG research project (NCHRP 1-37). • Development as a sole source contract to ARA. • Short time line: software to be delivered in December 2010.

5. DARWin-ME Enhancements • Increase computational speed • Optimize for thickness design • Inclusion of backcalculation results for rehab design • Agency specific libraries (materials, traffic, climate)

6. Enhancements (continued) • SI Units capability • Third party traffic data • Traffic analysis based on Highway Capacity Manual • Validation checks during data input

7. Current Project Status • Received commitments from 20 member agencies and the FHWA. • Appointed new DARWin-ME Task Force – February 2009 consisting of nine members from participating states + FHWA. • Meetings in summer 2009, Nov. 2009, Feb 2010, May 2010.

8. Role of Task Force • Assist AASHTO Program Manager (Ms. Vicki Schofield) monitoring development of v2.0 • Review and test beta software • Recommend licensing fee structure to AASHTO (recommendations have been submitted to AASHTO for approval) • Plan for future versions of DARWin-ME

9. DARWin-ME Task Force Members • Judy Corley-Lay (Chair), North Carolina • Marta Juhasz, Alberta, Canada • Jay Goldbaum, Colorado • Dave Andrewski, Indiana • William F. Barstis, Mississippi • J.F. Bledsoe, Missouri • Julian Bendana, New York • Madgy Mikhail, Texas • Trenton Clark, Virginia

10. Alabama California Colorado Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Maine Maryland Mississippi Missouri New Mexico New York North Carolina Oklahoma Pennsylvania Texas Virginia Wyoming Alberta, Canada Participating Agencies +FHWA

11. Going on in 2010 • Alpha testing by ARA. • Beta testing by Alberta (SI version), Missouri and Indiana (US customary). • Release in December 2010 • TRB workshop introducing DARWin-ME in January 2011.

12. Upon Release of DARWin-ME v 2.0 • Member agency licensees who participated in the solicitation may obtain source code. • Agreements with AASHTO will apply. • Allows for state enhancement that will be shared with AASHTO. • AASHTO Joint Technical Committee on Pavement intends to maintain one official version of software.

13. Significant Challenges: • Avoiding scope creep as great new ideas are suggested. • Holding to the calendar. • This is complicated software and development has been “up and down.” • Maintaining state interest in purchasing licenses.

14. Part 2: JTCOP Update Meeting May 2010 Kansas City, Kansas

15. May 2010 JTCOP Meeting • Technical presentations from Katie Zimmerman on update to the Pavement Management Guide, Bob Lytton on the NCHRP project on Reflection Cracking, and by Jag Mallela on DARWin-ME. Discussion following each presentation and follow-up in technical group meetings. 15

16. JTCOP meeting (continued) • Technical group meetings in areas of Design and Analysis, Pavement Management Systems, and Sustainability and Surface Characteristics. Also have a group on Low Volume and Local Roads. Groups develop research needs statements, webinars, and handle document reviews.

17. JTCOP meeting (continued) • Key issues for state agencies: funding, funding, funding. • Also MEPDG implementation. • Project type selection and “head to head” bidding of flexible and rigid pavement designs. • Ability to attend meetings. Effort to fill vacancies.

18. JTCOP meeting (continued) • Next meeting: May 2011 Rochester, NY • 2012 meeting: proposed for Kentucky. • Plan for quarterly telephone conference calls and a pre-meeting webinar for FHWA presentations.

19. Part 3: Research Needs Statements We need your support.

20. Calibrated, Mechanistic-Based Models for Top Down Cracking in HMA • NCHRP Project 01-42A developed a viscoelastic continuum damage based crack initiation model and a fracture mechanics based propagation model. These and other models need to be evaluated and performance models developed to allow incorporation into MEPDG.

21. Impact of Funding Levels on Pavement Management Strategies • This project will consider how to evaluate impacts of reduced funding availability on roadway system condition. • It will also address the evaluation of selection of low-cost but short lived treatments due to budget shortfalls on long-term pavement performance.

22. Characterizing Slab/Base Friction for Improved Concrete Pavement Designs • Input to MEPDG that significantly impacts stress levels within concrete pavement section. • This research is jointly proposed with TRB committee on Rigid Pavement Design and supports the Concrete Roadmap.

23. Regional Pavement Catalogs For Low Volume and Local Roads • Some states provide low volume or local road pavement designs, but most do not. However, many local agencies say “design must meet state standards.” • Project is to provide a catalog approach that a state could use to address these roads that are not in the MEPDG design guide.

24. RNS Priorities • Three problem statements scored within a three point range: Concrete Base Friction, Top Down Cracking, and PMS with Limited Funds. Concrete Base Friction and PMS with limited funds tied for #1. • The local roads project scored lower, which indicates that most of the states who voted do not handle local road designs. This remains a significant need.

25. Part 4: Issues and Topics of Interest.

26. Maintaining Balance as A Joint Technical Committee • We have representatives from both the Subcommittee on Design and the Subcommittee on Materials. The Subcommittee on Materials has “made moves” to move us under their sphere. • JTCOP voted in May 2009 to remain under SCOD as our primary affiliation.

27. Pavement Intersects Many AASHTO Groups. • We intend to proactively communicate with all of them: Maintenance, Materials, Construction, Design, Asset Management, etc. • We understand that there is no plan to add pavement as a Subcommittee so will work within the system.

28. Key Issue to JTCOP • Matching our goals and efforts and having them supported by SCOD. Your goals and interests are more involved in Geometrics, Green book design, plan preparation and project delivery. • JTCOP has interest in pavement design and analysis, pavement management systems, local and low volume roads, and sustainability and surface characteristics.

29. Alignment with SCOD • Despite the differences, the documents that JTCOP reviews and controls are closer to the type for which SCOD is responsible than to those with which SCOM deals. • We would like this alignment to be stable without annual “reconsideration”.

30. Future Needs and Ideas • Improved and ongoing communication so that issues are dealt with promptly and directly. • Since research needs now will come through SCOD, consideration is needed to assure that pavements are represented.

31. One Suggestion… • Modification of SCODs Strategic Plan to make a placeholder where pavement can report progress and action. Our reports on activities now only roughly fit into SCODs plan.

32. On a final note… • I sent letters to every state agency for regions having a vacancy on JTCOP and was able to fill vacancies in Region 4. • Region 1 has had vacancies for several years. I hope that SCOD members in Region 1 will encourage nomination and participation.

33. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss work in the pavements area. Questions? My contact information: jlay@ncdot.gov