implementation of darwin – me chris wagner, pe july 26-29, 2010 kansas city, mo
TRANSCRIPT
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
at Auburn University
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
at Auburn University
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
at Auburn University
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
2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri
Presentation Objectives Explain UDOT’s performance
measures for attending TRB annual meeting
2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri
TRB Annual Meeting Attendance
Show leaders a return on travel cost investment
Maximize return on investment on TRB attendance
2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri
Performance Measures Objectives
Costs
2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri
Process Attendees Selection Distribution of Information Pre-TRB Meeting Attendance Submitting List of Selected Ideas for
Implementation
2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri
Attendees Senior Leadership Presenting Papers TRB Committee Members Critical Initiative Technical Experts Invited to Poster Sessions Based on Travel Budget
2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri
Participant Requirement Must bring back at least two ideas Must be Implementable
2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri
TRB Form Presenters Description/Notes Champion/Resources Implementation Plan Schedule Status Accomplishments Cost/Benefit Ratio Savings
2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri
Implementation Present ideas to Senior Leaders Project tracking/status form Provide implementation plan Report implementation progress
2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri
2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri
Rate of Implementation
Ideas Implemented0
50
100
150
200
250
300
TRB Annual Meeting
TRB
2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri
Cost Benefits Show return on the investment Quantifiable Non-quantifiable
2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri
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
2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri
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
2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri
2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri
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
2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri
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
2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri
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
2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri
2010 Research Advisory Committee Meeting Kansas City, Missouri
QUESTIONS?