Integrated Delivery of SHRP 2 Renewal Research Projects (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.

SHRP 2 Renewal Project R31 Integrated Delivery of SHRP 2 Renewal Research Projects K.L. Smith and D. Peshkin Applied Pavement Technology, Inc. Urbana, Illinois S. Katara and M. Snow Pavia Systems, Inc. Seattle, Washington TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD Washington, D.C. 2015 www.TRB.org

© 2015 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program, which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. This project was managed by James Bryant, Senior Program Officer for SHRP 2 Renewal. The research described herein was performed under SHRP 2 Project R31 by Applied Pavement Technology, Inc. (APTech), with support from Pavia Systems, Inc., Jim Anspach (Cardno TBE), Larry Olson (Olson Engineering, Inc.), and Jeff Rowe (Infrastructure Engineers, Inc.). David Peshkin (APTech) was the principal investigator for the study. He was assisted by APTech engineer Kelly Smith; by Pavia software developers Si Katara and Mike Snow; and by consultants Jim Anspach, Larry Olson, and Jeff Rowe. The authors acknowledge the contributions to this research from Kathryn Zimmerman, Kurt Smith, Linda Pierce, and Todd Hoerner of APTech; Tim Aschenbrener and Ginger McGovern (formerly of APTech); and Joe Mahoney and George White of Pavia. The authors gratefully acknowledge the many individuals from SHRP 2 and the SHRP 2 Renewal project principal investigators (PIs) who assisted in completing expanded summaries for each Renewal project. The authors also gratefully acknowledge several AASHTO subcommittee members (and state department of transportation [DOT] representatives) who provided insights associated with the integrated tool development. These individuals include the following: AASHTO Subcommittee on Construction  Greg Pankow (Indiana DOT)  Brian Egan (Tennessee DOT)  David Ahlvers (Missouri DOT)  Jeff Gower (Oregon DOT) AASHTO Subcommittee on Design  Matthew Vincent (Delaware DOT)  John Riedl (Oregon DOT)  Chris Brakke (Iowa DOT) AASHTO Subcommittees on Maintenance and Asset Management  Chris Christopher (Washington State DOT)  Jon Wilcoxson (Kentucky Transportation Cabinet)  Corey Pope (Utah DOT)  Martin Kidner (Wyoming DOT) AASHTO Subcommittee on Right-of-Way and Utilities  Matt DeLong (Michigan DOT)  Chuck Schmidt (New Hampshire DOT)  Richard Bennett (Virginia DOT)

AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures  Bruce Johnson (Oregon DOT)  Dennis Golabek (Florida DOT)  Ann Rearick (Indiana DOT)  Bob Rusch (Oklahoma DOT) AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials  Bill Hurguy (Arizona DOT)  Bill Bailey (Virginia DOT)  Rick Krider (Kansas DOT)  Georgene Geary (Georgia DOT)  Rick Bradbury (Maine DOT) COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, or FHWA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educational and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this document was a part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this document are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the authors. This material has not been edited by the Transportation Research Board. SPECIAL NOTE: This document IS NOT an official publication of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the National Academies.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C.D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

Contents 1 Executive Summary 1 Introduction 2 Findings 11 Conclusions 12 Recommendations 13 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 13 SHRP 2 Renewal Overview and Background 14 R31 Project Background 15 Project Objectives 15 Project Scope and Approach 17 CHAPTER 2 SHRP 2 Renewal Projects 17 Introduction 17 Renewal Project Reviews 19 Nondestructive Testing 20 Bridges 24 Pavements 30 Utilities and Railroads 31 Project Management/Delivery 35 Renewal Project Tactics 41 CHAPTER 3 Integration of Renewal Projects 41 Overview of Approach 41 Preliminary Integration/Packaging Matrix and Tool Framework/Process 42 Outreach to Stakeholders and Targeted Users 50 Revision of Integration/Packaging Matrix and Tool Framework/Process 64 Case Study Examples 72 Benefits of Integrating Renewal Products 73 Barriers/Challenges to Implementation of Renewal Products 76 CHAPTER 4 Conceptualized Integration Tool 76 Introduction 76 Framework/Model Description 78 Features and Functionality 90 Visualized Applications 93 Benefits of Integration Tool 93 Barriers to Implementation of Integration Tool 94 Recommended Program Format

100 CHAPTER 5 Conclusions and Recommendations 100 Conclusions 101 Recommendations 104 References A-1 APPENDIX A Renewal Project Expanded Summaries B-1 APPENDIX B Integration Tool Development Plan