Development of the Geoconstruction Information and Technology Selection Guidance System (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.

13 C h a p t e r 3 The vision for the final system was initially outlined in a pre- liminary report for this project, the SHRP 2 R02 Phase 1 report, which presented a proposed work plan. The work plan was implemented as part of Phase 2 of the R02 project. A readily accessible and readily usable tool for users will over- come many implementation obstacles and promote more widespread use of soil improvement technologies to achieve the SHRP 2 Renewal objectives. The details from the Phase 2 work plan are included in the following paragraphs. The HTML system will provide “one-stop shopping” for DOT engineers and others to use in selecting, designing, and specifying soil improvement technologies. To operate the over- all system, a designer will begin using the technology guidance system by inputting descriptive information about a particular project under consideration, including the nature of the pro- posed construction, project size, subsurface conditions, perfor- mance expectations, and the like. The guidance system will suggest one or more soil improvement technologies that are applicable to the particular circumstances of the project, and eliminate other technologies that are not applicable. Next, the designer will be able to click on links to learn more about the recommended technologies. This will include descriptive material, summaries of case histories, Phase 1 detailed technol- ogy assessments, categorized reference lists, abstracts of refer- ences, and direct access to public domain references embedded within the system. Next, the designer will be able to link directly to design procedures, which will also reside within the overall system. Information and guidance about relevant quality con- trol and quality assurance (QC/QA) procedures for construc- tion will be provided. The designer will also be able to access the cost estimating system for developing preliminary cost esti- mates and comparisons. Finally, guide specifications will be provided in a two-column format, with guide specifications in one column and commentary in the other. By bringing together in one convenient and comprehen- sive system all the information needed to select, design, spec- ify, and monitor soil improvement technologies, this system will provide department of transportations (DOTs) and their consultants with the information and tools needed to apply these technologies to achieve SHRP 2 Renewal objectives. The development of the system has been a continuous cycle of developing, reviewing, revising, and evaluating the revisions. During the first review of the system by the research team and advisory board, mandates for the information and guidance system were established, stating that the system should be the following: • Simple • Functional • Completely populated • Easy to guide the user to a short list of potential, unranked technologies (selection system) • Easy to update technology-specific information • Updatable to add additional technologies Developing the framework for the information and guid- ance system required planning and defining the system scope, overall system characteristics, the user, the operating system, and the approach to the selection system. The system developed was termed an information and guidance system. Other system names, such as a decision sup- port system, were considered, but the term information and guidance system was selected as the best descriptor. The sys- tem is meant to guide the user in selecting an appropriate geoconstruction technology for the project at hand and then provide all the technology-specific information such that a project-specific determination can be completed. This system provides tools for project-specific engineering. The system was developed with the intent that both non- technical and technical personnel would use it, albeit at differ- ent levels. In particular, the system was developed with the goal of being beneficial to state transportation agency (STA) personnel, including senior officials, planners, all branches of civil engineers, and geologists. In the technology fact sheets System Development

14 and in the first few steps of the selection assistance proce- dure, technical terms were intentionally avoided to allow nontechnical users to investigate potential geoconstruction technologies for different types of transportation applica- tions. As the system progresses, an increasing amount of sub- surface and technical knowledge is required to refine the list of potential technologies. All users should acknowledge that an expert system deals with subject matter of realistic complex- ity that normally requires a considerable amount of human experience (Jackson, 1999). Summary of System Development The information and guidance system was in development for approximately 2 years. Another 1 to 2 years of additional refinement are anticipated in the beta testing portion of the project, which is referred to as the preimplementation phase. A constant cycle of review, commenting, and revision was interwoven with every task to develop a usable, quality prod- uct. The Shewhart cycle (Naik and Tripathy, 2008), illustrated in Figure 3.1, indicates the continuous cycle of development for the information and guidance system: Plan includes estab- lishment of system objectives and outlining the process to deliver results; Do is the implementation of the plan; Check assesses system results and obtains decision-maker input; and Act involves identification of changes and revisions required to improve the system. The information and guidance system began with a simple outline and each review cycle yielded revisions, deletions, and additions to the system. A chronological summary of the devel- opment of the information and guidance system follows. Timeline of System Development October 2009: Project Team and Advisory Board Meeting The top two goals are (1) for the system to be functional by the end of the project and (2) for all the branches of the sys- tem to be populated with information. The development of a system that works and is well populated for the included tech- nologies is more important than developing a complex and sophisticated system. The selection system should be trans- parent in the sense that it should show which technologies are removed from the recommended list as soon as each piece of project data is entered. Spring 2010: System Revision The literature review confirmed the need for an automated system for geoconstruction technologies as envisioned. The initial version of the selection system was drafted in hard copy form using flowcharts and accompanying tables. April 2010: Project Team Meeting The next iteration for the vision of the information and guid- ance system was presented to the project team. The overall system characteristics, the user, the knowledge, the operating system, and the approach to the system were finalized. Summer 2010: System Revision The selection system continued refinement in hard copy form using flowcharts and accompanying tables. The need for a glossary became evident as many team members had differ- ent opinions on some of the terminology used throughout the system. The options for developing the automated system were explored. August–September 2010: Reviews Reviews included the geotechnical group with the FHWA and project team for review of the selection system. The main outcomes of these reviews are: • Clarification of queries in the selection system • Refinement of applicable technologies throughout the selection system • Revision of terminology used throughout the information and guidance system • Confirmation that the selection system was a viable product Fall 2010: System Revision The system structure and programming for the automated information and guidance system were initiated in September 2010. The page layout, functionality, and interrelation of the website pages were determined. The structure of the database was established. Revision of the selection system flowcharts and tables was completed. The products to be available through the system were developed from the project documents. The Figure 3.1. Shewhart cycle. Source: Naik and Tripathy, 2008. PLAN DOCHECK ACT

15 cost information for each technology will be available through a downloadable product in the system. Example products were prepared for three technologies. October 2010: Minnesota DOT Workshop A half-day workshop was held on October 4, 2010, in Maple- wood, Minnesota. The workshop was attended by 12 geotech- nical and pavement engineers of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and included one advisory board member. Mr. Ryan Berg conducted the workshop. The motivation for this workshop was to obtain early user input during the initial stages of the information and guidance sys- tem development. MnDOT is considered to be progressive and well experienced in the use of ground improvement technologies. The first portion of the workshop was a walk-through of the guidance system selection logic and products/tools that will be available on the website. Handouts were used to intro- duce the system. The last portion of the workshop was an open discussion on features and benefits of the website prod- ucts and tools, features and benefits of the guidance logic, and any additional items raised by attendees. The main outcomes of this workshop are as follows: • A comprehensive website of tools for engineering with ground improvement methods was enthusiastically received. • The selection logic for engineering with ground improve- ment methods was well received. Some concerns raised were: 44 Will the selection process try to go too far? It cannot take out the local, project-specific engineering that is required with such projects. 44 Can the system be misused? Specifically, can district engi- neers (nongeotechnical) use the system to arrive at a ground improvement method on a project, and bypass consultation or coordination with central office geo- technical group? If so, this could be technically problem- atic and lead to performance problems or even failures. 44 The selection portion should clearly warn nongeotech- nical or nonpavement users from going too far (i.e., project-specific selection should not be completed with- out geotechnical engineering input). • The case history summaries were enthusiastically received. MnDOT has recently initiated a similar project summary concept. The R02 format and content were compared to the MnDOT format and content, and found to be practi- cally identical. • MnDOT recommended that their agency logo be added to any case histories from MnDOT work, and they welcome recognition of their work. November 2010: Project Team and Advisory Board Meeting The research project team and advisory board were provided the selection system in flowchart and table format before the meeting and asked to bring comments to the meeting. The web-based system was presented on November 8, 2010. This represented the initial unveiling of the web-based system. After an introduction to the website, the example products for the three technologies were discussed. An emphasis was placed on the products being the ultimate deliverable, and not the working documents developed during the detailed technology review. A considerable amount of time was devoted to review of the selection system and applicable technologies. The flowcharts and tables reviewed at this meeting are not included to avoid any confusion with the final flowcharts and tables discussed in Chapter 5, which details the interactive selection system. The main outcomes of these reviews are summarized as follows: • Refinement of the selection system. • The need for a project-specific selection system for con- struction over unstable soils to further refine applicable technologies. A series of dropdown menus were envisioned to facilitate the detailed selection process. • Cost spreadsheets should be provided for each technology, and not just a cost summary document. • The system must be fully populated prior to public release. • The system must be tested before release. • A mechanism to capture comments from users must be included. Winter 2010: System Revision The development of the automated information and guid- ance system continued based upon the input from the project team and advisory board November meeting. Revision of the selection system flowcharts and tables was completed. A project-specific selection system was scoped to add to the selection system. The products to be available through the system were developed for additional technologies. Cost- estimating spreadsheets were linked through the cost infor- mation products. January 2011: TRB Workshop A workshop was held on January 23, 2011, in Washington, D.C. This workshop provided the first public viewing of the system. Attendees were from industry, academia, state health agencies (SHAs), and federal agencies. The workshop included a preview of the information and guidance system, as well as three example projects of how the system could be used.

16 Five members of the project team led the various parts of the workshop. The main outcomes of this workshop are outlined as follows: • Confirmation that the selection system was a viable product. • Refinement of the selection system. • Refinement of the project-specific selection system. • Technology ratings of contribution to SHRP 2 Renewal objectives and degree of technology establishment should be in the system. • Improve the documentation and output of the selection system. • Cost spreadsheets should be provided for each technology, and not just a cost summary document. Spring 2011: System Revision The information and guidance system was revised based on the latest comments. Text on the website was reviewed and refined. A stand-alone column selection tool for column-supported embankments was drafted and added to the website. As of the date of this draft report, the column selection tool for column- supported embankments remains a work-in-progress. April 2011, Ottawa, Canada: Presentation A presentation to the Soils and Materials Standing Commit- tee of the Transportation Association of Canada was made on April 17, 2011, in Ottawa, Ontario. The workshop was attended by approximately three dozen committee members and guests. Dr. James Bryant and Mr. Ryan Berg made pre- sentations. Dr. Bryant’s slide presentation was an update on the SHRP 2 Renewal program, and highlighted items of inter- est to this committee. This included construction QC, condi- tion assessments tools, and long life pavements. Mr. Berg then made a two-part presentation. The first part was a slide pre- sentation, with handout notes, on the R02 Geotechnical Solu- tions for Transportation Infrastructure project. This included project elements, project vision, project team, technologies addressed, and goal of the information and guidance system/ website. The second part of the presentation was an inter- active demonstration of the Geotechnical Solutions for Trans- portation Infrastructure website. The motivation for this workshop was to spur international technology transfer. This is particularly important in ground improvement technologies, where historically many new technologies have been devel- oped outside of the United States. The main outcomes and feedback of this workshop are summarized as follows: • A comprehensive website of tools for engineering with ground improvement methods was enthusiastically received. • The case history summaries were well received. • Response to question regarding case histories: Case histo- ries would be accepted from outside the United States. • Response to question on how new technologies could be added: No new technologies are being added at this stage of the project. However, addition of technologies is antici- pated with website use, and the current project will docu- ment a systematic methodology for evaluating and adding a technology. April 2011: Louisiana Workshop A half-day workshop was held on April 14, 2011, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The workshop was attended by 20 engineers from the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Devel- opment (DOTD), the Louisiana Transportation Research Cen- ter (LTRC), Louisiana State University (LSU), and the FHWA. Mr. Caleb Douglas and Dr. Vern Schaefer conducted the work- shop. The motivation for this workshop was to obtain user input during system development and then implement changes, revisions, and additions to the system resulting from the user input during final project development. The first portion of the workshop was introducing the system. The last portion of the workshop was allowing all 20 users to access the web-based system live. The system remained stable during the workshop and no occurrences of a slow site were observed. The main outcomes of this workshop are outlined as follows: • Completely populate the downloadable products for each technology. • Enable the user to back up a step during the technology selection process. • Clearly describe process for determining the rating factors. • Provide a smoother transition after completion of selec- tion system to accessible list of potential technologies. • Complete a quality check of live system considering poten- tial technologies. • Bring time of construction into the interactive selection system. • Where possible, allow users the option to download Excel or Word files. Summer 2011: System Revision The major improvements to the system included refinement of the output from the selection system. New windows and ability to generate a PDF file were added. The text was refined and pages were visually enhanced. The selection system was revised in response to the latest comments. Programming for the col- umn selection tool for column-supported embankments was added to the website. At this point, the “information and guid- ance system” terminology for the entire website was revised to the “web-based information and guidance system.”

17 July–September 2011: Alpha Testing and System Revision The project team conducted alpha testing of the web-based information and guidance system. Project team meetings were held at Iowa State University and at Virginia Polytechnic Insti- tute and State University (Virginia Tech). The comments from the testing were incorporated into the system. Alpha testing was completed in preparation of submitting the beta version to the project sponsor for review. The three main objectives of the development team were met during alpha testing. • The system remained stable during testing with multiple users accessing the site simultaneously. • Only minor issues with a wide range of wide browsers were identified and all of those issues have been corrected. • The comments received for the interactive selection system were cosmetic in nature and no structural improvements to the system were suggested. programming Programming the information and guidance system into a usable, stable website began in September 2010. Over the course of the year of development, all facets of the informa- tion and guidance system were also being revised. As the automated system was tested by the project team, further sug- gestions were implemented to increase the usability of the system. The structure of the information and guidance sys- tem is best described through a series of tables and figures. An overview of programming the website follows. An individual, off-the-shelf shell software program for devel- oping a knowledge-based system was not used. The website uses the following combination software: Adobe ColdFusion, JavaScript, and Microsoft Access. The website platform was developed using Adobe Cold- Fusion. The programs are written in the ColdFusion Markup Language (CFML). This particular programming language offered the versatility to complete dynamic websites that query databases. The JavaScript programming language provided interactive site content and allowed for live page updates based on user actions. The knowledge to complete both dynamically developed web pages and the interactive selection system were contained in a Microsoft Access database. The filename extensions found in the program files are shown in Table 3.1. The free, open-source JavaScript library called jQuery was used to simplify the program’s JavaScript coding in some instances, extend its capabilities, and, as much as possible, ensure cross-browser compatibility. Each web page, along with the associated database table if the web page interacts with the database, is summarized in Table 3.2. The program directory tree is presented in Table 3.3. Interactive Selection System The interactive selection system was established from the flowcharts and tables developed to define the system and was coded as a nested “if . . . then” statement, with each selection by the user querying a column in the database. As subsequent selections are made by the user, additional columns are que- ried in the database. The list of potential technologies is deter- mined by the technology(s) that satisfy all of the inputs selected by the user. Figure 3.2 provides a conceptual view of sorting technolo- gies in the interactive selection system. Like most geotechnical analytical solutions, the results of the analysis must be measured against the opinion of an experi- enced geotechnical engineer practicing in the local area of the project. Although this section is titled “Approach to the Selec- tion System,” the following discussion also presents the approach to minimizing uncertainty or error in the system. Most of the uncertainty in the system can be attributed to either imperfect domain knowledge or imperfect case data (Jackson, 1999). In maintaining the “keep the system simple” mandate from the advisory board, fuzzy logic and probability theory were not used in the development of the interactive selection sys- tem. The system developed for this project was addressed using two approaches. The first approach is that the system conservatively removes potential technologies during the pro- cess. The second approach is a common theme throughout the selection procedure—that is, the final selection of an appropriate technology will be the responsibility of the user. The system will lead the user to multiple technologies and provide the means for technology introduction, design, and cost estimating. The research team wants to emphasize that this system does not replace the project geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer’s “engineering judgment” should be the final selection process, which takes into consideration the following: construction cost, maintenance cost, design and QC issues, performance and safety (pavement smoothness; hazards caused by maintenance operations; potential failures), inconvenience (a tangible factor, especially for heavily traveled roadways or long detours); environmental aspects, and aes- thetic aspects (appearance of completed work with respect to its surroundings) (Johnson, 1975; Holtz, 1989). Table 3.1. File Name Extensions Extension Description .cfm ColdFusion markup language file .cfc ColdFusion component file .js JavaScript file .mdb Microsoft Access database

18 Table 3.3. Program Directory Tree Folders Subfolders Level 1 Subfolders Level 2 documents ratingdocs SHRP 2R02_reports images includes js login selection_app techclassification techselect breadcrumbs projectspecific selection_includes selectionsummary styles submittechinfo Documents tech_display CSEselectiontool techcatalog Table 3.2. Web Page, Programming, and Associated Database Summary Web Page Name Associated Programming Reference Associated Database Table Log In (to gain access to this site) login/login_form.cfm tblUsers Home index.cfm SHRP 2 R02 Project Background background.cfm Technology Source Documents catalogdocs.cfm source_docs Geotechnical Design Process geodesign_steps.cfm Catalog of Technologies techcatalog/index.cfm techdisplay Catalog of Technologies (with ratings) techcatalog/withratings.cfm techdisplay Technology Information tech_display/technology.cfm techdisplay techdisplay_casehistory Technology Selection System Disclaimer selection_app/disclaimer_techselect.cfm Technology Selection selection_app/index.cfm Technologies by Classification selection_app/techclassification/ techclassification Interactive Selection System selection_app/techselect/ techselect Interactive Selection System: Project-Specific Technology Selection for Construction over Unstable Soils selection_app/techselect/ projectspecific/index.cfm techadvanced_unstable Glossary glossary.cfm Abbreviations abbreviations.cfm Frequently Asked Questions faq.cfm Links links.cfm Submit a Comment comment.cfm tblcomments Submit Technology-Specific Information submittechinfo/ submitttechinfo filetype About this Website about.cfm

19 Qu er y 1 List of Potential Technically Feasible Technologies If Then Technology Technology ... Database Column Qu er y 2 List of Potential Technically Feasible Technologies If ThenTechnology Technology ... Database Column and Query 1 Query 2 Technology Technology ... Database Column Query 1 Technology Technology ... Database Column Qu er y 3 List of Potential Technically Feasible Technologies If ThenTechnology Technology ... Database Column and Query 1 Query 2 Technology Technology ... Database Column and Query 3 Technology Technology ... Database Column List ofPotential Technically Feasible Technologies If ThenTechnology Technology ... Database Column and Query 1 Query 2 Technology Technology ... Database Column and Query 3 Technology Technology ... Database Column … and Query ...n Qu er y . . . n Figure 3.2. Conceptual of database sorting during interactive selection system.