Transition Plan: Draft
January 2000

APPENDIX D:
CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING LEAD STATE TEAM REVIEW OF SPS 3 AND 4 FINAL REPORTS - 1997

Department of Transportation
State of Georgia
Office of Materials and Research
15 Kennedy Drive
Forest Park, Georgia 30050-2599
October 31, 1997

Mr. Charlie Churilla
FHWA HNR-30
630 Georgetown Pike, Room F215
McLean Virginia 22102-2296

Dear Charlie:

The ASHTO Task Force on SHRP implementation met in St. Louis on September 3-5, 1997, to discuss the Lead States' progress and to focus on the challenges ahead. The Pavement Preservation Team is composed of members from Minnesota, Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, Texas, and industry. The Pavement Preservation Team was given the primary role of implementing the SPS 3 and 4 findings. The purpose of this letter is to relay several things: 1) the need to redirect SPS 3 and 4 efforts; 2) the need for further monitoring and analysis of SPS 3 and 4 sites; and 3) to offer our Team as an expert task group to help you redirect the SPS 3 and 4 efforts.

In June, 1997, the Pavement Preservation Team met in Atlanta, and we each received a copy of the SPS 3 and 4 final reports. At that time, we were unable to determine the validity and usefulness of these two studies. Further private evaluation of these reports did not enhance our understanding. Thus, it became obvious that the Team needed to meet with the Principle investigator (Nichols Engineering), which was done on September 3 in St. Louis.

After several hours of discussion between the Team and Nichols, there was consensus that we could not use the SPS 3 and 4 studies for formulating a comprehensive Pavement Preservation Program. The Team found the studies to contain excessive variability; to be structured/designed improperly for valid research; and that defensible, valid conclusions were not presented in these reports. The bottom line for our Team was that we cannot use the SPS 3 and 4 results for our implementation efforts. We will, however, use individual state research results to help fashion a Pavement Preservation Program for implementation by our Team. We do want to quickly-point out, Charlie, that value can still be gained with some redirection of the SPS 3 and 4 studies. Thus, I will volunteer our Team to serve as an expert task group to work with you to help in the restructuring of SPS 3 and 4. This means there will have to be further monitoring and analysis of SPS 3 and 4 test sites.

Some of the issues we believe are essential in order to develop usable practical and implementable results from SPS 3 and 4 are:

1. Pavement preservation treatments have to be considered for specific distress types in order to determine "WHAT" treatment is appropriate for each distress type. Presently test studies tend to homogenize the distress types and this results in weak data and tremendous data variability.
2. The optimum timing for treatment placement needs to be clearly determined -- to answer the "WHEN" issues.
3. There is a need to assure that the control sections and treatment sections were originally in the same condition (if not, the sites may have to be eliminated from the study).
4. A clear evaluation of cost benefit for each treatment type is required. The benefits have to be based upon the treatment's enhancement to pavement performance. whether ride, friction, distress, or life, the benefits cannot be based upon the treatment's performance.
5. Continued evaluation of the SPS 3 and 4 sites is necessary to gain additional data for a more valid evaluation of the performance of the treatment.

Both B.F. Templeton and Byron Lord encouraged the various teams to be willing to report negative findings. The SPS 3 and 4 findings to date are negative; however, we believe the entire effort can be redirected and significant, reliable findings can result. Again, I offer our Team's assistance and eagerly look forward to working with you for the sake of making the SHRP effort as profitable as possible.

Yours very truly,
Wouter Gulden, Coordinator
Pavement Preservation Team

Back to Table of Contents