Complete Workshop Proceedings

Superpave Technology Implementation

1.0 Superpave Lead States Team. The Superpave Lead States Team as established in 1996, includes representatives from six AASHTO member departments, and additional representatives from the Federal Highway Administration and industry. The participating member departments are New York, Utah, Maryland, Florida, Indiana and Texas. A guest representative from Illinois DOT also participated in the workshop. A complete listing of participants appears in Appendix 5.

2.0 Overview of Meeting Focus

• Review of central focus of meeting - a central priority for working on a transition plan - moving Superpave into the mainstream. A draft of plan has been completed and distributed. Transition plan final version is targeted for 1/30/2000, due to SHRP Implementation Task Force. (Don't use term "sunset" plan.)
• Transition plan will be published by AAHSTO. This is 1st priority. Also need to look at new goals. Lesson learned: these will be very useful for new Technology Task Force? Being formed. (Need a writer for this section). Finally need to put together a budget.

3.0 Close-out Report

• Uncompleted Goals: Action Items
• New Goal and Action Items (if needed) or recommendations on how to handle)
• Transition Plan Outline/Time line
• Resources Needed

4.0 Lessons Learned in the Lead States Program Effort. What has Superpave Lead State Team and supporters done that has attribute to the team success? Keys to success? How did we sell it? How did we help others? How did we make it work? If we did it over again what would we do different?

Utah DOT (Wade Betenson and Cameron Peterson) will take the following items and convert to a narrative for the transition plan. (Positive and negative aspects).

4.1 Positives

• Started from top and bottom
• Identified contact persons in each State (champions)
• Interface with user/producer agency groups
• Team members knew what they were talking about
• Bench marking works (annual survey)
• Good visibility and marketing
• Financial support
• Staff support (AASHTO - Tahir, FHWA etc)
• Pro active medium for venting +/-
• Willing to help other States
• Having facilitators
• Honesty
• Share successes and failures
• Strong committed partnerships (FHWA, Centers, Industry, States)
• Focus on data as basis for change (tweaking, spec change)
• Management support (all facets - travel, resources, etc)
• Networking - building and using
• Guidance documents (for Lead States, model implementation plan)
• Customer focus

4.2 Negatives - What could we have done differently?

• Total team communication - mid year contact with team, etc.
• Total team communication - computer e-mail list server not used
• Didn't develop integrated communication system
• Level of effort different from research to implementation; needed integrated system for implementation
• Lead states in-group were driven - but why were other States slower in adopting?
• Communication between States; target reason for resistance - What were the reasons Lead State team should have focused more on identifying the reasons for this reluctant to Superpave adoption. Need to address this resistance.
• Not enough contact during early implementation phase
• Perception by some that Superpave was over sold; they tried the technology, had problems and gave up because of unrealistic expectations that they were lead to have.
• Perception that engineering not allowed, had it "crammed down their throat"
• Wrong people at State level were involved in some States (asphalt/pavement experts not involved)
• Multiple memberships (people on more than one committee - NCHRP/ETGs facilitated better communication)

5.0 Lead States Web Site

• Sandra Tucker from TTI discussed Lead States web site establishment http://leadstates.tamu.edu.
• They plan to be more active in upcoming year to post reports/documents/activities.
• If you have info/links pass on to Paul Mack (Gatekeeper of Superpave on website) and will give to TTI for web site inclusion.
• Submissions can be in a variety of formats, word processing, html, acrobat, etc.
• For right now, old calendar dates and information are not deleted; left on site.
• However, most recent events topics stay near top.
• Currently the site has had a total of hits in user section of 600 hits/month and 3000/month into site. Of this, 342 of 600 were Superpave.
• Team members in their States need to market the web site availability.

6.0 Transition Plan. Paul Mack distributed:

• Draft of Superpave Lead State team sunset 2000 (July 1999) asked group to review/examine how well it covers the action items; things still left to do, etc.
• Superpave Implementation Survey 1998-1999 (July 1999) - distribute for information

7.0 Gaps in Draft of Transition Plan. What is missing? What needs to be rewritten? For those who are writing pieces (noted *), they need to be submitted to Paul Mack by 11/1/99.

• Wade Betenson was concerned on following issues that need emphasis:
  • Superpave Centers future viability; and
  • Training and technician certification/accreditation
    • Lee Gallivan* offered to write something more on this area training.
  • Gerry Huber asked, what is purpose of document? Paul Mack:
    • To transition technology into mainstream and identify and institutionalize keys to future success
    • Create a historical document of past present and future to learn from in applying to future similar activities.
  • Dave Andrewski* discussed the need to focus more on construction of Superpave; this is needed in any future activities. Paul Mack asked Dave to write something on this for the plan.
    • Need to focus on whose responsibility it is to develop this.
    • Should this be a principal activity of industry?
    • Should there be an ETG on construction?
  • Rebecca McDaniels distributed documents on Universities and Future Superpave Implementation and Role of Superpave Centers in Future Superpave Implementation to be added.
  • Don Lucas commented that Subcommittee on Construction is writing a document on construction of Superpave. Paul Mack commented that as action item; need to have team write a letter of support to Subcommittee concerning this activity.
  • Gale Page* commented that there is a need to emphasizes the importance of continuous champions and will write a piece on this for inclusion in the plan as well as the following other issues:
    • Getting industry/supplier participation.
    • Current asphalt test methods need to be evaluated/improved - they are inadequate.
  • Incorporation of new research needs to be incorporated into the Superpave system. NCHRP studies, other contract efforts, etc. and getting it implemented.
  • Tim O'Connell* discussed the need to incorporate Superpave into all levels of Federal activities, etc. Will write something on this item.
  • Erv Dukatz* will write a piece on marketing to commercial users.
  • Marketing to public is an important aspect that needs to be addressed. Along with this need, document facts on how well technology has improved the performance of our pavements in each State.
  • TRB Superpave Committee created along with ETGs to carry-on from the previous similar FHWA activities, but no provision made for a Models ETG. Even with the 9-19 project panel for models there is the danger to lose continuity. No obvious link of this panel/models contract back to the TRB Superpave.
  • Lee Gallivan raised the issue that there is no longer an ETG on accelerated performance. Some comment that this group lost focus because it was not linked back to Mix ETG/Binder ETG.
  • Links are important through research and development clear through to implementation. Don Lucas said that one problem in SHRP was that not enough involvement with FHWA from the beginning. They were left out on a working level until almost the end of SHRP. In the future, all effort needs to be made to keep FHWA involved from the beginning, so that when implemented, there is not a loss of time - FHWA invited to be a partner from the beginning. FHWA must be integrated into the management team of these activities from the very beginning.

  8.0 Action Steps. Keys to success that need to be nurtured to continue after the Lead State team; short and long term. Also, focus on things that need to be done in the next year by Lead States and others. What does this team need to do to support the vision of the future for Superpave contained in the transition plan?

  • Encourage AASHTO to continue to support the key position of the SHRP Implementation Coordinator in AASHTO (Tahir).
  • Support the reconstitution of ETGS (Mix and Binder).
  • Support the continuance of the TRB Superpave Committee.
  • Need to identify strategic plan for performance prediction system.
  • Recognize that there is a need for management of a Superpave "research program" not just individual projects. Phase II models - performance prediction aspects. Concern that research focus is no longer there; a lot of projects in NCHRP etc, but concern that they will "come together". Need simply a clear vision as to parts/projects to this Phase. Resources have not been focused to accomplish this kind of program. Need management and support for a Superpave program not just projects.
  • Strategic plan for the performance measurement of Superpave.
  • Encourage FHWA to manage Superpave Regional Centers pooled funds.
  • Encouragement of TRB/AASHTO/FHWA partnership to keep technology on the "radar screen" of Executive Management. (How will Superpave visibility and momentum be maintained at the highest level?)
  • Representatives from team attend all the user/producer group meetings to update/make aware that Lead State team is going away and discuss links that are being formed with Subcommittee and continuation of ETGs.
  • Communication - establishment of a definitive source for up to date Superpave "managerial' information. (Communicate with States that Asphalt TWG replaced with TRB Superpave Committee, that the ETGs have been continued, etc.)
  • Support the Superpave Regional Centers efforts to be a recognized source of Superpave expertise.
  • Encourage FHWA to develop a Superpave implementation support plan by/for their Resource Centers.
  • Include Resource Center contacts in Superpave Implementation Survey.
  • Encourage FHWA to continue their efforts in technical coordination of Superpave implementation nationwide.
  • Create a mechanism to ensure implementation for advancing technology to continue Superpave (in the absence of the Superpave Lead States team). TRB Superpave Committee will ensure research but identify another group like the AASHTO Steering Group for Technology Deployment.
  • Engage LTAP (or appropriate organizations such as State HMA Associations, Asphalt Institute etc.) to provide appropriate training for utilizing Superpave at the local level.

  9.0 Review Goals from Last Year (1998) (Individuals with action*)

  9.1 Goal 1: Develop Sunset Plan

  • Develop a sunset plan/strategies - a draft transition plan has been produced and team is working on this item.

  9.2 Goal 2: QC/QA Specification

  • Need to follow-up on goals; Dave Andrewski* will check on status. Strategy was to establish a Lead States liaison to AASHTO on this issue. Thus, the approach of the team has been to cooperate with others (AASHTO Subcommittee) who are developing a plan; alternative would have been to do it ourselves in getting the 9-7 project results implemented. The Subcommittee on Construction produced a plan on construction, but doesn't focus on asphalt/Superpave. The 9-7 was a major project/expenditures, but now need to utilize aspects of this effort (ex. percent within limits, etc). While portions of the 9-7 effort are not acceptable, not much else exists. To make progress in Superpave, should the team develop their own specification using 9-7 results? This is a framework to start from and possibly the team takes a lead and makes modifications to get into use. Couldn't get agreement among team to take a project to write the specification by the team. The team does identify that there does exist an AASHTO Guide Specification from the Subcommittee on Construction.

  9.3 Goal 3: Support One Uniform Database for Project Level Data

  • Attempt was to obtain support for one uniform Superpave project level database. It didn't happen, and the need may no longer exist and the reasons and ability to implement may not be a priority. Difficultly in getting an agreement as to what data needs to be entered and use that could be made from data. It was asked that Rebecca McDaniels* with help from Lee Gallivan and Mike Worischeck work on article for Superpave Centers newsletter dealing with format and type of database currently being used by Rocky Mountain user Producer Group.

  9.4 Goal 4: Annual Superpave Survey

  • Annual Superpave Survey was completed for 1998-1999. It was distributed to participants, Task Force members, Subcommittee on Materials, etc. Paul Mack* proposed that it be conducted one more time, for period 1999-2000. Some issues on responses from individual States.

  9.5 Goal 5: Monitor and Report the Pavement Performance of Completed Superpave Projects

  • Florida contacted various Lead States but had mixed response. Data that is available is not common with other agencies. NCAT survey of databases did summarize many of the projects from Lead States. This effort will continue.

  9.6 Goal 6: Update Lead State Guidance

  • This was accomplished and many of the results appeared in an update to AASHTO provisional specifications. Larry Michael* will put together a Lead State guidance document for 2000.

  9.7 Goal 7: Update of Superpave Resources available on web site

  • Has been accomplished and is on the Lead States web site.

  10.0 Additional Activities/Goals. What have been the hurdles/issues to implementation in States? Can we determine the reluctance in some States to adopt Superpave? There are a lot of reasons, lack of confidence, lost champions, lost personnel, etc. The goal of the group is not to get all States to adopt Superpave but to help facilitate their use of Superpave. With this in mind, Byron Lord and Paul Mack will look into possibility of visiting some key States to determine reluctance to adopt Superpave and what could be done to overcome.

  11.0 Budget/Resources. Paul Mack discussed the team resource needs for 1999/2000. Travel needs of team members will require $40,000 for travel in remainder of 1999 and 2000.

  12.0 Superpave Version 2.0 Software. Superpave Version 2.0 software has been developed through FHWA funding. The latest changes to Superpave specification have been added and beta testing accomplished by Maryland DOT. Now, it will be added to AASHTOWare, but also want to make it available and most economical and as soon as possible. Funds are needed for the publishing and marketing of the Superpave Version 2.0 software through AASHTO. We need a funding recommendation to allow the software processing for marketing to start immediately and meet a January 2000 date for availability. Three methods/levels to use software are being contemplated by AASHTO (1) acquire/purchase with no support, (2) subscribe and some support and update, (3) license with full support and all upgrades.

  • Action: The Superpave Lead State Team recommends that AASHTO use $60,000 from positive cash flow from existing SHRP Voluntary Assessment to publish and market Superpave Design software Version 2.0, these funds to be reimbursed from software sales.

  13.0 Review of Action Steps - Assignments. Finish Action Steps with someone assigned to do each. List of the previous "16 Action Steps" were distributed to the team.

  • Action Step Items (1), (2) and (3), Paul Mack will draft a formal letter.
  • Action Step Item (4), Byron Lord will prepare a write-up for a strategic planning workshop for development of a strategic plan for the "Performance Prediction System". Also, include Item (5) dealing with all the projects that comprise a program and the level of total funding.
  • Action Step Item (6), Byron Lord described the planned FHWA Asset Management project to determine life cycle cost performance for innovative asphalt pavements, including Superpave. He will ask Gary Henderson to describe what is planned and send a brief "write-up" to Paul Mack, so he can draft a letter back to FHWA, and participating States in support of the effort. It is planned to work in a pilot with Maryland DOT and up to 6 other States using pavement management data on Superpave to determine aspects of Superpave life cycle cost.
  • Action Step Items (7) and (8), Paul Mack will work on.
  • Action Step Item (9), all members of team are encouraged to help. Jitesh Parikh will summarize key items for presentation. These include items on transition plan, TRB Superpave Committee, ETGs, etc.
  • Action Step Items (10) through (14) will be addressed by Paul Mack.
  • Action Step Item (15), Byron Lord will investigate and report back to Paul Mack. It's essential that key elements of research and implementation need to work together from the beginning of an effort like SHRP.
  • Action Step Item (16) will be addressed by Paul Mack. Jitesh Parikh will work with him on this item.

  Superpave technology Implementation - 1998 AASHTO Lead States Workshop