Transition Plan
January 31, 2000

THE PAST

The Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) was established by Congress in 1987 as a five year, $150 million research program to improve the performance and durability of our nation's roads and to make those roads safer for both motorists and highway workers. At the time SHRP concluded in 1993, it had developed 130 products in support of its mission.

Superpave - (Superior Performing Asphalt Pavements) was one of these. Indeed Superpave consumed one third, or $50 million of the total SHRP budget. Asphalt pavements account for more than 90 percent of all paved highways in the United States with annual expenditures that top $10 billion. It was and remains clear that if significant improvements could be achieved in the performance of these pavements, the nation could save huge amounts of money both in repair costs and user delay costs associated with earlier than necessary repairs and rehabilitation projects. The Superpave system was developed to give highway engineers and contractors the tools they need to design asphalt pavements to perform better under extremes of temperature and heavy traffic loads. The result was a system that includes an improved method for specifying asphalt binders and mineral aggregates, a hot mix asphalt design and analysis system and, when fully mature, a sophisticated model which can be used to predict pavement performance among competing mix designs.

Superpave Standards

SHRP had a definitive deadline and it focused on the delivery of standards which could be immediately used to begin implementation. Once that was accomplished, the Strategic Highway Research Program and its organizational structure, ceased to exist.

The question of who "owns" Superpave, while critical to its successful implementation, is not universally understood by the implementing industry; whether public, private, or academic. The answer is AASHTO. The AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Materials (SOM) has the authority to publish and keep current, specifications for materials used in the construction and maintenance of all transportation facilities, and specifications for standard methods of sampling and testing such materials. Acting for AASHTO, the Subcommittee on Materials has assumed the responsibility for publishing and updating all Superpave standards. As such, any plan for implementing current and future improvements to the Superpave system must include a strong linkage to the Subcommittee on Materials and its Technical Sections to which the Superpave Standards are assigned.

In recognition the SHRP program would create an unprecedented need for the rapid development of new standards, AASHTO and the Subcommittee took two complimentary actions. AASHTO hired a staff person to facilitate and provide support to the various contributors to SHRP research implementation, particularly the Subcommittee on Materials. The Subcommittee created a new class of standards, labeled "provisional standards." These are intended as "dynamic" standards for immediate use by the states with the understanding they would likely be revised or updated more frequently than the mature standards. Ultimately, when more fully mature, these provisional standards will be balloted as "full" standards. Some have already reached that point and have been established as such. The AASHTO staff person has been critical to the facilitation and management of the process in support of the Subcommittee on Materials.

AASHTO

At the completion of the SHRP research phase, AASHTO recognized the benefits that implementation of the SHRP products would provide its member Departments. Thus, AASHTO established a "Task Force on SHRP Implementation." Its mission is to develop plans and proposals furthering the implementation of SHRP research, working as needed with the committees of AASHTO, the member Departments, the Federal Highway Administration and private sector organizations. Further, it was to propose, as necessary, to the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors of AASHTO such actions as it believed would further the implementation of SHRP, including proposals for securing necessary resources, for their consideration and appropriate action.

It is composed of executive level managers of member Departments from each of the AASHTO Regions.

Lead State Program

In 1996, the AASHTO Task Force on SHRP Implementation established the "Lead State Program" and invited more than 30 states to join lead state teams in seven technology groups; Superpave being one of them. A "Lead State" was defined as a transportation agency that had used a SHRP technology on a sufficient scale to gain expertise on that technology and its procedures. The Lead State then volunteered to share its expertise, on a formal basis, to help those states who wanted help and to serve as examples for all the states.

In September of 1996, the first Lead State Conference was held in St. Louis, Missouri. The Superpave Lead State Team included Florida, Indiana, Maryland, New York, Texas and Utah. Its mission, developed at the conference, was as follows:

"The Lead States will assist in the uniform implementation of the Superpave system by documenting and sharing experiences, furthering development, and providing guidance related to the practical application of the technology."

Lead State Program Transition

As with the SHRP, the Lead State Program was to have a beginning and an end. In establishing the program, AASHTO agreed that at some reasonable point in time, national implementation should have matured to a level where a Lead State Program was no longer necessary. It was thus decided that the Lead State Program would conclude in the year 2000.

It is the purpose of this paper to describe and recommend, if necessary, the institutional framework and support systems necessary to advance the technology, absent the Lead State Program.

Keys To National Implementation

Federal Highway Administration
It can easily be said the FHWA fully embraced the SHRP program and has played a pivotal role in its implementation. The FHWA is uniquely positioned to facilitate technology transfer and in the case of SHRP, they understood how they could contribute and they did!

First, they got some substantial help from Congress. The 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) authorized an additional $108 million for SHRP implementation and for the continuation of the 20-year Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program. The realization that new technology would not implement itself was essential. There was a critical need to coordinate implementation activities.

Through its Office of Technology Applications (OTA), the FHWA took a series of actions in support of Superpave:

• Superpave Technology Delivery Team
  The Team directs FHWA's Superpave implementation efforts and works to improve coordination with State highway agencies. Team members represent FHWA's engineering, research, technology transfer, and field offices.
• Asphalt Technical Working Group (TWG)
  The Asphalt TWG, which included representatives from highway agencies, asphalt producers, contractors, academia, and FHWA, provided guidance on ways to encourage the adoption of the Superpave system by the highway industry. It was chaired by FHWA.
• Binder Expert Task Group (ETG)
  The binder ETG assisted the Asphalt TWG by providing more specialized guidance on the testing and adoption of the Superpave binder specification. It was composed of government, industry and academic experts and again chaired by FHWA.
• Mix Expert Task Group (ETG)
  The mix ETG also assisted the Asphalt TWG by advising on the implementation of Superpave mixes and provided recommendations to the AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials to improve the standards. It was constituted similarly to the binder ETG.
• Superpave Models/Software (ETG)
  This ETG provided advice on the development and distribution of the Superpave software and the refinement of the Superpave performance prediction model.

In concert, these groups played a critical role in moving the technology toward implementation and improvement. The FHWA recognized that state experts needed to be involved to lend credibility to other states and needed real world, hands on experience. Its an unfortunate fact-of-life that for most states, out-of-state travel is severely restricted. To overcome this obstacle, FHWA funded all travel to group meetings by state representatives.

The TWG, among many other activities, set national goals for binder and mix implementation, established as 1997 and 2000 respectively. The Binder and Mix ETG's gained a position of national recognition and respect. They established themselves as the experts to which the Subcommittee on Materials looked for advice on appropriate modifications and improvements for balloting by the SOM.

Together, these groups have been critical to implementation and improvement of the system. On their collective advice, the FHWA has expended significant research funding to fill critical gaps in the SHRP research. Based on LTPP experience, the Binder ETG has recommended revision of the low temperature algorithm. They have also worked to identify and resolve differences in test results on similar test equipment made by different manufacturers. And, they have influenced the direction of NCHRP research into the accommodation of modified asphalts into the test protocols. The Mix ETG has provided the leadership to revise the N-Design Table for SOM specifications. They developed a protocol for the evaluation and approval of new gyratory compactors. In addition, they developed guidance for the use of RAP in Superpave mixes and clarified the 20 year ESAL design life.

These lists of accomplishments are by no means exhaustive, but merely intended to present an indication of the importance of their contributions to the Superpave system.

• Superpave Centers
  The FHWA provided both equipment and startup funding to establish five national Superpave Centers. The five Regional Centers provide technical leadership and assistance. The Centers evaluate Superpave equipment and methodologies working with highway agencies to put them into practice. They are also an important source of hands-on training for engineers and technicians at the regional level.
• Mobile Asphalt Laboratories
  FHWA funded, equipped and staffed two mobile asphalt laboratories. These were made available to visit the States and construction projects. They have proven to be a valuable resource in validating research results prior to consideration by the SOM for standard revisions.
• National Pooled Fund Equipment Purchase
  Few states could afford to purchase all the laboratory equipment needed to support the new technology. FHWA initiated a national pooled fund purchase that could be supported by States SP&R funds. In this way, states could easily obtain an initial set of required lab equipment. And, as most states would ultimately need added lab equipment, FHWA altered its long held policy of restricting the use of federal aid in support of state purchases for new technology equipment.
• Asphalt Institute
  Early in the process of implementation, it was critical that a source of training was available. Training was necessary for all aspects of the Superpave system including the system itself, binder testing, mix design, aggregates and mix analysis. For the most part, it was to be found at the Asphalt Institute. Beyond that, the Institute has been very active in the preparation of manuals, publishing articles, membership on advisory groups, and the sponsorship of several national forums focused on the Superpave system. Indeed, the next in this series is scheduled for Denver in April of 2000.
• Asphalt User Producer Groups
  Five Regional Asphalt User Producer Groups were formed. These groups, with representatives from the binder producing industry and state highway agencies, worked to encourage common, standardized specifications, binder grade selection, and acceptance plans.
• Lead State Team
  The Superpave Lead State Team, created by the AASHTO Task Force on SHRP Implementation, made significant contributions in support of system implementation and improvement. It's mere existence, and the publicity attached to its formation, provided a focus and encouragement for the states to look seriously at implementing the system. Many Team members held multiple memberships on key committees. They were members of the ETG's, the Subcommittee on Materials, NCHRP Superpave research panels, national forum steering committees and others.
  
  Being expert practitioners and true to their mission statement, they prepared "Implementation Guidance" documents in 1997 and 1998. These were widely published and distributed documents which helped other implementing states on the step learning curve.
  
  Ultimately, several members of the Team served on an AASHTO SOM sponsored Task Force to recommend significant changes to four mix standards based on both NCHRP research and the guidance statements. The SOM adopted the recommended improvements and they were published in the May 1999 interim edition of the AASHTO Provisional Standards.
  
  Early in its history, the Lead State Team developed and widely published a list of experts in Superpave and its component systems. States were encouraged to contact the experts for advice in the application of the technology.
  
  States were also encouraged to develop formal implementation plans and sample plans were provided to all the states.
  
  The Team participated in many state, regional and national forums centered on the technology. It also conducted annual bench marking surveys of all the states which measured the progress of implementation and the likely future direction. The annual survey results were widely published in general media, used in presentations by Lead State members and the FHWA and hard copies sent to all SHA Chief Engineers each year. This bench marking effort did much to encourage states to adopt the system and convince various industry partners of the national commitment to its adoption.
  
  Again, this list is not exhaustive, but meant to illustrate the value of the Team and it's relation to others involved.
• Web Sites
  Numerous web sites have been set up on the internet. The FHWA, the TRB, the Superpave Centers and AASHTO all created sites where information could easily be accessed by public, private and academic implementors or decision makers.