Citation
Materials review process for innovative technologies in highway construction

Material Information

Title:
Materials review process for innovative technologies in highway construction
Creator:
Petersen, Bradley A
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xi, 165 leaves : ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Roads -- Design and construction -- Technological innovations ( lcsh )
Roads -- Design and construction -- Technological innovations ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 162-165).
General Note:
Department of Civil Engineering
Statement of Responsibility:
by Bradley A. Petersen.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
320080058 ( OCLC )
ocn320080058
Classification:
LD1193.E53 2008m P47 ( lcc )

Full Text
MATERIALS REVIEW PROCESS FOR INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES IN HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION
By
Bradley A. Petersen
B.A., University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
B.S., University of Colorado at Boulder
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Science Civil Engineering Department 2008


This thesis for the Master of Science Civil Engineering
degree by
Bradley A. Petersen
has been approved
by
Stephan A. Durham
Date
Kevin Rens


Petersen, Bradley (MS, Structural, Civil Engineering Department)
Materials Review Process for Innovative Technologies in Highway Construction
Thesis directed by Assistant Professor Stephan A. Durham
ABSTRACT
The use of innovative technologies and methods in highway construction is necessary
for an ever-increasing demand for new highways and the maintenance of existing
ones. Many state departments of transportation (DOTs) have a formal process for
evaluating new products and a policy in place that ensures consistency in the
evaluation process. Other DOTs have an informal process that may consist of a
flexible procedure defined by a current administrator or materials engineer. A few
states do not have any procedure at all.
A need exists by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to define a process
for the evaluation of new innovative technologies and methods used in highway
construction. This thesis recommends a process for use by the Federal Lands
Highway Divisions (FLH) of the FHWA that encompasses aspects from state DOTs.
It may also serve as a model for other states that do not have a well defined
procedure. The recommended process outlined in this thesis eliminates repetitive


evaluations of the same products approved or rejected by another DOT, thereby
eliminating redundancy and increasing coordination of new product evaluations
throughout the country.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I recommend
its publication.
Signed
Stephan A. Durham


DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to my wife, Ana, who encouraged and supported me during the
time of my graduate school work; and to my two daughters, Jecelya and Nayeli, who
patiently waited for Daddy to finish.


ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank Dr. Stephan Durham, my advisor, for his help and dedication to
ensuring my success in the pursuit of my Masters Degree. Thanks to Mr. Matt
Morgan who contributed to this research study. Thanks to my committee members
Dr. Kevin Rens and Dr. Bruce Janson for their participation and involvement in this
thesis. I would also like to thank Roger Surdahl, the Technology Delivery Engineer
for the Central Federal Lands Highway Division of the Federal Highway
Administration, for his role and participation with this research study.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figures...............................................................x
Tables................................................................xi
Chapter
1. Introduction.................................................1
1.1 Existing Materials Evaluation Processes......................2
1.2 Recommended Materials Evaluation Process.............3
1.3 Scope of the Study...........................................3
1.3.1 State DOT Survey.............................................3
1.3.2 Website Literature Review....................................4
1.3.3 Direct Communication.........................................4
1.3.4 State DOT Matrix.............................................5
1.3.5 Flowcharts...................................................5
1.4 Thesis Limitations...........................................6
1.4.1 Continuous Research..........................................6
1.4.2 FLH-FHWA Test-Run of a Product of Interest...................7
2. Research Methods.............................................8
2.1 State Departments of Transportation Survey Responses.........8
2.2 Website Literature Review....................................9
2.3 Direct Communication........................................10
2.4 Research Accomplishments....................................13
3. States Survey...............................................18
3.1 State DOT Survey Questions and Response Summary.............19
4. Problem Statement...........................................31
5. DOT Matrix and Flowcharts...................................33
5.1 State DOT Matrix............................................33
vii


5.2 Matrix Component Descriptions................................34
5.2.1 Vender Approaches and/or DOT Initiates Product
Evaluation..................................................34
5.2.2 New Products Evaluation Program, New Products
Engineer/Coordinator and Product Evaluation
Coordinator/Engineer........................................35
5.2.3 Evaluation (No Committee), Evaluation Committee/Review
Team, and Committee Representatives.........................36
5.2.4 In-House Research/Testing, Use of Private Research Firm,
University Research, Pooled Fund Studies, Use of Other
Transportation Organizations: APEL, NTPEP, etc. and Field
Testing/Experimental-Trial Proj ects........................37
5.2.5 Technology Transfer Engineer.................................37
5.2.6 Specifications Online........................................38
5.2.7 Approved Products List.......................................38
5.3 State DOT Flowcharts.........................................39
6. Recommendations..............................................43
6.1 Recommended Flowchart for the FLH-FHWA.......................45
6.1.1 Phase 1: Preliminary Evaluation..............................46
6.1.2 Phase 2: Program Formulation.................................47
6.1.3 Phase 3: Evaluation..........................................47
6.1.4 Phase 4: Implementation (If Accepted) and Remaining
Tasks.......................................................47
6.2 Recommended Flowchart Components and Process
Description.................................................48
6.2.1 Phase 1: Preliminary Evaluation..............................48
6.2.2 Phase 2: Program Formulation.................................60
6.2.3 Phase 3: Evaluation..........................................61
6.2.4 Phase 4: Implementation (If Accepted) and Remaining
Tasks.......................................................68
viii


7. FLH-FHWA Feedback and Revisions for Process
Implementation.............................................71
7.1 Feedback from FLH-FHWA......................................71
7.2 FLH-FHWA Revision of the Recommended
Idealized Evaluation Procedure.............................75
8. Conclusions.................................................76
Abbreviations.......................................................78
Appendix
A. State DOT Survey...........................................79
B. State DOT Matrix...........................................85
C. Online Vender Application Forms............................95
D. Flowcharts................................................116
References..........................................................162
IX


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1. State DOT Survey Respondents.....................................16
2. Website Review Completed and DOT Contacted for Modification/
Confirmation to Matrix and/or Flowchart.........................16
3. Direct Communication and Modification/Confirmation to Matrix
and/or Flowchart................................................17
4. Utah Flowchart (Utah Department of Transportation, 2008).........40
5. Alaska Flowchart (Alaska Department of Transportation, 2008).....41
6. New Products and Methods Evaluation Procedure Flowchart..........46
7. Sample Website Application Form..................................74
8. FLH-FHWA Revision of the Recommended Evaluation
Procedure.......................................................75
Al. Survey Cover Letter..............................................79
x


LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. Direct communication contact list................................11
2. State DOT research conducted.....................................14
3. Source of information used by state DOTs.........................21
4. Implementation of various materials..............................27
5. State DOT Matrix for 5 states....................................34
A1. Survey contacts..................................................80
B1. State DOT Matrix.................................................85
xi


1. Introduction
Innovative material technologies and new installation techniques are continuously
being developed for use in highway construction. A need exists among highway
organizations to implement these new products and methods in a quick and efficient
way in order to take full advantage of their benefits. Innovative materials offer
increased highway quality, a greater life span, reduce the harmful effect on the
environment and ultimately deliver cost savings. This thesis presents research that is
currently being executed as a funded study through the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) titled Innovative Materials in Highway Construction.
Research on existing material evaluation processes used by State Departments of
Transportation (DOTs) are documented in this thesis and are described in Chapter 5,
showing a DOT Matrix and describing the matrix components revealed by this
research. Flowcharts document how the materials evaluations are conducted and
what decisions are made and activities take place at various phases during the
procedures. Chapter 6 introduces an idealized process recommended for the Federal
Lands Highway divisions (FLH) of the FHWA based on the matrix and DOT
flowcharts. In order for the FLH-FHWA to feasibly implement the evaluation
process, feedback and re-working of the recommended procedure is necessary to fit
the structure and goals of the FLH-FHWA. This feedback and revised process is
revealed in Chapter 7.


1.1 Existing Materials Evaluation Processes
Documentation of existing materials evaluation processes are necessary in order to
understand the multitude of components and activities involved in evaluation
procedures that have been tried and tested for many years. A major source of
information exists from the 50 DOTs who are in charge of building and maintaining
highways. The procedures currently being used in evaluations across the country
vary greatly in their level of detail. Some states have elaborate procedures that are
well documented while others have almost non-existent procedures. This large range
in detail indicates that not all states share information or ideas that may be helpful for
improving evaluation procedures. The independent nature of evaluation programs
can create isolated product reviews where data is not easily obtained by other states
for use in their own evaluations. Furthermore, repetitive product reviews may result
if other states are not aware of evaluations that have previously been accomplished.
Thus, sharing of information is crucial to make a National effort in product
evaluations possible.
2


1.2 Recommended Materials Evaluation Process
The FHWA is seen by State DOTs as the leader responsible for creating a National
hub for collecting data and pooling resources from other transportation organizations
to accelerate Inter-State cooperation in evaluating and implementing innovative
materials and methods. Having a materials evaluation process that encompasses
many of the same features DOTs possess allows the FLH-FHWA to carry out
evaluations and coordinate other evaluations being conducted by organizations with a
similar process. A FLH-FHWA evaluation process should ideally be composed of
activities that are commonly used by DOTs that have well documented evaluation
procedures. Other components can be added to such a procedure that make the
process more efficient and promote sharing of information among the States. The
adoption of such a materials evaluation process would allow the FLH-FHWA to take
an active role in promoting technologies that will improve the quality of the Nations
highways.
1.3 Scope of the Study
1.3.1 State DOT Survey
A survey was created by Mr. Matt Morgan and Dr. Stephan Durham (Morgan, 2008)
requesting input into existing materials evaluation procedures practiced by each State
DOT. A website named SurveyMonkey.com (http:www.surveymonkey.com/)
3


allowed questions to be formulated, responses to be collected and organized, and the
information to be extracted for use in this study. Information from the survey began
the process of identifying key components in an evaluation process and how the
activities progressed from one step to another. The survey also revealed beneficial
qualities and negative aspects regarding several DOT processes. Chapter 3 and
Appendix A discuss the state DOT survey in more detail.
1.3.2 Website Literature Review
Each state DOT website had a literature review conducted that revealed information
on evaluation procedures. Several states posted flowcharts that organized the
evaluation activities into a specific chain of events. Other states documented
procedural directives that stated the evaluation process as a matter of policy. The
website reviews were extremely important, particularly for states that did not answer
the DOT survey and/or did not respond to direct communication. Most of the
literature research accomplished for this thesis was by means of the website reviews
and direct communication with DOTs.
1.3.3 Direct Communication
Communication with DOT representatives was necessary to validate much of the
information gathered through the DOT survey and the website literature reviews.
4


After a significant amount of research was gathered, the information was emailed to
state DOT employees to provide confirmation or modifications. Numerous states
identified additional activities that further detailed their states materials review
process.
1.3.4 State DOT Matrix
Information gathered from the survey, website literature reviews and direct
communication was collected and a state DOT matrix was formulated. The state DOT
Matrix is shown in Appendix B. It displays all activities that were found during the
course of researching existing evaluation procedures and shows which states utilize
each component. When all components were identified for a particular state, the
matrix was emailed to a representative at the DOT for confirmation and modification
to the matrix. The employee was asked to add components to the list that the DOT
used, which supplemented the growth of activities in the matrix.
1.3.5 Flowcharts
Flowcharts were created that display how the activities in an evaluation process
evolve (see Appendix D). Some flowcharts were documented on DOT websites
while the majority of flowcharts were created based on the components identified in
the matrix and process descriptions found on websites and survey responses. A
5


flowchart was created for each state and emailed to a DOT representative asking for
confirmation or modifications. Additional comments were solicited to better
represent the DOTs procedure graphically through the flowchart. A flowchart for
the recommended materials review process for the FLH-FHWA was also created and
is detailed in Chapter 6. A revision of this recommended flowchart was created by
materials and technology delivery engineers of the FLH-FHWA and is shown in
Chapter 7.
1.4 Thesis Limitations
1.4.1 Continuous Research
The task of researching existing materials review processes for the purpose of
creating an ideal evaluation procedure is seen as a continuous endeavor since it
encompasses implementation of new ideas and techniques aimed at fully evaluating
products and methods which evolve over time. The hope from this thesis is that
components of the ideal system can be implemented to promote greater
communication and research within the evaluation community regarding practices
that ensure less redundancy and more coordination. Given the nature of innovative
products and procedures and the need for continuous research and communication
among evaluation professionals, the idealized materials evaluation process is seen as
6


a constantly evolving innovative product itself that must be questioned on its
effectiveness over the course of time.
1.4.2 FLH-FHWA Test-Run of a Product of Interest
A test-run by the FLH-FHWA of a product of interest is recommended to fine-tune
the revised evaluation process shown in Chapter 7 in order to further detail or modify
activities necessary to provide a timeliness and effective evaluation. Use of the actual
implemented process over time will inevitably refine the procedures over and over so
that it can adapt and evolve to an ever changing and technologically advancing
society.
7


2. Research Methods
Research into how states conduct their materials review process has led to the
discovery of numerous activities that help guide the process in an efficient manner.
This chapter discusses research methods used to determine the procedures State
DOTs employ in evaluating new products and methods. The information was
collected in three methods: (1) state DOT survey responses, (2) website review and
(3) direct communication.
2.1 State Departments of Transportation Survey Responses
The State DOT survey (Morgan, 2008) was an important contribution to the FHWA
study and is examined in much greater detail in Chapter 3. A major contribution of
this survey was provided from question #2, which asked, Does your State
Department of Transportation currently utilize an established program for evaluating
and accepting new material technologies? Please Describe. Currently, 23 states
have responded to the survey, with 13 respondents answering that their State DOT
has an established protocol for evaluating new products. The descriptions of the
evaluation procedures were used to generate crude flowcharts showing various
activities in the evaluation process for a particular state. Flowcharts are shown in
Appendix D. The flowcharts were expanded in detail after website literature reviews
and direct communication with state DOTs were conducted.
8


2.2 Website Literature Review
The next step in gathering information was to complete a literature review of State
DOT websites. The details of many state evaluation programs described at the
websites ranged from very explicit to no information at all. Some states had their
own flowcharts, some had written policies and others briefly described the steps
involved. The information found from the website review began the formulation of a
matrix that identified activities that could be used in an evaluation process. The
activities were listed in a column of an excel spreadsheet and a top row identified
each state. As the website review proceeded, the specific activities that a state used in
its evaluation process were identified with an X in that row and column for that
particular state. As new activities were revealed, the list of activities in the matrix
expanded until the matrix was complete. Each activity in the matrix is detailed
further in Chapter 5. The website review assisted in the development of the
flowcharts formulated for each state DOT. The matrix can be related to the
flowcharts in that the list of matrix activities is also the activities shown in the
flowcharts. The flowcharts simply help to order the activities and place relationships
between the activities and decisions made. A website review was completed for all
DOTs within the United States and the finished matrix is shown in Appendix B.
9


2.3 Direct Communication
Finally, each state was contacted by email to affirm the flowchart that had been
created and to review and modify their states activities in the matrix. If a state
utilized a component that was not listed, it was added to the list of activities. The
employee contacted was either the same person that had completed the state survey
questionnaire or someone specifically involved in the evaluation process (i.e. the
committee chair for a new products evaluation committee). Table 1 lists DOT
employees contacted for feedback on the matrix and flowcharts. Overall, 31 states
responded with modifications to their states activities in the matrix or to corrections
and comments to their flowchart, giving a 62% response rate.
10


Table 1: Direct communication contact list
State Contact Name Phone Email
Alabama Fred Conway 334-242-6007 conwayf@dot.state.al.us
Alaska Greg Christensen 907-269-6248 greg_chri stensen@dot. state. ak. us
Arizona Pe-Shen Yang 602-712-8606 pyang@azdot.gov
Arkansas Jerry R. Westerman 501-569-2185 jerry.westerman@arkansashighways.com
California Janie Spencer 916-227-7073 new_products@dot.ca.gov
Colorado David Kotzer 303-398-6566 david.kotzer@dot.state.co.us
Connecticut Andrew J. Mroczkowski 860-258-0304 andrew.mroczkowski@po.state.ct.us
Joseph Cancelliere 860-594-3208 josph.cancelliere@po.state.ct.us
Delaware Jim Pappas 302-760-2400 james.pappas@state.de.us
Florida Karen Byram 850-414-4353 karen.byram@dot.state.fl.us
Paul Gentry 850-414-4118 pual .gentry @dot. state. fl. us
Georgia Georgene Geary 404-363-7512 georgene.geary@dot.state.ga.us
Hawaii Mr. Casey Abe 808-832-3403 casey.abe@hawaii.gov
Idaho Stephen Loop 208-334-8267 newproducts@itd.idaho.gov
Illinois Amy Schutzbach 217-785-4888 amy.schutzbach@illinois.gov
Indiana Mark Miller 317-232-5456 mmiller@indot.in.gov
Iowa Ahmad Abu-Hawash 515-239-1393 ahmad.abu-hawash@dot.iowa.gov
Kansas Richard E. Kreider Jr. 785-296-3899 richard.kreider@ksdot.org
Kentucky David Quarles 502-564-3160 david.quarles@ky.gov
Louisiana J. Bertin Wintz, P.E. 225-248-4131 bwintz@dotd.la.gov
Maine Dale Peabody 207-624-3305 dale.peabody@maine.gov
Maryland Rodney Wynn 410-321-4106 rwynn@sha. state.md.us
Massachusetts Ed Mirka 617-951-1348 ed.mirka@mhd.state.ma.us
Michigan Tim Stallard 517-322-6448 stallardt@michigan.gov
Minnesota Erik Wolhowe 651-366-4505 erik.wolhowe@dot.state.mn.us
Mississippi James A. Williams, III, P.E. 601-359-1798 jwilliams@mdot.state.ms.us
Missouri Bill Stone 573-526-4328 william.stone@modot.mo.gov


Table 1 (Cont.): Direct communication contact list
State Contact Name Phone Email
Montana Sue Sillick 406-444-7693 ssillick@mt.gov
Nebraska Terry Masters 402-479-4754 tmasters@dor.state.ne.us
Nevada Jason VanHavel 775-888-7894 jvanhavel@dot.state.nv.us
New Hampshire William Real 603-271-3151 wreal@dot.state.nh.us
New Jersey n/a n/a products.evaluations@dot.state.nj.us
New Mexico Jimmy Camp 505-827-5532 jimmy.camp@state.nm.us
New York Gary Fredercick 518-457-4645 gfrederick@dot.state.ny.us
Naim Orayfig 518-485-0036 n/a
North Carolina Frankie Draper 919-250-4128 fdraper@dot.state.nc.us
North Dakota Tom Bold 701-328-6900 tbold@nd.gov
Ohio Tim Keller 614-466-2463 tim.keller@dot.state.oh.us
Oklahoma Reynolds Toney 405-521-2677 material@odot.org
Oregon Mike Dunning 503-986-3059 mike.d.dunning@odot.state.or.us
Pennsylvania n/a 717-787-7150 mmcgonagle@state.pa.us
Rhode Island Ms. D. Munroe 401-222-3030 dmunroe@dot.ri.gov
South Carolina Mr. M. 0. Fletcher, P.E. 803-737-6682 fletchermo@scdot.org
South Dakota Hadly Eisenbeisz 605-773-4452 hadlyeisenbeisz@state.sd.un
Tennessee Bill Trolinger 615-350-4105 bill.trolinger@state.tn.us
James Maxwell 615-350-4167 james.maxwell@state.tn.us
Texas Duncan Stewart 512-465-7403 dstewart@dot.state.tx.us
Utah Barry Sharp 801-957-8595 rsharp@utah.gov
Vermont Jennifer Fitch 802-828-2553 jennifer.fitch@state.vt.us
Virginia David Kaulfers 804-328-3105 david.kaulfers@vdot.virginia.gov
Washington John Livingston n/a livingj@wsdot.wa.gov
Bob Briggs 360-709-5411 briggbo@wsdot.wa.gov
West Virginia Aaron Gillispie 304-558-3160 aaron.c.gillispie@wv.gov
Wisconsin Irene Battaglia 608-246-3855 irene.battaglia@dot.state.wi.us
Wyoming F.M. "Rick" Harvey 307-777-4375 n/a
Alisha Reese 307-777-4375 alisha.reese@dot.state.wy.us
Bob Rothwell 307-777-4070 n/a
12


2.4 Research Accomplishments
The responses from states were good, with 15 email replies within the first 3 days
from the original 25 emails that were sent. The 31 total responses from the 50 emails
sent to DOTs reflect a response rate of 62%. The New York State DOT has requested
that the final report of this study be made available to them for the purposes of
sharing information. The Texas DOT has requested that the UCD and FHWA keep
them up to date on other states response to the matrix and flowchart review. Other
states have emphasized their eagerness to contribute to this study to aid in more
effective product evaluation procedures. Table 2 summarizes the research
accomplished for each state with respect to the 3 research methods identified in this
chapter. Figures 1-3 show maps identifying the same information geographically.
13


Table 2: State DOT research conducted
State DOT Survey Website DOT Response
Completed Review Contacted from DOT
Alabama X X X
Alaska X X X
Arizona X X X X
Arkansas X X X
California X X X
Colorado X X X
Connecticut X X X
Delaware X X X
Florida X X
Georgia X X X
Hawaii X X X
Idaho X X
Illinois X X X
Indiana X X X X
Iowa X X X X
Kansas X X X X
Kentucky X X X
Louisiana X X X
Maine X X X X
Maryland X X X
Massachusetts X X
Michigan X X X
Minnesota X X X
Mississippi X X X X
Missouri X X
14


Table 2 (Cont.): State DOT research conducted
State DOT Survey Website DOT Response
Completed Review Contacted from DOT
Montana X X
Nebraska X X
Nevada X X X X
New Hampshire X X X X
New Mexico X X X X
New Jersey X X
New York X X X X
North Carolina X X X
North Dakota X X X X
Ohio X X X X
Oklahoma X X
Oregon X X X X
Pennsylvania X X
Rhode Island X X X
South Carolina X X
South Dakota X X X
Tennessee X X X
Texas X X X
Utah X X X
Vermont X X X
Virginia X X X
Washington X X X
West Virginia X X X X
Wisconsin X X X X
Wyoming X X
Total a23_____________50_____________50______________31
Return Rate 46.00% 100.00% 100.00% 62.00%
aA total of 26 responses to the states survey questionnaire were collected, however 1
state did not leave identifying information and 2 states (Connecticut and Tennessee)
completed the survey twice.
15


Figure 1: State DOT Survey Respondents
Figure 2: Website Review Completed and DOT Contacted
For Modification/Confirmation to Matrix and/or Flowchart
16


Figure 3: Direct Communication and
Modification/Confirmation to Matrix and/or Flowchart
17


3. States Survey
As a method to obtain information from State DOTs regarding materials evaluation
procedures and specific use of innovative products, a survey was created, targeting
key personnel involved in the materials evaluation process for each state. The survey
was designed by Mr. Matt Morgan and Dr. Stephan Durham of the University of
Colorado Denver (Morgan, 2008). An emphasis was given to make the survey as
user-friendly as possible in order to maximize the number of responses. Use of the
Internet aided in simplifying the process respondents underwent in answering the
questions contained in the survey. A website named SurveyMonkey.com
(http:www.surveymonkev.com/) allowed questions to be formulated, responses to be
collected and organized, and the information to be extracted for use in this study. A
cover letter was sent to DOT Materials Engineers and other key specialists to solicit
their responses. The cover letter can be seen in Appendix A along with the list of
targeted DOT personnel and the survey form. Also included in Appendix A is the
generated output of survey responses from SurveyMonkey.com. A summary of the
responses can be found in the next section.
18


3.1 State DOT Survey Questions and Response Summary
A total of 26 responses were received from State DOT personnel. Two of the
responses were from separate individuals from the same state and one respondent
did not leave identifying information. Thus, the total number of states responding
to the survey was 23, for a return rate of 42%. The survey questions and summary
of responses are listed below.
Question 1: Questionnaire completed by:
Appendix A shows contact information for each person that completed the survey,
including names, agency/division, position/title, phone number, and email address.
Question 2: Does your State Department of Transportation currently utilize an
established program for evaluating and acceptins new material technolosies?
Please Describe.
Approximately 68% of respondents said that their state utilizes a program for
evaluating and accepting new material technologies. This is performed through
research studies from either a single person in the DOT, or a group of individuals
that form a committee/research board, typically the later. New material
technologies are brought to the attention of the DOT by either manufacturers,
19


suppliers or through initiation from individuals in the DOT that deem the
technology appropriate for use in a project. The material is then evaluated in-house
or through a partnership program with either a university or private research firm.
If the new technology is deemed acceptable to a DOT, usually special provisions
are written to their standard specifications and the manufacturer/supplier is
notified. Many states wrote that they have an online database that lists products
approved by their committee.
Question 3: Please identify where you typically obtain research findings and
current information for your evaluation of new materials and technologies.
Respondents were asked to determine how much of their research findings and
current information came from each of the sources listed below by defining each
source relative to another. The survey rated the relative degree of use of each
source by defining weights for exclusively, mostly, sometimes and never as 1,2,
3, 4, respectively. The lower the average rating for each source, the greater it was
used by state DOTs. For example, the source Within your DOT had an average
rating of 2.45. This means that the average response for this source was between
mostly and sometimes. Table 3 shows how each source ranked relative to another.
One can see that most DOTs rely on their own department to obtain research
20


findings and current information for their evaluation of new materials and
technologies. ASCE was used the least, overall.
Table 3: Source of information used by State DOTs
Source Average Rating Relative Use
Within your DOT 2.45 Mostly-Sometimes
Federal Highway Administration 2.57 Mostly-Sometimes
AASHTO 2.68 Mostly-Sometimes
Transportation Research Board 2.76 Mostly-Sometimes
Public Universities 2.81 Mostly-Sometimes
University Transportation Centers 2.90 Mostly-Sometimes
Others 3.00 Sometimes
Private Firms 3.14 Sometimes-Never
ASCE 3.30 Sometimes-Never
Respondents commented that Other sources came from the Highway Innovative
Technology Evaluation Center (HITEC), Army Corps of Engineers, American
21


Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), other state/provincial DOTs, architects
and engineers in private practice, trade magazines, conferences, product venders,
technical exchanges, industry groups, internet research and city or county
engineers.
Question 4: What are the most efficient aspects of your current processes?
Many of the states that have a current procedure for evaluating new material
technologies emphasize the importance of having a streamlined approach. West
Virginia Division of Highways circulate the product to the proper folks within
[their] agency who have a great deal of knowledge and experience in the area in
which the product will be considered for use. Kansas and Indiana gave a similar
response. In-house evaluations seem to be favored by the respondents in order to
streamline activities. Connecticut DOT Office of Research & Material Testing
writes that keeping activities within the department eliminates redundancies. The
South Dakota DOT/Bridge Design respondent says that when the research is
carried out within the DOT, they have intimate contact with the project. Nevada
said that in-house evaluations are faster when fewer people are involved in the
decision making. Another efficiency proclaiming in-house evaluations came from
the Wisconsin DOT, stating that their research staff works closely with those that
write the specifications.
22


Question 5: What primary difficulties has your State DOT encountered in the
process of evaluating, acceptine. and utilizing new material technologies?
Many states responded that their primary difficulty in evaluating, accepting and
utilizing new material technologies were lack of resources, either in time, money or
expert staff. Connecticut DOT Office of Research & Material Testing stated that
new material technologies are approved as products, but that knowing what
application the product was approved for was not immediately available, thus
requiring additional time for research by personnel.
Other difficulties reported dealt with proprietary products. Mississippi, Tennessee
and Nevada responded that Federal regulations on proprietary products eliminate
the use of some material technologies. However, Connecticut DOT/Bridge Design
stated that Specifying proprietary materials [for] a project, which have a lack of
performance history, and [then] having those materials perform poorly in active
projects was a difficulty they faced in implementing new material technologies.
Many states responded that new materials used to reduce life cycle costs were not
implemented due to the high front end costs. Not knowing how new products
perform long-term indicated a lack of confidence in implementation since public
23


funding was at stake. Other states wrote that lack of competition among new
material technologies made the front end costs excessive.
Question 6: What are the most successful new materials or technologies that have
recently been utilized in your State? Please describe.
New material technologies that have recently been implemented by state DOTs are
listed below. Further explanation of these technologies can be found in Innovative
Materials in Highway Construction (Morgan, 2008).
Novachip Ultrathin Bonded Wearing Course
Portland Cement Concrete Rubblization
Liquid Calcium Chloride
MIT Scanners
Superpave Performance Grading
Stainless steel and cast iron curb ramp detectable warning fields
Fly ash base stabilization
Dowel bar retrofit
Partial depth pavement repair
High tension cable guard
SCI 100GM crash cushion
24


Foamed asphalt HMA recycled layers
Reclaimed Asphalt Plant mix (RAP)
Geogrids
Culvert slip-lining
Composite technology for bridge drains
High performance bridge deck membranes
Tire derived aggregates for use as embankments
High Performance Concrete (HPC)
Self Compacting Concrete (SCC)
Infrared camera systems for HMA plant mix segregation
Superpave
State binder specifications
Ramp metering
Re-useable curing blankets (without plastic backings)
Curing evaporation retarders
Longer curing periods
Automated Flagger Assistance Devices (AFAD)
Durable pavement markings
Recycled materials
25


Chemical soil stabilization
High Performance Steel (HPS)
Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP)
Skid resistant surface treatments
Air-void analyzer (AVA)
Anti-icing bridge sprays
Concrete maturity meter sensors
Smart aggregate sensors
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls
MMFX reinforcing bars
MMFX steel
Erosion control products
Patching materials for pavement
Question 7: How often is each of the materials below used by your State DOT?
Respondents were asked how often their state uses various materials by checking
frequently, some, almost never, never or not used but has potential for use
in our highway system. Table 4 lists the majority response for each material and
is sorted according to the majority response given.
26


Table 4: Implementation of various materials
Material Frequency of Implementation
Recycled Asphalt Frequently
Geotextiles Frequently
High Performance Concrete Frequently
High Performance Steel Some
Chemical Soil Stabilization Some
Self-Compacting Concrete Some
Thin Lift Asphalt Some
Waterproof Concrete Almost Never
Composite Guardrails Almost Never
FRP Reinforcement Almost Never
MMFX Reinforcing Bars Never
Pervious Concrete Never
Warm Mix Asphalt Not used, but has potential for use in our highway system
Approximately half of the new material technologies listed are implemented either
frequently or some of the time.
27


Question 8: Does your State DOT generate specifications for the use of new
materials? Are these specifications available to other State DOTs, and if so, how
do others access this information?
The majority of states responded that special provisions are issued with their
standard specifications and are available to other DOTs at their website. If they are
not available online, most respondents wrote that the special provisions and
standard specifications are available upon request by contacting someone within
the DOT.
Question 9: What improvements or suggestions can you offer for the acceleration
of technology implementation or for increasing the fluidity of information transfer?
The majority of suggestions offered to accelerate technology implementation and
increase the fluidity of information transfer were with increasing cooperation
among state DOTs and other transportation organizations. Connecticut
DOT/Bridge Design suggested there be More dependency on performance
experiences in similar applications by other transportation organizations.
Wisconsin wrote that Communication (among state DOTs and within an
individual agency) is key to share ideas and successfully implement them. South
Dakota wrote that an un-biased single source should be implemented to act as a
consumer guide. Other suggestions were to form a committee with members
28


representing each DOT, and creating multi-state (pool) funded research studies for
evaluating new material technologies.
Another topic of suggestions dealt with increasing resources, specifically
personnel. Connecticut DOT Office of Research & Material Testing suggested
creating a dedicated technology deployment unit or individual to implement
applied research results, and that increasing their resources and personnel would
be highly advantageous to accomplish such a task.
Other responses put more emphasis on manufacturers and venders. Oregon wrote
that It would be helpful if there was independent information available to
supplement the technologies. Maybe this could come from Universities, or others.
It is difficult to spend time and money working to prove technologies that will
benefit one vendor. Delaware suggested that suppliers provide specifications to
DOTs when they are marketing their new technologies.
Other suggestions were directed at the Federal government, saying that The
pooled fund study for the development of a tracking process needs to be better
funded. The current FHWA staffing is not at a level sufficient to make the project
proceed at an acceptable rate. Mississippi writes The biggest problem we have
29


as a state agency is generating generic specifications for new technology or
materials that meet the Federal competitive bid requirements.
Finally, Maryland suggested that someone Develop/revise [the] process for new
technology implementation into construction projects [and] develop [the] most
effective and efficient manner to perform evaluations. This final suggestion is
what this thesis attempts to accomplish for the FLH-FHWA.
Question 10: Additional Comments and ideas.
Additional comments from the survey reveal that the FHWA should do more to
encourage the use of new technologies. Connecticut DOT Office of Research &
Material Testing used the FHWAs push for Superpave as an example. South
Dakota DOT/Bridge Design said that un-biased reports are difficult to find due to
company sponsored research and sales people pushing their product. Oregon
DOT/Construction and Materials Section indicated the fear involved in
implementing technology that hasnt been tested and evaluated thoroughly,
especially when taxpayer money is involved.
30


4. Problem Statement
The FLH-FHWA is in need of a materials review process to identify and evaluate
emerging material technologies and innovative installation techniques that will
promote efficient and quality construction practices. Currently, there is no
documented procedure within the FLH-FF1WA organizational structure that provides
direction for the review of construction materials or methods. FLH-FHWA
employees use their own discretion and rely on their own experience or feedback
from other organizations regarding the use of certain products. In most cases, the
FLH-FHWA Materials Engineer will know whether a product has merit within 10
minutes of discussing the product with the vender. An employee will sometimes
champion a product because he or she feels it will be beneficial to a specific project.
Furthermore, a product is typically accepted on a project-to-project basis. These
informal procedures do not document the advantages or disadvantages realized or the
criteria that was used during the decision making process. What the Central Federal
Lands Highway Division has approved for use in a project, and why it was approved,
may not be known to the Western or Eastern divisions, necessitating their own
independent, informal and redundant reviews of the same products. Thus, a clear
policy does not exist that determines and documents whether a product is acceptable
for use in construction because a standard set of criteria has not been determined by
all divisions. Establishing a review process that is structured in an organized and
31


coherent manner and can be consistently applied to any new innovative material or
method using standard criteria will enhance the quality, timeliness, and efficiency of
product implementation throughout all divisions of the FLH-FHWA.
32


5. DOT Matrix and Flowcharts
5.1 State DOT Matrix
The State DOT matrix is a compilation of 50 states with their corresponding activities
as identified in the states survey, website literature review and/or direct
communication. Table 5 shows 5 states within the matrix. The complete State DOT
Matrix is shown in Appendix B. A total of 31 states verified their states activities by
confirming, adding or deleting components in the evaluation process.
33


Table 5: State DOT Matrix for 5 states
Components of Evaluation Process "Alabama bAlaska "bArizona "Arkansas bCalifornia
Vendor Approaches X X X X X
DOT Initiates Product Evaluation X
New Products Engineer/Coordinator X
New Products Evaluation Program X X
Technology Transfer Engineer
Product Evaluation Coordinator/ Engineer X X X
In-House Research/Testing X
Use of Private Research Firm X
University Research X X
Pooled Fund Studies X
Use of Other Transportation Organizations: APEL, NTPEP, etc. X
Evaluation (No Committee) X
Evaluation Committee/ Review Team X X X X
Committee Representatives: Research/ Materials X
Construction X X
Maintenance/ Operations X X
Specific Expertise X X
FHWA Division Office X
Safety Office X
Environment Office X X
Specifications Office
Quality Control Office
Specialty Subcommittees X
Field Testing/ Experimental-Trial Projects X X
Specifications Online X X X
Approved Products List X X X X X
An 'X' identifies that a state utilizes, to some extent, the activity shown.
All states have had a website review and have been contacted for confirmation/modification
to the matrix and/or flowchart.
Responded to the states survey questionnaire
bResponded with direct communication to confirm/modify matrix and/or flowchart
34


5.2 Matrix Component Descriptions
5.2.1 Vender Approaches and/or DOT Initiates Product Evaluation
Typically, the vender, supplier, or manufacturer introduces the new product to the
DOT. The websites do not indicate any proactive response from DOTs adopting new
technologies into practice. However, the information found on the websites is geared
toward contractors and design professionals needing clarification on DOT procedures.
Of the 31 states that responded via email regarding review of their flowchart and
activities listed in the matrix, 15 states marked an X in the DOT Initiates Product
Evaluation component, showing that there is motivation from state DOTs to
implement new innovative technologies.
5.2.2 New Products Evaluation Program, New Products Engineer/Coordinator
and Product Evaluation Coordinator/Engineer
Most DOT websites have a new product application form that can be downloaded by
the vender. The application is usually sent to a DOTs materials or research
department (in many cases the materials and research department is one). Appendix
C shows application forms from various states. Some states have a department within
the materials and/or research department that specifically deal with new products and
innovative technologies. For example, the Ohio DOT has a new products engineer
who has the responsibility to receive applications and forward them on to a
35


committee. Other states have also proclaimed use of new products engineers. Some
states have a committee coordinator who receives the applications. The coordinator
will also request additional information if needed from the vender. A Product
Evaluation Coordinator/Engineer may not deal exclusively with new products, but
may also evaluate old products that the DOT currently does not place on their
approved products list (also called a qualified products list). The evaluation
coordinator will usually do an initial evaluation that determines whether the product
requires new specifications to be written, special provisions to be added to the
existing specifications, or whether the product currently meets existing specifications.
Of the 50 states researched, 32 have a committee coordinator. When all of the
required information is received, the application is usually forwarded to a new
product evaluation committee.
5.2.3 Evaluation (No Committee), Evaluation Committee/Review Team, and
Committee Representatives
Most of the DOT websites indicate the use of a formal product evaluation committee
that will assess the worthiness of the new product. The committees typically consist
of members representing the DOTs various departments and divisions. The
departments involved in the evaluation are usually specific to the application in which
the product will be used (i.e. bridge, traffic or highway construction). Other members
36


of the committee include personnel in the materials and research departments,
maintenance and operations, construction, safety, environment, specifications, quality
control and may also include a division representative from the Federal Highway
Administration. Several states do not have a special committee. Instead, the product
is evaluated by a single person in charge of new products or by the project manager
u specific project. Of the 50 states researched 13 have indicated that no special
commi, exists in their evaluai ~rocess.
5.2.4 In-House Rs. ^rch/Testing, Use Private Research Firm, University
Research, Pooled Funo ndir ae of Other Transportation Organizations:
APEL, NTPEP, etc. and Field Testing/Experimental-Trial Projects
As the evaluation of a new innovative product continues, the committee may decide
that further research is needed. The research department may conduct in-house
research into the usefulness of a product. The department may also use a private firm
to test and evaluate, or may work with a local university. Oftentimes information
from other transportation organizations such as AASHTO Product Evaluation List
(APEL), National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP), Highway
Innovative Technology Evaluation Center (HITEC) and other state DOTs is used to
help in the evaluation. Some state DOTs participate in pooled fund studies, which
allows federal, state, and local agencies along with other organizations to contribute
37


their resources to support research studies related to transportation. If a product looks
promising, many states conduct field testing and experimental-trial projects for a
specified time period to monitor and assess the new product.
5.2.5 Technology Transfer Engineer
A technology transfer engineer is someone responsible for maintaining the flow of
technology into and out of the department. In implementing new innovative
technologies, this job would appear to be fairly important. However, only 5 states
indicated use of a Technology Transfer Engineer.
5.2.6 Specifications Online
While the activity Specifications Online does not appear to be relevant to a product
evaluation process, it does serve as a resource for an evaluation committee to review
the specific details regarding another states implementation of the same product.
This is also a technology transfer tool that aids in communication among other states
regarding the use of a certain product. Of the 50 states researched, 37 have online
specifications.
38


5.2.7 Approved Products List
After all of the necessary research, testing, and documentation, the committee will
reject, accept, or accept with field testing the new product and place it on their
Approved Products List or Qualified Products List. Either new specifications are
written or special provisions are adopted if the new product is accepted.
5.3 State DOT Flowcharts
The State DOT Flowcharts were created based on the State DOT Survey, website
reviews and direct communication with DOT employees. Some state DOTs provided
criteria that is typically used during evaluation and is listed next to the flowchart. The
details of many flowcharts are very complex (Figure 4) while others are very simple
(Figure 5), reflecting a vast range of differences between individual state DOT
evaluation procedures.
39


Figure 4: Utah Flowchart (Utah Department of Transportation, 2008)
40


Figure 5: Alaska Flowchart (Alaska Department of Transportation, 2008)
The flowcharts are categorized into 1) Matrix and/or Flowcharts Confirmed by DOT
Employee, 2) Matrix and Flowcharts not Confirmed by DOT Employee, and 3)
Information Not Available for Adequate Flowchart.
Appendix D.l displays flowcharts from 31 states that have corresponded through
email verifying their states flowchart and/or matrix by confirming or modifying the
details of their evaluation process. Further reference is made to the webpage where
information was obtained during the website literature review. Appendix D.2 shows
41


flowcharts from 15 states that have not provided verification of their states flowchart
or matrix. The information obtained from these states is based on the State DOT
Survey and website literature review. Massachusetts, Montana, Oklahoma and
Wyoming did not have enough information to create a flowchart of their evaluation
process. None of these states responded to the state survey questionnaire, little to no
website information was found and no confirmation or modification of the matrix was
communicated.
42


6. Recommendations
The FLH-FHWA can take an active role in promoting technologies that will improve
the quality of the Nations highways by adopting a specific process governing the
evaluation of new products and methods. The states survey responses indicated that
one benefit to having a formal process for new product evaluations is the states
ability to move innovative materials onto the approved products list, a list that
governs implementation of specific materials in construction projects. Since the
FLH-FHWA does not maintain such a list, it is the development of specifications that
formulates the rules governing implementation of a new product or method, and
hence, the end result of a materials evaluation procedure for the FLH-FHWA.
The survey responses also suggest a need for having a National hub for collecting
data and pooling resources from other state DOTs to accelerate Inter-State
cooperation in implementing innovative materials and methods. The FHWA is seen
by other agencies as a leader responsible for such a task.
This chapter addresses how the FLH-FHWA can promote the implementation of new
products and methods by taking a leading role in product evaluations. A New
Products and Methods Evaluation Procedure is recommended by defining a flowchart
that organizes activities into a coherent manner. The details of each component (or
43


activity) are discussed along with a process description following the flowchart. A
new database is introduced that can serve as an unbiased single-source of information
for all highway agencies in their evaluation procedures. The evaluation process also
describes the development of a Program Formulation that guides a product through a
series of steps based on needs and concerns from the New Products and Methods
Evaluation Committee.
The recommendations set forth in this chapter are based on the evaluation procedures
defined in earlier sections from research on existing materials review processes. For
example, the Program Formulation idea is taken from West Virginia. The goal is to
set forth a procedure that encompasses many of the activities used by state DOTs. It
is recognized, however, that organizational differences between the FLH-FHWA and
state DOTs exist, and therefore, may make some of the ideas presented in this section
unfeasible. After recommending the idealistic evaluation procedure described in this
chapter to the FLH-FHWA, the study team asked for critical feedback in order to
fine-tune and tailor the details of the process to fit the FLH-FHWAs organizational
structure. This feedback is discussed in Chapter 7, along with a revision to the
flowchart based on the recommendations by the FHWA. To further aid in developing
a useful and tailored materials review process for the FLH-FHWA, a trial run of a
product of interest is proposed.
44


6.1 Recommended Flowchart for the FLH-FHWA
The recommended flowchart presented here consists of 4
Evaluation, 2) Program Formulation, 3) Evaluation and
Accepted) and Remaining Tasks.
phases: 1) Preliminary
4) Implementation (If
45


6.1.1 Phase 1: Preliminary Evaluation
1 Yender Supplieroi FLH-FHWA Initiates Product
Evaluation (Originator)
'Direction of flow is from top of page to bottom of page unless indicated by arrow.
Figure 6: New Products and Methods Evaluation Procedure Flowchart
46


6.1.2 Phase 2: Program Formulation
Figure 6 (Cont.): New Products and Methods Evaluation Procedure Flowchart
47


6.2 Recommended Flowchart Components and Process Description
6.2.1 Phase 1: Preliminary Evaluation
6.2.1.1 Vender/Supplier (Originator)
The vender or supplier for a new product will usually initiate the start of a new
product evaluation by contacting the DOT. Most state DOTs have an online
application that must be completed and submitted to a new products engineer or new
products evaluation coordinator before a product is considered. It is important to
obtain as much information from a vender to eliminate additional research that may
be required during the Committee Review and research phase of the evaluation. An
application fee may be required to deter suppliers from submitting a product that is
most likely going to be turned down immediately from evaluation, such as when a
product is submitted that meets existing specifications and is therefore not considered
a new product.
6.2.1.2 FLH-FHWA Initiates Product Evaluation (Originator)
Occasionally a state DOT will want to implement a new product or method and will
initiate the evaluation process internally. This is not very common since venders are
driven to target industries where their product may be useful. However, it is an
important contribution to this recommended process for the FLH-FHWA since it
facilitates a proactive approach in implementing new technologies. The goal of such
48


motivation is the construction of better and longer lasting highways due to
technological innovation, a result that is best not left for venders to solely initiate.
6.2.1.3 New Products Engineer: Initial Assessment
The new products engineer (NPE) conducts an initial assessment of the product or
method to determine if it is applicable to the evaluation process. After receiving the
New Products and Methods Evaluation Application and all other supporting
documents provided by the originator, the NPE will review to determine if all
necessary information is provided. If information is missing that will useful for the
evaluation, the originator will be contacted. The NPE can reject an application if it
does not meet immediate requirements as delegated from the evaluation committee.
Immediate requirements may consist of (1) the new product or method is new and
current specifications do not apply or may need modifications, (2) the new product is
not already being evaluated, or (3) has not previously been submitted and determined
unacceptable. The committee may add other requirements. Previous submittals shall
be archived after a minimum period of time and checked to ensure the submitted
product is applicable to the evaluation process.
As the New Products and Methods Evaluation Committee Coordinator, the NPE
collects and gathers all the necessary information needed by the committee to make a
49


decision. The NPE also monitors and tracks the status of the evaluation from receipt
of application to acceptance or rejection of the product. The application can either be
filled application under review, application incomplete, application rejected, or
application review complete.
6.2.1.4 Products that Apply to Current Specifications: Old Products/Methods
Products and methods that are not new and innovative have specifications that already
apply to them and are therefore not subject to evaluation. The application for
evaluation is rejected only on the grounds that it is not considered new. Use of the
old product may be acceptable in construction as long as it meets the existing
specifications that apply to it. If the application is rejected and no evaluation takes
place, the NPE will contact the originator to inform of the decision.
6.2.1.5 Products that Do Not Apply to Current Specifications or Modifications to
Specifications Required: New Products/Methods
Products and methods that are new and innovative do not have existing specifications
and are therefore subject to evaluation. The products that eventually become
accepted will have new specifications/special provisions (or modifications to them)
that apply to the new product.
50


6.2.1.6 New Products Engineer: Coordinates Evaluation and Technology
Transfer
After the initial assessment, the New Products Engineer shall act as committee
coordinator and perform technology transfer functions. These activities include 1)
checking existing product evaluation databases such as NTPEP, APEL and HITEC,
2) checking and maintaining the Evaluations and Specifications Database for New
Products and Methods, a newly created database recommended for this procedure,
and 3) identifying the Subject Matter Experts. The NPEs preliminary research
findings and product documentation shall be distributed to the committee members
for use in the Preliminary Committee Review.
6.2.1.7 Check NTPEP, APEL, HITEC, and Other Resources
As a means for coordinating the evaluation process and as a technology transfer
function, the NPE shall research existing databases to determine if the product has
already been evaluated by other DOTs. NTPEP, APEL, HITEC, and other resources
can provide useful information for the committee to review in making their decision.
If a product has already been approved in a specific state and specifications or special
provisions have been written, the evaluation process for the FLH-FHWA is simplified
since much of the research and testing has already been conducted. If a product has
51


been approved by many states, the product has a good chance of being fast-tracked
to acceptance or rejected by the FLH-FHWA with minimal effort expended.
6.2.1.8 Evaluation and Specifications Database for New Products and Methods
As a way to coordinate evaluations nationally, an Evaluation and Specifications
Database for New Products and Methods should be created and maintained by the
FLH-FFIWA NPE that tracks and monitors the evaluation of products by all highway
departments in the country. The database can be accessed and information uploaded
by other representatives from DOTs by informing of the product status and giving a
summary of the evaluation criteria that was met or not met. Information can also be
added to the database such as test and research results and specifications/special
provisions created for the product. Most state DOTs have specifications online while
other states make their specifications available on request. Knowing the
specifications/special provisions created by other DOTs would allow the FLH-FHWA
to know what requirements a new product may have for implementation. The
database can also provide state DOTs with information aiding in their own evaluation
of a product that was evaluated previously by other states or by the FLH-FHWA.
52


6.2.1.9 Identify Subject Matter Experts
Another coordination function of the NPE shall be to identify Subject Matter Experts
(SME) that are qualified to evaluate a specific product or method in their area of
expertise. The SMEs may consist of FLH-FHWA employees or contractors and take
part in the Committee Review.
6.2.1.10 Preliminary Committee Review
The New Products and Methods Evaluation Committee should consist of the
following members. Other offices may be included in this list at the discretion of the
committee.
1. Chairman (Materials Engineer for FLH-FHWA): The Chairman is in charge of
giving final approval or disapproval to a product and guides the committee
through the evaluations and meeting agenda.
2. New Products Engineer (NPE): The NPE acts as committee coordinator,
technology transfer engineer and maintains the Evaluations and Specifications
Database for New Products and Methods.
3. Subject Matter Experts: The Subject Matter Experts act as technical advisors to
the committee. Specific areas of expertise include bridge, structural, pavement,
traffic, geotechnical, etc.
53


4. Research Office: The research office may conduct much of the research needed to
evaluate a product. The research office can advise the committee of its
capabilities, limitations and resources available.
5. Materials Office: The materials office may conduct much of the testing required
to review a product. Similar to the research office, the materials office can advise
the committee of its capabilities, limitations and resources available.
6. Construction Office: The construction office can advise the committee of
constructability issues with a new product or method and determine if
implementation can be done in-house or contracted out.
7. Maintenance Office: The maintenance office can advise the committee of possible
maintenance concerns and determine how the new product or method may impact
their office.
8. Operations Office: The operations office may raise concerns over how a product
or method will be implemented and whether the resources are available to
accomplish the tasks required.
9. Safety Office: The safety office will address safety concerns to FLH-FHWA
employees, contractors and the public as it relates to the product or method in
question.
10. Environmental Office: The environmental office will address environmental
concerns related to the product or method under review.
54


11. Specifications Office: The specifications office will be responsible for writing
new specifications or special provisions for a new product or method that is
accepted. The office can advise the committee of requirements associated with
the product and can research the specifications other states and transportation
organizations may have written about the product or method. The office can also
advise the committee if the new product requirements conflict with other existing
requirements and specifications not related to the product.
12. Quality Control Office: The quality control office can advise the committee of
necessary quality control issues associated with the product or method under
evaluation. A new innovative product could become costly if a great amount of
quality control measures is needed for its implementation.
The first set of criteria that should be addressed by the committee in the preliminary
review is listed below. The initial criteria is categorized into 1) the necessity for the
product, 2) evaluating the information available from the manufacturer, state DOTs
and organizations such as NTPEP, APEL and HITEC, 3) initial concerns from each
office represented in the committee and 4) miscellaneous criteria. Based on these
categories, the committee should give the product or method a ranking that prioritizes
it with other products undergoing evaluation. For example, if there is a greater need
for a certain product over another and less of an environmental concern, along with
55


prior approvals from other state DOTs, it should be given a higher priority. If a
product has low priority, the evaluation may be placed on hold until higher priority
products are evaluated. The preliminary review should also list a set of initial pros
and cons for the implementation of the product or method.
Initial criteria related to need:
Is there a need for the new product or method?
Does the product cover a need for immediate or significant improvement?
Do similar products exist that perform a similar function?
Initial criteria related to information available:
Is the product approved by other DOTs or used in other states?
Have positive results been demonstrated under NTPEP, APEL, HITEC or other
organizations?
Do test results provided from the manufacturer & MSDS information conflict
with FHWA requirements?
Does the documentation received indicate that the product will perform as stated?
56


Initial criteria related to concerns:
What are the implications discovered from looking at other states specifications,
experience and evaluation decisions/conclusions regarding the product?
What safety concerns exist for implementing the product or method?
What environmental concerns exist for implementing the product or method?
What construction concerns exist for implementing the product or method?
What maintenance concerns exist for implementing the product or method?
What quality control concerns exist for implementing the product or method?
What research needs exist for implementing the product or method?
Does the product interfere with other design requirements and specifications? If
so, does the potential benefit of the new product outweigh the requirement in
conflict?
Other initial criteria:
What are the initial pros and cons associated with this product or method?
How does the product or method rank in priority when compared to other
products or methods under evaluation?
57


The next step in the initial evaluation would be to establish a Program Formulation
for a new product or method. The Program Formulation is a plan to guide the product
through the evaluation process based on research and testing deemed necessary by the
committee. The Program Formulation gives the evaluation direction by establishing a
task list of items to be completed before the committee can review and make a
decision on the use of the product. The Program Formulation describes what needs to
be done, how it will be done and by whom. It should also address concerns raised by
committee members. For example, for testing, the committee should decide what
kinds of tests are needed and if it shall be performed in-house, by a private firm or at
a university. If field-testing is required, the committee should establish guidelines for
the research office on how to proceed. Establishing other criteria may also be
necessary since not all products and methods are the same; and some criteria listed
below may or may not be relevant for a type of product. The committee should
delegate tasks relevant to each committee members office or area of expertise that
will perform functions identified in the Program Formulation. A goal date should be
set at the Preliminary Committee Review as an estimate for the Program Formulation
to be complete.
58


After the initial review, The New Products and Methods Evaluation Committee can
decide to place the evaluation on hold, not accept the product or method, or fast track
the product to experimental trials.
6.2.1.11 Evaluation on Hold
The committee can decide during the preliminary review to place the evaluation on
hold if the product or method is given a low priority status. This allows higher
priority products the ability to progress through their Program Formulation and
become implemented sooner. The evaluation could also be placed on hold if
information is missing from the vender or manufacturer that will influence the
development of the Program Formulation. The committee may decide to place an
evaluation on hold for any reason it deems necessary.
6.2.1.12 Fast Track Acceptance for Experimental Trials
A fast track acceptance of a new product or method may be necessary if the need or
benefit outweighs the possible risks associated with it. The acceptance at the
committees preliminary review stage is not a full acceptance of the new product but
an acceptance to proceed with experimental trials or for implementation on a specific
project that can be monitored by the research department. The product will still have
a Program Formulation (of which the experimental trials are a part of) to be
59


completed and a full Committee Review of the results. The idea of a fast track use of
the product is to allow immediate implementation without having to wait for lengthy
testing and research results, which can now take place concurrently with the
experimental trials.
6.2.1.13 Not Accepted
If no immediate use for a product is determined or committee members find
significant concerns, they may decide to withdraw it from further evaluation and not
accept it for use in projects. The benefit from this action is that it eliminates a
Program Formulation that may be overly time consuming and costly and deplete
resources within the FLH-FHWA for a product with very little benefit or need.
6.2.2 Phase 2: Program Formulation
6.2.2.1 Research/Materials Office
After the Preliminary Committee Review, the research and/or materials office can
proceed with research and testing as defined in the Program Formulation. Having the
research and materials offices represented in the committee is important in order to
relate to the rest of the committee members the abilities and limitations the
departments may have. For example, if the level of experience and knowledge in the
area of engineered cementitious composites is low, the research department may
60


advise the committee of setting up a contract with a university to evaluate the
application of this product.
6.2.2.2 New Products Engineer: Gather Information
As the committee coordinator, the NPE checks on the progress being made to a
products Program Formulation. As different departments conduct their investigation
and research, the results get sent back to the NPE. Once all the items in the Program
Formulation are complete the NPE places the product to be reviewed on the
committees agenda for discussion. It is the responsibilities of the NPE to coordinate
the activities set forth in the Program Formulation and to advise the committee if a
new goal date should be set. The information to be discussed is distributed to all
committee members prior to the Committee Review to allow for members to consider
the results and bring forth items of question and concern that appear relevant.
6,2.3 Phase 3: Evaluation
6.2.3.1 Committee Review
After all tasks in the Program Formulation are complete, the committee can meet to
discuss the results. The committee should discuss the concerns that were addressed
from each committee member in the Preliminary Committee Review. The results of
the Program Formulation should have addressed the concerns. The difference
61


between the concerns in the initial review and the same concerns after the Program
Formulation is completed and discussed by the committee (if those concerns are still
present) is an acceptance of risk associated with the product or method. For example,
say a new method for placing asphalt has been developed and during the preliminary
review, the environmental office raised concerns regarding how a new chemical
additive used during installation would affect the environment. The Program
Formulation should have addressed the concern by testing the chemical and looking
for possible impacts to the environment. If the tests showed that there was no
significant impact and researchers did not believe the chemical to be hazardous, then
the concerns would most likely be eliminated. However, if there was a small side
effect from the new method, the concern would now be realized and considered a risk
that has to be weighed in comparison to the benefits of the new procedure.
Based on new information provided by the Program Formulation, not only are
concerns assessed but the list of pros and cons updated as well. The Subject Matter
Experts should also provide their recommendation to the committee based on their
own research that may have been required by the Program Formulation. If the new
product has been used in Experimental Trials as defined in its Program Formulation,
the results shall be presented to the committee by the research department.
62


Additional criteria that should be addressed by the committee are listed below. The
criteria are categorized into 1) how the product will be implemented if approved, 2)
costs associated with implementation, 3) issues related to constructability, and 4)
miscellaneous criteria.
Criteria related to how the product will be implemented if approved:
Is the product specific for a single project need or type of project?
Is there a general use for the product where it can be implemented in multiple
projects or types of projects and/or applications in maintenance work?
Is the application of the product difficult and/or require extra labor hours due to
installation or quality control?
What are the maintenance implications involved in the use of the product or
method?
Criteria related to cost implications:
How does cost of installation and maintenance compare to the potential benefits
the product will achieve?
When considering costs, is the product comparable to a similar product (if
existent) or differ greatly?
63


Is the product or method economically competitive?
What are the repair and replacement costs involved in the use of the product?
What warranties come with the product or can be purchased from the
manufacturer?
Is the product economically feasible?
Do proprietary issues exist with the product or method?
Is the products life span reasonable?
Criteria related to constructability:
What are the health and safety concerns involved in the use, installation or
maintenance of this product or method?
Is the product readily available?
Can the product or method be implemented by many contractors or only by one?
What potential problems exist for installing the product?
Other criteria:
What are the Subject Matter Experts recommendations?
What are the results of the Program Formulation set forth in the Preliminary
Committee Review (i.e. results of testing, research and experimental trials)?
64


What are the pros and cons of the new product or method?
Address committee members concerns identified in the initial review. Are there
new concerns?
Does a new Program Formulation need to be created and conducted?
When all of the relevant issues described in the Program Formulation are addressed
and enough information and research presented to the committee, along with a
discussion of all relevant criteria, a decision can be made. The committees decision
can be 1) Accepted for Experimental Trials, 2) Accepted for Specific Projects Only,
3) Accepted for General Use, 4) Not Accepted, 5) Additional Evaluation Required
(New Program Formation), or 6) Evaluation on Hold.
6.2.3.2 Accepted for Experimental Trials
The most time consuming and potentially costly part of a products Program
Formulation is to allow it to undergo experimental trials. Before a product can be
used on a regular basis with an expected level of confidence, it must prove itself in
application. The product may be implemented in an actual project and then
monitored by the research department. The committee should decide on the duration
of time a project is to be monitored or how many projects are necessary before a
65


decision can be made. If more data is required, the product may have a revised
Program Formulation that specifies more time in experimental trials.
6.2.3.3 Accepted for Specific Projects Only
A new product or method can be accepted for a specific project type while being
excluded from others. If there is a great need for the product in a specific type of
project and has undergone testing to ensure it adequacy, but has not yet been tested
for other uses, then the product has limited use. The products limited use status may
be changed by defining a new Program Formulation that would involve defining
criteria and research geared toward another project type or for general use in all
project types.
A product or method that is accepted for specific projects only is not in experimental
trials and no longer under evaluation as it has already proven itself with a level of
confidence that does not require monitoring from the research department. Because
of its limited use in projects, special conditions may apply which the committee
should define during the products evaluation phase.
66


6.2.3.4 Accepted for General Use
Some products or methods may have applications to many types of projects,
compelling its acceptance for general use. For example, a new additive that makes
asphalt more durable would best be suited as a general use product since asphalt is
applied on almost all highways. The additive could be accepted for a specific climate
where testing has been performed, proving itself as a more durable product with little
to no negative impact on the environment. However, the use of it in other climates
with more extreme qualities such as very low humidity, high altitude, poor air quality,
use of deicing salts, or other factors may cause adverse reactions, making it a concern
for either safety or the environment if applied. Testing for these extreme climate
applications could allow the additive to be used as a general use product if very little
negative impact is detected. Specifications would still define specific rules regarding
the products use but would also allow broader application.
6.2.3.5 Additional Evaluation Required (New Program Formulation)
If further evaluation is required, another Program Formulation should be created and
the process repeated. An example would be if a product is accepted for specific
projects only, but has possible applications to many other types of projects that would
include it in the Accepted for General Use category, a new Program Formulation
should be created and additional evaluation conducted. The product could still be
67


implemented on projects that it has already been accepted to under its previous
Program Formulation. Another example would be if a product, while being tested,
has raised some concerns previously not predicted, the new concerns could be dealt
with by creating a new Program Formulation.
6.2.3.6 Not Accepted
A product that has completed its Program Formulation, and the results discussed in
the committees review, may be rejected from implementation in projects. The
concerns addressed in the preliminary review may have been realized during the
process of conducting the Program Formulation. For example, if a new soil
stabilization product proclaims that there are no health concerns for workers applying
the product but testing indicates otherwise, the product may be considered too risky
for implementation or experimental trials.
6.2.4 Phase 4: Implementation (If Accepted) and Remaining Tasks
6.2.4.1 Specifications or Special Provisions Written/Modified
The end result of a New Products and Methods Evaluation Process is to define or
modify specifications or special provisions. By writing new specifications, the
committee can define the specific use of a new technology or method and any rules
about its implementation in a project based on its evaluation.
68


Most state DOTs have an approved products list that designers and contractors can
use during design and construction. Since the FLH-FHWA does not maintain an
approved products list, the recommended flowchart goes directly from accepted to
specifications. However, the NPE should still maintain a list of products and methods
that have been evaluated, are currently under evaluation, and the results of the
evaluation for FLH-FHWA records.
6.2.4.2 New Products Engineer: Informs Originator
Each time a new product or method moves to a different stage of the evaluation, the
NPE updates the status. The NPE informs the originator of the committees decision
and place the product on a list summarizing the Program Formulation results and the
committees conclusions. After 5 years the product evaluation information can be
archived.
The importance of keeping the records and summarizing the results ensures that a
product or method is not repeatedly evaluated or submitted more than once. The
information is also important for technology transfer.
69


6.2.4.3 New Products Engineer: Technology Transfer
To aid in technology transfer and inter-cooperation among organizations evaluating
products, the NPE updates the Evaluations and Specifications Database for New
Products and Methods for the product recently investigated. The same database that
was originally queried by the NPE to find information regarding a new product or
method can now be uploaded with a summary of the committees review and newly
written specifications/special provisions to aid in another organizations evaluation of
the same product.
70


7. FLH-FHWA Feedback and Revisions for Process Implementation
In order for the FLH-FHWA to feasibly implement an evaluation process, feedback
and revisions to the recommended New Products and Methods Evaluation Procedure
is necessary to fit the structure and goals of FLH-FHWA.
7.1 Feedback from FLH-FHWA
On October 23, 2008, a teleconference was held to discuss implementation of the
recommended New Products and Methods Evaluation Procedure. In attendance were
the University of Colorado Denver study team, along with the Materials and
Technology Deployment Engineers from the Eastern, Central, and Western FLH
division offices. The list of questions below was discussed with feedback from FLH-
FHWA shown in the following bullets.
1. What recommendations or changes would you make to the flowchart/process
proposed?
More detail should be provided in the New Products Engineer box as to his or
her role.
Move the Specification box prior to the New Products and Methods
Evaluation Committee: Committee Review. The reason being that
specifications should be drafted prior to the review of the material.
2. Discuss all elements in the flowchart with regards to feasibility of implementation
and advantages/disadvantages associated with that component.
71


A New Products Engineer position does not exist within the FLH-FHWA.
However, there may be a current position(s) that can fill this role. The
Technology Deployment Engineer could serve a similar function with regards
to coordination efforts.
Wording in boxes should be changed in a way to eliminate any impression of
FLH-FHWA endorsing a product.
3. How does the structure of the flowchart work with existing staff resources within
FLH-FHWA?
The proposed flowchart does not fit the structure of the FLH-FHWA due to
the lack of a New Products Engineer within the organization. The Evaluations
and Specification Database would require additional work responsibilities
from employees.
4. What review procedures are currently utilized, in either a formal or informal
manner, by each division or individual within a division?
Someone within the division will champion the product.
In most cases the FLH-FHWA Materials Engineer will know whether a
product has merit within 10 minutes of discussing the product with the
representative.
A product is typically considered on a project-to-project basis.
5. What criteria does each division office (or individual within the office) use to
evaluate a material or method?
Has the product been used somewhere else?
How does it perform?
What are the products successes and failures?
Performance data review.
72


Talk to other DOTs about their use of the product.
6. How realistic is the idea of creating a database for product evaluations,
maintained by the NPE, for the purposes of coordinating all evaluations
nationally?
Not realistic at all.
Perhaps an independent agency could serve to fill this role.
7. Should the process be implemented for FLH-FHWA as a unifying policy for all
divisions, or should it be set up with each division having separate control over
their own process, thus identifying their own policy?
A unifying policy should exist for all divisions of the FLH-FHWA.
8. Recent work with this study has been to document the New Product Evaluation
Applications of various state DOTs. Should a recommended application form be
designed for FLH-FHWA for the process recommended in this study?
A website application for venders to fill out would be very beneficial. Product
description, performance data, state DOT implementation data, and evaluation
information from other organizations listed by the vender would allow FLH-
FHWA personnel to choose products for evaluation when convenient and not
when venders desire FLH-FHWA to evaluate it. Examples of various State
DOT vender applications are shown in Appendix C. Figure 7 shows an
example of a possible website application form. Items underlined could be
links that take the user (applicant) to another webpage to submit information
under that category.
9. How does FLH-FHWA want to go about evaluating the Lifetime Wood Product
as a trial run of a more finalized evaluation process?
We will not be able to do a trial-run any time soon since the process is still in
need of modifications that make it more feasible and adaptable to the existing
structure within the FLH-FHWA.
73


Federal Lands Highway Federal Highway Administration
Request for New Product Evaluation
(Not an Actual FHWA Form)
1. Date of Application
2. Applicants Contact Information
3. General Product Information
Name, Website, Material Composition, Patents, Description, Materials Safety
Data Sheets (MSDS)
4. Distributors/Venders
Contact Information
5. Manufacturers Information
Contact Information
6. Benefits to FLH-FHWA
Outstanding Features or Advantages
7. Cost Information
8. Guarantee/Warrantee Information
9. Existing Specifications
Manufacturer, FHWA, State DOTs, ASTM, AASHTO, Other
10. Product Testing and Evaluations
NTPEP, AASHTO, HITEC, FHWA, ASTM, Other
11. Approvals
State DOTs, Other
Figure 7: Sample Website Application Form
74


7.2 FLH-FHWA Revision of the Recommended Idealized Evaluation Procedure
Figure 8 shows the revised version of the evaluation procedure recommended to the
FLH-FHWA.
New Product Identified by Vender. Employee. Contractor, etc

Creation of an Interactive Technology Delivery' (TD) Website ' "

Visit theTD Website to Enter Information on:
-Details of the Product
-Self Evaluation of Product using Selection Criteria for New Innovative. Emerging,
or Under-Used Products
-Identify wliat Specifications Product Meets, or Note Suggested New Specification for its Use
-Post any Evaluation Data from the Manufacturer, APEL. NTPEP. HITEC. or Others
-Identify any Use-History and Performance Data
-Contact Infonnation
TD Engineer and Tearn Assess the
Product Information and Detamine
Priority
Immediately Deployable Not Vet Deployable r \ No Interest
Needs Developmait
Work
Manufacturer Makes
Minor Adjustments and
Resubmits
In-House
Product Defined, Specifications Written, Details
Approved
TD Engineer Coordinates with AppropriateDiscipline
to Deploy Product
OutsideTD
Contract
Figure 8: FLH-FHWA Revision of the Recommended Evaluation Procedure
75


8. Conclusions
This thesis recommends a materials review process to be utilized by the FLD -
FHWA. This process, if adopted, has the potential to greatly change the manner in
which materials evaluation procedures are conducted throughout the United States.
Existing state review procedures tend to be isolated in nature without much
communication among others evaluating the same product. A product can easily be
evaluated in one state and tested in another without the results being shared, wasting
valuable time and money that could better be spent evaluating a product that has
never been evaluated anywhere. The goal of this thesis was to recommend a process
that allows coordination among the States, FLH-FHWA and other transportation
organizations in order to facilitate a timeliness and more effective materials
evaluation and create a database for the purposes of sharing the results and methods
employed. This thesis accomplished the study objectives by:
Documenting the existing materials evaluation processes used by each DOT
within the United States.
Recommending a New Products and Methods Evaluation Process for the FLH-
FHWA and establishing this organization as a central hub in coordinating
evaluations across the United States.
76


Summarizes the responses from the State DOT Survey
Produced a State DOT Matrix that identifies activities used by DOTs in the
evaluation of materials
Developed flowcharts that organize the activities in the State DOT Matrix into a
process and gives order to the recommended components in the New Products and
Methods Evaluation Process for the FLH-FHWA
Documented feedback from the FLH-FHWA regarding implementation of the
Idealized New Products and Methods Evaluation Process.
Documented revisions to the Idealized New Products and Methods Evaluation
Process that would create a more realistic review procedure for implementation at
the FLH-FHWA.
Implementation of the New Products and Methods Evaluation Process will enhance
the cooperation that is greatly needed for approving or rejecting innovative material
technologies and will ultimately serve to increase the quality of highway
infrastructure.
77


ABBREVIATIONS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
APEL AASHTO Product Evaluation List
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CFLHD Central Federal Lands Highway Division
DOT Department of Transportation
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FLH Federal Lands Highway Divisions
HITEC Highway Innovative Technology Evaluation Center
NPE New Products Engineer
NTPEP National Transportation Product Evaluation Program
SME Subject Matter Expert
TD Technology Deployment
TRB Transportation Research Board
UTC University Transportation Center
78


APPENDIX A
STATE DOT SURVEY
A. 1 Survey Cover Letter and Contact List
University of Colorado it Denver and Health Sciences Center
Department of C Ml Engineering
Downtown Denver______________
1200 Larimer Strea, NC 3027
Campus Box 113, P.0. Box 173364
Denxer, Colorado 80 217*336 4
Phone:303-656-2871
Fax: 303-556-2368
To Whom It May Concern: September 5, 2007
The University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center is performing a study that examines
the use of innovative materials and methods in highway construction. This study is being conducted
under a grant from the Federal Highway Administration (Contract #DTFH68-06-X-00030, COTR
Roger Surdahl, CFLHD). The study consists of extensive identification of new materials and emerging
technologies, as well as new uses and improvements for previously established materials. The study
will explore current programs that have been established for researching, evaluating, and accepting
new materials and technologies. The primary goals of this study are to recommend promising
innovative materials and methods, outline existing technology implementation programs, aid in the
unification of program efforts, streamline the process of material evaluation and acceptance, and
simplify the flow of technology transfer.
Please use the following web link to complete a survey that will aid in our study. The recipient
intended to complete this survey is someone responsible for material selection, development, and
usage in your highway system. We greatly appreciate your response to this questionnaire, and any
additional comments, suggestions, or concerns that you might have.
http:7www.survevmonkev.eom/s.asDx7snFosrzGLiOW6BFc4iPiWZVkA 3d 3d
Thank you for your participation in this survey. If you have any questions, please contact us at (303)
352-3894 or by e-mail at stephan.diirhamfa cudenver.edu.
Sincerely,
Stephan A. Durham
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Figure A1: Survey Cover Letter
79


Table Al: Survey contacts
State Email Contact Email Contact
Alabama conwavffddot.state.al.us
Alaska richard prat tfa dot.state.ak.us
Arizona PIOfdaz51 l.com
Arkansas InfofdArkansasHigJiways.com
California richard landfddot.ca.gov
Colorado paulette.shaverfdfdot. state, co.us
Connecticut webmaster.conndottopo.state.ct.us Christine .r. iohnsonfafpo.state .ct.us
robert.raiolafa;po.state.ct.us
Delaware dot -publ ic-re lat ionsfd: state. de. us
Florida fdot.piofrtdot.statc.fi.us wi 11 iam .nickasfrtdot.state.fi .us
Georgia david. graham fadot.state.go. us ri ck. dea verfddot. state, gams
Paul.lilesfddot.state.ga.us
Hawaii casey.abefrtihawaii .gov
Idaho Mike.EbrigJitfdiitd.idaho.gov mfarrarfrtiitd.state.id.us
Illinois david. 1 ippert (d;ill inois. gov
Indiana mmillerfaiindot.in.gov
Iowa N orma n. Me Donal dfd do t. i owa. gov
Kansas lorenfrtiksdot.org
Kentucky kvtc.statehighwavengineerfdkv.gov iimr.kingfdmail.state.kv.us
Louisiana BillTemplefdfdotd.louisiana.gov hgharafrtidotd.l ouis iana. gov
Maine exec.m aine dotfdma ine. gov
Maryland ksaabfrt mdot.state.md.us gvaughanfrt sha.state.md.us
Massachusetts feedbackfdmhd.state.ma.us
Michigan iuntunendfdmichigan.gov i untunedfd michi gan.gov
Minnesota infofdidot.state.mn.us dan.dorganfddot.state.mn.us
Mississippi commentsfdmdot.state.ms.us
Missouri gjianshyam .guptafdmodot.mo.gov chointfd;mail.modot.state.mo.us
80


Table A1 (Cont.): Survey Contacts
State Email Contact Email Contact
Montana kbamesto state.mt.us
Nebraska 1 freem o n tod o r. st ate. n e. u s
Nevada i nfotodot.state.nv. us wc r a w fo nd tod o t. s ta t e. n v. u s
New Hampshire webmastertodot.state.nh.us mrichardsonftodot.state.nh.us
cwaszczukto;dot.state.nh.us
New Jersey mai lto: research.bureautoidot.state.nj .us
New Mexico webmasterHTDto, state .nm.us Sherman.Petersonto;nmshtd.state.nm.us
New York salampalliftogw.dot.state.ny.us
North Carolina gperfct titodot.state, nc. us
North Dakota dottoistate.nd.us tudlandftostate.nd.us
Ohio iohn.randallftodot.state.oh.us odotinfotoodot .org
Ti mKellerto;dot.state.oh.us Jawdat.Siddiqito-dot.state.oh.us
Oklahoma kse wardtoodot. org rtone vtoodot. org
Oregon Frank. J.Nelsonftostate.or.us
Pennsylvania penndot webmaster(tostate.pa.us ichistie(tostate.pa.us
Rhode Island etparkerftodot. state, ri. us
South Carolina shealvsetoscdot.org
South Dakota kevin.goedentostate .sd.us
Tennessee TDOT.Commentsto.state.tn.us
Texas gcoarostodot.state.tx.us drandftodot.state.tx.us
Utah b whe elerto Utah, gov
Veimont Mike.Hedge stostate.vt.us
Virginia George.Clendeninto: VDOT.Virginia.gov
Washington WillouKto'wsdot.wa.gov Kha le Ba, W SD OT. WA. GOV
West Virginia p mat tox to :dot. st ate. w\'. us
Wisconsin bridge supportftowsdot.wa.gov webmasterttodot.state, wi. us
Wyoming michael.patritchftodot.state.vv'v.us
81


A.2: Survey Form
1. Innovative Highway Construction Materials
The University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center is performing a study that examines the use of
innovative materials and methods in highway construction. This study is being conducted under a grant from the
Federal Highway Administration (Contract #DTFH68-06-X-00030, COTR Roger Surdahl, CFLHD). The study consists
of extensive investigation on new materials and emerging technologies, as well as new uses and improvements for
previously established materials. The study will explore current programs that have been established for researching,
evaluating, and accepting new materials and technologies. The primary goals of this study are to outline existing
technology implementation programs, aid in the unification of program efforts, streamline the process of material
evaluation and acceptance, and simplify the flow of technology transfer.
The following questionnaire will aid our team in obtaining knowledge that will assist in this study. We greatly
appreciate your response to this questionnaire, and any additional comments, suggestions, or concerns that you
might have.
If you have any questions, please contact Stephan Durham at the University of Colorado at Denver and Health
Sciences Center at (303) 352-3894 or by e-mail at stephan.durham@cudenver.edu
2. Technology Transfer and Deployment Survey
1. Questionnaire completed by:
Name: ,
Agency/Divison: j
Position/Title: i
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone No.:
Email Address;
* 2. Does your State Department of Transportation currently utilize an established
program for evaluating and accepting new material technologies? Please Describe.
r>.
n
Please describe
zi
82


3. Please identify where you typically obtain research findings and current
information for your evaluation of new materials and technologies:
exclusively mostly sometimes
Within your DOT o 0 o
Federal Highway Administration o 0 0
University Transportation Centers o o o
Transportation Research Boa'd 0 0 o
AASHTO o 0 0
ASCE o 0 0
Public Universities o 0 o
Private Firms o 0 o
Others 0 0 o
Others (Please identify)
*1
zi
4. What are the most efficient aspects of your current processes?
5. What primary difficulties has your State DOT encountered in the process of
evaluating, accepting, and utilizing new material technologies?
6. What are the most successful new materials or technologies that have recently
been utilized in your State? Please describe.
83
ooooo o o oof


7. How often is each of the materials below used by your State DOT?
Noe Used, but has
Frequently Some Almost Never Never potential for use in our highway system
MMFX Reinforcing Bars
FRP Reinforcement
High Performance Concrete
Waterproof Concrete n
Pervious Concrete
Self-Compacting Concrete
Thin Lift Asphalt
Warm Mix Asphalt
Recycled Asphalt
Geote*t4es
High Performance Steel
Composite Guardrails
Chemical Soil Stabilization
8. Does your State DOT generate specifications for the use of new materials? Are
these specifications available to other State DOT's, and if so, how do others access
this information?
d
9. What improvements or suggestions can you offer for the acceleration of
technology implementation or for increasing the fluidity of information transfer?
__________________________________________d
10. Additional Comments and ideas.
3. End of Questionnaire
Thank you for your participation in this survey, have a great day!
84


APPENDIX B
STATE DOT MATRIX
Table Bl: State DOT Matrix
Components of Evaluation Process "Alabama bAlaska "bArizona "Arkansas bCalifornia
Vendor Approaches X X X X X
DOT Initiates Product Evaluation X
New Products Engineer/Coordinator X
New Products Evaluation Program X X
Technology Transfer Engineer
Product Evaluation Coordinator/ Engineer X X X
In-House Research/Testing X
Use of Private Research Firm X
University Research X X
Pooled Fund Studies X
Use of Other Transportation Organizations: APEL, NTPEP, etc. X
Evaluation (No Committee) X
Evaluation Committee/ Review Tearn X X X X
Research/ Materials X
Construction X X
(A Maintenance/ Operations X X
> Specific Expertise X X
p o CD O a. FHWA Division Office X
cS Safety Office X
o Environment Office X X
P P Specifications Office
o U Quality Control Office
Specialty Subcommittees X
Field Testing/ Experimental-Trial Projects X X
Specifications Online X X X
Approved Products List X X X X X
An 'X' identifies that a state utilizes, to some extent, the activity shown.
All states have had a website review and have been contacted for confirmation/modification
to the matrix and/or flowchart.
Responded to the states survey questionnaire
bResponded with direct communication to confirm/modify matrix and/or flowchart
85


Table B1 (Cont.): State DOT Matrix
Components of Evaluation Process bColorado Connecticut Delaware Florida bGeorgia
Vendor Approaches X X X X X
DOT Initiates Product Evaluation X
New Products Engineer/Coordinator X
New Products Evaluation Program
Technology Transfer Engineer
Product Evaluation Coordinator/ Engineer X X X
In-House Research/Testing X X
Use of Private Research Firm
University Research
Pooled Fund Studies
Use of Other Transportation Organizations: APEL, NTPEP, etc. X X X
Evaluation (No Committee) X
Evaluation Committee/ Review Team X X X X X
Committee Representatives: Research/ Materials X X X
Construction X X
Maintenance/ Operations X X
Specific Expertise X X X
FHWA Division Office
Safety Office X X
Environment Office X
Specifications Office X X
Quality Control Office
Specialty Subcommittees
Field Testing/ Experimental-Trial Projects X X X
Specifications Online X X X X
Approved Products List X X X X X
An 'X' identifies that a state utilizes, to some extent, the activity shown.
All states have had a website review and have been contacted for confirmation/modification
to the matrix and/or flowchart.
Responded to the states survey questionnaire
bResponded with direct communication to confirm/modify matrix and/or flowchart
86


Table B1 (Cont.): State DOT Matrix
Components of Evaluation Process bHawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana abIowa
Vendor Approaches X X X X X
DOT Initiates Product Evaluation X X
New Products Engineer/Coordinator X
New Products Evaluation Program X X
Technology Transfer Engineer X
Product Evaluation Coordinator/ Engineer X X X
In-House Research/Testing X X X X
Use of Private Research Firm
University Research X X
Pooled Fund Studies X X X
Use of Other Transportation Organizations: APEL, NTPEP, etc. X X X X
Evaluation (No Committee) X
Evaluation Committee/ Review Team X X X X
Committee Representatives: Research/' Materials X X X
Construction X X X X
Maintenance/ Operations X X X X
Specific Expertise X X
FHWA Division Office X X X
Safety Office X X
Environment Office X
Specifications Office X X
Quality Control Office X
Specialty Subcommittees X X
Field Testing/ Experimental-Trial Projects X X X X
Specifications Online X X X X
Approved Products List X X X
An 'X' identifies that a state utilizes, to some extent, the activity shown.
All states have had a website review and have been contacted for confirmation/modification
to the matrix and/or flowchart.
Responded to the states survey questionnaire
Responded with direct communication to confirm/modify matrix and/or flowchart
87


Table B1 (Cont.): State DOT Matrix
Components of Evaluation Process ,bKansas bKentucky bLouisiana *bMaine Maryland
Vendor Approaches X X X X X
DOT Initiates Product Evaluation X X
New Products Engineer/Coordinator X X
New Products Evaluation Program X X X
Technology Transfer Engineer X X
Product Evaluation Coordinator/ Engineer X X X X
In-House Research/Testing X X X X X
Use of Private Research Firm
University Research X
Pooled Fund Studies X
Use of Other Transportation Organizations: APEL, NTPEP, etc. X X X X X
Evaluation (No Committee)
Evaluation Committee/ Review Team X X X X X
Committee Representatives: Research/ Materials X X X X
Construction X X X X
Maintenance/ Operations X X X X
Specific Expertise X X X X
FHWA Division Office X X X
Safety Office X X
Environment Office X X X
Specifications Office X X
Quality Control Office X X
Specialty Subcommittees X X X
Field Testing/ Experimental-Trial Projects X X X X
Specifications Online X X X X
Approved Products List X X X X X
An 'X' identifies that a state utilizes, to some extent, the activity shown.
All states have had a website review and have been contacted for confirmation/modification
to the matrix and/or flowchart.
Responded to the states survey questionnaire
bResponded with direct communication to confirm/modify matrix and/or flowchart
88


Table B1 (Cont.): State DOT Matrix
Components of Evaluation Process Massachusetts bMichigan 'Minnesota ,bMississippi Missouri
Vendor Approaches X X X X X
DOT Initiates Product Evaluation X
New Products Engineer Coordinator X X X
New Products Evaluation Program X
Technology Transfer Engineer
Product Evaluation Coordinator/ Engineer
In-House Research/Testing X X X X
Use of Private Research Firm
University Research
Pooled Fund Studies
Use of Other Transportation Organizations: APEL, NTPEP, etc. X X
Evaluation (No Committee) X X X X
Evaluation Committee/ Review Team X
Research/ Materials X
Construction X
Vi O Maintenance/ Operations X
eS Specific Expertise X
G o !/} o u C. FHWA Division Office X
a! Safety Office
O Environment Office
E E Specifications Office
0 U Quality Control Office
Specialty Subcommittees X
Field Testing/ Experimental-Trial Projects X X
Specifications Online X X X
Approved Products List X X X X X
An 'X' identifies that a state utilizes, to some extent, the activity shown.
All states have had a website review and have been contacted for confirmation/modification
to the matrix and/or flowchart.
JResponded to the states survey questionnaire
bResponded with direct communication to confirm/modify matrix and/or flowchart
89