IMPROVING EXIT RAMP VISIBILITY IN WORK ZONES
Proposal submitted by:
Cleveland State University
and
Ohio University
Principal Investigators:
Stephen F. Duffy, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE for Cleveland State University
Deborah S. McAvoy, Ph.D., P.E., PTOE for Ohio University
Partnering Agency:
Cleveland State University’s University Transportation Center
Partnering Agency Technical Contact:
Stephen F. Duffy, Ph.D., P.E.
Submission Date:
March 3, 2008
IMPROVING EXIT RAMP VISIBILITY IN WORK ZONES
Cleveland State University
2121 Euclid Avenue, KB 1150
Cleveland, OH 44115
Principal Investigators:
Stephen F. Duffy, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE
Chairman and Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering
Director, University Transportation Center
Cleveland State University
114 Stilwell Hall
Cleveland, OH 44115-2215
s.duffy@csuohio.edu
216-687-3874
Deborah S. McAvoy, Ph.D., P.E., PTOE
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Ohio University
119 Stocker Center
Athens, OH 45701-2979
mcavoy@ohio.edu
Contractual Agreements:
Elizabeth Cline
Director of Sponsored Programs and Research
Cleveland State University
2121 Euclid Avenue
Parker Hannifin Building, 3rd Floor
Cleveland, OH 44115
216-687-3630
Submission Date:
March 3, 2008
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ..................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................. 4
3.0 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................... 6
4.0 RESEARCH WORK PLAN ................................................................................................................................... 9
5.0 BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RESEARCH .................................................................................................. 16
6.0 ANTICIPATED RESEARCH RESULTS AND DELIVERABLES .................................................................... 17
7.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ............................................................................................................................... 19
8.0 ITEMIZED BUDGET .......................................................................................................................................... 19
9.0 WORK TIME COST SCHEDULE ...................................................................................................................... 19
10.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 20
APPENDIX I – BUDGET FORM ............................................................................................................................... 22
APPENDIX II – FACILITIES..................................................................................................................................... 26
APPENDIX III – QUALIFICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH TEAM ....................................................................... 28
APPENDIX IV – OTHER COMMITMENTS OF THE RESEARCH TEAM ........................................................... 34
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Total and Injury Crashes at Exit Ramps in Ohio ............................................................................................ 4
Figure 2. Fatal Crashes at Exit Ramps in Ohio .............................................................................................................. 4
Figure 3. Temporary Traffic Control for Work in the Vicinity of an Exit Ramp .......................................................... 7
Figure 4. Exit Ramp Drum Treatments ......................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 5. Comparative Parallel Evaluation Theory ..................................................................................................... 10
Figure 6. Proposed Time Schedule .............................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 7. Work Time Cost Schedule ........................................................................................................................... 20
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Speed Sample Size Requirements.................................................................................................................. 13
Table 1. Simulator Speed Sample Size Requirements ................................................................................................. 14
2
1.0
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
In order to guide motorists through work zones in a safe and efficient manner, traffic control devices, such as
temporary warning signs and channelizing devices, are used. In most work zones, numerous drums are utilized as
channelizing devices to guide motorists through the work zone. The drums have alternating orange and white retroreflective stripes which make them highly visible, during daytime and nighttime driving conditions. The spacing of
the drums are specified by the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the Ohio Manual
of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD). The manuals state the device spacing should be equal to twice the
posted speed limit along tangent roadway sections and equal to the speed limit along taper roadway segments [1, 2].
At exit ramps, the standard is to delineate access to the exit ramp with channelizing devices and use guide signs to
indicate that the exit is open to traffic. The guide sign is generally an exit sign mounted in the temporary gore at a
height of seven feet from the pavement surface.
While exit ramp locations along freeways only equate to approximately five percent of the total freeway mileage,
the crashes associated with these locations account for higher proportions of 18 percent of all interstate crashes, 17
percent of injury crashes and 11 percent of fatal crashes. Over the past six years in the State of Ohio, approximately
14 fatal crashes and 1,166 injury crashes per year have occurred at or near exit ramps, as shown in Figures 1 and 2
[3].
The rationale behind higher crash frequencies at exit ramps is due to the complications associated with the driving
task which involves merging, diverging and weaving traffic in combination with accelerating and decelerating
vehicles. Further complicating the driving task is the introduction of construction work zones. Work zones along
major freeways may extend for several miles with entrance and exit ramps included within the designated work
zone. When entering the freeway, motorists are generally directed to merge with on-coming traffic and are
channelized into the work zone. However, motorists attempting to exit the freeway find difficulties in determining
the exact location or between which drums they should exit, particularly during nighttime driving conditions.
Construction work zones have become increasingly familiar to motorists due to the rehabilitation and maintenance
of the Nation’s infrastructure. Unfortunately, most of the construction work zones require a lane reduction along the
roadway in order to accommodate the construction activities, which create an unfamiliar environment for motorists
resulting in traffic crashes. According to the Federal Highway Administration, the number of persons killed due to
construction work zones in the past five years has increased by nearly eight percent with an average of 1,068
fatalities and more than 40,000 injuries per year [4]. In work zones, ramp-related crashes increase substantially,
between 45 and 142 percent, as compared to non-construction periods [5].
3
5000
1250
4900
1200
4800
1150
4700
1100
4600
4500
1050
4400
1000
2001
2002
2003
Total Crashes
2004
2005
Injury Crashes
Total Crashes
Total and Injury Crashes at Exit Ramps
2006
Injury Crashes
Figure 1. Total and Injury Crashes at Exit Ramps in Ohio
Fatal Crashes at Exit Ramps
18
16
Fatal Crashes
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Figure 2. Fatal Crashes at Exit Ramps in Ohio
In order to reduce motorist confusion and enhance the visibility of exit ramps in work zones thereby decreasing
work zone exit ramp-related crashes, the researchers propose to evaluate the effectiveness of various drum
treatments at exit ramps in work zones with regard to the delineation and safety of the motorists.
2.0
BACKGROUND
A preliminary literature review was performed to examine past research on alternative channelizing treatments for
construction work zones. In order to identify past research results related to the proposed research, literature
searches were conducted through Internet queries and traditional library resources. The topics covered in this
proposal have not been previously submitted to ODOT or another agency for consideration.
The concept that crash rates increase due to the presence of construction work zones has been evaluated by several
researchers [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. There has been little evidence indicating that construction work zones are safer
or have fewer crashes than non-work zones. While performing a comparative study of crash rates at long-term
urban freeway work zones, Rouphail et al. [5] found significant increases in crashes for long-term work zones. The
4
authors examined four long-term urban work zones between 1981 and 1985. To determine if the crash rates were
statistically different between the period of construction and the two periods without construction (before and after
periods), a Z-test was conducted with the null hypothesis stating that the crash rates were similar. The results of the
Z-test found that ramp-related crash rates between the before, during and after periods were statistically significant
at alpha equal to 0.05. In other words, the ramp-related crash rates for the during period were significantly greater
than the before and after periods.
The rationale behind why construction work zones produce higher crash rates was examined by Li and Bai [13]. Li
and Bai investigated how the concept of human factors impacts crash rates in work zones. Previous studies have
indicated that 45 to 75 percent of all traffic crashes were caused by driver error [14]. The crash causation analysis
led to the identifying human factors causes including following too closely, inattentive driving and misjudging the
traffic conditions. Due to the crash-related risks associated with construction work zones, the crash potential for
drivers can only be mitigated by preventing driver-related errors through the work zone. This can be accomplished
with improved traffic control devices that are specifically aimed at providing positive guidance for all drivers
through a work zone.
Traffic control devices, specifically channelizing devices, are utilized to warn motorists of potential hazards created
at the work zone and to guide the motorists safely past these hazards. Research by King and Luenfeld [15] shows the
majority of the information needed for an accurate and timely path selection by the driver is acquired visually.
Based upon the visual information received from channelizing devices such as drums, motorists can maneuver their
vehicle appropriately and maintain a reasonable speed even through unusual and hazardous situations.
In the NCHRP Report 236 by Pain et al. [16] published in 1981, research was conducted on the design and use of
channelizing devices in terms of positive guidance through a work zone. Field experiments were conducted on
highways with stationary long-term work zones with a posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour. The effectiveness of
the various channelizing devices were examined with an instrumented automobile based upon device spacing, retroreflectivity and the presence of steady burn warning lights. NCHRP Report 236 concluded that steady burn warning
lights do provide additional delineation to guide drivers through a work zone during nighttime driving conditions
with the main advantage being the longer detection distance which promoted early lane changing behaviors. The
authors recommended the use of steady burn warning lights at night particularly for taper sections, approach ends
and curved roadways.
Lafferty and Pennington [17] evaluated the effectiveness, in terms of positive guidance, of illumination devices on
temporary concrete barrier walls in construction work zones for the Florida Department of Transportation in 1995.
Four one-mile construction zones along I-75 were evaluated with three levels of illumination, including a temporary
concrete barrier wall with warning lights, reflectors or without illumination devices. Vehicles were videotaped
while driving through the work zone during daytime and nighttime driving conditions.
5
The sections of the
temporary concrete barrier with lights were found to provide excellent guidance for motorists through the work
zone. The recommendations of the authors were to maintain the use of warning lights on the temporary concrete
barriers in work zones.
The two previous studies indicate that the addition of steady-burn warning lights on drums near the exit ramp may
provide sufficient guidance for motorists that are trying to locate the exit location.
More recently, a project was initiated in July of 2007 by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to evaluate
the use of non-standard colorized striped vertical panels at arterial exit locations [18]. The evaluation project will be
completed in April of 2009. A preliminary presentation regarding the project was given at the Transportation
Research Board in January of 2008. The non-standard color utilized for the vertical panels was fluorescent yellowgreen, which is traditionally utilized to identify pedestrian, bicycle or school-related activities. In addition to the
vertical panels, drums are being evaluated for the arterial exit locations. The project evaluation is being conducted
on a closed test track with posted speeds of 25 to 35 miles per hour with the main functional classification as an
arterial. Several concerns were raised at the Transportation Research Board meeting regarding the color selection
for the panels and drums in regards to the appropriateness for human factors and positive guidance.
As the average age of motorists begins to increase, special attention should be given to the needs of the older
motorists, particularly in construction work zones. Chiu et al. [19] studied the performance of 20 older drivers (over
the age of 60) in construction work zones, as compared to 12 younger drivers (under the age of 35). Each subject
drove through six construction work zone scenarios in a driving simulator showing drums, drums with reflectors and
jersey barriers, while the lateral position and speed of the motorists were recorded. The analysis examined the
average velocity, the number of times each driver got out of the driving lane and the amount of time they spent out
of the lane. Overall, the younger motorists drove five to eight miles per hour faster than the older motorists. The
drum and drum reflectors did not seem helpful to either group; however, the jersey barriers were favored by the
older motorists. The reflectors were found to be extremely helpful to the older drivers through the work zone.
These findings are similar to research conducted by Lyles et al [20]. The researchers found that older drivers require
greater illumination in order to visualize objects clearly; however, they are impacted by glare more than younger
drivers.
Age-related visual deficiencies also include the diminished ability to recognize colors and traffic control
devices. Therefore, visibility of the traffic control devices and the ability to recognize the need for decisions far in
advance must be considered as the life expectancy of drivers continues to increase.
3.0
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this research will be to assess the effectiveness of various drums treatments at work zone exit
ramps with regard to motorist safety and delineation. The evaluation of the effectiveness of the various drum
treatments will be accomplished through a field and simulator experiment. In order to improve visibility of the exit
ramp locations, it is anticipated that only two drums will be modified in the work zone. The remaining temporary
6
work zone signs and devices will not be altered from the specifications in the MUTCD and the OMUTCD. The
drums that will be impacted include the drums prior to the exit ramp and the drum immediately following the exit
ramp, as depicted in green in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Temporary Traffic Control for Work in the Vicinity of an Exit Ramp
The drum treatments that will be evaluated in this research include the following:
1.
Orange drums with alternating green and white retro-reflective stripes.
2.
Orange drums with alternating green and white retro-reflective strips with a steady-burn warning light.
3.
Alternative option to be specified by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), if any.
The various drum treatments are depicted in Figure 4.
Facing
Traffic
36 "
18"
6" Reflectorized
Sheeting
(High-Intensity Grade)
Facing
Traffic
36 "
18"
6" Reflectorized
Sheeting
(High-Intensity Grade)
Facing
Traffic
36 "
6" Reflectorized
Sheeting
(High-Intensity Grade)
Figure 4. Exit Ramp Drum Treatments for Evaluation
Motorist behavior through work zones depends upon the traffic control devices utilized and the motorist themselves
in terms of their ability to recognize hazards, make proper decisions, control their vehicles and make evasive actions
to avoid a hazard. These theories are based upon the concepts outlined in ‘A User’s Guide to Positive Guidance’
[21]. The positive guidance theories identify the key to successful motorist performance is efficient information
7
gathering and processing. When only given one task to perform at any given time, the information gathering and
processing tasks are straightforward.
However, as the number of task increases or the tasks become more
complicated and then their ability to process the appropriate information in an adequate time period diminishes. On
a daily basis, motorists encounter situations where there are overlapping informational needs presented in their
driving environment. In order to fulfill these needs, motorists “search the environment, detect information, receive
and process it, make decisions, and perform control actions in a continual feedback process” [21]. When motorists
are faced with too many sources of information, they must select which piece of information they will process and
which they will ignore. This leads to information overload, which can confuse motorists or cause them to miss
important information. Such as is the case of construction work zones. In a work zone, the available width of
pavement may result in a decreased number of lanes or reduced lane widths that create an unanticipated change in
the motorists’ travel way. Motorists also find that shoulders, which prior to the construction functioned as a
recovery area, may not be available. Other sources of confusion for the motorist include unfamiliar traffic control
devices, a lack of visibility due to weather, lighting and deteriorated pavement markings. All of these factors lead to
an increased demand on driver performance, while reducing the acceptable margin of error for their navigational
functions.
The rationale for the green retro-reflective tape on the drums is based upon the standard color scheme outlined in the
MUTCD and OMUTCD as well as the general safety principles for construction work zones. The safety principles
as stated in the MUTCD are to “route road users through such zones using roadway geometrics, roadside features,
and temporary traffic control devices as nearly as possible comparable to those for normal highway situations” [1].
Green is designated as a guidance color and is typically utilized for the background of permanent signs along
roadways, including freeways, such as exit signs. The development of sign color, shape, symbols and legends were
based upon providing road users with simple, clear and meaningful instructions. Therefore, any modifications that
are made to the current traffic control devices for improved motorist performance should be in accordance with the
expectations of the road users. Since motorists are familiar with the green guidance signs along freeways, they
should be able to relate the green stripes on the construction drums to the location of the exit ramp.
Warning lights can be mounted on drums in work zones in order to increase nighttime visibility. The lights may be
placed on drums or other channelizing devices used along, or in a cluster to warn drivers of a condition [1]. The
steady-burn warning lights are most appropriate for use on channelizing devices, such as drums, in order to guide
motorists through a work zone [1]. In the early 1990’s, ODOT removed the requirement for steady-burn warning
lights on drums that were placed in a series in a work zone due to a research study’s findings of their lack of
effectiveness when compared with drums without the steady-burn warning lights [22, 23]. For this research, the
steady-burn warning lights will only be considered for two drums at the exit ramp, as shown in the previous Figure
3, in order to assist motorists in locating the exact location of the exit ramp.
8
4.0
RESEARCH WORK PLAN
The following tasks will be performed in order to fulfill the research objectives of determining the effectiveness of
various drum treatments to enhance exit ramp visibility.
Task 1: Conduct a Literature Review
A literature review will be performed to examine past research on work zone crashes, particularly those associated
with exit ramps, and alternative devices in work zones including their application and effectiveness of their use as
well as other related topics. In order to identify past results related to the proposed research, literature searches will
be conducted through Internet queries and traditional library resources. All materials will be critically reviewed for
their objectives, target audience, data and analysis tools, performance measures, evaluation methodology and results,
safety and mobility impacts, use of innovative technology and conclusions.
Task 2: Investigate Exit Ramp Crash Trends
Exit ramp crashes in work zones will be examined for the past five years in the State of Ohio to determine the extent
of the crashes that are associated with motorist confusion regarding the location of the exit ramp in a work zone
area. It should be cautioned however, that crash trends in work zones may not be fully attributable to motorist
confusion in regards to the location of the exit ramp. Other factors should also be considered in order to draw
meaningful conclusions, such as the number of construction days, the weather conditions, the condition of the road
surface, etc. The reserachers will work with ODOT personnel to identify past work zones along freeways in the
State of Ohio in order to focus the crash trend investigation on specific roadways during particular months. In
addition to the crash data and trends, the historical traffic volume data, roadway geometry and other factors will be
gathered for inclusion in the analysis.
The traffic crash trends will quantify the past crash experience associated with exit ramps along freeways in work
zones. Traffic crash rates will then be determined using the historical traffic volume data in order to account for
exposure during the construction period. Roadway geometry data, including lane widths, type of road closure,
horizontal and vertical curvature and presence or absence of a deceleration lane will be collected at all of the past
construction sites through examination of construction drawings and discussions with ODOT engineers.
Task 3: Conduct a Field Experiment of Driver Behavior
The purpose of this research is to determine the effectiveness of various drum treatments at work zone exit ramps as
compared to typical drum treatments through a field experiment.
Site Selection
Construction projects scheduled during the summer and fall of 2008 on freeways under ODOT jurisdiction and
approved by ODOT will be selected for evaluation.
Great Lakes Construction Company, a member of the
University Transportation Center’s Advisory Board, has agreed to include any of their construction projects in the
selection process. In order to properly address the research objective, it is proposed that the sites selected represent
9
a variety of geographic, environmental, and traffic conditions. This will include the selection of sites in rural and
urban areas with low and high traffic volume conditions. If adequate field sites cannot be identified, the service
roadways of US-23 in Delaware County may be utilized as a test-track with a simulated work zone, if so approved
by ODOT. If the US-23 service roadways are utilized, the establishment of the work zone will be designed by the
researchers, approved by ODOT representatives and erected.
The temporary traffic control devices will be
purchased for this research project through Plastic Safety Systems, which also holds a seat on the CSU
Transportation Advisory Board..
A comparative parallel evaluation will be conducted for this research comparing the measures of effectiveness for a
group of control sites verses a group of test sites. A test site will be a work zone where the various drum treatments
will be utilized at an exit ramp, whereas, a control site will be a location where typical drums with orange and white
alternating retro-reflective stripes will be used at an exit ramp. The comparative parallel evaluation assumes that
motorist in the test and control sites would perform similarly if the alternative drum treatments were not utilized at
the test sites. The difference in the measures of effectiveness between the test and control groups can then be
attributable to the alternative exit ramp drums utilized at the test sites. A schematic drawing depicting the theory of
the Comparative Parallel Evaluation Plan is shown in Figure 5.
Legend
Test Group MOE
Control Group MOE
Expected Test Group MOE
Measure of
Effectiveness
(MOE)
Change in
MOE
Time
Before
Period
After
Period
Figure 5. Comparative Parallel Evaluation Theory
Data Collection
Traffic operational, safety and motorist compliance data will be collected for each site.
effectiveness for the field experiment will be as follows:

Traffic crash data,

Speed approaching the exit ramp,

Lateral placement of vehicles, and

Motorist determination of exit ramp location (for US-23 field experiment only).
10
The measures of
Traffic Crash Data
To assess safety characteristics at sites, traffic crash data will be collected from the Ohio Department of Public
Safety for each site. The dates and locations of the traffic crashes will be analyzed in order to determine where the
crash occurred during the work zone and whether or not driver confusion with the location of the exit ramp could be
the cause of the crash. Therefore, the crash analysis will concentrate upon those crashes related to delineation
within the work zone. Positive guidance for motorists through the construction zone will be deemed more critical
during nighttime driving conditions due to the reduced visibility of the freeway and the exit ramp. As such, all
crashes will be separated into daytime and nighttime crashes for each site. It is anticipated that the number of traffic
crashes will be extremely low. This is due to the fact that traffic crashes, in general, are rare events. Compounded
by the temporary nature of work zones and the relatively short duration of highway projects, it is expected that the
crash frequency would be further reduced from what is normally observed along non-work zone roadways.
Speed Data
Speed data will be collected for vehicles traveling through the work zone using a portable radar detector. The speed
data will be collected at several locations in the work zone approaching the exit ramp where a safe location for speed
measurements is available. In general the speed data will be collected prior to the notification of the upcoming exit
(greater than 1 mile in advance of the exit ramp), half the distance between the notification of the upcoming exit and
the exit ramp (approximately 0.5 miles in advance of the exit ramp), 1000-feet in advance of the exit ramp, 500-feet
in advance of the exit ramp, 250-feet in advance of the exit ramp, 100-feet in advance of the exit ramp and at the exit
ramp. The speed data will be collected and analyzed separately during the daytime driving conditions and the
nighttime driving conditions. The speed data will only be collected during off-peak periods when motorists are able
to travel at their desired speed, unaffected by congestion, typically experienced during peak periods.
The analysis of the speed data will be used as an indication of a motorist’s perceived risk while approaching an exit
ramp in a work zone. The speed data for each site will be analyzed for each observation location including the
calculation of the mean speed and the corresponding standard deviation. If the various construction sites have
differing speed limits, the mean speed deviation variable (speed limit – observed speed) will be used as a surrogate
for mean speed.
Lateral Placement Data
Driver behavior and vehicle placement of vehicles traveling through the work zone will be recorded using video
cameras for various construction sites where the motorists are unaware they are being observed or through the use of
an instrumented vehicle in the case of the US-23 site. A digital video camera will be mounted inside a survey
vehicle and data will be recorded through the approach to the exit ramp in the work zone while following a target
vehicle in the traffic stream. With this approach, motorists will not be aware they are being monitored and thus,
their driving behavior will be unbiased.
11
The lateral placement data will then be analyzed in the laboratory in order to obtain quantifiable lateral placement
data for each observed vehicle. The lateral placement of a vehicle will be based upon the location in the lane with
respect to the centerline of the vehicle. The lateral placement of vehicles through the work zone will be quantified
in order to assess the ability of the motorist to detect the exit ramp while traveling through the work zone. Lateral
placement data that exhibits extreme variations in regards to the centerline of the lane in the vicinity of the exit ramp
may be due to driver confusion or inability to visualize the location of the exit ramp. Motorists that exhibit extreme
variations prior to the vicinity of the exit ramp will be further examined for deviations in lateral placement
throughout the work zone.
Motorist Determination of Exit Ramp
If the US-23 site is utilized for a portion of the experiment, motorists will be asked to identify the first moment that
they are able to visualize the exit, the moment that they are absolutely confident of the exact location of the exit, and
will be asked to exit at the location they deem is appropriate. This information will be utilized to assess the ability
of the various drum treatments to warn participants of an approaching exit ramp and guide them to the proper
location. The motorists will be informed that there is an exit ramp ahead that they need to utilize; however, the
motorists will not be informed of how the exit ramp is delineated. The effectiveness of the various drum treatments
will be based upon when the motorists can appropriately visualize the exit and safety conduct the maneuver.
After the driving portion of the experiment, each motorist will be asked to fill out a questionnaire documenting their
demographic information in order to determine the representative nature of the participants as well as questions
related to the work zone, such as what the differences were between the various scenarios. The motorists will be
randomly assigned to alternating drum treatments in order to equally expose motorists to each drum treatment.
Sample Size Determination
In order to determine the number of sample motorists required to assure a statistically valid representative sample,
the following formula will be considered in the estimation of the sample size [24]:
Where:
Zb = critical value corresponding to a given value of b in the upper tail of the standard normal distribution
Za = critical value corresponding to a given value of a/2 in the lower and upper tail of the standard normal
distribution
s = standard deviation of the difference
e = detectable difference in the means
Various sample size requirements based upon previous studies conducted by the researcher were calculated. The
level of confidence was selected at 95 percent or alpha equal to 0.05 and the power was selected at 80 percent or
12
beta equal to 0.20. Table 1 outlines the required speed sample sizes based upon varying standard deviations and
detectable speed differences.
Table 1. Speed Sample Size Requirements
Number of Vehicles
Detectable
Difference in
Mean Speed
5 mph
4 mph
3 mph
2 mph
1 mph
5
8
13
22
49
197
6
12
16
20
71
282
7
16
24
43
96
385
Standard
Deviation
With a high variation in speeds at one site, attempting to detect a one mile per hour difference in mean speeds, even
at the same site, should result in a statistically significant test often. Therefore, as the standard deviation increases,
so should the detectable difference. Therefore, a detectable difference of two miles per hour in mean speeds will be
selected as the basis for this research. A target sample of 100 speed observations would maintain a power of 80
percent and a level of confidence of 95 percent.
Task 4: Conduct a Controlled Laboratory Experiment
The purpose of this research is to determine the effectiveness of various drum treatments at work zone exit ramps as
compared to typical drum treatments in a controlled laboratory setting. The validity of the driving simulator will be
determined based upon comparisons between the field experiment data and the simulator experiment data. If the
driving simulator validity can be verified, the driving simulator can be utilized to determine the effectiveness of
other traffic control devices for similar situations. If the validity cannot be verified, the findings can assist future
research experimental designs.
The simulator will be used to conduct an experiment of driver performance in highway work zones with various
drum treatments at exit ramps. The driving simulator used for the controlled laboratory experiment is owned by the
University Transportation Center at Cleveland State University, the DriveSafety DS-600c Research Simulator. The
simulator is a fully integrated simulator with a 180-degree display approximately nine-feet in height, a vehicle
motion simulation platform and a full-width automobile cab including a windshield, driver and passenger seats,
center console, dash and instrumentation. The simulation software provides for a realistic driving experience with
simulated vehicle dynamics, traffic conditions, and environmental conditions.
The researcher will work with
computer programmers and technicians at Cleveland State University to customize a program simulating a work
zone with the various drum treatments at work zone exit ramps. The simulated driving environment will be
designed to replicate the temporary traffic control conditions present in the field experiment.
Simulator Experiment Procedure
13
A detailed test procedure/sequence will be developed with standard instructions for each participant of the simulator
experiment. The participant will be first orientated to the simulator and the location of the controls followed by a
brief introduction to the purpose of the simulator experiment. The participants will be informed that the experiment
test the effects of various traffic control devices on driver behavior and performance while driving through a
freeway work zone. They will be instructed to drive through the scenarios as if they were traveling to or from work
or school, driving at a speed appropriate for the conditions presented during the scenario and exit the freeway at the
first available location. To reduce the bias associated with the simulator experiment, the participants will be equally
exposed to an initial scenario in equal proportions.
Data Collection
Traffic operational, safety and motorist compliance data will be collected for each simulator scenario. The measures
of effectiveness for the laboratory experiment will be as follows:

Traffic crash data,

Speed approaching the exit ramp

Lateral placement of vehicles, and

Motorist determination of exit ramp location.
The performance of the motorists will be recorded on the control station of the simulator as well as with a video
camera for comprehensive data extraction and analysis without the participant present.
The data collection
procedures for the simulator experiment will be similar to those previously described for the field experiment.
Sample Size Determination
In order to determine the number of participants required to assure a statistically valid representative sample, the
same methodology utilized for the field experiment will be utilized based upon standard deviations from previous
simulator studies conducted by the researcher. The level of confidence was selected at 95 percent or alpha equal to
0.05 and the power was selected at 80 percent or beta equal to 0.20. Table 2 outlines the required speed sample
sizes based upon varying standard deviations and detectable speed differences.
Table 2. Simulator Speed Sample Size Requirements
Number of Vehicles
Detectable
Difference in
Mean Speed
5 mph
4 mph
3 mph
2 mph
8
20
32
56
126
9
26
40
71
159
10
32
49
88
197
Standard
Deviation
For the field experiment, the detectable difference in mean speed was selected as two miles per hour. However, due
to time constraints, resources and difficulties in obtaining large samples with past research studies, a detectable
14
difference in mean speeds for the simulator study was selected at three miles per hour. A target sample of 100
participants would maintain a power of 80 percent and a level of confidence of 95 percent at a detectable difference
in mean speed of three mph.
Focus Group Selection
The focus group of drivers will be composed of a sample from the general driver population of Ohio, selected from
residents of metropolitan Cleveland, and with experience in driving on the region’s freeway system on their
commute to work or to school. The focus group will be selected such that they are considered representative of the
general driver population in the State of Ohio. Due to the participation of human subjects in this research, federal
regulations require a review and approval for the proposed research methodology by an Institution Review Board
(IRB). For the research conducted in this experiment, both the Ohio University and Cleveland State University IRB
will approve the research methodology detailing the procedures for the simulator experiment, the recruitment script,
the research informed consent form and the driver participation survey form prior to the commencement of the
experimental portions of the research.
The participants will be solicited on a voluntary basis by the researcher through direct person to person contact or by
email. Each individual will be informed that their participation is voluntary and they will not be compensated or
penalized for their decision. Purposive sampling will then be utilized to supplement the convenience sampling
based upon age or gender distribution of the sample in general comparison to the population in Ohio.
Task 5: Determine the Relative Effectiveness of the Various Drum Treatments for Exit Ramps
The statistical significance of the effectiveness of the drum treatments will be tested to determine whether the
changes observed in the measures of effectiveness of crash frequency, speed, lateral placement and motorist
perception were attributable to the alternative drum treatment or to chance. The statistical test that will be utilized to
determine the effectiveness of the drum treatments for the field and simulator experiments will be the one-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA). To perform the ANOVA, an F-statistic is calculated which is equal to the mean
squares between the groups divided by the mean squares within the groups. If F-calculated is greater than F-critical
obtained in available statistical tables, the difference in the means will be statistically significant. Otherwise, the
difference in the means will not be statistically significant. Based upon the participants selected for the focus group,
a paired t-test may be conducted when the participants of the experiment are nearly similar. In the paired t-test, a
paired t-statistic is calculated based upon the sample mean and standard deviations then compared with a critical
paired t-statistic obtained in available statistical tables. If the calculated statistic is greater than the critical statistic,
the difference in means is statistically significant.
Statistical tests will also be conducted to determine the validity of the driving simulator in terms of comparable
results to the field experiment. Blaauw [25] described methods to validate the use of driving simulators for
behavioral research with absolute and relative validity procedures. In 2001, Godley [26] further refined Blaauw’s
15
methods to include interactive relative validity. Absolute validity will be confirmed if the means of the performance
measures for the field experiment and simulator experiment are statistically similar. Relative validity will be
confirmed if the differences in the experiments’ means are similar in magnitude and direction. Interactive relative
validity will be confirmed if the experiments’ means are statistically similar in terms of general trends.
Task 6: Prepare a Final Report
A final report will be prepared detailing all of the activities performed as a part of this research, as well as the results
and recommendations for the use of alternative drums treatments in work zones at exit ramp locations. The progress
of the project will be reported to ODOT’s Technical Liaison as well as through interim progress reports submitted
on a quarterly basis throughout the duration of the project.
5.0
BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RESEARCH
With the continued roadway reconstruction efforts throughout the nation, work zone safety has been a priority for
traffic engineers and road agencies. Efforts to reduce congestions during the construction period have increased the
amount of construction work that occurs during the nighttime hours. Even when construction is not occurring
during the nighttime hours, the work zone delineation is maintained during the duration of the reconstruction of the
roadway, which can continue for several months or an entire construction season. Construction zones create
additional hazards for motorists as a result of the unfamiliar roadway environment that is created by the work zone.
Without the occurrence of a work zone, crashes occurring near exit ramps along interstates occur at a much higher
proportion than other types of crashes. The burden on motorists to perform at exit ramps is much greater than at
other locations along the freeway due to merging, diverging, and weaving maneuvers, as well as accelerating and
decelerating vehicles. The presence of construction work zones only complicate the processing requirements of the
motorist at an exit ramp where the exact location of the ramp is difficult to locate among the numerous drums
channelizing the traffic away from the closed portion of the roadway.
The research presented will examine the effectiveness of various drum treatments in work zones at exit ramps in
order to reduce crashes with a low-cost treatment. The results from this research will be applicable across the
nation.
The analysis of the field and driving simulator studies will also examine motorist behavior in the vicinity
of exit ramps in order to facilitate future discussions regarding motorist behavior without the presence of a work
zone in order to further reduce crashes along freeways.
In addition, as the average age of motorists begins to increase vastly due to the numbers of children born during the
baby-boomer generation, the visibility and recognition requirements of the driving public will also begin to increase.
Due to the increased demand on traffic control devices to guide motorists safely along the roadways, improvements
to the positive guidance theories and work zone layouts must be considered in order to limit the number of crashes
along the roadways.
16
The Federal Highway Administration has funded several research studies to determine the effectiveness of various
channelizing devices. Most of the research has been performed with instrumented vehicles on vacated or low
volume roadways for the safety of the motorists participating in the research. As a result of the difficult field data
collection efforts due to the safety issues related to human subjects, driving simulators have emerged as an
alternative methods that allows experimental control, efficiency, low cost and ease of data collection. However, the
question of validity of driving simulators as useful human factor research tool must be answered. This research will
attempt to validate the driving simulator at Cleveland State University so that various traffic control devices in work
zones can be examined without the cost and safety concerns associated with a field study. As this research is aimed
at improving positive guidance for motorists through work zones, the validated driving simulator can be used in the
future to examine the behaviors of older drivers as compared to younger drivers through work zones in an attempt to
improve visibility and recognition of traffic control devices in a work zone.
6.0
ANTICIPATED RESEARCH RESULTS AND DELIVERABLES
It is anticipated that the results of the field and simulator experiments conducted in this research will identify
alternative positive guidance techniques in the form of alternative drum treatments at exit ramps located in work
zone areas which will reduce the crash potential for motorists traveling along freeways. The selected alternative
drum treatments have been chosen for their cost effectiveness. The intent is not to increase the cost burden on
ODOT or the contractor, but to provide a low-cost solution that will lead to a cost savings for ODOT, time savings
for the contractor and substantial savings to society with the reduction in crashes. Therefore, the drum treatments
selected will require little, if any, additional cost to any construction project.
The resulting deliverables of this research will be as follows:

The research will attend a project start-up meeting at ODOT to discuss the contractual obligations, scope of
the work, the deliverables and project schedule.

Synthesis of the literature review

List of selected test and control sites

Preliminary data summaries and findings

Summary of driving performances of the focus group from the controlled laboratory experiment and
population of the field experiment

Final project report describing all activities conducted as a part of this research, results and
recommendations.
The report will provide the results of the effectiveness evaluation and statistical
analysis. One original and five copies of the draft final report and draft executive summary will be
submitted to ODOT for review at the end of the twelfth month in the sixteen-month project period. Four
months are included in the project schedule for review of the final draft report by ODOT staff. Upon
receiving the comments from ODOT, the report will be finalized with 65 copies of the report and 220 color
17
copies of the executive summary submitted by the contract completion date. Electronic versions of the
final report and executive summary will also be submitted.

Quarterly progress reports detailing project status to date, including summaries of the data collection and
analysis. The quarterly progress reports will clearly describe the work performed during that quarter and
the work that is expected to occur in the next quarter. Any constraints impacting the completion of the
work will also be documented in the quarterly progress reports. Each quarterly report will also contain a
financial report.

A Research and Development Newsletter Article will be developed and submitted to ODOT for review and
inclusion in the Research and Development Newsletter.

The researchers will participate in a Project Review Session and a Project Wrap-up Meeting with ODOT to
discuss the results of the research.
The proposed time schedule including the estimated time needed to complete each task, as well as the proposed
deliverables for completing the project, are shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Proposed Time Schedule
7.0
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
If the results of the research indicate that alternative drum treatments at exit ramps in work zones can reduce crash
frequency and improve motorist maneuverability and recognition of the exit ramp, the research results will be
18
promoted to a wide audience of traffic engineers, road agencies and construction companies. The goal of the
University Transportation Center at Cleveland State University is improving work zone safety and mobility. The
Federal Highway Administration participates in the activities of the University Transportation Center and will be a
natural conduit for dissemination of the results of this research. In addition to the Federal Highway Administration
and ODOT, the results of this research will be submitted to the Transportation Research Board for publication and
presentation at the Annual Meeting in January of 2010.
Secondary research results, such as the evaluation of older driver abilities, will support various organizations, such
as the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and metropolitan
planning organizations, in their efforts to enhance elderly mobility.
Additional safety or traffic control device evaluations can be performed with the validated driving simulator through
the University Transportation Center at Cleveland State University. The use of the simulator will remove safety
concerns associated with a field experiment conducted with human subjects. The driving simulator will be a costeffective method for evaluating potential modifications to traffic control devices without having to absorb the cost
associated with physically manufacturing the devices under evaluation.
8.0
ITEMIZED BUDGET
The proposed budget for this project is $149,985. The itemized budget for the project is provided on the following
pages. The partnering agency, Cleveland State University’s University Transportation Center, will contribute 50
percent of the funds for the project.
9.0
WORK TIME COST SCHEDULE
The proposed research project activities will be conducted through Cleveland State and Ohio Universities. Details
regarding the facilities that will be utilized for this research project are provided in Appendix II while the
qualifications and resumes of the research team are provided in Appendix III. The other commitments of the
research team are provided in Appendix IV detailing the commitments to the success of this project both
Universities. The letter of commitment with Ohio University is also included in Appendix IV.
It is estimated that the draft final report will be completed in 12 months with an additional four months for the
review, approval and resubmission of the final report. Therefore, the project contract length is estimated at 16
months. The detailed breakdown for the hours and cost by task are provided in Figure 7.
Project Title:
Improving Exit Ramp Visibility in Work Zones
Labor Costs are computed at a per hour of: (insert amount in cell J2)
TASKS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
80
100
2
3
4
5
$26.31
TOTAL
TASK
HOURS
MONTH
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
19
120
800
900
300
600
300
400
100
400
100
400
100
200
100
200
200
160
TOTAL
LABOR
COSTS
140
*Includes Report
80
220
2300
2000
800
300
0
$2,105.06
$5,788.93
$60,520.59
$52,626.60
$21,050.64
$7,893.99
$0.00
Figure 7. Work Time Schedule
10.0
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
“Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition.” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington D.C.
“Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition.” Ohio Department of Transportation,
Columbus, Ohio.
“Ohio Traffic Crash Facts, 2001 through 2006 Editions.” Ohio Department of Public Safety, Columbus,
Ohio.
“Facts and Statistics.” Work Zone Mobility and Safety Program, Office of Operations, Federal Highway
Administration. http://ops.fhwa.gov/wzresources/facts_stats.htm.
Rouphail, N.M., Yang, S., and Fazio, J. “Comparative Study of Short- and Long-Term Urban Freeway
Work Zones.” Transportation Research Record 1163, 4-14.
Garber, N.J. and Zhao, M. (2002) “Crash Characteristics at Work Zones.” Research Report VTRC 02R12. Virginia Transportation Research Council, Virginia.
AASHTO. (1987) “Summary Report on Work Zone Crashes.” American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C.
Ullman, G.L. and Krammers, R.A. (1990) “Analysis of Crashes at Long-Term Construction Projects in
Texas.” Report FHWA/TX-90/1108-2, Washington D.C.
Graham, J. L., R.J. Paulsen, and J.C. Glennon. (1978). "Accident Analysis of Highway Construction
Zones." Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Ha, Tae-Jun and Nemeth, Z.A. (1995). "Detailed Study of Accident Experience in Construction and
Maintenance Zones." Transportation Research Record 1509, 38-45.
Wang, J., Hughes, W. E., Council, F. M., and Paniati, J. F. “Investigation of Highway Work Zone Crashes:
What We Know and What We Don’t Know.” Transportation Research Record 1529, 54-62.
Khattak, A. J., Khattak, Aemal J., and Council, F. M. (2000). "Effects of Work Zone Presence on Injury
and Non-injury Crashes." Accident Analysis and Prevention 34, 34, 19-29.
Li, Y. and Bai, Y. (2007). “Investigating the Human Factors Involved in Severe Crashes in Highway Work
Zones.” Proceedings of the 2007 Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium, Ames, Iowa.
20
14. Wierwille, W.W., Hanowski, R.J., Hankey, J.M., Kieliszewski, C.A., Lee, S.E., Medina, A., Keisler, A.S.,
and Dingus, T.A. (2002) “Identification of Driver Errors: Overview and Recommendations.” Report
FHWA-RD-02-003, McLean, Virginia.
15. King, G. F. and M. Lunenfeld. (1971). "Development of Information Requirements and Transmission
Techniques for Highway Users." Washington D.C.
16. Pain, R. F., McGee, H.W., and Knapp, B.G. (1981). "Evaluation of Traffic Controls For Work Zones."
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
17. Lafferty, A. and Pennington, J. (1995). "Type "C" Steady Burn Warning Lights on Temporary Concrete
Barrier Wall in Active Work Zones." Florida Department of Transportation, Office of Construction/Product
Evaluation.
18. Transportation Research Board, Research in Progress. “Evaluation of Striped Vertical Panels in Temporary
Traffic Control Zones.” http://rip.trb.org/browse/dproject.asp?n=13239.
19. Chiu, S. A., R.R Mourant, A. Belambe, and B.K. Jaeger. (1997). "A Study of Nighttime Highway Lane
Shifts." Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts.
20. Lyles, R.W, Kane, M.R., Vanosdall, F. and McKelvey, F.X. (1997). “Improved Traffic Control Device
Design and Placement to Aid the Older Driver, Final Report. NCHRP.
21. “A User’s Guide to Positive Guidance.” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, 1977.
22. Pant, P.D., and Park, Y. "Effectiveness of Steady burn warning lights for Traffic Control in Tangent
Sections of Highway Work Zones." Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C.
23. Pant, P. D., Huang, X. H., and Krishnamurthy, S. A. (1991). "Steady burn warning lights in Highway Work
Zones: Further Results of Study in Ohio." University of Cincinnati, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering. Cincinnati, OH.
24. “Accident Research Manual.” (1980). Federal Highway Administration RD-80-016, February, 1980,
Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
25. Blaauw, G. J. (1982). "Driving Experience and Task Demands in Simulator and Instrumented Car: A
Validation Study." Human Factors 24, 473-486.
26. Godley, S. T., Triggs, T. J., and Fildes, B. N. (2001). "Driving Simulator Validation for Speed Research."
Accident Analysis and Prevention 34, April 2001, 34, 589-600.
21
APPENDIX I
BUDGET FORM
22
Project Title:
Improving Exit Ramp Visibilty In Work Zones
Proposing Agency:
Cleveland State University
Principal Investigator:
Stephen F. Duffy, Ph.D., P.E.
Co-Principal Investigator(s)
Total Funding Contribution:
$
74,992.00
Partnering Agency:
Principal Investigator:
Co-Principal Investigator(s)
Total Funding Contribution:
(Duplicate the section on partnering agency as needed so that one section is provided for each partner.)
ODOT
Funding
Matching Funds
Proposing
Partnering
Agency
Agencies
Total
Project
Cost
SALARIES & WAGES
Specify number of hours to be work and hourly rate for each individual below. Salaries & Wages may
be shown as a percentage of a total salary. In this case, the percentage of the salary to be paid and
the total salary for each individual must be listed. The same unit, hours or percent, must be used for
all personnel in all sections of the final proposal budget form. For example:
PI: Doug Smith
(120 hours @ $64.05/hour)
$7,686.00
$0.00
$0.00
$7,686.00
PI Stephen Duffy
$1,150.00
$15,000.00
$16,150.00
Co-PI (Name)
Student(s)/Intern(s)
$0.00
$8,000.00
$15,017.00
$23,017.00
2 Students
Technicians (Name)
$0.00
Others (Secify Role &
Name)
$0.00
SUB-TOTAL SALARY &
WAGES
$9,150.00
$30,017.00
$0.00
$39,167.00
FRINGE BENEFITS
Provide an explanation of what is included and how the figure was derived for each personnel category
(e.g.: 15% of Salary & Wages).
PI
$634.00
$2,790.00 see above
$3,424.00
Co-PI
$0.00
Students/Interns
see above
$0.00
Technicians
$0.00
Others (Specify)
$0.00
SUB-TOTAL FRINGE
BENEFITS
SUB-TOTAL SALARY &
WAGES AND FRINGE
BENEFITS
$634.00
$2,790.00
$0.00
$3,424.00
$9,784.00
$32,807.00
$0.00
$42,591.00
23
SUBCONTRACTOR
A copy of the subcontractor’s budget must be attached. Reimbursement to Contractor for
Subcontractor performance is subject to state accounting guidelines as is the Contractor.
SUB-TOTAL
SUBCONTRACTOR
$62,006.00
$34,660.00
$96,666.00
SUBCONTRACTOR
A copy of the subcontractor’s budget must be attached. Reimbursement to Contractor for
Subcontractor performance is subject to state accounting guidelines as is the Contractor.
SUB-TOTAL
SUBCONTRACTOR
$62,006.00
$34,660.00
$96,666.00
TRAVEL
Must be in accordance with current state guidelines. Available on-line at
http://www.obm.ohio.gov/mppr/travel.asp
In-State Travel
(Destination within Ohio)
Provide destination,
purpose, total mileage,
total # of days, total # of
meals, total # of trips,
names of individual(s)
traveling.
Out-of-State Travel
(Destination outside Ohio)
Provide destination,
purpose, total mileage,
total # of days, total # of
meals, total # of trips,
names of individual(s)
traveling.
SUB-TOTAL TRAVEL
$0.00
$2,275.00
$0.00
$2,275.00
$2,275.00
$0.00
$2,275.00
SUPPLIES
Provide details if over 5% of total budget.
SUB-TOTAL SUPPLIES
$0.00
EQUIPMENT
At least 2 quotes for each piece of equipment must be attached. (See equipment policy - Section 4.4
- for details and exceptions.) List all items separately. Time at which the purchase shall be made
must be stated (e.g.: at project initiation, within first five months, etc.)
SUB-TOTAL EQUIPMENT
$0.00
PRINTING
Provide a breakdown of charges including, charge per page, # of pages, total # of copies, binding
charges, etc.)
Quarterly Reports
Interim Reports
(if applicable)
Draft Final Report
Executive Summary
Final Report
SUB-TOTAL PRINTING
IN-DIRECT COSTS
Limited to 35% of Salaries
& Wages for Universities
FEES
For Commercial
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,203.00
24
$0.00
$5,250.00 INCLUDE IN
ABOVE_NEED
UPDATE
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8,453.00
$0.00
IN-DIRECT COSTS
Limited to 35% of Salaries
& Wages for Universities
FEES
For Commercial
Organizations Only.
Negotiated amount based
on % of direct costs
(excluding sub-contractor
and equipment)
SUB-TOTAL INDIRECT
COSTS AND FEES
$3,203.00
$5,250.00 INCLUDE IN
ABOVE_NEED
UPDATE
$8,453.00
$0.00
$3,203.00
$5,250.00
$0.00
$8,453.00
OTHER EXPENSES
Any project expense which does not fall into another category. Provide detailed explanation of the
expense and applicable breakdown of costs. List individually by category.
SUB-TOTAL OTHER
EXPENSES
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$0.00
$74,993.00
$74,992.00
25
$0.00
$149,985.00
26
27
Phone: 330-220-3904
Fax:
330-220-3927
2608 Great Lakes Way
Hinckley, Ohio 44233-9590
February 27, 2008
Attn: George Palko
President
The Great Lakes Construction Co., Inc
2608 Great Lakes Way
Hinckley, OH 44233
Gentlemen:
As per your request, Cleveland Barricading Systems (CBS) details pricing below to set up the proposed
Work Zone in Delaware County at an exit ramp along US-23. It is our understanding that the standard
drums and the special drums will be furnished by Plastic Safety Systems. The Work Zone signs, sign
stands or No. 3 Posts, and Type A Lights are to be furnished by CBS. At the completion of the project,
CBS will return to the site to remove all of the equipment. All work is to comply with the latest edition
of the OMUTCD. It is anticipated that the Work Zone duration would be six months.
Lump Sum Price $2,650.00
Please advise if you require any additional information or have any questions regarding this proposal.
Sincerely,
CLEVELAND BARRICADING SYSTEMS
K. Leonard More
General Manager
28
APPENDIX II
FACILITIES
29
In general, the majority of the project will be completed at the facilities located at Cleveland State University and
Ohio University. The field experiment portion of the project will be conducted at various construction sites located
throughout the State of Ohio. The driving simulator housed at Cleveland State University in Stilwell Hall Room
B37 will be utilized for the controlled laboratory field experiment. The analysis of both experiments will be
conducted in faculty offices and the Transportation Laboratory in the Civil Engineering Department at Ohio
University (Stocker Center). The offices and laboratory has the software and computer equipment to accomplish the
project tasks.
30
APPENDIX III
QUALIFICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH TEAM
31
Dr. Stephen Duffy is the executive director of the CSU Work Zone Safety University Transportation Center
(UTC). The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), enacted on June 9, 1998, authorized $194.8
million to establish and operate 33 University Transportation Centers (UTC) throughout the United States during FY
1998 through 2003. Ten centers (designated as Regional Centers) were selected by competition in 1999. The other
23 autonomous centers are located at universities named in TEA-21 legislation. Dr. Duffy has 27 years experience
as a practicing civil engineer. He is currently a Professor and Chair of Civil & Environmental Engineering at
Cleveland State. His primary fields of civil engineering practice are geotechnical engineering (25 years experience),
site engineering (27 years), and various types of structural engineering design (9 years). He has been retained on
numerous occasions to conduct forensic analyses. In addition, he has designed numerous deep foundations for cell
towers in central and northern Ohio.
Dr. Duffy also has over 18 years experience in the area of designing
components fabricated from ceramic materials. He has been associated with the Life Prediction Branch at NASA
Glenn Research Center since 1987. Research efforts supported by NASA have focused on developing reliability
based design algorithms for monolithic and ceramic matrix composites.
He has been supported by research
contracts with the DoE through Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Efforts were focused on providing industry partners
with help in designing ceramic based components used at elevated service temperatures. He has been under contract
with the Army Research Lab (ARL) to conduct design studies relative to ceramic gun barrels, as well as ceramic
armor. He is the former chair of ASTM Sub-Committee C 28.02 Design and Evaluation. He also chairs ISO
Working Group 11 (Fine Ceramics). Dr. Duffy has published numerous technical papers and book chapters in the
area of structural reliability, viscoplasticity, and how these topics relate to monolithic ceramics, CMCs, MMCs, and
metal alloys.
Dr. Deborah S. McAvoy, Ph.D., P.E., P.T.O.E. joined the Department of Civil Engineering after the completion of
her Doctoral Degree from Wayne State University in Transportation Engineering in 2007. She served as the lead
researcher for the Transportation Research Group in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at
Wayne State University for three years while working towards her Ph.D. in Transportation Engineering. Dr.
McAvoy has also been working for the past 15 years consulting in civil engineering. Her specialties include site
development, traffic signal design, modeling and simulating signal networks for optimization and corridor
progression, traffic crash analysis and the determination of appropriate countermeasures, evaluation of innovative
traffic safety devices, and driver behavioral studies.
Resumes of key members of the research team are included herein.
32
Stephen F. Duffy PhD, PE, F.ASCE
Professor and Chair of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Cleveland State University
June 1981 to
January 1987
EDUCATION
The University of Akron - Akron, Ohio
Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering (1987)
Dissertation title: "A Viscoplastic Constitutive Model for Transversely Isotropic Metal
Alloys"
June 1978 to
June 1981
The University of Akron - Akron, Ohio
Master of Science in Civil Engineering (1981)
Graduate studies were focused on the field of geotechnical engineering.
Sept. 1973 to
June 1978
The University of Akron - Akron, Ohio
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering (cum laude - 1978)
Professional Engineers License:
LICENSE/REGISTRATION:
Ohio (since 1983)
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
Cleveland State University
September, 1991 to
Present
Employed as a professor (tenure date - September 1, 1994; promotion to professor September 1, 2001) of Civil Engineering while concurrently serving as a resident
research associate at NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC). A continued research
focus has been maintained on developing probabilistic methods for failure analysis
of structural components.
Named Director of the Work Zone Safety and Efficiency Transportation Center at
CSU June 2004. The center was elevated to the status of a national Tier II
University Transportation Center under the SAFETEA-LU legislation passed in July
2005.
Named Chairman of the Civil & Environmental Engineering Department June 1,
2007
September, 1987 to
September, 1991
Employed as a resident research associate under a cooperative agreement with
Cleveland State University and NASA Lewis Research Center. Research focused on
the probabilistic failure analysis of structural components fabricated from whisker
reinforced ceramic composites, and laminated ceramic composites.
September, 1985 to
September, 1987
Employed as a visiting instructor teaching both undergraduate and graduate Civil
Engineering courses. Research efforts included completion of PhD dissertation
(partially funded by NASA Lewis Research Center), and the development of
inelastic stress-strain relationships for refractory powder metals (research funded by
General Electric).
PUBLICATIONS
Books & Book Chapters (five selected)
1. "Design Practices for Whisker Toughened Ceramic Components," S.F. Duffy and A.F. Saleeb, in Engineered
Materials Handbook Volume 4: Ceramics and Glasses, Samuel J. Snyder tech. ed., ASM International, pp.
733-740, 1991.
2. Life Prediction Methodologies and Data for Ceramic Materials, ASTM STP 1201, C.R. Brinkman and S.F.
Duffy eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1994.
33
3.
4.
5.
"Reliability and Life Prediction of Ceramic Composite Structures at Elevated Temperatures," S.F. Duffy and
J.P. Gyekenyesi, in High Temperature Mechanical Behavior of Ceramic Composites, S.V. Nair and K. Jakus,
eds., Butterworth-Heineman, Boston, pp. 471-515, 1995.
"Design with Brittle Materials," S.F. Duffy and L.A. Janosik, in Engineered Materials Handbook: Volume 20
Material Selection and Design, G. Dieter, volume chair, ASM International, pp. 622-638, 1997.
"Life Prediction of Structural Components," S.F. Duffy, L.A. Janosik, A.A. Wereszczak, B. Schenk, A. Suzuki, J.
Lamon, and D.J. Thomas, in Progress in Ceramic Gas Turbine Development: Volume 2 Ceramic Gas Turbine
Component Development and Characterization, M. van Roode, M.K. Ferber, and D.W. Richerson, volume chairs,
ASME Press, pp. 553-606, 2003.
Refereed Journal Articles (last five, chronologically)
1. "Composites Research at NASA Lewis Research Center," S.R. Levine, S.F. Duffy, A. Vary, M.V. Nathal, R.V.
Miner, S.M. Arnold, M.G. Castelli, D.A. Hopkins, and M.A. Meador, Composites Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 8,
pp. 787-810.
2. "Trends in the Design and Analysis of Components Fabricated From CFCCs," S.F. Duffy, J.L Palko, J.B
Sandifer, C.L. DeBellis, M.J. Edwards, and D.L Hindman, Transactions of the ASME - Journal of Engineering
for Gas Turbines and Power, Vol. 119, No. 1, pp. 1-6, January, 1997.
3. "An Overview of Engineering Concepts and Current Design Algorithms for Probabilistic Structural Analysis,"
S.F. Duffy, J. Hu, and D.A. Hopkins, in Proceedings of the 1995 Design Engineering Technical Conferences Volume 2, DE-Vol. 83, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 3-16, September, 1995.
4. "A Viscoplastic Constitutive Theory for Monolithic Ceramics - I," L.A. Janosik and S.F. Duffy, Transactions of the
ASME - Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Vol. 120, No. 1, pp. 155-161, January, 1998.
5. "Weibull Analysis Effective Volume and Effective Area for a Ceramic C – Ring Test Specimen," S.F. Duffy,
E.H. Baker, A.A. Wereszczak and J.J. Swab, ASTM Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp 233238, July 2005.
6. "Strength of a Ceramic Sectored Flexural Test Specimen," A.A. Wereszczak, S.F. Duffy, E.H. Baker, J.J. Swab,
and G.J. Champoux, ASTM Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp 17-23, January 2008.
Industry Standards
1. "Standard Practice for Reporting Uniaxial Strength Data and Estimating Weibull Distribution Parameters for
Advanced Ceramics," S.F. Duffy, G. Quinn, and C. Johnson, ASTM Designation: C 1239, (1995, 2000, 2005).
2. "Fine Ceramics (Advanced Ceramics, Advanced Technical Ceramics) - Weibull Statistics for Strength Data,"
S.F. Duffy, ISO Designation: FDIS 20501, (2003).
3. "Size Scaling Of Tensile Strengths Using Weibull Statistics For Advanced Ceramics," S.F. Duffy, G. Quinn,
E.H. Baker and J.A. Salem, ASTM Designation: C 1683, (2008).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
7.
6.
STUDENT DISSERTATIONS & THESES
"An Interactive Reliability Model for Whisker-Toughened Ceramics," J.L. Palko, Masters Thesis, Cleveland
State University, 1992.
"Modeling Size Effects and Numerical Techniques in Structural Reliability Analysis," J. Hu, Masters Thesis,
Cleveland State University, 1994.
"An Isothermal Fatigue Life Study Of A Woven Polymer Matrix Composites," A. Gyekenyesi, Doctoral
Dissertation, Cleveland State University, 1997.
"A Viscoplastic Constitutive Model for Ceramic Materials," L. Janosik, Masters Thesis, Cleveland State
University, 1998.
"The Need to Heat Treat Flash Welded 300M Tube Prior to Destructive Testing,” Scott C. Maitland, Masters
Thesis, Cleveland State University, 2001.
HONORS AND AWARDS
Member of Tau Beta Pi (National Engineering Honor Society, 1977)
ASTM Award of Appreciation - presented by ASTM Committee C-28 for Advanced Ceramics (January 1994)
ASTM C-28 Advanced Ceramics Award (June 1995 – initial recipient)
ASME Award of Appreciation (September 1995)
Fellow – American Society of Civil Engineers (August 2006)
34
DEBORAH S. McAVOY, Ph.D., P.E., PTOE
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
Ohio University
EDUCATION:
May 2007 – Ph.D. Civil Engineering (Transportation), Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
May 2004 - M.S. Civil Engineering (Transportation), Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
August 1994 - B.S. Civil and Environmental Engineering, summa cum laude, University of Detroit, Detroit, MI
LICENSE/REGISTRATION:
Professional Engineer, 2000, Michigan
Professional Engineer, 2007, Ohio
Professional Traffic Operations Engineer, 2005
TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE:
8/2007 – Present
Assistant Professor, Ohio University
Co-Principal Investigator
 Effectiveness of Noise Barriers Installed Adjacent to Transverse Grooved Concrete Pavement,
sponsored by the Ohio Department of Transportation
Principal Investigator
 Taking Action: Using Targeted Training to Get Traffic Safety Analysis Integrated into the Local
Transportation Planning Process, sponsored by Michigan Technological University Local Technical
Assistance Program
Teaching Duties
 CE 566: Transportation Design, 3 credit Graduate Course
 CE 462: Traffic Engineering, 3 credit Undergraduate/Graduate Course
5/2007 – 8/2007
Research Consultant, University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, MI
 Evaluation of SCATS Control System, sponsored by the Michigan Department of Transportation and
the Road Commission of Oakland County
8/04 – 5/2007
Lead Research Engineer, Wayne State University
 Work Zone Safety Grant, sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration, 2006 – 2007
 Traffic and Safety Engineering Research Services, sponsored by HNTB Corporation, Florida, 2006 2007
 Identification of Speed-Related Crashes for Targeted Enforcement, sponsored by the Michigan Office
of Highway Safety Planning, 2006 – 2007
 Direct Observational Surveys of Safety Belt Use for May Click It or Ticket Evaluation, sponsored by
the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning, 2004 – 2007
 Commercial Motor Vehicle Direct Observation of Safety Belt Use, sponsored by the Michigan Office
of Highway Safety Planning, 2005-2006
 Motorcycle Protective Gear Observational Survey, sponsored by the Michigan Office of Highway
Safety Planning, 2005 - 2006
 Annual Direct Observational Survey of Safety Belt Use, sponsored by the Michigan Office of Highway
Safety Planning, 2005 - 2007
 Child Restraint Device Use and Misuse, sponsored by the Michigan Office of Highway Safety
Planning, 2005 - 2006
 US-2 (between St. Ignace and Rapid River) Safety Audit, sponsored by the Michigan Office of
Highway Safety Planning, 2005 - 2006
 Traffic and Safety Engineering Services to MPOs, sponsored by the Michigan Office of Highway
Safety Planning, 2004 - 2007
- Bay City Area Transportation Study
- Battle Creek Metropolitan Area
- Southwest Metropolitan Council
- Grand Valley Metropolitan Commission
 Development of Standards and Procedures for Temporary Traffic Control At Utility Work Zones,
sponsored by DTE Energy and Consumers Power Companies, 2004 - 2006
35


A Study of the Effectiveness of the Use of Traffic Channelizing Devices (Drums) in Work Zone,
sponsored by the Michigan Department of Transportation, 2004 - 2005
Susan Harwood Training Grant- OSHA Training Material Development for Highway Construction
Work Zones and Traffic Control Hazard, sponsored by OSHA/US Department of Labor, 2004 - 2005
2/06 – Present
8/04 – 5/07
8/04 – 5/06
9/00-8/04
10/97-9/00
9/94-10/97
Consultant, Washtenaw Engineering Company
Consultant, Goodell-Grivas, Inc.
Adjunct Faculty, Eastern Michigan University
Project Manager, Tetra Tech MPS
Associate, Project Manager/Project Engineer, Washtenaw Engineering
Assistant Project Manager/Project Civil Engineer, Albert Kahn Associates, Inc.
PUBLICATIONS:
Refereed Journal Papers
1. “Driving Simulator Validation for Nighttime Construction Work Zone Devices”, McAvoy, D.S., Schattler,
K.L. and Datta, T.K., scheduled to be published in the Transportation Research Record, Washington D.C.,
2007.
2. “Evaluation of Pedestrian and Driver Behavior at Countdown Pedestrian Signals”, Schattler, K.L., Wakin,
J.G., Datta, T.K., and McAvoy, D.S., Transportation Research Record 2002, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington D.C., December 2007, pp. 98-106.
3. “Assessing Driver Distractions from Cell Phone Use While Driving: Simulator-Based Study”, Schattler,
K.L., Pellerito, J., McAvoy, D.S., and Datta, T.K., published in the Transportation Research Record
Volume 1980; Safety and Human Performance, Washington D.C., 2006.
Refereed Papers in Conference Proceedings
1. “Safety Based Signalized Intersection Level of Service”, Fuquan, P., L. Jian, Z. Qiajun, D.S.
McAvoy, , to be published in the Compendium of Technical Papers for the First International
Symposium on Transportation and Development Innovative Practices, Beijing, China, April
2008.
2. “Evaluation of Signal Mounting Configurations at Urban Signalized Intersections in Michigan and
Illinois”, Schattler, K., M. Christ, D. McAvoy, and C. Glauber., published in the Compendium of
Technical Papers of the 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington D.C., January 13-16, 2008.
3. “Driving Simulator Validation for Nighttime Construction Work Zone Devices”, McAvoy, D.S., Schattler,
K.L. and Datta, T.K., published in the Compendium of Technical Papers of the 86th Annual Meeting of
the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., January 2007.
4. “Evaluation of Pedestrian and Driver Behavior at Countdown Pedestrian Signals”, Schattler, K.L., Wakin,
J.G., Datta, T.K., and McAvoy, D.S., published in the Compendium of Technical Papers of the 86th
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., January 2007.
5. “Effectiveness of Steady Burn Warning Lights on Drums in Construction Work Zones”, McAvoy, D.S.,
Schattler, K.L., and Datta, T.K., published in the Compendium of Technical Papers of the 85 th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., January 22-26, 2006.
6. “Assessing Driver Distractions from Cell Phone Use While Driving: Simulator-Based Study”, Schattler,
K.L., Pellerito, J., McAvoy, D.S., and Datta, T.K., published in the Compendium of Technical Papers of
the 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., January 22-26, 2006.
Papers in Conference Proceedings
1. “A Study of the Effectiveness of Steady Burn Warning Lights on Drums in Construction Work Zones”,
McAvoy, D.S., Schattler, K.L., and Datta, T.K., published in the Compendium of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers 2006 Annual Meeting and Exhibit, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, August 7-9, 2006.
2. “A Test and Validation of Traffic Performance Characteristics of a Traffic Signal System”, Schattler, K.L.,
McAvoy, D.S. and Datta, T.K., published in the Compendium of Technical Papers of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers 2005 Technical Conference and Exhibit, Las Vegas, Nevada, February 27March 2, 2005.
3. “Intersection Design to Maximize Flow and Safety”, Datta, T.K., Schattler, K.L., McAvoy, D.S. and
Chowdhury, F., published in the Compendium of Technical Papers of the Institute of Transportation
Engineers 2005 Technical Conference and Exhibit, Las Vegas, Nevada, February 27-March 2, 2005.
36
APPENDIX IV
OTHER COMMITMENTS OF THE RESEARCH TEAM
37
Other commitments of the research team include the following tasks by individual:
Dr. Stephen F. Duffy, Ph.D., P.E.:



Teaches 3 to 4 credit hours per semester – approximately 25% of his time during the academic year.. This
effort varies.
Civil & Environmental Engineering Department Chair – approximately 50% of his time during the
academic year.
Director of the CSU Work Zone Safety & Efficiency Transportation Center – approximately 25% of his
time during the academic year; 100% during the summer. During the academic year this effort varies with
teaching load.
Dr. Deborah S. McAvoy, Ph.D., P.E., PTOE:



Teaching one three credit Transportation Engineering course per quarter at Ohio University occupying 25
percent of her time.
Effectiveness of Noise Barriers Installed Adjacent to Transverse Grooved Concrete Pavements through the
Ohio Department of Transportation, Beginning February 1, 2008 through January 31, 2009, 84.5 hours or
approximately four percent of her time.
Taking Action: Using Targeted Training to Get Traffic Safety Analysis Integrated into the Local
Transportation Planning Process Project for the Michigan Technological University Local Technical
Assistance Program, Beginning January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009, 64 hours or approximately
two percent of her time.
The students listed as participating in this research project will be hired specifically for this project and therefore
will not be assigned any other tasks during the duration of the project.
38
Insert OU letter of Commitment
39