Appendices to NCHRP Report 810:
Consideration of Preservation in
Pavement Design and Analysis
Procedures
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Urbana, IL
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX A.
APPENDIX B.
APPENDIX C.
APPENDIX D.
APPENDIX E.
APPENDIX F.
APPENDIX G.
APPENDIX H.
APPENDIX I.
BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................... A-1
PRESERVATION TREATMENTS FOR HMA-SURFACED
PAVEMENTS .............................................................................. B-1
PRESERVATION TREATMENTS FOR PCC-SURFACED
PAVEMENTS .............................................................................. C-1
PAVEMENT PRESERVATION SYNTHESIS .............................. D-1
MEPDG SYNTHESIS................................................................... E-1
SHA INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES................... F-1
INDUSTRY GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND
RESPONSES .............................................................................. G-1
LTPP TEST SECTIONS USED IN MEPDG MODEL
DEVELOPMENT AND CALIBRATION ...................................... H-1
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ON AVAILABILITY OF STATE
HIGHWAY AGENCY DATA ....................................................... I-61
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure D-1. Process of selecting the preferred preservation treatment for high traffic volume
roadways (Peshkin et al. 2011b). ...............................................................................7
Figure D-2. Preservation treatment life and pavement life extension (adapted from Peshkin
et al. 2011a, Sousa and Way 2009a, and Rajagopal 2010). .......................................9
Figure D-3. Preservation treatment effectiveness (adapted from Peshkin et al. 2004). ...............10
Figure E-1. MEPDG conceptual flow chart (AASHTO 2008) .....................................................1
Figure E-2. Interaction between materials module and MEPDG modeling components
(ARA 2004) ..............................................................................................................15
Figure E-3. Interaction between materials module and MEPDG modeling components ...........17
Figure E-4. Interaction between materials module and MEPDG modeling components ...........18
Figure E-5. SHA MEPDG evaluation, implementation, and use (Pierce and McGovern 2014) .....22
Figure E-6. Determination of the C2 parameter from the VFA of the lower dense-graded
HMA layers (Von Quintus and Moulthrop 2007) ....................................................48
Figure E-7. Performance prediction with mill-and-fill preservation treatment scheduled
after 20 years (Ullitdz et al. 2010)............................................................................50
Figure I-1.
Figure I-2.
ii
Example illustration of baseline/untreated design and preservation-treated design3
Example condition/performance data for baseline/untreated
design and preservation-treated design ......................................................................3
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
LIST OF TABLES
Table B-1.
Table B-2.
Table B-3.
Table B-4.
Table B-5.
Table B-6.
Table B-7.
Table B-8.
Table B-9.
Table B-10.
Table B-11.
Technical summary for crack sealing and crack filling .........................................B-1
Technical summary for fog/rejuvenator seal ..........................................................B-2
Technical summary for sand seal and scrub seal ...................................................B-3
Technical summary for slurry seal .........................................................................B-4
Technical summary for microsurfacing .................................................................B-5
Technical summary for chip seal............................................................................B-6
Technical summary for ultra-thin bonded wearing course.....................................B-8
Technical summary for thin and ultra-thin HMA overlays ....................................B-9
Technical summary for hot in-place recycling .....................................................B-11
Technical summary for cold in-place recycling ...................................................B-12
Technical summary for ultra-thin PCC overlay ...................................................B-13
Table C-1.
Table C-2.
Table C-3.
Table C-4.
Table C-5.
Table C-6.
Table C-7.
Technical summary for joint resealing and crack sealing ......................................C-1
Technical summary for diamond grooving ............................................................C-2
Technical summary for diamond grinding .............................................................C-3
Technical summary for partial-depth and full-depth repair ...................................C-4
Technical summary for load-transfer restoration and cross-stitching ....................C-5
Technical summary for ultra-thin bonded wearing course.....................................C-6
Technical summary for thin HMA overlays ..........................................................C-7
Table D-1.
Table D-2.
Table D-3.
Classification of pavement activities by purpose (Peshkin et al. 2011a) .............. D-1
Pavement preservation treatment types ................................................................. D-3
Primary capabilities and functions of preservation treatments for ACsurfaced (flexible and composite) pavements (Peshkin et al. 2011a) ................... D-4
Primary capabilities and functions of preservation treatments for PCCsurfaced (rigid) pavements (Peshkin et al. 2011a) ................................................ D-5
Summary of recent national research studies investigating preservation
treatment performance......................................................................................... D-12
Summary of recent state research studies investigating preservation
treatment performance......................................................................................... D-13
Table D-4.
Table D-5.
Table D-6.
Table E-1.
Table E-2.
Table E-3.
Major material input considerations by material group ....................................... E-16
Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies ............................ E-23
Experimental matrix for Montana local calibration study (Von Quintus and
Moulthrop 2007) .................................................................................................. E-47
Table F-1.
Table F-2.
SHA interview questions and responses ................................................................ F-1
Summary of SHA responses regarding pavement preservation programs and
practices ................................................................................................................ F-36
Summary of SHA responses regarding preservation treatment performance ...... F-37
Summary of SHA responses regarding MEPDG evaluation, implementation,
and use .................................................................................................................. F-38
Summary of SHA responses regarding incorporation of preservation into the
MEPDG and the availability of data to support the concept ................................ F-39
Table F-3.
Table F-4.
Table F-5.
Table G-1.
Industry Group interview questions and responses ............................................... G-1
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
iii
December 2014
Table H-1.
Table H-2.
Table H-3.
Table H-4.
Table H-5.
Table H-6.
Table H-7.
Table H-8.
Table H-9.
Table H-10.
Table H-11.
Table H-12.
Table H-13.
Table H-14.
iv
Final Report Appendices
Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of fatigue cracking
model for new/reconstructed flexible pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A
final report appendix EE-1 [Annex A, tables 1, 11, and 12] and appendix II) ..... H-2
Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of fatigue cracking
model for HMA overlay over flexible pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A
Final Report appendix EE-2 [Annex A, tables A-1, A-11, and A-12] and
appendix II) ........................................................................................................... H-8
Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of fatigue cracking
model for HMA overlay over fractured slab pavements (based on NCHRP
1-37A Final Report appendix EE-2 [Annex B, tables B-1, B-11, and B-12]
and appendix II) .................................................................................................. H-10
Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of fatigue cracking
model for HMA overlay over JPC pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A
Final Report appendix EE-2 [Annex C, tables C-1, C-14, and C-15] and
appendix II) ......................................................................................................... H-11
Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of thermal cracking
model for new/reconstructed flexible pavements and HMA overlays (based
on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix HH [see Note below]) ...................... H-12
Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of rutting model
for new/reconstructed flexible pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final
Report appendix EE-1 [Annex A, tables 1 and 10] and Appendix GG) ............. H-14
Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of rutting mode
for HMA overlays over flexible pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final
Report appendix EE-2 [Annex A, tables A-1 and A-10] and Appendix GG) ..... H-20
Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of rutting model for
HMA overlays over existing fractured PCC pavements (based on NHCRP
1-37A Final Report appendix EE-2 [Annex B, tables B-1 and B-10] and
appendix GG) ...................................................................................................... H-24
Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of rutting model for
HMA overlays over JPC pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report
appendix EE-2 [Annex C, tables C-1 and C-13] and appendix GG) .................. H-25
Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of punchout model
for new/reconstructed CRC pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report
appendix FF [tables FF.5 and FF.9] and appendix LL [see Note below]) .......... H-26
Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse joint
faulting model for new/reconstructed JPC pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A
Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.7 and FF.8] and appendix JJ [see Note below])H-29
Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse
cracking model for new/reconstructed JPC pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A
Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.4 and FF.7] and appendix KK [see Note
below]) ................................................................................................................ H-38
Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse joint
faulting and transverse cracking models for restored JPC pavements (based
NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix NN [tables 7 and 11]) ............................ H-46
Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse joint
faulting and transverse cracking models for unbonded JPC overlays on existing
rigid or composite pavements (based NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix NN
[tables 7 and 11]) ................................................................................................. H-47
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table H-15. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of punchout
model for unbonded CRC overlays on existing rigid or composite pavements
(based NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix NN [tables 7 and 14]) ................ H-49
Table H-16. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of punchout
model for bonded PCC overlay on existing CRC pavements (based
NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix NN [tables 7 and 14]) ............................ H-50
Table H-17. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of smoothness
prediction model for new/reconstructed JPC pavements (based on NCHRP
137A Final Report appendix FF [table FF.4] and appendix PP [table 16]) .......... H-51
Table H-18. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of smoothness
prediction model for new/reconstructed CRC pavements (based on NCHRP
1-37A Final Report appendix FF [table FF.5] and appendix PP [table 16]) ....... H-58
Table I-1.
Table I-2.
Table I-3.
Table I-4.
Table I-5.
Table I-6.
Data elements required for OPTime analysis .......................................................... I-6
Data elements required for Pavement ME Design analysis .................................... I-8
Summary of state data required for OPTime analysis (OPTime approach
only) ...................................................................................................................... I-13
Summary of state data required for Pavement ME Design analysis (OPTime
and Properties Modification approaches) .............................................................. I-15
Assessment of data availability for development of the OPTime approach ......... I-22
Assessment of data availability for development of the Properties
Modifications approach ......................................................................................... I-23
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
v
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
APPENDIX A. BIBLIOGRAPHY
PAVEMENT PRESERVATION
Attoh-Okine, N. and H.J. Park. 2007. “Thin Overlay Maintenance Treatment Application in
Delaware Communities.” Final Report prepared for Delaware Center for Transportation,
Newark, DE.
Bausano, J.P., K. Chatti, and R.C. Williams. 2004. “Determining Life Expectancy of Preventive
Maintenance Fixes for Asphalt-Surfaced Pavements.” Transportation Research Record 1866.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Broughton, B. and S.J. Lee. 2012. Microsurfacing in Texas. FHWA/TX-12/0-6668-1. Texas
Department of Transportation, Austin, TX.
Burnham, T. 2009. Whitetopping: Concrete Overlays of Asphalt Pavements. Version 1.
Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Office of Pavement Preservation. 2008.
Maintenance Technical Advisory Guide-Volume I Flexible Pavement Preservation. 2nd Edition.
Caltrans, Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Office of Pavement Preservation. 2008.
Maintenance Technical Advisory Guide-Volume II Rigid Pavement Preservation. Second
Edition. Caltrans, Sacramento, CA.
Chou, E.Y., D. Datta, and H. Pulugurta. 2008. Effectiveness of Thin Hot Mix Asphalt Overlay
on Pavement Ride and Condition Performance. FHWA/OH-2008/4. Ohio Department of
Transportation. Columbus, OH.
Corley-Lay, J. and J.N. Mastin. 2007. “Ultrathin Bonded Wearing Course as a Pavement
Preservation Treatment for Jointed Concrete Pavements.” Compendium of Papers CD. 86th
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Cuelho, E., R. Mokwa, and M. Akin. 2006. Preventive Maintenance Treatments of Flexible
Pavements: A Synthesis of Highway Practice. FHWA/MT-06-009/8117-26. Montana
Department of Transportation, Helena, MT.
Eltahan, A.A., J.F. Daleiden, and A.L. Simpson. 1999. “Effectiveness of Maintenance
Treatments of Flexible Pavements.” Transportation Research Record 1680, Transportation
Research Board, Washington DC.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2007. Pavement Preservation Treatment
Construction Guide. Available online at http://fhwapap34.fhwa.dot.gov/NHIPPTCG/index1.htm.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
A-1
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2008. Transportation system Preservation
Research, Development, and Implementation Roadmap. Federal Highway Administration, FP2,
and AASHTO, Washington, DC.
Fugro-BRE et al. 2004. Slurry Seal/Micro-Surface Mix Design Procedure. Phase I Report for
Contract 65A0151. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
Gopal, S. 2010. Bituminous Overlay Strategies for Preventive Maintenance on Pennsylvania
Interstate Roadways. Masters Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Gransberg, D. 2010. Microsurfacing: A Synthesis of Practice. NCHRP Synthesis 411.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, DC.
Gransberg, D. and J.B. Carlisle. 2005. Evaluate TxDOT Chip Seal Binder Performance Using
Pavement Management Information System and Field Measurement Data San Antonio District.
University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
Gransberg, D. and D.M.B. James. 2005. Chip Seal Best Practices, NCHRP Synthesis of Highway
Practice 342, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, DC.
Gransberg, D. and M. Zaman. 2005. “Analysis of Emulsion and Hot Asphalt Cement Chip Seal
Performance.” Journal of Transportation Engineering. Vol. 131, No. 3. American Society of
Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. pp. 229- 238.
Gransberg, D. M. Zaman, C. Riemer, D. Pittenger, and B. Aktas. 2010. Quantifying the Costs
and Benefits of Pavement Retexturing as a Pavement Preservation Tool. Report No.
OTCREOS7.1-16-F. Oklahoma Transportation Center, Midwest City, OK.
Hajj, E.Y., L. Loria, and P.E. Sebaaly. 2010. “Performance Evaluation of Asphalt Pavement
Preservation Activities.” Transportation Research Record 2150. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
Hajj, E.Y., L. Loria, P.E. Sebaaly, C.M. Borroel, and P. Leiva. 2011. “Optimum Time for
Application of Slurry Seal to Asphalt Concrete Pavements.” TRB 2011 Annual Meeting.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Hall, K.T., C.E. Correa, and A.L. Simpson. 2002. LTPP Data Analysis: Effectiveness of
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Options. NCHRP Web Document 47. Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.
Hein, D.K. and S. Rao. 2010. “Rational Procedures for Evaluating the Effectiveness of
Pavement Preservation Treatments.” Paper 28, Compendium of Papers, First International
Conference on Pavement Preservation, Newport Beach, CA.
Irfan, M., M.B. Khurshid, and S. Labi. 2009. “Service Life of Thin HMA Overlay Using
Different Performance Indicators.” Paper 09-2359, Compendium of Papers DVD. 88th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Board, Washington
DC.
A-2
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Janisch, D. and E. Lukanen. 2009. Preventive Maintenance and Pavement Management.
Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of Materials and Road Research, St. Paul, MN.
Ji, Y., T. Nantung, D. Harris, and B. Tompkins. 2011. “Evaluation for Microsurfacing as
Pavement Preservation Treatment: A Case Study.” TRB 2011 Annual Meeting. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Labi, S., K.S. Hwee, and G. Lamptey. 2006. “Long-term Benefits of Microsurfacing
Applications in Indiana – Methodology and Case Study.” Compendium of Papers CD-ROM.
85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
Labi S., G. Lamptey, S. Konduri, and K.C. Sinha. 2005. “Analysis of Long-Term Effectiveness
of Thin Hot-Mix Asphaltic Concrete Overlay Treatments.” Transportation Research Record
1940. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Labi, S. and K. Sinha. 2003. The Effectiveness of Maintenance and Its Impact on Capital
Expenditures. Technical Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2002-27. Indiana Department of
Transportation, Indianapolis, IN.
Labi, S. and K. Sinha. 2004. “Effectiveness of Highway Pavement Seal Coating Treatments.”
ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,
VA.
Lamptey, G., S. Labi, M. Ahmad, and K. Sinha. 2005. Life Cycle Cost Analysis for INDOT
Pavement Design Procedures. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2004/28. Indiana Department of
Transportation, Indianapolis, IN.
Lee, J. and Y.R. Kim. 2010. “Evaluation of Performance and Cost-Effectiveness of PolymerModified Chip Seals.” Compendium of Papers CD-ROM. 89th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Lee, J. and T. Shields. 2010. Treatment Guidelines for Pavement Preservation.
FHWA/IN/JTRP-2010/01. Joint Transportation Research Program, Indiana Department of
Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Li, S., S. Noureldin, Y. Jiang, and Y. Sun. 2012. Evaluation of Pavement Surface Friction
Treatments. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2012/04. Joint Transportation Research Program, Indiana
Department of Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Liu, L., M. Hossain, and R. Miller. 2010. “Life of Chip Seal on Kansas Highways.” Paper 39.
Compendium of Papers, First International Conference on Pavement Preservation, Newport
Beach, CA.
Liu, L., V.S. Manepalli, D.S. Gedafa, and M. Hossain. 2010. “Cost Effectiveness of Ultrathin
Bonded Bituminous Surface and Modified Slurry Seal.” Paper 69. Compendium of Papers,
First International Conference on Pavement Preservation, Newport Beach, CA.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
A-3
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Liu, L., M. Hossain, and R. Miller. 2010. “Costs and Benefits of Thin Surface Treatments on
Bituminous Pavements in Kansas.” Compendium of Papers DVD, 89th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research Board, Washington DC.
Mahoney, J.P., J. Uhlmeyer, P. Morin, D. Luhr, K. Willoughby, S.T. Muench, and T. Baker.
2010. “Pavement Preservation Funding and Performance in Washington State.” Compendium of
Papers DVD, 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT). 2009. The Use of Microsurfacing for
Pavement Preservation. Technical Report 02-03. MaineDOT, Augusta, ME.
Marasteanu, M., R. Velasquez, W. Herb, J. Tweet, M. Turos, M. Watson, and H.G. Stefan.
2008. Determination of Optimum Time for the Application of Surface Treatments to Asphalt
Concrete Pavements - Phase II. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN.
Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2010. Capital Preventive Maintenance
Manual. 2003 Edition. MDOT, Lansing, MI. Available online at:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_CapitalPreventiveMaintenanceManual_3229
73_7.pdf
Morian, D., G. Wang, D. Frith, and J. Reiter. 2011. “Analysis of Completed Monitoring Data
for the SPS-3 Experiment.” Compendium of Papers DVD. 90th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Newcomb, David E. 2009. Thin Asphalt Overlays for Pavement Preservation. Information
Series 135. National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, MD.
Ong, G.P., T. Nantung, and K.C. Sinha. 2010. Indiana Pavement Preservation Program.
FHWA/IN/JTRP-2010/14. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Peshkin, D.G., T.E. Hoerner, and K.A. Zimmerman. 2004. Optimal Timing of Pavement
Preventive Maintenance Treatment Applications. NCHRP Report 523. National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Washington, DC.
Pierce, L.M., S.T. Muench, and J.P. Mahoney. 2010. “Long-Term Performance of Dowel Bar
Retrofit in Washington State.” Compendium of Papers DVD. 89th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Pierce, L.M., J.P. Mahoney, S.T. Muench, J. Li, J.S. Uhlmeyer, K. Willoughby, and D. Luhr.
2010. “Utilization of Bituminous Surface Treatments for Maintaining Asphalt Concrete
Pavements Due to Restricted Budgetary Constraints in Washington State.” Paper 94,
Compendium of Papers, First International Conference on Pavement Preservation, Newport
Beach, CA.
Pittenger, D., D. Gransberg, M. Zaman, and C. Riemer. 2011. “Life Cycle Cost-Based
Pavement Preservation Treatment Design.” Compendium of Papers DVD. 90th Annual Meeting
of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
A-4
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Rajagopal, A. 2010. Effectiveness of Chip Sealing and Micro Surfacing on Pavement
Serviceability and Life. Ohio Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC.
Rajagopal, A. and I.A. Minkarah. 2003. Effectiveness of Crack Sealing on Pavement
Serviceability and Life. Ohio Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC.
Ram, P. and D.G. Peshkin. 2013. “Cost Effectiveness of the MDOT Preventive Maintenance
Program.” Draft Final Report. Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI.
Rao, S.P., D.K. Hein, and K.L. Smith. 2008. Preventive Maintenance Process Analysis. Draft
Final Report (unpublished). Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus, OH.
Romero, P. and D. Anderson. 2005. Life-Cycle of Pavement Preservation Seal Coats. Final
Report. Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City, UT.
Rouen, L. and R.G. Hicks. 2010. “The Caltrans Maintenance Technical Advisory Guides.”
Paper 93, Compendium of Papers, First International Conference on Pavement Preservation,
Newport Beach, CA.
Rurahika, M.M. and J. Geib. 2007. Performance of Ultra-Thin Bounded Wearing Course
(UTBWC) Surface Treatment On US-169 Princeton, MN. MN/RC-2007-18. Minnesota
Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN.
Shah, H.K., Y. Yoon, M. Hastak, and J. Lee. 2011. Benefits and Assessment of Annual Budget
Requirements for Pavement Preservation. SPR-3416. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Shatnawi, S., R. Marsh, R.G. Hicks, and H. Zhou. 2006. Pavement Preservation Strategy
Selection in California. Transportation Research Circular E-C098. Transportation Research
Board, Washington D.C.
Shirazi, H., R.L. Carvalho, M. Ayres, and O. Selezneva. 2010. “Statistical Analysis of LTPP
SPS-3 Experiment on Preventive Maintenance of Flexible Pavements.” Paper 110, Compendium
of Papers, First International Conference on Pavement Preservation, Newport Beach, CA.
Shuler, S. 2010. Evaluation of the Performance, Cost-Effectiveness, and Timing of Various
Pavement Preservation Treatments. Final Report. CDOT-2010-3. Colorado Department of
Transportation, Denver, CO.
Snyder, M.B. 2008. “Lessons Learned from MnROAD (1992 – 2007): Whitetopping Design,
Construction, Performance and Rehabilitation.” Draft Manuscript prepared for 88th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Compendium of Papers DVD. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Sousa, J.B. and G. Way. 2009. Considerations for Estimating Pavement Treatment Lives and
Pavement Life Extension of Flexible Pavements. Volume 1. California State University at
Chico. Available online at
http://www.csuchico.edu/cp2c/library/life_extension_information.shtml.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
A-5
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Sousa, J.B. and G. Way. 2009. Models for Estimating Treatment Lives, Pavement Life
Extension, and the Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments on Flexible Pavements. Volume 2.
California State University at Chico. Available online at
http://www.csuchico.edu/cp2c/library/life_extension_information.shtml.
Sousa, J.B. and G. Way. 2011. “Treatment Performance Capacity–Concept Validation.”
Proceedings, 30th Southern African Transport Conference, Pretoria, South Africa.
Temple, W., S. Shah, H. Paul, and C. Abadie. 2002. “Performance of Louisiana’s Chip Seal and
Microsurfacing Program.” Transportation Research Record 1795. Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.
Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2005. Roadway Pavement Preservation 2005.
Transportation Research Circular Number E-C078. Papers from the First National Conference
on Pavement Preservation, October 31–November 1, 2005, Kansas City, MO.
Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2006. Maintenance Management 2006. Presentations
from the 11th AASHTO-TRB Maintenance Management Conference, July 16–20, 2006.
Transportation Research Circular Number E-C098. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
Wade, M., R. DeSombre, D. :Peshkin. 2001. High Volume/High Speed Asphalt Roadway
Preventive Maintenance Surface Treatments. Final Report. SD99-09. South Dakota Department
of Transportation, Pierre, SD.
Wen, H., X. Li, and W. Martono. 2010. Performance Assessment of Wisconsin’s Whitetopping
and Ultra-thin Whitetopping Projects. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Madison, WI.
Wood, T., R. Olson, E. Lukanen, M. Wendel, and M. Watson. 2009. Preventive Maintenance
Best Management Practices of Hot Mix Asphalt Pavements. MN/RC 2009-18. Minnesota
Department of Transportation, ST. Paul, MN.
Wu, Z., J.L. Groeger, A.L. Simpson, and R.G. Hicks. 2010. Performance Evaluation of Various
Rehabilitation and Preservation Treatments. Draft Report, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC.
Yildrim, Y., Y. Yurttas, and I. Boz. 2010. “Service Life of Crack Sealants.” Paper 19.
Compendium of Papers, First International Conference on Pavement Preservation, Newport
Beach, CA.
Zaghloul, S., K. Helali, and W. Bekheet. 2006. Development and Implementation of Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT) Pavement Management System (PMS). FHWA-AZ-06494. Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, AZ.
A-6
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Zimmerman, K.A., M.G. Grogg, and D. Bozkurt. 2002. Effects of Maintenance Treatments on
Asphalt Concrete Pavement Management. SD2001-03. South Dakota Department of
Transportation, Pierre, SD.
Zimmerman, K.A. and D.G. Peshkin. 2003. “Integrating Preventive Maintenance and Pavement
Management Practices.” Proceedings of the 2003 Mid-Continent Transportation Research
Symposium, Ames, IA.
MEPDG PERFORMANCE MODELING
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2008.
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide: A Manual of Practice. Interim Edition.
AASHTO, Washington, DC.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2010. Guide
for the Local Calibration of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide. AASHTO,
Washington, DC.
Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA). 2009a. Implementing the AASHTO MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design Guide in Missouri: Volume I–Study Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendations. MODOT Study RI04-002. Missouri Department of Transportation,
Jefferson City, MO.
Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA). 2009b. Implementing the AASHTO MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design Guide in Missouri: Volume II–MEPDG Model Validation and
Calibration. MODOT Study RI04-002. Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City,
MO.
Asbahan, R.E., J.K. McCracken, and J.M. Vandenbossche. 2008. Evaluating the Cracking
Predicted by the MEPDG Using Results from the S.R. 22 Smart Pavement Study. Final Report.
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg, PA.
Azari, H., A. Mohseni, and N. Gibson. 2008. “Verification of Rutting Predictions from
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide by Use of Accelerated Loading Facility Data.”
Transportation Research Record 2057. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Banerjee, J.A. 2009. Calibration of the Permanent Deformation Models in the Mechanistic
Empirical Pavement Design Guide. Master Thesis, University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Banerjee, A., J.A. Prozzi, and J.P. Aguiar-Moya. 2009. “Texas Experience using LTPP for
Calibration of the MEPDG Permanent Deformation Models.” 09-0829, Compendium of Papers
DVD. 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.
Banerjee, A., J.A. Prozzi, and J.P. Aguiar-Moya. 2010a. “Calibrating the MEPDG Permanent
Deformation Performance Model for Different Maintenance and Rehabilitation Strategies.” 102355, Compendium of Papers DVD. 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
A-7
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Banerjee, A., J.P. Aguiar-Moya, A.F. Smit, and J.A. Prozzi. 2010b. Development of the Texas
Flexible Pavements Database. FHWA/TX-10/0-5513-2. Texas Department of Transportation,
Austin, TX.
Bari, J. and M.W. Witczak. 2007. “New Predictive Models for the Viscosity and Complex
Shear Modulus of Asphalt Binders for Use with the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design
Guide.” 07-2264, Compendium of Papers CD. 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Basheer, I., J. Harvey, R. Hogan, J. Signore, D. Jones, and T.J. Holland. 2010. “Transition to
Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design in California.” Proceedings, 11th International
Conference on Asphalt Pavements, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Baus, R.L. and N.R. Stires. 2010. Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
Implementation. FHWA-SC-10-01. South Carolina Department of Transportation, Columbia,
SC.
Bayomy, F., H. Salem, and L. Vosti. 2007. Analysis of the Long-Term Pavement Performance
Data for the Idaho GPS and SPS Sections. Final Report. Idaho Transportation Department,
Boise, ID.
Bayomy, F., S. El-Badawy, and A. Awed. 2012. Implementation of the MEPDG for Flexible
Pavements in Idaho. Final Report. Idaho Transportation Department, Boise, ID. 375 p.
Brown, S.F. 2008. “Roadmap for Future Research on the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement
Design Guide (with Discussion).” Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists.
Volume 77. Asphalt Paving Technology Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
Buch, N., K. Chatti, S.W. Haider, and A. Manik. 2008. Evaluation of the 1-37A Design Process
for New and Rehabilitated JPCP and HMA Pavements. Research Report RC-1516. Michigan
Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI.
Bustos, M., O. Cordo, P. Girardi, and M. Pereyra. 2009. “Developing a Methodology to
Calibrate MEPDG Procedures for Rigid Pavement Design in Argentina.” Compendium of
Papers DVD. 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Coree, B., H. Ceylan, and D. Harrington. 2005. Implementing the Mechanistic-Empirical
Pavement Design Guide: Technical Report. Technical Report for IHRB Project TR-509. Iowa
Department of Transportation, Ames, IA.
Cross, S. and Z. Hossain. 2009. Development of Flexible Pavement Database for Local
Calibration of MEPDG. Oklahoma Department of Transportation, Oklahoma City, OK.
Darter M.I., L. Khazanovich, T. Yu, and J. Mallela. 2006. “Reliability Analysis of Cracking and
Faulting Prediction in the New Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Procedure.”
Transportation Research Record 1936. Transportation Research Board, Washington DC.
A-8
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Darter, M.I., Titus-Glover, L. and H.L. Von Quintus. 2009a. Implementation of the
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide in Utah: Validation, Calibration, and
Development of the UDOT MEPDG User’s Guide. UT-09 11. Utah Department of
Transportation, Salt Lake City, UT.
Darter, M.I., Titus-Glover, L. and H.L. Von Quintus. 2009b. Draft User’s Guide for UDOT
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design. UT-09.11a. Utah Department of Transportation, Salt
Lake City, UT.
Diefenderfer, S. 2010. Analysis of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
Performance Predictions: Influence of Asphalt Material Input Properties. FHWA/VTRC 11-R3.
Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, VA.
Donahue J. 2008. “Local Calibration of the MEPDG for HMA Pavements in Missouri (With
Discussion).” Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists. Volume 77. Asphalt
Paving Technology Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
Dzotepe, G. and K. Ksaibati. 2010. “Implementation of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement
Design Guide (MEPDG).” MPC Report No. 10-225A. Mountain-Plains Consortium, North
Dakota State University, Fargo, ND.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. “Using Pavement Management Data to
Calibrate and Validate the New MEPDG: An Eight State Study.” Final Report. Volume I.
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. “Using Pavement Management Data to
Calibrate and Validate the New MEPDG: An Eight State Study.” Final Report. Volume II.
Complete State Visit Reports. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2010. Local Calibration of the MEPDG Using
Pavement Management Systems. HIF-11-026. Final Report. Volume I. Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC.
Fernando E.G., J. Oh, and D. Ryu. 2007. Phase I of M-E PDG Program Implementation in
Florida. Research Report No. D04491/PR15281-1. Florida Department of Transportation,
Tallahassee, FL.
Flintsch, G.W., A. Loulizi, S.D. Diefenderfer, K.A. Galal, and B.K. Diefenderfer. 2007.
Asphalt Materials Characterization in Support of Implementation of the Proposed MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design Guide. Report No. VTRC 07-CR10. Virginia Department of
Transportation, Richmond, VA.
Galal, K.A. and G.R. Chehab. 2005. “Implementing the Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide
Procedure for a Hot-Mix Asphalt-Rehabilitated Pavement in Indiana.” Transportation Research
Record 1919. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Gramajo, C.R., G.W. Flintsch, A. Loulizi, A., and E.D. de Leon Izeppi. 2007. “Verification of
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Deterioration Models Based on Field Evaluation of In-Service
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
A-9
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
High-Priority Pavements.” Compendium of Papers CD. 86th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Haider, S. W., N. Buch, and K. Chatti. 2008. “Evaluation of M-E PDG for Rigid Pavements—
Incorporating the State-of-the-Practice in Michigan.” 9th International Conference on Concrete
Pavements. San Francisco, CA.
Hall, K.D., D.X. Xiao, and K.C.P. Wang. 2011. “Calibration of the MEPDG for Flexible
Pavement Design in Arkansas.” 11-3562. Compendium of Papers DVD. 90th Annual Meeting
of the Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Harvey, J., Q. Lu, J.D. Lea, P. Ullidtz, R. Wu, and I. Basheer. 2011. “Features of Mechanistic
Empirical Asphalt Pavement Models for New Design and Rehabilitation in California.”
Proceedings, 11th International Conference on Asphalt Pavements, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Hoegh, K., L. Khazanovich, and M. Jensen. 2010. “Local Calibration of MEPDG Rutting
Model for MnROAD Test Sections.” Compendium of Papers DVD. 89th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Hoerner, T.E., K.A. Zimmerman, K.D. Smith, and L.A. Cooley. 2007. Mechanistic-Empirical
Pavement Design Guide Implementation Plan. SD2005-01. South Dakota Department of
Transportation, Pierre, SD.
Hong, F., J.P. Aguiar, and J.A. Prozzi. 2008. First Year Progress Report on the Development of
the Texas Flexible Pavement Database. Report No. FHWA/TX-09/0-5513-1. Texas Department
of Transportation, Austin, TX.
Hu, S., Zhou, F., and T. Scullion. 2010. “Development, Calibration, and Validation of a New
M-E Rutting Model for HMA Overlay Design and Analysis.” Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA.
Hudson, W.R., W. Visser, and C.L. Monismith. 2008. “Using State PMS Data to Validate the
New Mechanistic/Empirical Pavement Design Guide.” 7th International Conference on
Managing Pavement Assets. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Jeong, M.G., J. Uzan, and M.W. Witczak. 2010. “Development of the Stochastic Performance
Related Specification Framework for Thermal Cracking Distress of Asphalt Pavements Using
the AASHTO MEPDG Prediction Models.” Compendium of Papers DVD. 89th Annual Meeting
of the Transportation Research Board. 10-3837. Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC.
Kannekanti, V. and J. Harvey. 2006a. Sensitivity Analysis of 2002 Design Guide Pavement
Distress Prediction Models. UCPRC-DG-2006-01. Final Report. California Department of
Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
Kannekanti, V. and J. Harvey. 2006b. Sample Rigid Pavement Design Tables Based on Version
0.8 of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide. Technical Memorandum UCPRCTM-2006-04. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
A-10
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Kang, M., T.M. Adams, and H. Bahia. 2007. Development of a Regional Pavement
Performance Database for the AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide: Part
2: Validations and Local Calibration. Final Report for MRUTC Project 07-01. Wisconsin
Department of Transportation, Madison, WI.
Kang, M. and T. Adams. 2007. “Local Calibration for Fatigue Cracking Models Used in the
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide.” 2007 Mid-Continent Transportation Research
Symposium, Ames, IA.
Kargah-Ostadi, N., S.M. Stoffels, and N. Tabatabaee. 2010. “Network-Level Pavement
Roughness Prediction Model for Rehabilitation Recommendations.” Compendium of Papers
DVD. 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.
Kesiraju, S., T. Adams, and H. Bahia. 2007. Development of a Regional Pavement Performance
Database for the AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide: Part 1: Sensitivity
Analysis. Final Report for MRUTC Project 07-01. Wisconsin Department of Transportation,
Madison, WI.
Khanum, T., J.N. Mulandi, and M. Hossain. 2008. Implementation of the 2002 AASHTO Design
Guide for Pavement Structures in KDOT. K-TRAN: KSU-04-4. Kansas Department of
Transportation, Topeka, KS.
Khazanovich, L., C. Celauro, B. Chadbourn, J. Zollars, and S. Dai. 2006. “Evaluation of
Subgrade Resilient Modulus Predictive Model for Use in Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement
Design Guide.” Transportation Research Record 1947. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
Kim, S., H. Ceylan, K. Gopalakrishnan, and M. Heitzman. 2006. “Sensitivity Study of Iowa
Flexible Pavements Using the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide.” Compendium of
Papers CD. 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. 06-2139.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Kim, S., H. Ceylan, K. Gopalakrishnan, O. Smadi, C. Brakke, and F. Behnami. 2010.
“Verification of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) Performance
Predictions using Pavement Management Information System (PMIS).” Compendium of Papers
DVD. 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. 10-2395. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Kim, Y.R. and N.R. Muthadi. 2007. Implementation Plan for the New Mechanistic-Empirical
Pavement Design Guide. Report No. FHWA/NC/2006-23. North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Raleigh, NC.
Kim, Y. R. F. M. Jadoun, T. Hou, and N. Muthadi. 2011. Local Calibration of the MEPDG for
Flexible Pavement Design. Report No. FHWA\NC\2007-07. North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Raleigh, NC.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
A-11
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Li, J., D.R. Luhr, and J.S. Uhlmeyer. 2010. “Pavement Performance Modeling using Piecewise
Approximation.” Compendium of Papers DVD. 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Li, J., S.T. Muench, J.P. Mahoney, N. Sivaneswaran, and L.M. Pierce. 2006. “Calibration of the
NCHRP 1-37A Software for the Washington State Department of Transportation: Rigid
Pavement Portion.” Transportation Research Record 1949. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
Li, J., L.M. Pierce, and J.S. Uhlmeyer. 2009. “Calibration of the Flexible Pavement Portion of
the Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide for the Washington State Department of
Transportation.” Compendium of Papers DVD. 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Li, J., J.S. Uhlmeyer, J.P. Mahoney, and S.T. Muench. 2010. “Use of the AASHTO 1993
Guide, MEPDG, and Historical Performance to Update the WSDOT Pavement Design Catalog.”
Compendium of Papers DVD. 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Record.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Li, J., J.S. Uhlmeyer, J.P. Mahoney, and S.T. Muench. 2011. Use of the 1993 AASHTO Guide,
MEPDG, and Historical Performance to Update the WSDOT Pavement Design Catalog. Report
No. WA-RD 779.1. Washington State Department of Transportation, Tumwater, WA.
Li, Q. 2009. Database Support and Modeling for the Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design
Guide (MEPDG). Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Arkansas,
Little Rock, AR.
Lu, Q., J.M. Signore, I. Basheer, K. Ghuzlan, and P. Ullidtz. 2008. “CalBack: Enhancing
Caltrans Mechanistic-Empirical Design Process with New Backcalculation Software.”
Compendium of Papers CD. 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
Mallela, J., L. Titus-Glover, M.I. Darter, H. Von Quintus, A. Glotif, M. Stanley, and S.
Sadasivam. 2009. Guidelines for Implementing NCHRP 1-37A M-E Design Procedures in
Ohio: Volume 1 – Summary of Findings, Implementation Plan, and Next Steps. FHWA/OH2009/9A. Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus, OH.
Mallela, J., L. Titus-Glover, R.Y. Liang, and E.Y. Chou. 2009. Guidelines for Implementing
NCHRP 1-37A M-E Design Procedures in Ohio: Volume 2 – Literature Review. FHWA/OH2009/9B. Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus, OH.
Mallela, J., L. Titus-Glover, M.I. Darter, H. Von Quintus, A. Gotlif, and M. Stanley. 2009.
Guidelines for Implementing NCHRP 1-37A M-E Design Procedures in Ohio: Volume 3 –
Sensitivity Analysis. FHWA/OH-2009/9A Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus, OH.
McCracken, J.K., J.M. Vandenbossche, and R.E. Asbahan. 2008. “Effect of the MEPDG
Hierarchal Levels on the Predicted Performance of a Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement.” 9th
International Conference on Concrete Pavements, San Francisco, CA.
A-12
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Mehta, Y.A., R.W. Sauber, J. Owad, and J. Krause. 2008. “Lessons Learned During
Implementation of Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide.” Compendium of Papers
CD. 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. 08-1670. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Momin, S.A. 2011. “Local Calibration of Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide for
North Eastern United States.” Master Thesis. University of Texas at Arlington, TX.
Morian, D., L. Cernansky, T. Kumar, G. R. Chehab, and S. Stoffels. 2006. “Effect of Binder
Course on Overlay Performance: Case Study on I-79.” Volume 2. 10th International
Conference on Asphalt Pavements, White Bear Lake, MN.
Mulandi, J., T. Khnuam, M. Hossain, G. Schieber. 2006. “Pavement Surface Type Selection
Based on Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide Analysis.” Volume 2. 10th International
Conference on Asphalt Pavements, White Bear Lake, MN.
Muthadi N.R. 2007. Local Calibration of the MEPDG for Flexible Pavement Design. M.S.
Thesis Dissertation for North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Muthadi N.R. and Y.R. Kim. 2008. “Local Calibration of the MEPDG for Flexible Pavement
Design.” 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Record. Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.
Nantung, T., G. Chehab, S. Newbolds, K. Galal, S. Li, and D.H. Kim. 2005. “Implementation
Initiatives of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guides in Indiana.” 84th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). 2003. Jackknife Testing—An
Experimental Approach to Refine Model Calibration and Validation Software. NCHRP
Research Results Digest 283. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). 2003. Refining the Calibration
and Validation of Hot Mix Asphalt Performance Models: An Experimental Plan and Database.
NCHRP Research Results Digest 284. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). 2006. Changes to the
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide Software through Version 0.900, July 2006.
Research Results Digest 308. NCHRP, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). 2006. Independent Review of the
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide and Software. NCHRP Research Results Digest
307. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Puccinelli, J. and N. Jackson. 2007. “Development of Pavement Performance Models to
Account for Frost Effects and their Application to Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide
Calibration.” Transportation Research Record 1990. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
A-13
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Richardson, D. N. and S. M. Lusher. 2008. Determination of Creep Compliance and Tensile
Strength of Hot-Mix Asphalt for Wearing Courses in Missouri. Report No. OR08-18. Missouri
Department of Transportation, Jefferson City, MO.
Rodezno, M.C. and K.E. Kaloush. 2009. “Comparison of Asphalt Rubber and Conventional
Mixtures Properties and Considerations for MEPDG Implementation.” Compendium of Papers
DVD. 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Rodezno, M.C., K.E. Kaloush, and G.B. Way. 2005. “Distress Assessment of Conventional
HMA and Asphalt-Rubber Overlays on PCC Pavements using the Mechanistic-Empirical Design
of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures.” Compendium of Papers CD. 84th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC.
Romanoschi, S.A. and S. Bethu. 2009. Implementation of the 2002 AASHTO Design Guide for
Pavement Structures in KDOT, Part-II: Asphalt Concrete Pavements. K-TRAN: KSU-04-4 Part
2. Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka, KS.
Saaed, A. and J.W. Hall. 2003. Mississippi DOT’s Plan to Implement the 2002 Design Guide.
Report No. FHWA/MS-DOT-RD-03-163. Mississippi Department of Transportation, Jackson,
MS.
Schram, S. and M. Abdelrahman. 2006. “Improving Prediction Accuracy in MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design Guide.” Transportation Research Record 1947. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Schram, S. and M. Abdelrahman. 2010. Integration of MEPDG Distresses with Local
Performance Indices. Transportation Research Record 2153, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
Schwartz, C.W. 2007. Implementation of the NCHRP 1-37A Design Guide: Volume I-Summary
of Findings and Implementation Plan. Final Report for MDSHA Project SP0077B41. Maryland
State Highway Administration, Lutherville, MD.
Schwartz, C.W. and R.L. Carvalho. 2007. Implementation of the NCHRP 1-37A Design Guide:
Volume 2-Evaluation of Mechanistic-Empirical Design Procedure. Final Report for MDSHA
Project SP0077B41. Maryland State Highway Administration, Lutherville, MD.
Souliman, M., M. Mamlouk, M. El-Basyouny, and C.E. Zapata. 2010. “Calibration of the
AASHTO MEPDG for Flexible Pavement for Arizona Conditions.” Compendium of Papers
DVD. 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Stires, N. 2009. A Study of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide for
South Carolina. M.S. Thesis Dissertation for College of Engineering and Computing, University
of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.
Sutapa H. 2009. Calibration of Prediction Models for Remaining Life of Flexible Pavements in
Arkansas. PhD Dissertation. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.
A-14
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Tanesi, J., M.E. Kutay, A.R. Abbas, and R.C. Meininger. 2007. “Effect of CTE Variability on
Concrete Pavement Performance as Predicted using the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design
Guide.” 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.
Tarefder, R., N. Sumee, J.I. Rodriguez, S. Abbina, and K. Benedict. 2012. Development of a
Flexible Pavement Database for Local Calibration of MEPDG. Report No. NM08MSC-02.
New Mexico Department of Transportation, Albuquerque, NM.
Thomas, T.W. and R.W. May. 2007. “Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide Modeling of
Asphalt Emulsion Full Depth Reclamation Mixes.” Compendium of Papers CD. 86th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Timm D.H., R.E. Turochy, and K.P. Davis. 2010. Guidance for M-E Pavement Design
Implementation. Final Report for ALDOT Project 930-685. Alabama Department of
Transportation, Montgomery, AL.
Titus-Glover, L. and J. Mallela. 2009. Guidelines for Implementing NCHRP 1-37A M-E Design
Procedures in Ohio: Volume 4-MEPDG Models Validation and Recalibration. FHWA/OH2009/9D. Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus, OH.
Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2011. Sensitivity Analyses for Flexible Pavement Design
with the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide. Transportation Research Circular EC155. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Ullidtz, P., J.T. Harvey, B.W. Tsai, and C.L. Monismith. 2006. Calibration of IncrementalRecursive Flexible Damage Models in CalME Using HVS Experiments. UCPRC-RR-2005-06.
California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
Ullidtz, P., J.T. Harvey, B.W. Tsai, and C.L. Monismith. 2006. Calibration of CalME Models
using WesTrack Performance Data. UCPRC-RR-2006-14. California Department of
Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
Ullidtz, P., J. Harvey, I. Basheer, D. Jones, R. Wu, J. Lea, and Q. Lu. 2010. “CalME: A New
Mechanistic-Empirical Design Program for Flexible Pavement Rehabilitation.” Compendium of
Papers DVD, 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Ullidtz, P., J. Harvey, I. Basheer, R. Wu, and J. Lea. 2010. “Process of Developing a
Mechanistic-Empirical Asphalt Pavement Design System for California.” Proceedings, 11th
International Conference on Asphalt Pavements, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Velasquez, R., K. Hoegh, I. Yut, N. Funk, G. Cochran, M. Marasteanu, and L. Khazanovich.
2009. Implementation of the MEPDG for New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures for
Design of Concrete and Asphalt Pavements in Minnesota. MN/RC 2009-06. Minnesota
Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
A-15
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Von Quintus, H.L. 2008. “Local Calibration of MEPDG - An Overview of Selected Studies
(With Discussion).” Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists. Volume 77.
Asphalt Paving Technology Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
Von Quintus, H.L. and J.S. Moulthrop. 2007a. Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
Flexible Pavement Performance Prediction Models for Montana—Volume I Executive Research
Summary. FHWA/MT-07-008/8158-1. Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, MT.
Von Quintus, H.L. and J.S. Moulthrop. 2007b. Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
Flexible Pavement Performance Prediction Models for Montana—Volume II Reference Manual.
FHWA/MT-07-008/8158-2. Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, MT.
Von Quintus, H.L. and J.S. Moulthrop. 2007c. Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
Flexible Pavement Performance Prediction Models for Montana: Volume III—Field Guide.
FHWA/MT-07-008/8158-3. Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, MT.
Walubita, L.F. 2007. “Laboratory Testing and MEPDG Performance Predictions of Perpetual
Pavements.” 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Wang, K.C., Q. Li, K.D. Hall, V. Nguyen, W. Gong, and Z. Hou. 2008. Database Support for
the New Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide. Transportation Research Record 2087.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Witczak. M.W. 2008. Development of Performance-Related Specifications for Asphalt
Pavements in the State of Arizona. Report No. FHWA-SPR-08-402-2. Arizona Department of
Transportation, Phoenix, AZ.
Won, M. 2009. Evaluation of MEPDG with TxDOT Rigid Pavement Database. FHWA/TX09/0-5445-3. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX.
Wu, Zhong and Xiaoming Yang. 2012. Evaluation of Current Louisiana Flexible Pavement
Structures Using PMS Data and New Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide. Report
No. FHWA/LA.11/482. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Baton
Rouge, LA.
Zaghloul, S., A.A. El Halim, A. Ayed, N. Vitillo, and R. Sauber. 2006. “Sensitivity Analysis of
Input Traffic Levels on MEPDG Predictions.” 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Zapata, C.E. 2009. “Considerations of Climate in the New AASHTO ME-PDG.” Compendium
of Papers DVD. 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. 09-2254.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Zapata, C.E., Y.Y Perera, and W.N. Houston. 2009. “Matric Suction Prediction Model in the
New AASHTO ME-PDG.” Compendium of Papers DVD. 88th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board. 09-1574. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
A-16
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Zhang, L. C. Hass, and S. Tighe. 2007. “Evaluating Weigh-In-Motion Sensing Technology for
Traffic Data Collection.” 2007 Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada,
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Zhou F., S. Hu, X. Hu, T. Scullion, M. Mikhail, and L.F. Walubita. 2010. “Development,
Calibration, and Verification of a New Mechanistic-Empirical Reflective Cracking Model for
HMA Overlay Thickness Design and Analysis.” Journal of Transportation Engineering,
Volume 136, Issue 4. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA.
Zhou F., E. Fernando, and T. Scullion. 2008. A Review of Performance Models and Test
Procedures with Recommendations for Use in the Texas M-E Design Program. FHWA/TX08/0-5798-1. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX.
Zhou F., E. Fernando, and T. Scullion. 2008. Transfer Functions for Various Distress Types.
FHWA/TX-08/0-5798-P2. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX.
Zhou F., S. Hu, X. Hu, and T. Scullion. 2009. Mechanistic-Empirical Asphalt Overlay
Thickness Design and Analysis System. FHWA/TX-09/0-5123-3. Texas Department of
Transportation, Austin, TX.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
A-17
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
APPENDIX B. PRESERVATION TREATMENTS FOR HMA-SURFACED
PAVEMENTS
Table B-1. Technical summary for crack sealing and crack filling.
PSCs
Addressed
Structural Distresses
Addressed
Functional Distresses
Addressed
Performance
Objectives
Treatment Description
CRACK SEALING AND CRACK FILLING
Crack Filling—Involves the placement of an adhesive material into and/or over non-working cracks (typically
longitudinal cold-joint and reflective cracks, edge cracks, and distantly spaced block cracks) at the pavement
surface in order to prevent the infiltration of moisture into the pavement structure and reinforce the adjacent
pavement. Crack filling operations generally entail minimal crack preparation and the use of lower quality
materials.
Crack Sealing—Involves the placement of an adhesive material into and/or over working cracks (i.e., those that
open and close with temperature changes, such as transverse thermal and reflective cracks, diagonal cracks, and
certain longitudinal reflective cracks) at the pavement surface in order to prevent the infiltration of moisture into
the pavement structure. Crack sealing operations typically require good crack preparation (i.e., routing or
sawing a reservoir over the crack and power cleaning the reservoir) and the placement of high-quality flexible
materials (i.e., thermosetting or thermoplastic bituminous materials that soften upon heating and harden upon
cooling) into and possibly over the reservoir.
Seal/Waterproof Pavement—Prevent or slow the infiltration of moisture into the pavement surface.
Reduce/Eliminate or Stabilize Surface Defects (Cracking)—Restore the integrity of cracks through
reinforcement and stabilization.
Water
Bleeding/
Pumping
Transverse/
Thermal
Crack
Block
Crack
Crack Filling

(+)
+
Crack Sealing
(+)
+
+
Treatment
Treatment
Crack Filling
Crack Sealing
Raveling/
Weathering
Bleeding/
Flushing Polishing
Segregation
Alligator Long WP Reflective
Edge
Stable Corrugations/ Bumps/
Cracking Cracking Cracking Cracking Rutting
Shoving
Sags
Patches
(+)

Treatment
Crack Filling
Smoothness

Crack Sealing


+
Texture
(+)
Friction

PavementTire Noise



Splash/
Spray
Hydroplaning
Potential
+ or − Significant and/or long-term positive or negative impact.
(+) or (−) Moderate and/or short-term positive or negative impact.
 Slight positive impact—if applied to fatigue cracks early in their development, sealing can keep moisture out of the pavement and may slow
down the progression of load-related cracking.
 Slight negative impact—if applied in an overband configuration, filling/sealing may slightly reduce smoothness and friction, and slightly
increase noise.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
B-1
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table B-2. Technical summary for fog/rejuvenator seal.
PSCs
Addressed
Structural Distresses
Addressed
Functional Distresses
Addressed
Performance
Objectives
Treatment
Description
FOG SEAL/REJUVENATOR SEAL
Fog Seal—A very light application of a diluted asphalt emulsion to the pavement surface with no aggregate.
The application seals the surface and provides a small amount of rejuvenation, depending on the type of
emulsion used and the condition of the existing pavement surface. Application thickness is significantly less
than 0.01 in.
Rejuvenator Seal—A specialized emulsion that is sprayed on an existing asphalt surface with the intent of
softening the existing binder, enriching the weathered pavement, and thereby, inhibiting raveling. The
specialized emulsion is typically a mixture of asphalt, polymer latex, and other additives. While it is most
commonly used in a fog seal type application, it can also be used in a sand seal or scrub seal.
Seal/Waterproof Pavement—Prevent or slow the infiltration of moisture into the pavement surface.
Rejuvenate Surface/Inhibit Oxidation—Enrich the hardened/oxidized existing surface and inhibit raveling.
Treatment
Fog/Rejuvenator
Seal
Raveling/ Bleeding/
Weathering Flushing Polishing Segregation
+
Water
Bleeding/
Pumping
Transverse/
Thermal
Crack
Block
Crack

(+)
−
Alligator Long WP Reflective
Edge
Stable Corrugations/ Bumps/
Treatment
Cracking Cracking Cracking Cracking Rutting
Shoving
Sags
Patches
Fog/Rejuvenator





Seal
Treatment
Smoothness
Fog/Rejuvenator
Seal
Texture
Friction


PavementTire Noise
Splash/
Spray
Hydroplaning
Potential


+ or − Significant and/or long-term positive or negative impact.
(+) or (−) Moderate and/or short-term positive or negative impact.
 Slight positive impact—If applied to fatigue cracks early in their development, fog/rejuvenator seals can keep
moisture out of the pavement and may slow down the progression of load-related cracking; likewise with stable
rutting.
 Slight negative impact—Micro-texture is negatively affected by fog/rejuvenator seals in the short-term, which
can reduce friction. Macro-texture may be negatively affected over the long-term, which can reduce friction and
increase splash/spray and hydroplaning potential.
B-2
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table B-3. Technical summary for sand seal and scrub seal.
PSCs
Addressed
Structural Distresses
Addressed
Functional Distresses
Addressed
Performance
Objectives
Treatment
Description
SAND SEAL AND SCRUB SEAL
Sand Seal—A sand seal consists of a spray application of a rapid-set emulsion with a light covering of sand or
screenings that is rolled following application. A sand seal serves the same function as a fog seal, but provides
better surface friction. However, the surface appearance of a sand seal does not provide the delineation that a
fog seal does. A sand seal is typically between 0.125 and 0.25 in. thick.
Scrub Seal—A scrub seal is similar to a sand seal, but includes the use of brooms to push the emulsion into the
surface cracks of the pavement and the fine aggregate into the binder. The seal is also rolled following
application. The thickness of a scrub seal is typically 0.125 to 0.25 in., but multiple layers are sometimes
applied, resulting in thicknesses between 0.375 and 1.5 in.
Seal/Waterproof Pavement—Prevent or slow the infiltration of moisture into the pavement surface.
Rejuvenate Surface/Inhibit Oxidation—Enrich the hardened/oxidized existing surface and inhibit raveling.
Improve Texture for Friction—Improve surface micro-texture to correspondingly increase friction.
Treatment
Raveling/
Weathering
Bleeding/
Flushing Polishing
Segregation
Water
Bleeding/
Pumping
Transverse/
Thermal
Crack
Block
Crack
Sand Seal
+

+


(+)
Scrub Seal
+
(+)
+
(+)
(+)
+
Treatment
Sand Seal
Scrub Seal
Treatment
Sand Seal
Scrub Seal
Alligator
Cracking

Long WP Reflective
Edge
Stable Corrugations/ Bumps/
Cracking Cracking Cracking Rutting
Shoving
Sags Patches








Smoothness
Texture
(+)
Friction
(+)

(+)
(+)

PavementTire Noise



Splash/
Spray
Hydroplaning
Potential
+ or − Significant and/or long-term positive or negative impact.
(+) or (−) Moderate and/or short-term positive or negative impact.
 Slight positive impact—If applied to fatigue cracks early in their development, sand seals and scrub seals can
keep moisture out of the pavement and may slow down the progression of load-related cracking; likewise with stable
rutting. If applied in multiple layers, scrub seals can address low-severity corrugation/shoving, bumps/sags, and
patches in the short term, resulting in improved ride quality.
 Slight negative impact.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
B-3
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table B-4. Technical summary for slurry seal.
Treatment
Description
SLURRY SEAL
Slurry Seal—A mixture of well-graded aggregate (fine sand and mineral filler) and asphalt emulsion that is
spread over the entire pavement surface with either a squeegee or spreader box attached to the back of a truck.
Thickness application generally ranges between 0.125 and 0.375 in., as determined by the top-size of the
aggregate. Slurry seals are effective in sealing low-severity surface cracks, waterproofing the pavement surface,
and improving friction at speeds below 30 mi/hr.
PSCs
Addressed
Structural Distresses
Addressed
Functional Distresses
Addressed
Performance
Objectives
Three types of slurry seal are available for use—Type I for parking areas and local roads/streets, Type II for
collector roads/streets, and Type III for primary and interstate highways.
Seal/Waterproof Pavement—Prevent or slow the infiltration of moisture into the pavement surface.
Rejuvenate Surface/Inhibit Oxidation—Enrich the hardened/oxidized existing surface and inhibit raveling.
Improve Texture for Friction—Improve surface micro-texture and macro-texture to correspondingly increase
friction.
Treatment
Raveling/
Weathering
Slurry Seal
Type I
Type II
Type III
Treatment
Slurry Seal
Type I
Type II
Type III
Treatment
Slurry Seal
Type I
Type II
Type III
Bleeding/
Flushing Polishing
+
+
+
(+)
(+)
(+)
Segregation
Water
Bleeding/
Pumping
Transverse/
Thermal
Crack
Block
Crack
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
+
(+)
(+)
+
+
+
Alligator Long WP Reflective
Edge
Stable Corrugations/ Bumps/
Cracking Cracking Cracking Cracking Rutting
Shoving
Sags
Patches
























Smoothness
Texture
Friction
PavementTire Noise
Splash/
Spray
Hydroplaning
Potential
(+)
(+)
(+)

(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)

(+)

(+)
+ or − Significant and/or long-term positive or negative impact.
(+) or (−) Moderate and/or short-term positive or negative impact.
 Slight positive impact—If applied to fatigue cracks early in their development, slurry sealing can keep moisture
out of the pavement and may slow down the progression of load-related cracking; may have a slight positive impact
in addressing low-severity stable rutting and can address low-severity corrugation/shoving, bumps/sags, and patches
in the short term, resulting in improved ride quality.
 Slight negative impact.
B-4
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table B-5. Technical summary for microsurfacing.
Structural Distresses
Addressed
Functional Distresses
Addressed
Performance
Objectives
Treatment Description
MICROSURFACING
Microsurfacing—A mixture of crushed, well-graded aggregate, mineral filler (Portland cement), and polymermodified emulsified asphalt spread over the full width of pavement with either a squeegee or spreader box. An
extension of the slurry seal, microsurfacing is designed with high quality well-graded aggregates and advanced
emulsions to allow for a thicker lift application without sacrificing stability. Microsurfacing is used primarily to
inhibit raveling and oxidation and is particularly effective at improving surface friction and addressing rutting
(up to 1.5 in. deep) and surface irregularities through double applications.
Microsurfacing is usually applied in either a single or double application. The thickness of a single application
generally ranges between 0.25 and 0.5 in. (thickness is usually 2 or 3 times the top-size stone in the aggregate
gradation), while the thickness of a double application generally ranges between 0.375 and 0.75 in. A double
application typically involves a rut-filling application or scratch/leveling course followed by a full-lane width
surface course. Two types of microsurfacing are available for use—Type II for surface courses on local and
collector roads/streets surface courses and for scratch/leveling courses, and Type III for surface courses on
primary and interstate highways and for rut-filling and scratch/leveling courses.
Seal/Waterproof Pavement—Prevent or slow the infiltration of moisture into the pavement surface.
Rejuvenate Surface/Inhibit Oxidation—Enrich the hardened/oxidized existing surface and inhibit raveling.
Improve Texture for Friction—Improve surface micro-texture and macro-texture to correspondingly increase
friction.
Improve Profile (Surface Drainage and Ride)—Correct minor surface profile irregularities (including stable
rutting) and correspondingly improve lateral surface drainage and ride quality.
Treatment
Raveling/
Weathering
Microsurfacing
Type II
Type III
+
+
Treatment
Microsurfacing
Type II
Type III
Bleeding/
Flushing Polishing
(+)
(+)


Transverse/
Thermal
Crack
Block
Crack
+
+
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
+
+
+
+
Alligator Long WP Reflective
Cracking Cracking Cracking


Segregation
Water
Bleeding/
Pumping
(+)
(+)
Edge
Stable Corrugations/ Bumps
Cracking Rutting
Shoving
/ Sags Patches
(+)
(+)
(+)
+
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
PSCs
Addressed
PavementSplash/
Hydroplaning
Treatment
Smoothness
Texture
Friction
Tire Noise
Spray
Potential
Microsurfacing
Type II
(+)
+
+
(+)
(+)
(+)
Type III
+
+
+
(+)
(+)
(+)
+ or − Significant and/or long-term positive or negative impact.
(+) or (−) Moderate and/or short-term positive or negative impact.
 Slight positive impact—If applied to fatigue cracks early in their development, microsurfacing can keep moisture
out of the pavement and may slow down the progression of load-related cracking.
 Slight negative impact.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
B-5
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table B-6. Technical summary for chip seal.
Treatment Description
Seal/Waterproof Pavement—Prevent or slow the infiltration of moisture into the pavement surface.
Rejuvenate Surface/Inhibit Oxidation—Protect pavement surface from further oxidation.
Reduce/Eliminate or Stabilize Surface Defects—Eliminate raveling/weathering and mitigate other surface
defects, such as surface cracks and bleeding.
Improve Texture for Friction—Improve surface micro-texture and macro-texture to correspondingly increase
friction.
Improve Profile (Surface Drainage and Ride)—Correct minor surface profile irregularities and
correspondingly improve (to some extent) lateral surface drainage and ride quality.
Improve Texture for Splash/Spray and Hydroplaning Concerns—Improve macro-texture to correspondingly
reduce splash/spray generation and/or vehicle hydroplaning potential.
Functional Distresses
Addressed
Chip Seal—A chip seal consists of a sprayed application of asphalt (commonly an emulsion, although heated
asphalt cement and cutbacks are used as well) to the pavement surface followed by the application of aggregate
chips, which are then immediately rolled to achieve 50 to 70 percent embedment. The treatment is used to seal
the pavement surface against weathering, raveling, or oxidation, correct minor roughness or bleeding, and
improve friction. Chip seals can be applied in a single layer (typically between 0.375 and 0.5 in. thick), in
multiple layers (e.g., a double chip seal is typically between 0.75 and 1.0 in. thick), or in combination with other
treatments, such as microsurfacing/slurry seal, which is called a cape seal. Chip seal design variations include
the following (Gransberg and James 2005):
 Racked-in-Seal—Chip seal that is temporarily protected from damage through the application of choke
stone that becomes locked in the voids, preventing aggregate particles from dislodging before the binder is
cured. Often used in locations where there are large numbers of turning movements.
 Sandwich Seal (dry-matting)—Chip seal involving one binder application sandwiched between two
separate aggregate applications. Particularly useful for restoring surface texture on raveled surfaces.
 Inverted Seal—Inverted double chip seal, in which a smaller-sized aggregate chip seal is placed first,
followed by a larger-sized aggregate chip seal.
 Cape Seal—Combination of a chip seal and microsurfacing/slurry seal, with the latter treatment placed
atop the chip seal typically 4 to 10 days after placement of the chip seal. Primary purposes are the same as
a chip seal; the microsurfacing/slurry seal finish increases the life of the chip seal by the enhanced binding
of the aggregate chips and it reduces concerns associated with loose chips and a rough surface.
 Geotextile-Reinforced Seal—Application of geotextile over a tack coat, followed by application of a
single-course chip seal.
Performance Objectives
CHIP SEAL
B-6
Treatment
Chip Seals
Single Chip Seal
Mult. Chip Seal
Racked-in-Seal
Sandwich Seal
Inverted Seal
Cape Seal
Geotextile Seal
Water
Transverse/
Raveling/ Bleeding/
Bleeding/
Thermal
Weathering Flushing Polishing Segregation Pumping
Crack
(+)
(+)
+
(+)
(+)
+
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
+
+
(+)
(+)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
+
Block
Crack
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table B-6. Technical summary for chip seal (continued).
Structural Distresses
Addressed
Treatment
Chip Seals
Single Chip Seal
Mult. Chip Seal
Racked-in-Seal
Sandwich Seal
Inverted Seal
Cape Seal
Geotextile Seal
Alligator Long WP Reflective
Edge
Stable Corrugations/ Bumps/
Cracking Cracking Cracking Cracking Rutting
Shoving
Sags Patches














Texture
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
Friction
(+)
+
(+)
(+)
+
(+)
(+)
PavementTire Noise
(+)
+
(+)
(+)
+
(+)
(+)
Splash/
Spray
(+)
+
(+)
(+)
+
(+)
(+)
(+)
+
(+)
(+)
+
(+)
+
Hydroplaning
Potential
PSCs Addressed
Smoothness
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
+
Chip Seals
Single Chip Seal
(+)
+
+
+
+

Mult. Chip Seal
(+)
+
+
+
+

Racked-in-Seal
(+)
+
+
+
+

Sandwich Seal
(+)
+
+
+
+

Inverted Seal
(+)
+
+
+
+
(+)
Cape Seal
+
+
+
(+)
(+)

Geotextile Seal
(+)
+
+
+
+
+ or − Significant and/or long-term positive or negative impact.
(+) or (−) Moderate and/or short-term positive or negative impact.
 Slight positive impact—If applied to fatigue cracks early in their development, chip seals can keep moisture out
of the pavement and may slow down the progression of load-related cracking; may also address low-severity
corrugation/shoving and bumps/sags and improve ride quality slightly.
 Slight negative impact—The rough wearing surface of chip seals generate more noise than a typical AC surface
at any operating speed.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
B-7
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table B-7. Technical summary for ultra-thin bonded wearing course.
PSCs
Addressed
Structural Distresses
Addressed
Functional Distresses
Addressed
Performance Objectives
Treatment
Description
ULTRA-THIN BONDED WEARING COURSE
Ultra-Thin Bonded Wearing Course (UTBWC)—Also known as an ultra-thin friction course, an ultra-thin
bonded wearing course may be used as an alternative treatment to chip seals, microsurfacing, or thin HMA
overlays. This consists of a gap-graded, polymer-modified HMA layer (typically between 0.375 and 0.75 in.
thick) placed on a tack coat (heavy, polymer-modified emulsified asphalt). It is effective at treating minor
surface distresses and increasing surface friction. UTBWC is typically a proprietary product (e.g., NovaChip®).
Seal/Waterproof Pavement—Prevent or slow the infiltration of moisture into the pavement surface.
Rejuvenate Surface/Inhibit Oxidation—Protect pavement surface from further oxidation.
Reduce/Eliminate or Stabilize Surface Defects—Eliminate raveling/weathering and mitigate other surface
defects, such as surface cracks and bleeding.
Improve Texture for Friction—Improve micro-texture and macro-texture to correspondingly increase friction.
Improve Profile (Surface Drainage and Ride)—Correct minor surface profile irregularities and
correspondingly improve (to some extent) lateral surface drainage and ride quality.
Improve Texture for Pavement/Tire Noise—Improve micro-texture and macro-texture to correspondingly
reduce noise.
Improve Texture for Splash/Spray and Hydroplaning Concerns—Improve macro-texture to correspondingly
reduce splash/spray generation and/or vehicle hydroplaning potential.
Raveling/
Weathering
UTBWC
UTBWC
UTBWC
+
Bleeding/
Flushing Polishing
(+)
Segregation
Water
Bleeding/
Pumping
Transverse/
Thermal
Crack
Block
Crack
+
(+)
(+)
+
+
Alligator Long WP Reflective
Edge
Stable Corrugations/ Bumps/
Cracking Cracking Cracking Cracking Rutting
Shoving
Sags
Patches



(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
+
Smoothness
(+)
Texture
+
Friction
+
PavementTire Noise
+
Splash/
Spray
+
Hydroplaning
Potential
+
+ or − Significant and/or long-term positive or negative impact.
(+) or (−) Moderate and/or short-term positive or negative impact.
 Slight positive impact—UTBWC can provide some short-term reduction in water bleeding/pumping and some
short-term stability to edge cracks.
 Slight negative impact.
B-8
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table B-8. Technical summary for thin and ultra-thin HMA overlays.
Structural Distresses
Addressed
Functional Distresses
Addressed
Performance Objectives
Treatment Description
THIN AND ULTRA-THIN HMA OVERLAYS (WITH OR WITHOUT MILLING)
Thin and Ultra-Thin HMA Overlays—Composed of asphalt binder and aggregate combined in a central mixing
plant and placed with a paving machine in thicknesses ranging from 0.625 to 0.75 in. for ultra-thin and 0.875 to
1.5 in. for thin. Conventional HMA overlays can be distinguished by their aggregate gradation:
 Dense-graded—a well-graded, relatively impermeable mix, intended for general use.
 Open-graded—an open-graded, permeable mix designed using only crushed aggregate and a small
percentage of manufactured sand; typically smoother than dense-graded HMA.
 Gap-graded—a gap-graded mix designed to maximize rut resistance and durability using stone-on-stone
contact. Most commonly, this is stone matrix asphalt (SMA).
Additionally, it is recommended to mill the existing pavement surface when surface distresses (e.g., segregation,
raveling, or block cracking) are evident; other benefits include improving surface friction, maintaining clearance
of overhead structures, and providing an improved bonding surface.
Seal/Waterproof Pavement—Prevent or slow the infiltration of moisture into the pavement surface.
Reduce/Eliminate or Stabilize Surface Defects—Eliminate raveling/weathering and mitigate other surface
defects, such as surface cracks and bleeding.
Improve Texture for Friction—Improve micro-texture and macro-texture to correspondingly increase friction.
Improve Profile (Surface Drainage and Ride)—Correct minor surface profile irregularities and
correspondingly improve (to some extent) lateral surface drainage and ride quality.
Improve Texture for Pavement/Tire Noise—Improve micro-texture and macro-texture to correspondingly
reduce noise.
Improve Texture for Splash/Spray and Hydroplaning Concerns—Improve macro-texture to correspondingly
reduce splash/spray generation and/or vehicle hydroplaning potential.
Raveling/
Weathering
Thin HMAOL
Dense-Graded
Open-Graded
Gap-Graded
Ultra-Thin
HMAOL
Dense-Graded
Open-Graded
Gap-Graded
Bleeding/
Flushing Polishing
Segregation
Water
Bleeding/
Pumping
Transverse/
Thermal
Crack
Block
Crack
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
+
+
+
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
(+)
+
+
+
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
+
+
+
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
(+)


Alligator Long WP Reflective
Edge
Stable Corrugations/ Bumps/
Cracking Cracking Cracking Cracking Rutting
Shoving
Sags Patches
Thin HMAOL
Dense-Graded
Open-Graded
SMA
Ultra-Thin
HMAOL
Dense-Graded
Open-Graded
Gap-Graded






(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1






(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
(+)1
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
B-9
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table B-8. Technical summary for thin and ultra-thin HMA overlays (continued).
Texture
Friction
PavementTire Noise
Splash/
Spray
Hydroplaning
Potential
PSCs Addressed
Smoothness
Thin HMAOL
Dense-Graded
+
+
+
+
Open-Graded
+
+
+
+
+
Gap-Graded
+
+
+
+
+
+
Ultra-Thin HMAOL
Dense-Graded
(+)1
+
+
(+)
(+)
(+)
Open-Graded
(+)1
+
+
+
+
+
Gap-Graded
(+)1
+
+
+
+
+
+ or − Significant and/or long-term positive or negative impact.
(+) or (−) Moderate and/or short-term positive or negative impact.
 Slight positive impact—If applied to fatigue cracks early in their development, HMA overlays can keep moisture
out of the pavement and may slow down the progression of load-related cracking.
 Slight negative impact.
1
If preceded with milling, then the impact could change from (+) to +.
B-10
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table B-9. Technical summary for hot in-place recycling.
Treatment Description
Rejuvenate Surface/Inhibit Oxidation—Enrich or remove/replace the hardened/oxidized existing surface.
Reduce/Eliminate or Stabilize Surface Defects—Eliminate raveling/weathering and eliminate or mitigate other
surface defects, such as surface cracks and bleeding.
Improve Texture for Friction—Improve micro-texture and macro-texture to correspondingly increase friction.
Improve Profile (Surface Drainage and Ride)—Correct surface profile irregularities (including stable rutting)
and correspondingly improve lateral surface drainage and ride quality.
PSCs
Addressed
Structural Distresses
Addressed
Functional Distresses
Addressed
Hot In-Place Recycling (HIR)—As a preservation treatment, hot in-place recycling (HIR) corrects surface
distresses within the top 2 in. of an existing HMA pavement by softening the surface material with heat,
mechanically loosening it and mixing it with recycling agent, aggregate, rejuvenators, and/or virgin asphalt.
HIR consists of three different techniques:
 Surface Recycling—pavement surface (typically top 0.5 to 1.5 in.) is heated, loosened, combined with new
asphalt, and re-laid for the purpose of minor mix improvement/modification. In single-pass surface
recycling (low volume roads), the recycled mix is relaid and serves as the final wearing surface. In doublepass surface recycling (moderate to high volume roads), an HMA overlay or a surface treatment is applied
over the recycled surface.
 Remixing—pavement is heated, loosened, combined with virgin aggregate and new asphalt (and/or new
HMA), and re-laid for significant mix improvement/ modification and/or modest pavement strengthening.
The recycled mix can serve as the final wearing surface (low-volume roads) or can serve as a base for an
HMA overlay or surface treatment (moderate to high volume roads).
 Repaving—pavement surface is heated, loosened, combined with new asphalt, and re-laid in tandem with
an HMA overlay for the purposes of pavement strengthening and restoration of surface profile and/or
friction. Repaving is surface recycling with an integrally applied thermally bonded overlay.
Performance
Objectives
HOT IN-PLACE RECYCLING
Raveling/ Bleeding/
Weathering Flushing Polishing Segregation
HIR
Surface Recycling
Remixing
Repaving
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
(+)
+
+
Water
Bleeding/
Pumping
Transverse/
Thermal
Crack
Block
Crack
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Alligator Long WP Reflective
Edge
Stable Corrugations/ Bumps/
Cracking Cracking Cracking Cracking Rutting
Shoving
Sags Patches
HIR
Surface Recycling
Remixing
Repaving
+
+
+
+
+
+
Smoothness
+
+
+
Texture
+
+
+
Friction
+
+
+
Pavement-Tire
Noise
+
+
+
+
+
+
Splash/
Spray
+
+
+
Hydroplaning
Potential
HIR
Surface Recycling
(+)1
(+)
+
(+)1
(+)
(+)
1
Remixing
(+)
(+)
+
(+)1
(+)
(+)
Repaving
+
+
+
+
(+)
(+)
+ or − Significant and/or long-term positive or negative impact.
(+) or (−) Moderate and/or short-term positive or negative impact.
 Slight positive impact.
 Slight negative impact.
1
Smoothness and pavement/tire noise may be negatively affected if a chip seal is placed as the surface layer.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
B-11
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table B-10. Technical summary for cold in-place recycling.
COLD IN-PLACE RECYCLING
Treatment
Description
Cold In-Place Recycling (CIR)—A process that consists of milling and sizing reclaimed asphalt pavement
(RAP) and mixing in-place the RAP with recycling additive and new aggregate (either in the milling machine’s
cutting chamber or in a mix paver) to produce a recycled cold mix, which is then re-laid and compacted as a new
base course.
As a preservation treatment, CIR is primarily used to restore profile/cross-slope and/or mitigate surface and
other upper layer distresses. It’s depth of application in a preservation capacity is limited to 3 to 4 in. For
moderate- to high-volume roadways, the CIR recycled layer is accompanied by an overlay or surface treatment.
PSCs
Addressed
Structural Distresses
Addressed
Functional Distresses
Addressed
Performance
Objectives
Rejuvenate Surface/Inhibit Oxidation—Enrich or remove/replace the hardened/oxidized existing surface.
Reduce/Eliminate or Stabilize Surface Defects—Eliminate raveling/weathering and eliminate or mitigate other
surface defects, such as surface cracks and bleeding.
Improve Texture for Friction—Improve micro-texture and macro-texture to correspondingly increase friction.
Improve Profile (Surface Drainage and Ride)—Correct surface profile irregularities (including stable rutting)
and correspondingly improve lateral surface drainage and ride quality.
Raveling/ Bleeding/
Weathering Flushing Polishing Segregation
CIR
CIR
CIR
+
+
+
+
Water
Bleeding/
Pumping
Transverse/
Thermal
Crack
Block
Crack
+
+
+
Alligator Long WP Reflective
Edge
Stable Corrugations/ Bumps/
Cracking Cracking Cracking Cracking Rutting
Shoving
Sags Patches
(+)
(+)
+
+
+
+
+
+
Smoothness
+1
Texture
+
Friction
+
Pavement-Tire
Noise
(+)1
Splash/
Spray
(+)
Hydroplaning
Potential
(+)
+ or − Significant and/or long-term positive or negative impact.
(+) or (−) Moderate and/or short-term positive or negative impact.
 Slight positive impact.
 Slight negative impact.
1
Smoothness and pavement/tire noise may be negatively affected if a chip seal is placed as the surface layer.
B-12
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table B-11. Technical summary for ultra-thin PCC overlay.
Treatment
Description
Reduce/Eliminate or Stabilize Surface Defects—Eliminate raveling/weathering and mitigate other surface
defects, such as surface cracks and bleeding.
Improve Texture for Friction—Improve micro-texture and macro-texture to correspondingly increase friction.
Improve Profile (Surface Drainage and Ride)—Correct surface profile irregularities (including stable rutting)
and correspondingly improve lateral surface drainage and ride quality.
PSCs
Addressed
Structural Distresses
Addressed
Functional Distresses
Addressed
Ultra-Thin PCC Overlay—Involves the placement of a thin (2 to 4 in.) PCC layer, with slab dimensions
between 2 and 6 ft, over an existing AC-surfaced pavement. The primary purpose of an ultra-thin PCC overlay
is to eliminate surface distresses (e.g., raveling and cracking), correct various forms of deformation (e.g.,
corrugations and rutting), and improve friction and smoothness.
Performance
Objectives
ULTRA-THIN PCC OVERLAY
Raveling/ Bleeding/
Weathering Flushing Polishing Segregation
Ultra-thin PCC
Overlay
Ultra-thin PCC
Overlay
Ultra-thin PCC
Overlay
+
+
+
+
Water
Bleeding/
Pumping
Transverse/
Thermal
Crack
Block
Crack
+
+
+
Alligator Long WP Reflective
Edge
Stable Corrugations/ Bumps/
Cracking Cracking Cracking Cracking Rutting
Shoving
Sags Patches
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Smoothness
+
Texture
+
Friction
+
Pavement-Tire
Noise

Splash/
Spray
(+)
Hydroplaning
Potential
(+)
+ or − Significant and/or long-term positive or negative impact.
(+) or (−) Moderate and/or short-term positive or negative impact.
 Slight positive impact.
 Slight negative impact—Noise considerations are typical of PCC pavements. On high-speed facilities, certain
textures like longitudinal tining may be more suitable than others to reduce tire-pavement noise.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
B-13
December 2014
B-14
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
APPENDIX C. PRESERVATION TREATMENTS FOR PCC-SURFACED
PAVEMENTS
Table C-1. Technical summary for joint resealing and crack sealing.
PSCs
Addressed
Structural Distresses
Addressed
Functional Distresses
Addressed
Performance
Objectives
Treatment Description
JOINT RESEALING AND CRACK SEALING
Joint Resealing and Crack Sealing—Joint resealing and crack sealing of PCC pavements prevents moisture and
incompressible materials from infiltrating the pavement structure. This helps to slow or minimize the
development of moisture-related distresses (such as pumping or faulting) and to prevent the occurrence of
spalling, blowups, and other pressure-related distresses that might be caused by incompressible materials
collecting in the joints.
Joint resealing consists of removing existing deteriorated transverse and/or longitudinal joint sealant (if present),
refacing and pressure-cleaning the joint sidewalls, and installing new sealant material (liquid sealants generally
require the installation of backer rod to prevent sealant from seeping down in the joint).
Crack sealing consists of sawing, power cleaning, and sealing cracks (typically transverse, longitudinal, and
corner-break cracks wider than 0.125 in.) in concrete pavement using high-quality sealant materials. It is
primarily intended to slow the rate of deterioration by preventing the intrusion of incompressible materials and
reducing the infiltration of water into the crack.
Seal/Waterproof Pavement—Prevent or slow the infiltration of moisture into the pavement surface.
Prevent Intrusion of Incompressibles—Prevent sand, dirt, pebbles, and other small particles from penetrating
into the crack/joint and resulting in spalling when slabs expand in high temperatures.
Map Cracking/
Scaling
Water Bleeding/
Pumping
Joint Seal
Damage
Joint Resealing
+
+
Crack Sealing
+
Joint Resealing
Crack Sealing
Popouts
Polishing
Crack/Joint Crack/Joint Corner Longitudinal
Spalling
Faulting Cracking
Cracking

+

+
Joint Resealing
Smoothness

Crack Sealing


Texture
Transverse
Cracking D-Cracking Patches


Friction

PavementTire Noise



Splash/
Spray
Hydroplaning
Potential
+ or − Significant and/or long-term positive or negative impact.
(+) or (−) Moderate and/or short-term positive or negative impact.
 Slight positive impact—if applied to cracks early in their development, sealing can keep moisture out of the
pavement and may slow down the progression of load-related cracking.
 Slight negative impact—if applied in an overband configuration, the sealant may slightly reduce smoothness and
friction, and slightly increase noise.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
C-1
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table C-2. Technical summary for diamond grooving.
Treatment
Description
Improve Texture for Friction—Improve macro-texture to correspondingly increase friction.
Improve Texture for Pavement/Tire Noise—Improve micro-texture and/or macro-texture to correspondingly
reduce noise.
Improve Texture for Splash/Spray and Hydroplaning Concerns—Improve macro-texture to correspondingly
reduce splash/spray generation and/or vehicle hydroplaning potential.
PSCs
Addressed
Structural Distresses
Addressed
Functional Distresses
Addressed
Diamond Grooving—Consists of cutting narrow, discrete grooves into the pavement surface, which helps to
reduce hydroplaning, vehicle splash and spray, and wet-weather crashes. The grooves may be created in the
pavement either longitudinally (in the direction of traffic) or transversely. Longitudinal grooving is more
commonly done on in-service roadways because it is less intrusive to adjacent traffic lane operations; transverse
grooving provides a more direct drainage route and contributes to braking forces, but may also contribute to
noise emissions.
Performance
Objectives
DIAMOND GROOVING
Map Cracking/
Scaling
Popouts
Polishing
Water Bleeding/
Pumping
Joint Seal
Damage
Diamond Grooving
(longitudinal)
Crack/Joint Crack/Joint Corner Longitudinal Transverse
DSpalling
Faulting Cracking Cracking
Cracking Cracking Patches
Diamond Grooving
(longitudinal)
Smoothness
Diamond Grooving
(longitudinal)
Texture
+
Friction
+
PavementTire Noise
+
Splash/
Spray
+
Hydroplaning
Potential
+
+ or − Significant and/or long-term positive or negative impact.
(+) or (−) Moderate and/or short-term positive or negative impact.
 Slight positive impact.
 Slight negative impact.
C-2
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table C-3. Technical summary for diamond grinding.
Treatment
Description
Improve Texture for Friction—Improve micro-texture and macro-texture to correspondingly increase friction.
Improve Profile (Surface Drainage and Ride)—Correct surface profile irregularities, such as faulted
joints/cracks and curled/warped slabs, and correspondingly improve ride quality and lateral and longitudinal
surface drainage.
Improve Texture for Pavement/Tire Noise—Improve micro-texture and/or macro-texture to correspondingly
reduce noise.
Improve Texture for Splash/Spray and Hydroplaning Concerns—Improve macro-texture to correspondingly
reduce splash/spray generation and/or vehicle hydroplaning potential.
PSCs
Addressed
Structural Distresses
Addressed
Functional Distresses
Addressed
Diamond Grinding—Consists of removing a thin layer of concrete (usually between 0.12 and 0.25 in.) from the
pavement surface, using special equipment fitted with a series of closely spaced, diamond saw blades that form
longitudinal grooves/channels in the pavement surface. Diamond grinding removes joint faulting and other
surface irregularities, thereby restoring a smooth-riding surface while also increasing surface friction and
reducing noise emissions.
Performance
Objectives
DIAMOND GRINDING
Diamond Grinding
Map Cracking/
Scaling

Popouts
Polishing
Water Bleeding/
Pumping
Joint Seal
Damage
+
Diamond Grinding
Crack/Joint Crack/Joint Corner Longitudinal Transverse
DSpalling
Faulting Cracking Cracking
Cracking Cracking Patches
+
(−)
+
Diamond Grinding
Smoothness
+
Texture
+
Friction
+
PavementTire Noise
+
Splash/
Spray
+
Hydroplaning
Potential
+
+ or − Significant and/or long-term positive or negative impact.
(+) or (−) Moderate and/or short-term positive or negative impact.
 Slight positive impact.
 Slight negative impact—Although grinding can remove map cracking/scaling, it could have a negative impact if
the map cracking is a result of alkali-silica or alkali-carbonate reactive aggregate.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
C-3
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table C-4. Technical summary for partial-depth and full-depth repair.
PSCs
Addressed
Structural Distresses
Addressed
Functional Distresses
Addressed
Performance
Objectives
Treatment
Description
PARTIAL-DEPTH AND FULL-DEPTH REPAIR
Partial-Depth Repair (PDR)—Form of repair that addresses small, shallow areas of deteriorated PCC. These
deteriorated areas are removed and replaced with an approved repair material, thereby maintaining the
serviceability of the pavement. Partial-depth repairs should be used to correct joint spalling and other surfacial
distresses that are limited to the upper third of the slab.
Full-Depth Repair (FDR)—Cast-in-place or precast concrete repairs that extend through the full thickness of
the existing slab, requiring full-depth removal and replacement of full lane-width areas. Full-depth repairs are
effective at correcting slab distresses that extend beyond one-third the pavement depth, such as longitudinal and
transverse cracking, corner breaks, and deep joint spalling.
Seal/Waterproof Pavement—Prevent or slow the infiltration of moisture into the pavement surface.
Prevent Intrusion of Incompressibles—Prevent sand, dirt, pebbles, and other small particles from penetrating
into the crack/joint and resulting in spalling when slabs expand in high temperatures.
Improve Profile (Surface Drainage and Ride)—Correct surface profile irregularities, such as faulted
joints/cracks and curled/warped slabs, and correspondingly improve ride quality and lateral and longitudinal
surface drainage.
Map Cracking/
Scaling
Popouts
Polishing
Water Bleeding/
Pumping
(+)
Partial-Depth
Repair
Full-Depth Repair
Partial-Depth
Repair
Full-Depth Repair
Partial-Depth
Repair
Full-Depth Repair
Joint Seal
Damage
+
(localized only)
+
Crack/Joint Crack/Joint Corner Longitudinal Transverse
DSpalling
Faulting Cracking Cracking
Cracking Cracking Patches
+
+
+
+
(localized
only)
+
+
+
Smoothness

Texture

Friction

PavementTire Noise





+
Splash/
Spray
+
Hydroplaning
Potential
+ or − Significant and/or long-term positive or negative impact.
(+) or (−) Moderate and/or short-term positive or negative impact.
 Slight positive impact—Some increase in smoothness expected, but if repair is not finished properly a reduction
in smoothness can occur.
 Slight negative impact—Unless the existing pavement with the new patches is diamond ground, the texture of
the patches will be somewhat different, possibly leading to a slight decreased in friction. Also, additional joints
introduced by patching may result in increased pavement-tire noise.
C-4
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table C-5. Technical summary for load-transfer restoration and cross-stitching.
PSCs
Addressed
Structural Distresses
Addressed
Functional Distresses
Addressed
Performance
Objectives
Treatment Description
LOAD-TRANSFER RESTORATION AND CROSS-STITCHING
Load-Transfer Restoration (LTR)—Consists of placing mechanical load transfer devices (typically dowel bars)
across joints or cracks in an existing jointed PCC pavement. The process entails cutting slots (3 to 4 per
wheelpath) across a joint or crack, removing the concrete within the slots, inserting the load transfer devices into
the slots, and placing and consolidating patching material around the devices in the slots. The load transfer
devices increase the load transfer capacity of the joint or crack, thereby reducing deflections and decreasing the
potential for the development of pumping, faulting, and corner breaks. Poor load transfer at existing joints or
cracks may result from an undoweled jointing situation (in which excessive joint or crack openings leads to
reduced aggregate interlock), corrosion of existing load transfer devices, and poor pavement drainage resulting
in loss of underlying support.
Cross-Stitching—Repair technique for longitudinal cracks/joints in which deformed tie bars are inserted and
grouted into angled (35° typically) drilled holes across the crack/joint. The purpose of cross-stitching is to
maintain aggregate interlock and provide added reinforcement and strength to minimize vertical and horizontal
movement or widening at the crack/joint.
Improve Profile (Surface Drainage and Ride)—Increase load transfer efficiency and reduce potential for
crack/joint faulting and growth, and correspondingly improve long-term ride quality and (to some extent) lateral
and longitudinal surface drainage.
Map Cracking/
Scaling
Popouts
Polishing
Water Bleeding/
Pumping
Load-Transfer
Restoration
(+)
Cross-Stitching
(+)
Load-Transfer
Restoration
Crack/Joint Crack/Joint Corner Longitudinal Transverse
DSpalling
Faulting Cracking Cracking
Cracking Cracking Patches
+
(+)
+
Cross-Stitching
Load-Transfer
Restoration
Cross-Stitching
Joint Seal
Damage
Smoothness


Texture

(+)
Friction

PavementTire Noise

Splash/
Spray
Hydroplaning
Potential

+ or − Significant and/or long-term positive or negative impact.
(+) or (−) Moderate and/or short-term positive or negative impact.
 Slight positive impact—Although smoothness is not increased at time of application, load transfer restoration
and cross-stitching can reduce the rate at which roughness develops over time by controlling faulting and crack/joint
growth. Similarly, although noise is not reduced at time of application, these activities can reduce the rate at which
noise increases over time by controlling crack/joint slap.
 Slight negative impact—Unless the existing pavement with the new patches is diamond ground, the texture of
the patches will be somewhat different, possibly leading to a slight decreased in friction.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
C-5
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table C-6. Technical summary for ultra-thin bonded wearing course.
PSCs
Addressed
Structural Distresses
Addressed
Functional Distresses
Addressed
Performance Objectives
Treatment
Description
ULTRA-THIN BONDED WEARING COURSE
Ultra-Thin Bonded Wearing Course (UTBWC)—Also known as an ultra-thin friction course, an ultra-thin
bonded wearing course may be used as an alternative treatment to chip seals, microsurfacing, or thin HMA
overlays. This consists of a gap-graded, polymer-modified HMA layer (typically between 0.375 and 0.75 in.
thick) placed on a tack coat (heavy, polymer-modified emulsified asphalt). It is effective at treating minor
surface distresses and increasing surface friction. UTBWC is typically a proprietary product (e.g., NovaChip®).
Seal/Waterproof Pavement—Prevent or slow the infiltration of moisture into the pavement surface.
Prevent Intrusion of Incompressibles—Prevent sand, dirt, pebbles, and other small particles from penetrating
into the crack/joint and resulting in spalling when slabs expand in high temperatures.
Improve Texture for Friction—Improve micro-texture and macro-texture to correspondingly increase friction.
Improve Profile (Surface Drainage and Ride)—Correct minor surface profile irregularities and
correspondingly improve (to some extent) lateral surface drainage and ride quality.
Improve Texture for Pavement/Tire Noise—Improve micro-texture and macro-texture to correspondingly
reduce noise.
Improve Texture for Splash/Spray and Hydroplaning Concerns—Improve macro-texture to correspondingly
reduce splash/spray generation and/or vehicle hydroplaning potential.
UTBWC
Map Cracking/
Scaling
Popouts
Polishing
Water Bleeding/
Pumping
+
+
+
(+)
Joint Seal
Damage
UTBWC
Crack/Joint Crack/Joint Corner Longitudinal Transverse
DSpalling
Faulting Cracking Cracking
Cracking Cracking Patches
(+)
(+)
UTBWC
Smoothness
(+)
Texture
+
Friction
+
PavementTire Noise
+
Splash/
Spray
+
Hydroplaning
Potential
+
+ or − Significant and/or long-term positive or negative impact.
(+) or (−) Moderate and/or short-term positive or negative impact.
 Slight positive impact—Can provide some short-term reduction in water bleeding/pumping.
 Slight negative impact.
C-6
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table C-7. Technical summary for thin HMA overlays.
PSCs
Addressed
Structural Distresses
Addressed
Functional Distresses
Addressed
Performance Objectives
Treatment
Description
THIN HMA OVERLAYS
Thin HMA Overlays—Composed of asphalt binder and aggregate combined in a central mixing plant and
placed with a paving machine in thicknesses ranging from 0.875 to 1.5 in. Conventional HMA overlays can be
distinguished by their aggregate gradation:
 Dense-graded—a well-graded, relatively impermeable mix, intended for general use.
 Open-graded—an open-graded, permeable mix designed using only crushed aggregate and a small
percentage of manufactured sand; typically smoother than dense-graded HMA.
 Stone matrix asphalt (SMA)—a gap-graded mix designed to maximize rut resistance and durability using
stone-on-stone contact.
Seal/Waterproof Pavement—Prevent or slow the infiltration of moisture into the pavement surface.
Prevent Intrusion of Incompressibles—Prevent sand, dirt, pebbles, and other small particles from penetrating
into the crack/joint and resulting in spalling when slabs expand in high temperatures.
Improve Texture for Friction—Improve micro-texture and macro-texture to correspondingly increase friction.
Improve Profile (Surface Drainage and Ride)—Correct minor surface profile irregularities and
correspondingly improve (to some extent) lateral surface drainage and ride quality.
Improve Texture for Pavement/Tire Noise—Improve micro-texture and macro-texture to correspondingly
reduce noise.
Improve Texture for Splash/Spray and Hydroplaning Concerns—Improve macro-texture to correspondingly
reduce splash/spray generation and/or vehicle hydroplaning potential.
Map Cracking/
Scaling
Popouts
Polishing
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Thin HMAOL
Dense-Graded
Open-Graded
SMA
Water Bleeding/
Pumping
Joint Seal
Damage
+

Crack/Joint Crack/Joint Corner Longitudinal Transverse
DSpalling
Faulting Cracking Cracking
Cracking Cracking Patches
Thin HMAOL
Dense-Graded
Open-Graded
SMA
Thin HMAOL
Dense-Graded
Open-Graded
SMA
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
Smoothness
Texture
Friction
PavementTire Noise
Splash/
Spray
Hydroplaning
Potential
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
(+)
+
+
(+)
+
+
(+)
+
+
+ or − Significant and/or long-term positive or negative impact.
(+) or (−) Moderate and/or short-term positive or negative impact.
 Slight positive impact—Can provide some short-term reduction in water bleeding/pumping.
 Slight negative impact.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
C-7
December 2014
C-8
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
APPENDIX D. PAVEMENT PRESERVATION SYNTHESIS
Introduction
Various definitions of pavement preservation have been developed and used throughout the
highway community. Two of the more common definitions that best capture the essence of the
term are as follows:
•
•
A program employing a network-level, long-term strategy that enhances pavement
performance by using an integrated, cost-effective set of practices to extend pavement
life, improve safety, and meet motorist expectations (reduce user delays) (Geiger 2005).
Programs and activities employing a network level, long-term strategy that enhances
pavement performance by using an integrated, cost-effective set of practices that extend
pavement life, improve safety, and meet road user expectations (NCPP 2013).
Pavement preservation is an umbrella term for pavement treatments that are intended to (a)
prevent or delay the occurrence of new distresses and/or slow the development of existing
distresses and/or (b) restore the integrity and functionality/serviceability of the pavement and/or
improve its surface characteristics. As indicated by the shaded cells in Table D-1, preservation is
primarily comprised of preventive maintenance treatments, like crack seals, chip seals, and thin
overlays. However, it also includes a few routine maintenance activities, like crack filling and
drainage maintenance, and a few minor rehabilitation treatments, such as relatively thin
applications of cold- and hot-in-place recycling, full-depth repairs, and diamond grinding.
Pavement preservation can also be defined by its frequency of application. A preservation
treatment is defined as a one-time application of a specific type of treatment to an existing
pavement. Its timing may be based on a specific time period following pavement construction or
rehabilitation, or on the condition of the in-service pavement. A preservation strategy is defined
as successive or sequential applications of a specific treatment type or multiple treatment types
over the life of a pavement. The timings of the treatments may be in accordance with a
predetermined application cycle or on the condition of the in-service pavement.
Table D-1. Classification of pavement activities by purpose (Peshkin et al. 2011a).
Purpose of Activity
Increase
Capacity
Increase
Strength
Slow
Aging
Restore Surface
Characteristics
Improve or Restore
Functionality
New Construction
X
X
X
X
X
Reconstruction
Major (Heavy) Rehabilitation
Structural Overlay
Minor (Light) Rehabilitation
Preventive Maintenance
Routine Maintenance
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Type of Activity
Corrective (Reactive)
Maintenance
X
Catastrophic Maintenance
X
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
D-1
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
The practice of pavement preservation is applicable to all types of roadway facilities and
pavements. Although preservation is perhaps most commonly applied to lower volume roads
and roads in moderate climates, successful performance can be achieved with some treatments
when applied to higher volume roads and roads in severe climates. In addition, treatments are
available and can be effective for the three primary pavement types and their more specific
design types (listed below), as well as for overlays placed on these pavements.
•
•
•
Flexible
 Conventional asphalt—nominal layer of hot-mix asphalt (HMA) or warm-mix asphalt
(WMA) on unbound aggregate base.
 Full-depth asphalt—thick layer of HMA on prepared/stabilized subgrade.
 Deep-strength asphalt—thick layer of HMA on unbound aggregate base.
 Semi-rigid—HMA on cementitious base.
Composite
 HMA on Portland cement concrete (PCC) base (HMA/PCC).
Rigid
 Jointed plain concrete with dowels (JPC-D).
 Jointed plain concrete without dowels (JPC-ND).
 Jointed reinforced concrete (JRC).
 Continuously reinforced concrete (CRC).
Treatment timing is a major determinant in the performance of both the preservation treatment
and the treated pavement. The typical window of opportunity for applying a treatment is when
the pavement is in fair to good condition with no or limited amounts of structural distress (e.g.,
fatigue cracking and non-stable rutting in HMA pavements, slab cracking and joint faulting in
PCC pavements). Premature application when the pavement is largely free of any distress may
not be cost-effective, as the cost of applying the treatment may outweigh the benefit (pavement
life extension) produced by the treatment. Likewise, too late an application when the pavement
has developed significant structural distress will yield a smaller benefit that is again outweighed
by the cost of applying the treatment.
As Table D-2 shows, there are several distinct types of treatments for preserving existing
flexible, composite, and rigid pavements. The treatments make use of different material types
and thicknesses, may involve a small amount of removal of the existing pavement surface, and
are applied either globally across the pavement or locally where specific distresses or other
issues exist. Because preservation treatments are typically less than 2.0 in. thick (some, like cold
in-place recycling and ultra-thin PCC overlays, can exceed 2.0 in.), they are considered to be
“non-structural” in that they provide little or no added structural value to the existing pavement.
However, as noted previously, they can delay the onset and the rate of propagation of structuralrelated distress through waterproofing, protection, and rejuvenation of the pavement system.
Treatment Functions/Performance Objectives
Each pavement preservation treatment has unique capabilities and functions that allow it to
impact the structural and/or functional performance of an existing pavement structure. As noted
previously, the impacts may be in the form of preventing, delaying, or slowing pavement
distresses through waterproofing, protection, and rejuvenation, or in the form of
restoring/improving the integrity and functionality of the pavement through thin-layer
resurfacing and localized repair.
D-2
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table D-2. Pavement preservation treatment types.
Flexible and Composite Pavement Preservation
Treatments
Rigid Pavement
Preservation Treatments
Crack filling and crack sealing
Crack sealing and joint resealing
Fog/rejuvenator seals
Undersealing
Slurry seal
Partial-depth repair
Microsurfacing
Full-depth repair
-single course
Diamond grinding
-double course
Diamond grooving
Chip seal1,2
Dowel bar retrofitting (load transfer restoration)
-single course
Cross-stitching
-double course
Thin HMA overlay3,4
Profile milling
-dense-graded
Thin HMA overlay3,4 (with or without cold milling)
-open-graded (OGFC)
-dense-graded
-gap-graded (SMA)
-open-graded (OGFC)
Ultra-thin bonded wearing course (UTBWC)
-gap-graded (SMA)
Drainage maintenance
Ultra-thin HMA overlay5 (with or without cold milling)
Ultra-thin bonded wearing course (UTBWC)
Hot in-place recycling
-Surface recycle
-Remixing
-Repaving
Cold in-place recycling
Ultra-thin PCC overlay6
Drainage maintenance (e.g., underdrain system cleaning
and repair, pavement edge buildup removal, sweeping)
1
Binder options = emulsion, polymer-modified emulsion, asphalt cement.
2
Design variations include racked-in-seal, sandwich seal, inverted seal, cape seal, and geotextile-reinforced seal.
3
Thin = 0.875 to 1.5 in.
4
Binder options = neat, rubber-modified, or polymer-modified.
5
Ultra-thin = 0.5 to 0.75 in.
6
Ultra-thin = 2.0 to 4.0 in.
Tables D-3 and D-4 summarize, respectively, the primary capabilities and functions of the
various flexible, composite, and rigid pavement treatments presented earlier (Peshkin 2011a).
The degree to which pavement performance is enhanced by a particular treatment depends
largely upon the design and quality of construction of the pavement; the type, severity, and
amount of distresses at the time of treatment application; the traffic levels and climatic
conditions experienced by the pavement; the ability of the treatment to address the pavement
needs; and the pavement condition/performance indicators used to measure and track
performance.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
D-3
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table D-3. Primary capabilities and functions of preservation treatments for AC-surfaced
(flexible and composite) pavements (Peshkin et al. 2011a).
Prevention/Delay
Treatment
Seal/
Waterproof
Pavement
Rejuvenate
Surface/
Inhibit
Oxidation
Restoration/Improvement
Reduce/
Eliminate
Surface
Defects1
Crack Filling


Crack Sealing


Fog Seal

Improve
Texture
for
Friction
Improve Profile
(Lateral Surface
Drainage & Ride)
Improve
Texture
for Noise


Rejuvenator Seal

Cold Milling
Scrub Seal


Slurry Seal


Microsurfacing


Sand Seal


Chip Seal










Profile Milling
Thin HMAOL
Dense-Graded
Open-Graded (OGFC)2
Gap-Graded (SMA)
Reduce/
Eliminate
Stable
Ruts


 (minor)












Ultra-thin HMAOL





UTBWC





Mill and Thin HMAOL























Hot In-place Recycling
Surface Recycling
Remixing
Repaving
Cold In-place Recycling
and Thin HMAOL
Ultra-thin PCCOL
Drainage Maintenance





3
1
Surface defects include weathering/raveling, bleeding, polishing, surface cracks, and so on.
Improves splash/spray.
3
Improves drainability of pavement system.
HMAOL = HMA overlay.
PCCOL = PCC overlay.
OGFC = Open-graded friction course.
SMA = Stone matrix asphalt.
2
D-4
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table D-4. Primary capabilities and functions of preservation treatments for PCC-surfaced
(rigid) pavements (Peshkin et al. 2011a).
Prevention/Delay
Treatment
Seal/
Waterproof Prevent Intrusion of
Pavement
Incompressibles
Crack Sealing


Joint Resealing


Diamond Grinding
Restoration/Improvement
Remove/
Control
Faulting
Improve
Texture for
Friction
Improve Profile
(Lateral Surface
Drainage & Ride)
Improve
Texture for
Noise





Diamond Grooving
Partial-Depth Repair




Full-Depth Repair



1





Thin HMAOL





Drainage Maintenance
2

Dowel Bar Retrofit
UTBWC
1


1
In conjunction with diamond grinding.
Improves drainability of pavement system.
HMAOL = HMA overlay.
PCCOL = PCC overlay.
2
Project/Treatment Selection
There are many factors that affect pavement preservation project selection and treatment
selection. The most important ones are as follows:
•
Traffic level—The traffic level is important for at least two reasons: (1) traffic levels are
a direct measure of the loadings applied to a roadway and (2) traffic levels affect access
to a roadway to perform preservation activities. Higher traffic levels mean greater and
more frequent stresses on the pavement, which can accelerate the rate of wear of the
preservation treatment and reduce the treatment’s ability to perform its function. Higher
traffic levels also present more problems for some treatments than others in terms of the
amount of traffic delay at time of treatment application. Treatments that take longer to
place and/or require extended curing times may be unacceptable for use as a result of the
amount of traffic disruption.
•
Pavement condition—When selecting the right preservation treatment for a pavement, the
condition of the existing pavement is important. Not only is the overall condition
important, but the specific distresses present on the pavement also impact the selection of
the proper preservation treatment. While the correct treatment application time depends
on several factors, it is generally agreed that preservation treatments should be applied
during the period when the pavement is in good condition. Accordingly, surveying
existing conditions to determine whether the pavement is in good condition is an
important part of the treatment selection process.
•
Climate/environment—Climatic conditions impact preservation treatment usage in at
least two ways: determining construction timing and affecting treatment performance.
While the applicability of many of the treatments might not be affected by differences in
climate (such as ultra-thin friction courses for HMA-surfaced pavements or diamond
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
D-5
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
grinding for PCC pavements), some treatments, especially those using asphalt emulsions,
can only be applied in limited temperature and humidity conditions. Climate can directly
affect curing time, which in turn impacts treatment feasibility and opening to traffic on
high traffic volume roadways. For example, slurry seals require several hours, warmer
temperatures, and direct sunlight to break and cure effectively; in environments where
these conditions cannot be assured and traffic cannot be kept off the pavement, a slurry
seal is not an appropriate treatment.
In addition to temperature and climate considerations during treatment placement,
preservation treatments can experience differential performance in different climates.
For example, although thin HMA overlays are used successfully in all climatic regions,
they are susceptible to thermal cracking which can be more pronounced in colder
climates. The performance of ultra-thin HMA overlays is particularly limited in cold
climates because of the thermal cracking issue and the challenges in achieving adequate
density on thin lifts.
•
Work zone duration restrictions—The time available to apply a treatment is a practical
consideration in treatment selection, as different treatments certainly require different
construction times. One scheme for looking at available hours is to divide available
closure times into three groups: less than 12 hours, 12 to 60 hours, and more than 60
hours. These groups are approximately equivalent to an overnight closure, a closure
between one day and one weekend long, and a closure that is longer than a weekend,
respectively (Peshkin et al. 2011b), although these ranges would vary based on local
patterns of use, peak hour rates, and so on.
•
Expected performance—Expected treatment performance also influences the selection of
a preservation treatment. A highway agency may expect a certain treatment service life
or a certain extension in pavement life in order to meet its pavement management needs.
Some treatments may be unable to achieve the expected performance. There may also be
higher expectations for treatment performance when there is more traffic because higher
traffic volume roadways are expected to last longer.
•
Costs—Although treatment costs do not affect treatment performance, certain cost
considerations are inevitably a part of the treatment selection process. The cost of each
treatment depends on features such as the size and location of the project, severity and
quantity of distresses, and the quality of a treatment’s constituent materials. It also
depends on the type and amount of surface preparation work and the degree of traffic
control required to accompany the treatment.
Selecting an appropriate preservation treatment for a given pavement at a given time is not a
simple process. It requires a significant amount of information about the existing pavement, as
well as the needs and constraints of the treatment to be performed. In addition, there are usually
several possible solutions that can be considered, each with unique advantages/disadvantages.
The process is further complicated when costs and cost effectiveness are factored in.
Figure D-1 presents a sequential approach for evaluating possible preservation treatments for an
existing pavement and identifying the preferred one (Peshkin et al. 2011b). This approach is
developed specifically to address factors that are commonly considered for high traffic volume
D-6
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Current and Historical Pavement Performance Data
(from field surveys and testing and/or PMS database)
Overall Condition Indicator (e.g., PCI, PCR)
Individual Distress Types, Severities, and Extents
 Smoothness (e.g., IRI, PI, PSI/PSR)
 Surface and Subsurface Drainage Characteristics
 Safety Characteristics
 friction/texture (e.g., FN, MPD/MTD, IFI)
 crashes
 Pavement–Tire Noise


Historical Design, Construction, and M&R Data



Pavement Type and Cross-Sectional Design
Materials and As-Built Construction
M&R Treatments (i.e., materials, thicknesses)
Pavement
Preservation
or Major
Rehab?
Major
Rehab
Develop Feasible
Rehab Treatments
Pavement Preservation
Preliminary Set of Feasible Preservation Treatments
Assess Needs and Constraints of Project
Performance Needs
 Targeted/required performance
 Expected performance of treatments
 existing pavement condition effects
 traffic effects (functional class and/or
traffic level)
 climate/environment effects
 construction quality risk effects (agency
and contractor experience, materials
quality)
Construction Constraints
 Funding
 Time of year of construction
 Geometrics (curves, intersections,
pavement markings/striping)
 Work zone duration restrictions (i.e.,
facility downtime)
 Traffic accommodation and safety
 Availability of qualified contractors and
quality materials
 Environmental considerations (e.g.,
emissions and air quality, recycling/
sustainability)
Final Set of Feasible Preservation Treatments
Selection of the Preferred Preservation Treatment
Conduct Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Benefit-Cost Analysis
 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)
• Evaluate Economic and Non-Economic Factors
•

Figure D-1. Process of selecting the preferred preservation treatment for high traffic volume
roadways (Peshkin et al. 2011b).
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
D-7
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
roadways. In this approach, the functional and structural performance of the existing pavement
should first be established through condition surveys and/or the agency’s pavement management
system (PMS). The performance information should include both current and historical trends of
overall condition (i.e., a composite indicator of condition or serviceability); type, severity, and
amount of individual distresses; and ride quality/smoothness measurements. For pavements
perceived as having possible safety and/or noise issues, surface friction test results, crash data,
and/or pavement–tire noise data should also be compiled.
Based on the established performance information, a preliminary list of feasible preservation
treatments should then be identified. This list represents a first cut of treatments capable of
preserving the pavement structure and preventing or delaying future deterioration, given the
pavement’s current physical condition and rate of deterioration.
Next, the performance needs and construction constraints of the project should be assessed.
Based on the traffic and climatic characteristics of the project and an acceptable level of risk, the
list of feasible treatments can be narrowed to those whose expected performance satisfies the
required or targeted performance level. Further refining of the list may occur after considering
constraints such as available funding, the expected timing and allowable duration of the work,
geometrics issues, and traffic control issues.
Once a final set of feasible preservation treatments has been identified, a cost-effectiveness
analysis should be performed to determine which treatment provides the greatest return for the
investment. This analysis may be done using either cost-benefit analysis or life-cycle cost
analysis (LCCA) techniques. Results of the cost-effectiveness analysis should then be evaluated
in conjunction with other economic factors and several non-monetary factors in order to select
the preferred preservation treatment.
Treatment Design and Construction
Once a treatment type has been selected for a particular pavement preservation project, the tasks
of designing the treatment and overseeing its placement must be undertaken. Although the
design process could involve determining the thickness and/or the number of applications of the
treatment (or in the case of milling and diamond grinding, the depth of pavement removal), it
generally focuses on the individual materials comprising the treatment and the design of the mix.
The type of aggregate and the desired properties of the aggregate (including gradation and size),
the type and amount of binder to be used, and the type and amount of other additives must all be
considered, so as to best meet the specific performance objectives of the preservation treatment.
Prior to construction, the appropriate specifications and testing requirements must be established,
both for treatment material production and application/construction. Special considerations must
be given to the assessment and assurance of material/construction quality and to strategies for
dealing with project and contractor constraints (e.g., raised pavement markers, maintenance of
traffic, pre-treatment pavement preparation, weather conditions, equipment issues, safety, and
time to pavement re-opening).
Treatment Performance
After a preservation treatment has been placed and opened to traffic, it should be closely
monitored to determine how well it satisfies the established performance objectives (e.g.,
seal/waterproof pavement, rejuvenate surface and inhibit oxidation, remove or eliminate ruts or
D-8
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
faulting, improve texture for friction). Initial performance monitoring is just as important as
long-term monitoring, because there is always the possibility for premature distress development
and/or treatment failure which could adversely impact the serviceability and safety of the
highway users.
Treatment performance can be assessed in various ways. The most common methods are as
follows:
1. Treatment Service Life—How long a preservation treatment serves its function, in terms
of the time or duration until a subsequent preservation or rehabilitation treatment is
applied or will be needed based on a specified condition threshold.
2. Pavement Life Extension—The amount of benefit provided by a preservation treatment
in terms of the number of years of additional pavement life obtained as a result of its
application.
3. Performance Benefit Area—The amount of benefit provided by a preservation treatment,
as defined by the area under the pavement condition/performance curve.
Figure D-2 illustrates two variations each of the treatment service life and pavement life
extension methods. Figure D-3 illustrates the performance benefit area method. Note that, with
each method, the actual “benefit” (treatment life, pavement life extension, performance benefit
area) could be much smaller or much larger than what is shown. In fact, the benefit could be
negative.
Pavement
Condition
Very
Good
Existing
Pavement
Structure
Application of
Preservation
Treatment
(2A) Pavement Life
Extension based on
immediate pre-treatment
condition level
Subsequent
Preservation or
Rehab Treatment
Immediate Pre-Treatment Condition Level
Unacceptable Condition Threshold Level
(repair/rehab trigger)
Very
Poor
(2B) Pavement Life
Extension based on
specified condition
threshold level
(1B) Treatment Life based on
specified condition threshold level
(1A) Treatment Life based on subsequent
preservation or rehab treatment
Time,
years
Figure D-2. Preservation treatment life and pavement life extension (adapted from Peshkin et al.
2011a, Sousa and Way 2009a, and Rajagopal 2010).
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
D-9
December 2014
Pavement
Condition
Very
Good
Final Report Appendices
Existing
Pavement
Structure
Application of
Preservation
Treatment
Performance
Benefit Area
Immediate Pre-Treatment Condition Level
Unacceptable Condition Threshold Level
(repair/rehab trigger)
(3) Performance Benefit Area
based on area bounded by treated
and untreated pavement
condition curves and specified
condition threshold level
Very
Poor
Time,
years
Figure D-3. Preservation treatment effectiveness (adapted from Peshkin et al. 2004).
Although an overall condition/performance indicator, such as the pavement condition
index/rating (PCI/PCR) or the present serviceability index/rating (PSI/PSR), can be used with
each of these methods, a better assessment of whether the established performance objectives are
met can be made by examining individual condition/performance indicator (e.g., rutting, faulting,
transverse cracking, fatigue cracking, friction, raveling) trends and determining the treatment
life, pavement life extension, or performance benefit area associated with each indicator.
Many national- and state-level studies on pavement preservation treatment performance have
been conducted over the years. Some of these studies have sought the experience-based input of
pavement practitioners through surveys, or have looked at the historical records of treatment
application to develop estimates of treatment life based on frequency of application. Others have
evaluated either treatment or pavement performance through project- or network-level
performance data collection and analysis efforts.
In their Synthesis on Flexible Pavement Preservation Practices, Cuelho et al. (2006) summarized
several preservation performance studies conducted throughout North America between 1989
and 2005. He described the individual treatments and their respective advantages/disadvantages,
and reported the expected performance lives of each treatment. Although some of the studies
included monitoring of pavement performance (e.g., roughness, cracking, rutting, and raveling),
the reported performance characteristics primarily focused on treatment service life (i.e., how
long a treatment lasts). Only in some cases was the life of the pavement (or the extension in
pavement life as a result of the treatment) the focus of evaluation (see chapter 2 and appendix A
of Cuelho’s 2006 Synthesis for relevant aspects of the different studies [Cuelho et al. 2006]).
D-10
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Tables D-5 and D-6 summarize the following key aspects of additional pavement performance
studies conducted since 2005:
•
Treatment types evaluated.
•
Type of data source used (e.g., survey responses, established test sections, in-service
pavement sections).
•
Basis for evaluating treatment performance (e.g., treatment life, pavement life, treatment
effectiveness).
•
Performance measures used.
•
Performance trends and/or models developed.
•
Key performance outcomes.
References
Broughton, B. and S-J. Lee. 2012. Microsurfacing in Texas. Report No. FHWA/TX-12/06668-1. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX.
Chou, E., D. Datta, and H. Pulugurta. 2008. Effectiveness of Thin Hot Mix Asphalt Overlay on
Pavement Ride and Condition Performance. Report No. FHWA/OH-2008/4. Ohio Department
of Transportation, Columbus, OH.
Cuelho, E., R. Mokwa, and M. Akin. 2006. Preventive Maintenance Treatments of Flexible
Pavements: A Synthesis of Highway Practice. Report No. FHWA/MT-06-009/8117-26.
Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, MT.
Geiger, D.R. 2005. Pavement Preservation Terms. Memorandum. Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC.
Gransberg, D. 2010. Microsurfacing: A Synthesis of Highway Practice. NCHRP Synthesis 411.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Washington, DC. Online at
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=14464.
Hajj, E.Y., L. Loria, and P.E. Sebaaly. 2010. “Performance Evaluation of Asphalt Pavement
Preservation Activities.” Transportation Research Record 2150. Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.
Irfan, M., M.B. Khurshid, and S. Labi. 2009. “Service Life of Thin HMA Overlay Using
Different Performance Indicators.” Compendium of Papers CD. 88th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Labi, S., K.S. Hwee, G. Lamptey, and C. Nunoo. 2006. “Long-Term Benefits of Microsurfacing
Applications in Indiana–Methodology and Case Study.” Compendium of Papers CD. 85th
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Liu, L., V. Manepalli, D. Gedafa, and M. Hossain. 2010a. “Cost Effectiveness of Ultrathin
Bonded Bituminous Surface and Modified Slurry Seal.” Compendium of Papers, First
International Conference on Pavement Preservation, Newport Beach, CA.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
D-11
Preservation
Treatment Study
SHRP 2 Project R26,
Preservation for HighTraffic Volume Roads
(Peshkin et al. 2011a)
NCHRP Microsurfacing
Synthesis 411
(Gransberg 2010)
FHWA Performance
Evaluation of
Rehabilitation and
Preservation Treatments
(Wu et al. 2010)
Treatment Types
Evaluated
Data Source Type
Basis for Evaluating
Treatment Performance
Performance Measures Used
CrS, FS, ScS, SlS, MS,
CpS, ChS, UTBWC,
Thin HMAOL, Mill &
Thin HMAOL, HIR,
CIR, PM, MDF, UTW,
JRS, DG, DGv, PDR,
FDR, DBR, Thin
PCCOL
Survey of
states/provinces
(2009)
 Treatment
effectiveness
 None
MS
Survey of
states/provinces
(2010)
 Treatment
service life
 Various
MS
(comparison with other
treatments)
Case studies consisting
of test sites/sections
and/or in-service
sections in six
states/provinces
(ME, OK, GA, KS,
MN, ONT)
 Treatment
Case studies consisting
of test sites/sections in
six states (CA, KS, MI,
MN, TX, WA)
 Treatment
CrS, FS, ChS, SlS, MS,
Thin HMAOL, Mill &
Thin HMAOL, HIR,
CIR, JRS, DG, DBR,
PDR, FDR,
service life and/or
pavement service life










Test sites/sections
 Pavement
CrS, FS, CpS, ChS,
UTBWC, SlS, ScS, MS,
Thin HMAOL (with/out
milling), HIR, CIR, DG,
DGv, US, DBR, MDF
Survey of
states/provinces (2005)
 Treatment
service life
service life and/or
pavement service life
by agency
CA–not available
KS–PMS perf. data tracking
and eng. judgment
MI–Eng. judgment
MN–PMS perf. data tracking
TX–Eng. judgment
WA–PMS perf. data tracking
and eng. judgment
 PRS,
FWD deflection
 Various
(eng. judgment, visual
and/or measured performance
data tracking of treatment and/or
pavement)
Key Performance
Outcomes
 None
 Subjective
 None
 Subjective
 Various
assessment of
most and least
successful treatments on
high-volume roads
assessment of
expected treatment
service life
condition vs. age plots
 Estimates
of treatment
service life, pavement
life extension, or
pavement functional
performance
 None
 Estimates
 PSR
 Estimates
 None
 None
vs. age plots; FWD
deflection vs. age plots; treatment
survival plots (based on %
sections reaching PSR rehab
threshold of 50)
of treatment
service life
of pavement
life extension and
treatment structural
benefits
Treatment Acronyms: CrS: Crack seal FS: Fog seal ScS: Scrub seal ChS: Chip seal CpS: Cape seal SlS: Slurry seal MS: Microsurfacing HMAOL: HMA overlay UTBWC: Ultrathin bonded
wearing course HIR: Hot in-place recycling CIR: Cold in-place recycling PM: Profile milling JRS: Joint resealing PDR: Partial-depth repair FDR: Full-depth repair DG: Diamond grinding
DGv: Diamond grooving DBR: Dowel bar retrofit PCCOL: PCC overlay MDF: Maintenance of drainage features
US: Undersealing DBR: Dowel bar retrofit MDF: Maintenance of drainage features.
Performance Measure Acronyms: RC: Reflective cracking RD: Rut depth IRI: Roughness FN: Friction number RN: Road noise PRS: Pavement Rating Score (uses distress deducts)
Other Acronyms: PMS: Pavement management system B/C: Benefit-Cost ratio FWD: Falling weight deflectometer
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc
Montana DOT Flexible
Pavement Preventive
Maintenance Synthesis
(Cuelho et al. 2006)
ChS, Thin HMAOL,
SlS, CrS
by agency
ME–IRI, RD, FN
OK–IRI, RD, FN
GA–RC, FN, RN
KS–IRI
MN–RC, IRI, RD
ONT–Crashes
 Measures

FHWA Completed
Monitoring of LTPP
SPS-3 Experiment
(Morian et al. 2011)
(eng. judgment)
 Measures

service life
(eng. judgment)
Performance Trends and/or
Models Developed
December 2014
D-12
Table D-5. Summary of recent national research studies investigating preservation treatment performance.
Preservation
Treatment Study
Treatment Types
Evaluated
Michigan DOT
Single ChS, Double
Preventive Maintenance ChS, Double MS, Thin
Cost Effectiveness (Ram HMAOL, Mill & Thin
and Peshkin 2013)
HMAOL
Data Source Type
Basis for Evaluating
Treatment Performance
In-service pavement
sections (with pre- and
post-treatment
performance data)
 Pavement
In-service pavement
sections
 Treatment
service life
Performance
Measures Used
Performance Trends and/or
Models Developed
age plots; DI=f(age)
models; treatment benefit plots
(area above DI curve and
bounded by DI threshold of 40)
Key Performance
Outcomes
 DI
 DI vs.
 Pavement
life extensions
and corresponding
treatment B/C ratios
service life
effectiveness (i.e.,
performance jump/gain)
 Pavement performance
 Service
duration (time until
subsequent M&R)
 PCR
 PCR
 Treatment
survival plots (based
on % sections still in service)
 Treatment PCR gain plots
 PCR vs. age plots; PCR=f(age)
models; treatment benefit plots
(area under PCR curve and
bounded by PCR threshold of
60-65)
 Treatment
Ohio DOT Chip Seal
and Microsurfacing
Performance (Rajagopal
2010)
ChS, MS
Texas DOT
Microsurfacing in Texas
(Broughton and Lee
2012)
MS
Survey of Texas DOT
Districts
 Treatment
effectiveness
 Various
 None
 Subjective
MS
In-service pavement
sections (selected site
visits)
 Treatment
service life
 Various
 None
 Snapshot
Oklahoma Pavement
Preservation Study
(Gransberg et al. 2010;
Pittenger et al. 2011)
FS, ChS, OGFC, Mill
& Thin HMAOL,
UTBWC, PM, DG, SB
Test sites/sections
 Treatment
 SN,
 SN
 Treatment
California Treatment
Performance Capacity
(Sousa and Way 2011;
Sousa and Way 2009a;
Sousa and Way 2009b)
CrS, FS, ScS, SlS, MS,
ChS, CpS, Thin
HMAOL, OGFC
Survey of Caltrans
Pavement Preservation
Task Group (PPTG)
 Treatment
service life
 None;
 TPC
 Treatment
Nevada DOT Asphalt
Pavement Preservation
Performance (Hajj et al.
2010)
CF, FS, SS, ChS, ScS,
others
In-service pavement
sections
 Pavement
service life
 PSI
 PSI vs.
 Pavement
 Treatment
service life
(functional/safety)
(expert opinion using
variety of measures)
(surface distresses and
appearance)
MTD
TPC concept developed as
relationship between estimated
treatment life (expert opinion) and
key treatment performance
properties (TPC=treatment binder
content × treatment strain energy
× treatment thickness)
and MTD vs. age plots; SN
and MTD=f(age) models;
treatment service life estimates
(based on time until SN
threshold of 25 and MTD
threshold of 0.9 mm)
vs. estimated treatment life
plots; Life=f(TPC, traffic,
climate) models
age plots; treatment
benefit plots (area under PSI
curve and bounded by either
pre-treatment PSI or threshold
PSI=2.5)
 Treatment
service lives
effectiveness
trends
 Pavement
life extensions
and corresponding
treatment B/C ratios and
LCCs
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table D-6. Summary of recent state research studies investigating preservation treatment performance.
assessments
of relative level of
success with treatments
assessments of
treatment conditions
service lives
(functional/safety)
TPC
estimates and
corresponding cost
effectiveness values
(TPC/$)
life extensions
and corresponding
treatment B/C ratios
December 2014
D-13
Treatment Acronyms: CrS: Crack seal FS: Fog seal ScS: Scrub seal ChS: Chip seal CpS: Cape seal SlS: Slurry seal MS: Microsurfacing HMAOL: HMA overlay UTBWC: Ultrathin bonded
wearing course HIR: Hot in-place recycling CIR: Cold in-place recycling JRS: Joint resealing PDR: Partial-depth repair FDR: Full-depth repair DG: Diamond grinding DGv: Diamond grooving
US: Undersealing DBR: Dowel bar retrofit PM: Profile milling SB: Shotblasting MDF: Maintenance of drainage features OGFC: Open-graded friction course.
Performance Measure Acronyms: DI: Distress index RC: Reflective cracking RD: Rut depth IRI: International roughness index FN: Friction number RN: Road noise SN: Skid number
MTD: Mean texture depth PCR: Pavement condition rating TC: Transverse cracking FC: Fatigue cracking PSI: Present serviceability index BC: Block cracking
Other Acronyms: PMS: Pavement management system B/C: Benefit-Cost ratio FWD: Falling weight deflectometer LCC: Life-cycle cost EUAC: Equivalent uniform annual cost.
Treatment Types
Evaluated
Kansas DOT Cost
Effectiveness of Various
Preventive Maintenance
Treatments (Liu et al.
2010a; Liu et al. 2010b;
Liu et al. 2010c)
MS, UTBWC, Thin
HMAOL, ChS, SlS,
HIR, CIR
In-service pavement
sections
 Treatment
CrS, ChS, Thin
HMAOL (including
SMA), UTBWC, JRS,
DG, CS,
Test sites/sections
 Pavement
Indiana DOT Thin HMA
Overlay Service Life
(Irfan et al. 2009)
Thin HMAOL
In-service pavement
sections
Ohio DOT Thin HMA
Overlay Effectiveness
(Chou et al. 2008)
Thin HMAOL
Indiana DOT LongTerm Benefits of
Microsurfacing (Labi et
al. 2006)
MS
Utah DOT Life Cycle of
Seal Coats (Romero and
Anderson 2005)
ChS, OGFC
Pavement Preservation
Treatment Evaluation
(Shuler 2010)
Data Source Type
Basis for Evaluating
Treatment Performance
service life
effectiveness (i.e.,
performance jump/gain)
Performance
Measures Used
Performance Trends and/or
Models Developed
Key Performance
Outcomes
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc
 Service
duration (time until
subsequent M&R)
 IRI, RD, TC, and FC
 Treatment
failure probability
distribution plots
 Before-and-after measurements
of IRI, RD, TC, and FC
 Treatment
service life
 TC,
 TC,
 Pavement
 Pavement
service life
 IRI,
 IRI,
 Pavement
In-service pavement
sections
 Treatment
service life
service life
 Service
duration (time until
subsequent M&R)
 PCR, IRI
 Treatment
failure probability
distribution plots
 PCR and IRI vs. age plots;
treatment benefit plots (area
under PCR curve and bounded
by PCR threshold of 60-65)
 Treatment
In-service pavement
sections
 Pavement
 IRI,
 IRI,
 IRI,
PCR, and RD vs. age plots;
IRI, PCR, and RD=f(trucks,
climate) models; treatment
benefit plots (area under the
IRI, PCR, and RD curves)
 IRI, PCR, and RD vs. age plots
(for assessing performance
jump/gain in terms of increased
average pavement condition)
 Pavement
 Treatment
In-service pavement
sections
 Treatment
 SN
 SN
 Treatment
 Treatment
 Pavement
service life
effectiveness (i.e.,
performance jump/gain)
service life
(functional/safety)
LC (in some cases, RD, FC,
and RV)
PCR, RD
PCR, RD
PCR, RD
LC, RD, FC, and RV vs.
age plots.
PCR, and RD vs. age plots;
IRI, PCR, and RD=f(trucks,
climate) models; treatment
survival plots (based on %
sections reaching specified IRI,
PCR, and RD threshold levels)
vs. age plots; SN=f(age)
models; treatment survival plots
(based on % sections reaching
SN threshold of 40)
service lives
and corresponding
treatment EUACs
(treatment service life ÷
treatment cost)
 Treatment effectiveness
trends
life extensions
based on time until pretreatment distress levels
reached.
life extensions
service lives
life extensions
and corresponding
treatment B/C ratios
 Pavement
life extensions
and corresponding
treatment benefits
 Treatment effectiveness
service lives
(functional/safety)
Treatment Acronyms: CrS: Crack seal FS: Fog seal ScS: Scrub seal ChS: Chip seal CpS: Cape seal SlS: Slurry seal MS: Microsurfacing HMAOL: HMA overlay UTBWC: Ultrathin bonded
wearing course HIR: Hot in-place recycling CIR: Cold in-place recycling JRS: Joint resealing PDR: Partial-depth repair FDR: Full-depth repair DG: Diamond grinding DGv: Diamond grooving
US: Undersealing DBR: Dowel bar retrofit PM: Profile milling SB: Shotblasting MDF: Maintenance of drainage features OGFC: Open-graded friction course CS: Cross-stitching
Performance Measure Acronyms: DI: Distress index RC: Reflective cracking RD: Rut depth IRI: International roughness index FN: Friction number RN: Road noise SN: Skid number
MTD: Mean texture depth PCR: Pavement condition rating TC: Transverse cracking FC: Fatigue cracking PSI: Present serviceability index BC: Block cracking LC: Longitudinal cracking
RV: Raveling
Other Acronyms: PMS: Pavement management system B/C: Benefit-Cost ratio FWD: Falling weight deflectometer LCC: Life-cycle cost EUAC: Equivalent uniform annual cost
Final Report Appendices
Preservation
Treatment Study
December 2014
D-14
Table D-6. Summary of recent state research studies investigating preservation treatment performance (continued).
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Liu, L., M. Hossain, and R. Miller. 2010b. “Costs and Benefits of Thin Surface Treatments on
Bituminous Pavements in Kansas.” Compendium of Papers CD. 89th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Liu, L., M. Hossain, and R. Miller. 2010c. “Life of Chip Seal on Kansas Highways.”
Compendium of Papers, First International Conference on Pavement Preservation, Newport
Beach, CA.
Morian, D., G. Wang, D. Frith, and J. Reiter. 2011. “Analysis of Completed Monitoring Data
for the SPS-3 Experiment.” Compendium of Papers DVD. 90th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
National Center for Pavement Preservation (NCPP). NCPP website accessed 2013. Online at
https://www.pavementpreservation.org/mobile/about.html
Peshkin, D.G., T.E. Hoerner, and K.A. Zimmerman. 2004. Optimal Timing of Pavement
Preventive Maintenance Treatment Applications. NCHRP Report 523. National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Washington, DC. Online at
www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/155142.aspx.
Peshkin, D., K.L. Smith, A. Wolters, J. Krstulovich, J. Moulthrop, and C. Alvarado. 2011a.
Preservation Approaches for High-Traffic-Volume Roadways. SHRP 2 Report S2-R26-RR-1.
Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) 2, Washington, DC. Online at
www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/165280.aspx.
Peshkin, D., K.L. Smith, A. Wolters, J. Krstulovich, J. Moulthrop, and C. Alvarado. 2011b.
Guidelines for the Preservation of the High-Traffic-Volume Roadways. SHRP 2 Report S2-R26RR-2. Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) 2, Washington, DC. Online at
http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/164965.aspx.
Pittenger, D., D. Gransberg, M. Zaman, and C. Riemer. 2011. “Life Cycle Cost-Based
Pavement Preservation Treatment Design.” Compendium of Papers DVD. 90th Annual Meeting
of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Rajagopal, A. 2010. Effectiveness of Chip Sealing and Microsurfacing on Pavement
Serviceability and Life. Report No. FHWA-OH-2010/8. Ohio Department of Transportation,
Columbus, OH.
Ram, P. and D. Peshkin. 2013. Cost Effectiveness of the MDOT Preventive Maintenance
Program. Report No. RC-1579. Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI. Online
at http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/168999.aspx.
Romero, P. and D.I. Anderson. 2005. Life Cycle of Pavement Preservation Seal Coats. Report
No. UT-04.07. Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City, UT.
Shuler, S. 2010. Evaluation of the Performance, Cost-Effectiveness, and Timing of Various
Pavement Preservation Treatments. Report No. CDOT-2010-3. Colorado Department of
Transportation, Denver, CO. Online at
http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/research/pdfs/2010/preventivemaintenance.pdf/view.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
D-15
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Sousa, J.B. and G. Way. 2009a. “Considerations for Estimating Pavement Treatment Lives and
Pavement Life Extensions on Flexible Pavements, Volume 1.” California State University at
Chico. Online at www.csuchico.edu/cp2c/library/life_extension_information.shtml.
Sousa, J.B. and G. Way. 2009b. “Models for Estimating Treatment Lives, Pavement Life
Extension, and Cost Effectiveness of Treatments on Flexible Pavements, Volume 2." California
State University at Chico. Online at
www.csuchico.edu/cp2c/library/life_extension_information.shtml.
Sousa, J.B. and G. Way. 2011. “Treatment Performance Capacity–Concept Validation.”
Proceedings, 30th Southern African Transport Conference, Pretoria, South Africa.
Wu, Z., J.L. Groeger, A.L. Simpson, R.G. Hicks. 2010. “Performance Evaluation of Various
Rehabilitation and Preservation Treatments.” Report No. FHWA-HIF-10-020. Federal Highway
Administration, Washington DC. Online at
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/preservation/pubs/perfeval/chap00.cfm
D-16
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
APPENDIX E. MEPDG SYNTHESIS
Introduction
The design analysis process used in the MEPDG is illustrated in Figure E-1 (AASHTO 2008).
In general, the evaluation stage (Stage 1) includes the collection, evaluation, or estimation of
data inputs (e.g., foundation support, material characterization, traffic, and climate); the analysis
stage (Stage 2) includes the evaluation of selected pavement design strategies using pavement
response models (based on calculated stresses, strains, and deflections) and distress transfer
functions for estimating pavement distresses; and finally, the strategy selection stage (Stage 3),
which occurs outside of the MEPDG, considers analysis unrelated to thickness design and
includes construction, policy issues, and life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA).
STAGE 1 - EVALUATION
New Pavement Design
and Analyses
Inputs for Design
Climate/Environment Analysis
Temperature and Moisture
Site Investigations
Borings and Field
Testing; Soils Testing in
Laboratory; Drainage;
Volume Change; Frost
Heave
New Materials Analysis
Hot Mix Asphalt
Portland Cement Concrete
Cementitous Materials
Unbound Granular Materials
Soils/Embankment Materials
Paving Materials
Rehabilitation Design and
Analyses
Pavement Evaluation
Distress Surveys;
Nondestructive Testing;
Ride Quality Testing;
Borings & Cores; Materials
Testing
Rehabilitation/Repair
Materials
Traffic Analysis
Truck Classification and Volume;
Axle Load Distribution;
Forecasting
Design Criteria
Design Criteria
STAGE 2 - ANALYSIS
Select Trial Pavement Design
Strategies
Modify Design
Features or
Materials
Reliability
Analysis
Pavement Response Model
Calculate Stresses, Strains, Deflections
NO
Has Design
Criteria
Been Meet?
YES
Calculate Incremental Damage
Distress Transfer Functions and
Pavement Distress Models
Roughness;
IRI
Distortion;
Rutting
Faulting
Load
Related
Cracking
Non-Load
Related
Cracking
STAGE 3 – STRATEGY SELECTION
Engineering and
Constructability Analysis
Viable Design Alternative
Select
Strategy
Life Cycle Cost
Analysis
Policy Issues and
Decisions
Figure E-1. MEPDG conceptual flow chart (AASHTO 2008).
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
E-1
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
In the three-stage MEPDG design analysis process, a design that incorporates preservation will
do so as part of the Analysis stage (Stage 2). On the other hand, a design that does not
incorporate preservation will usually address preservation as part of the Strategy Selection stage
(Stage 3). In this latter scenario, LCCA techniques provide the opportunity to consider the cost
and performance impacts of pavement preservation treatments.
As outlined in the MEPDG Manual of Practice, the design analysis process is iterative and
includes the following steps (AASHTO 2008):
1. Select a trial design strategy (i.e., trial design cross-section).
2. Select the appropriate performance indicator criteria (i.e., threshold values of
distress/smoothness that would trigger major rehabilitation or reconstruction) and design
reliability level for the project.
3. Obtain all inputs for the pavement trial design under consideration. The inputs are
grouped under six broad topics—general project information, design performance
criteria, traffic, climate, structural layering, and material properties (including design
features).
4. Run the MEPDG software and examine the inputs and outputs for engineering
reasonableness. Assess whether the trial design has met each of the performance
indicator criteria at the reliability level chosen for the project and, if not, determine how
the deficiency (or deficiencies) can be remedied by altering the materials used, the
layering of materials, layer thickness, or other design features.
5. Revise the trial design, as needed, until the performance indicator criteria have been met.
Several versions of research-grade software have been developed and released over the years that
incorporate the MEPDG design analysis process. These include the initial prototype version,
MEPDG v. 0.7 in June 2004, the AASHTO interim standard version, MEPDG v. 1.0 in October
2007, and the final prototype version, MEPDG v. 1.10 in August 2009. A commercial grade
software program, entitled DARWin-ME, was developed and released by AASHTO at the end of
April 2011 (Bayomy et al. 2012). That program was subsequently upgraded and is currently
available as AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design.
Design Inputs
The MEPDG design analysis process contains more than 100 total design inputs, with 35 or more
pertaining to flexible pavement and 25 or more pertaining to rigid pavement. As noted
previously, the inputs are grouped under the following six broad topics (AASHTO 2008):
•
•
•
•
E-2
General Project Information—Pavement design life, construction and traffic opening
dates.
Design Performance Criteria—Threshold values of individual distresses (e.g., cracking,
rutting, faulting) and smoothness, design reliability level (i.e., probability that predicted
distress/smoothness will not exceed the threshold value over the specified design period.
Traffic—Truck traffic characteristics projected over the specified design period (e.g.,
initial 2-way average annual daily truck traffic [AADTT], percentage of trucks in design
direction and lane, AADTT growth rate, composition of trucks by class, axle load
configurations and distributions).
Climate—Hourly precipitation, temperature, wind speed, relative humidity, and cloud
cover data available from over 850 weather stations in the United States (U.S.).
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
•
•
December 2014
Structural Layering—Types, thicknesses, and arrangement of paving materials included
in the design cross-section, as well as the foundation and subgrade soils on which the
pavement will be placed.
Material Properties (including design features)—Physical, engineering, and mechanistic
properties of the proposed material layers (new and existing/in-place), including mix
volumetrics, unit weight/density, thermal and hydraulic characteristics, tensile or flexural
strength, elastic or resilient modulus, and creep and shrinkage characteristics.
The MEPDG uses a three-level hierarchical input scheme for assigning values to the many
material (new and existing/in-place) and traffic design inputs. The levels reflect the degree of
knowledge about a given input parameter for the project under design (AASHTO 2010). Input
Level 1, which represents the highest level of knowledge, is considered to be project- or sitespecific and is characterized as a direct measurement (detailed lab/field testing or data collection)
of a particular input parameter. Input Level 2 is considered to be a more regional measure and
involves estimation of an input parameter from correlations or regression equations. Input Level
3, which represents the least knowledge, is considered to be a global or regional default measure
and is based on “best-estimated” or default values.
Performance Prediction Models
In order to relate pavement distress (e.g., cracking, rutting, faulting) and smoothness to material
properties (e.g., modulus, aggregate gradation, layer thickness), the MEPDG incorporates
nationally calibrated performance prediction models. These models were calibrated using data
contained within the LTPP database and supplemented by data obtained from the Minnesota
Road Research Project (MnROAD) and other state and Federal agency research projects
(AASHTO 2008).
The MEPDG includes performance prediction models for the following pavement structures:
•
•
New flexible pavements
 Conventional—HMA, thicknesses of 6 in. or less, over unbound aggregate base.
 Semi-rigid—HMA over cementitious stabilized (lime, lime-fly ash, and Portland
cement stabilizers) base. Analysis of this pavement type is included in the MEPDG;
however, the fatigue cracking model has not been calibrated (global calibration
coefficients are set to 1.0).
 Deep strength—relatively thick HMA surface over dense-graded HMA or asphalt
stabilized base over unbound base.
 Full-depth—HMA over subgrade.
HMA overlays
 Conventional—overlay of existing HMA over unbound aggregate base.
 Semi-rigid—overlay of existing HMA over cementitious stabilized base.
 Cold in-place recycling—considered as reconstruction within the MEPDG.
 Hot in-place recycling—considered as a mill-and-fill and HMA overlay in the
MEPDG.
 Break-and-seat JRC pavement.
 Crack-and-seat JPC pavement.
 Rubblized PCC, JPC, JRC, or CRC pavement.
 Intact PCC, JPC, JRC, or CRC pavement.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
E-3
December 2014
•
Final Report Appendices
New and rehabilitated rigid pavements
 JPC pavement.
 CRC pavement.
 JPC overlays—placed over existing rigid, composite (HMA over PCC, lean concrete,
or cement stabilized base), and flexible pavements.
 CRC overlays—placed over existing rigid, composite (HMA over PCC, lean
concrete, or cement stabilized base), and flexible pavements.
 Restoration of JPC—diamond grinding, dowel bar retrofit, joint reseal, edge drains,
slab replacement, full-depth repair, spall repair, and shoulder replacement. These
restoration techniques are not analyzed within the MEPDG but are incorporated by
improving the condition of the existing pavement prior to other restoration/
rehabilitation treatments.
Flexible Pavements and HMA Overlays
For flexible pavements, the primary methodology for modeling the pavement structure is through
multi-layer elastic analysis. Flexible pavement responses are determined using either the multilayer elastic analysis program JULEA (Jacob Uzan Layered Elastic Analysis) or the modified
and enhanced version of DSC2D, which is a 2-D finite element code, when Level 1 inputs are
used to characterize the non-linear response of unbound layer materials (i.e., base, subbase,
and/or subgrade layers).
The performance prediction models are used to compute stress and/or strain at specific critical
locations (e.g., top of HMA, bottom of base layer, top of subgrade) for each distress type over
incremental periods of time. The computed stress and/or strains are then converted to an
incremental distress (e.g., rut depth) or a damage index (e.g., fatigue cracking) using the
applicable performance prediction model and summed over the entire performance period. In
addition, the Enhanced Integrated Climatic Model (EICM) is used to adjust pavement layer
moduli according to temperature and moisture conditions within all layers (surfacing,
base/subbase, and subgrade) of the pavement structure.
In relation to flexible pavements, the MEPDG includes pavement distress prediction models for
permanent deformation (i.e., rutting) (HMA and unbound layers), load-related cracking (bottomup alligator cracking, top-down longitudinal cracking, and fatigue cracking of chemically
stabilized layers – semi-rigid pavements only), non-load related cracking (transverse or thermal
cracking), and reflective cracking in HMA overlays. The MEPDG also includes a smoothness
prediction model, which is based on the initial as-constructed IRI and certain predicted
distresses. This model is the only functional model included in the MEPDG; friction is not
considered. The above performance models are further described below.
Rut Depth—HMA Layer (New/Reconstructed Flexible Pavement and HMA Overlays)
Rutting within the HMA layer is determined by calculating vertical compressive strain.
Calculations are determined on a monthly basis to capture changes in climatic conditions (e.g.,
temperature, asphalt aging). The MEPDG field calibrated model for permanent deformation is
shown in Equation E-1 (AASHTO 2008).
E-4
∆𝑃𝑃(𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻) = 𝜀𝜀𝑃𝑃(𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻) ℎ𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = 𝛽𝛽1𝑟𝑟 𝑘𝑘𝑧𝑧 𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟(𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻) 10𝑘𝑘𝑟𝑟1 𝑛𝑛𝑘𝑘𝑟𝑟2 𝛽𝛽2𝑟𝑟 𝑇𝑇𝑘𝑘r3 𝛽𝛽3r
Eq. E-1
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
where:
ΔP(HMA) = Accumulated permanent or plastic vertical deformation in the HMA
layer/sublayer, in.
εP(HMA) = Accumulated permanent or plastic axial strain in the HMA layer/sublayer,
in./in.
hHMA = Thickness of the HMA layer/sublayer, in.
βr1, r2, r3 = Local or mixture specific field calibration constants; βr1 for layer thickness
and layer resilient strain, βr2 for temperature, and βr3 for number of load
repetitions. For global calibration, all constants were set to 1.0.
kz = Depth confinement factor.
= (C1 + C2 D) × 0.328196D
C1 = -0.1039(HHMA )2 + 2.4868HHMA - 17.342
C2 = 0.0172(HHMA )2 - 1.7331HHMA + 27.428
D = Depth below the surface, in.
εr(HMA) = Resilient or elastic strain calculated by the structural response model at the
mid-depth of each HMA sublayer, in./in.
kr1, r2, r3 = Global field calibration parameters; kr1 = -3.35412; kr2 = 1.5606; kr3 = 0.4791.
n = Number of axle-load repetitions.
T = Mix or pavement layer temperature, °F.
Rut Depth—Unbound Layers (New/Reconstructed Flexible Pavement and HMA
Overlays)
Vertical compressive strain is computed to determine the deformation in the unbound layers
(base/subbase, and subgrade) and is shown in Equation E-2 (AASHTO 2008).
𝜀𝜀0
∆𝑃𝑃(𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠) = 𝛽𝛽𝑠𝑠1 𝑘𝑘𝑠𝑠1 𝜀𝜀𝑣𝑣 ℎ𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 �𝜀𝜀 � 𝑒𝑒
𝑟𝑟
where:
𝜌𝜌 𝛽𝛽
𝑛𝑛
−� �
Eq. E-2
Δp(soil) = Permanent deformation for the layer/sublayer, in.
βs1 = Local calibration constant; 1.0.
ks1 = Global calibration coefficients; ks1 = 2.03 for granular materials and 1.35 for
fine-grained materials.
εv = Average vertical resilient strain in the layer/sublayer calculated by the
structural response model, in./in.
hsoil = Thickness of the unbound layer/sublayer, in.
εo = Intercept determined from laboratory repeated load permanent deformation
tests, in./in.
εr = Resilient strain imposed in laboratory test to obtain the material properties,
in./in.
9
𝐶𝐶0
1
𝛽𝛽
ρ = 10 �(1−(109 )𝛽𝛽)�
𝑏𝑏
𝑎𝑎1 𝑀𝑀𝑟𝑟 1
C0 = 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 �
𝑏𝑏
𝑎𝑎9 𝑀𝑀𝑟𝑟 9
�
Mr = Resilient modulus of the unbound layer or sublayer, pi.
a1,9 = Regression constants; a1 = 0.15 and a9 = 20.0.
b1,9 = Regression constants; b1 = 0.0 and b9 = 0.0.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
E-5
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
n = Number of axle-load repetitions.
Logβ = Local calibration constant.
= –0.61119 – 0.017638(Wc)
Wc = Water content, percent.
Load Related Cracking—Alligator and Longitudinal Cracking (New/Reconstructed
Flexible Pavement and HMA Overlays)
The MEPDG calculates two types of load-related or fatigue cracking—bottom-up alligator
cracking and top-down longitudinal cracking. For alligator cracking, the MEPDG assumes that
the cracking initiates at the bottom of the HMA layer and propagates upward with continued
loading (truck traffic and climate), whereas longitudinal cracking is assumed to initiate at the
HMA surface and propagate downward. The allowable number of axle loads to failure is
determined using Equation E-3 (AASHTO 2008).
𝑁𝑁𝑓𝑓−𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = 𝑘𝑘𝑓𝑓1 (𝐶𝐶)(𝐶𝐶𝐻𝐻 )𝛽𝛽𝑓𝑓1 (𝜀𝜀𝑡𝑡 )𝑘𝑘𝑓𝑓2 𝛽𝛽𝑓𝑓2 (𝐸𝐸𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 )𝑘𝑘𝑓𝑓3 𝛽𝛽𝑓𝑓3
where:
Eq. E-3
Nf-HMA = Allowable number of axle-load applications.
kf1, f2, f3 = Global field calibration parameters; kf1 = 0.007566, kf2 = 3.9492, and kf3 = 1.281.
C = 10M
𝑉𝑉𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏
M = 4.84 �𝑉𝑉 +𝑉𝑉
− 0.69�
𝑎𝑎
𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏
Vbe = Effective asphalt content by volume, percent.
Va = Air voids in HMA mixture, percent.
CH = Thickness correction term (dependent on type of cracking).
1
=
(alligator cracking)
0.003602
=
0.000398+
0.01+
1+𝑒𝑒(11.02−3.49𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 )
1
12.00
1+𝑒𝑒(15.676−2.8186𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 )
(longitudinal cracking)
HHMA = Total HMA thickness, in.
βf1, f 2, f3 = Local or mixture-specific field calibration constants; βf1 for effective binder
content, air voids, and HMA thickness, βf2 for tensile strain, and βf3 for
material stiffness.
εt = Tensile strain at the critical locations and calculated by the structural response
model, in./in.
EHMA = Dynamic modulus of the HMA, psi.
The MEPDG uses an incremental damage approach for determining the amount of load-related
cracking. With this approach the incremental damage is determined by dividing the actual
number of load repetitions by the allowable number of load repetitions. This is also referred to
as Miner’s hypothesis and is shown in Equation E-4 (AASHTO 2008).
where:
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 = ∑(∆𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷)𝑗𝑗,𝑚𝑚,𝑙𝑙,𝑝𝑝,𝑇𝑇 = ∑ �𝑁𝑁
𝑛𝑛
𝑓𝑓−𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻
�
Eq. E-4
𝑗𝑗,𝑚𝑚,𝑙𝑙,𝑝𝑝,𝑇𝑇
DI = Cumulative damage index
ΔDI = Incremental damage index
j = Axle-load interval.
E-6
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
m
l
p
T
December 2014
=
=
=
=
Axle-load type (single, tandem, tridem, quad, or special axle configuration).
Truck type using the truck classification groups included in the MEPDG.
Month.
Median temperature for the five temperature intervals or quintiles used to
subdivide each month, °F.
n = Actual number of axle-load applications within a specific time period.
Nf-HMA = Allowable number of axle load applications for flexible pavement and HMA
overlays.
The area of alligator cracking and the length of longitudinal cracking are predicted using
Equations E-5 and E-6, respectively (AASHTO 2008).
1
where:
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 = �60� �
1+𝑒𝑒
𝐶𝐶4
�𝐶𝐶1 𝐶𝐶∗1 +𝐶𝐶2 𝐶𝐶∗2 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙�𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 ×100��
�
Eq. E-5
FCBottom = Area of alligator cracking that initiates at the bottom of the HMA layers,
percent of total lane area.
C1, 2, 3 = Transfer function regression constants; C1 (for HMA thickness) = 1.00, C2
(for fatigue damage and HMA thickness) = 1.00, and C3 = 6,000.
C*1 = –2C*2
C*2 = –2.40874 – 39.748(1 + HHMA)-2.856
HHMA = Total HMA thickness, in.
DIBottom = Cumulative damage index at the bottom of the HMA layers.
where:
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = (10.56) �
1+𝑒𝑒
𝐶𝐶4
�𝐶𝐶1 −𝐶𝐶2 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙�𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 ��
�
Eq. E-6
FCTop = Length of longitudinal cracks that initiate at the top of the HMA layer, ft/mi.
DITop = Cumulative damage index near the top of the HMA surface.
C1, 2, 4 = Transfer function regression constants; C1 (for fatigue damage and traffic) =
7.00, C2 (for fatigue damage and traffic) = 3.5, and C4 = 1,000.
Load Related Cracking—Cement-Treated Base Layers (New/Reconstructed Flexible
Pavement and HMA Overlays)
As with load-related cracking in the HMA layer, load-related cracking in cement-treated base
(CTB) layers is characterized by the allowable number of load applications to failure as shown in
Equation E-7 and the area of fatigue cracking in the CTB layer is shown in Equation E-8
(AASHTO 2008).
𝑁𝑁𝑓𝑓−𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = 10
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
𝜎𝜎
𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐1 𝛽𝛽𝑐𝑐1 � 𝑡𝑡 �
𝑀𝑀𝑅𝑅
�
�
𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐2 𝛽𝛽𝑐𝑐2
Eq. E-7
E-7
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
where:
Nf –CTB = Allowable number of axle load applications for semi-rigid pavements.
kc1, c2 = Global calibration factors; calibration has not been conducted; these values are
set to 1.0.
βc1, c2 = Local calibration constants; 1.0.
σt = Tensile stress at the bottom of the CTB layer, psi.
MR = 28 day Modulus of Rupture for the CTB layer (value used in calculations is
650 psi, regardless of entered value), psi.
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = 𝐶𝐶1 �
1+𝑒𝑒
where:
𝐶𝐶2
�𝐶𝐶3 −𝐶𝐶4 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙�𝐷𝐷𝐼𝐼𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 ��
�
Eq. E-8
FCCTB = Area of fatigue cracking, ft2.
C1, 2, 3, 4 = Transfer function regression constants; C1 = 1.00, C2 = 1.00, C3 = 1.00, and C4
= 1,000.
DICTB = Cumulative damage index (see Equation E-4).
The elastic modulus of the CTB layer is determined using Equation E-9 (AASHTO 2008).
𝐷𝐷(𝑡𝑡)
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
𝐸𝐸𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = 𝐸𝐸𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
+�
where:
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
𝐸𝐸𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
−𝐸𝐸𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
1+𝑒𝑒 (−4+14�𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 �)
�
Eq. E-9
𝐷𝐷(𝑡𝑡)
𝐸𝐸𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = Equivalent damaged elastic modulus at time t for the CTB layer, psi.
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
= Equivalent elastic modulus for total destruction of the CTB layer, psi.
𝐸𝐸𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
𝐸𝐸𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
= 28-day elastic modulus of the intact CTB layer (no damage), psi.
DICTB = Cumulative damage index.
Non-Load Related Cracking—Transverse Thermal Cracking (New/Reconstructed
Flexible Pavement and HMA Overlays)
Thermal cracking is based on the Paris law of crack propagation as shown in Equation E-10
(AASHTO 2008).
where:
∆𝐶𝐶 = 𝐴𝐴(∆𝐾𝐾)𝑛𝑛
Eq. E-10
ΔC = Change in crack depth due to cooling.
A, n = Fracture parameters for the HMA mixture.
�4.389−2.52𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙�𝐸𝐸𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚 𝑛𝑛��
A = 10𝑘𝑘𝑡𝑡𝛽𝛽𝑡𝑡
kt = Coefficients determined through global calibration; 1.5 (level 1), 0.5 (level 2),
or 1.5 (level 3).
βt = Local or mixture calibration factor.
EHMA = HMA indirect tensile modulus, psi.
σm = Standard deviation of the log of the depth of cracks in the pavement; 0.769 in.
E-8
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
1
n = 0.8 �1 + 𝑚𝑚�
m = The m-value derived from the indirect tensile creep compliance curve
measured in the laboratory.
∆K = Change in the stress intensity factor due to a cooling cycle.
= 𝜎𝜎𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 [0.45 + 1.99(𝐶𝐶0 )0.56 ]
σtip = Far-field stress from pavement response model at depth of crack tip, psi.
Co = Current crack length, ft.
The extent of thermal cracking is determined using an assumed relationship between the ratio of
the crack depth to HMA layer thickness and the percent of cracking, as shown in Equation E-11
(AASHTO 2008).
1
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = 𝛽𝛽𝑡𝑡1 𝑁𝑁 �𝜎𝜎 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 �𝐻𝐻
where:
TC =
βt1 =
N =
σd =
Cd =
HHMA =
𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻
𝑑𝑑
��
Eq. E-11
Observed amount of thermal cracking, ft/mi.
Regression coefficient; 400.
Standard normal distribution evaluated at (z).
Standard deviation of the log of the depth of cracks in the pavement; 0.769 in.
Crack depth, in.
Thickness of HMA layers, in.
Reflective Cracking (HMA Overlays on Existing Flexible Pavements or Existing Intact
Rigid Pavements)
An empirical equation (shown in Equation E-12) is used to estimate the amount of reflection
cracking in HMA overlays and HMA surfaces of semi-rigid pavements (AASHTO 2008). This
equation has not been globally calibrated (AASHTO 2008).
100
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 1+𝑒𝑒 𝑎𝑎(𝑐𝑐)+𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏(𝑑𝑑)
where:
RC
a, b
a
b
Heff
HHMA
Eq. E-12
=
=
=
=
=
=
Percent of cracks reflected.
Regression fitting parameters defined through calibration process.
3.5 + 0.75 Heff
–0.688684 – 3.37302(Heff)-0.915469
Effective thickness of overlay, in.
Minimum recommended thickness is 2 in. for existing flexible pavements, 3
in. for existing rigid pavements with good load transfer, and 4 in. for existing
rigid pavements with poor load transfer.
c, d = User-defined cracking progression parameters.
t = Time, years.
Fatigue damage related to reflective cracking is based on the accumulated damage index as
shown in Equation E-13, the area of fatigue damage for the underlying layer is determined using
Equation E-14, and the amount of cracking reflected to the pavement surface is determined using
Equation E-15 (AASHTO 2008).
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
E-9
December 2014
where:
Final Report Appendices
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑚𝑚 = ∑𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1 ∆𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷
Eq. E-13
DIm = Damage index for month m.
ΔDIi = Increment of damage index in month i.
100
where:
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑚𝑚 = 1+𝑒𝑒 6−(6𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑚𝑚)
Eq. E-14
CAm = Fatigue damage of underlying bound layers.
DIm = Damage index for month m.
where:
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑚𝑚 = ∑𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑡𝑡 (∆𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖 )
Eq. E-15
TRAm = Total reflected cracking area for month m.
RCt = Percent cracking reflected for age t, years (see equation above).
∆CAi = Increment of fatigue cracking for month i.
Smoothness/IRI (New/Reconstructed Flexible Pavement and HMA Overlays)
The MEPDG uses the assumption that the presence of pavement surface distress will result in
decreased smoothness (this applies to all pavement types). Therefore, IRI is estimated as a
function of other distress as shown in Equation E-16 for HMA-surfaced roadways and Equation
E-17 for HMA overlays of rigid pavements (AASHTO 2008).
New flexible pavements and HMA overlays of flexible pavements:
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼0 + 0.0150(𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆) + 0.400(𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 ) + 0.0080(𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇) + 40.0(𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅) Eq. E-16
HMA overlays of rigid pavements:
where:
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼0 + 0.00825(𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆) + 0.575(𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 ) + 0.0014(𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇) + 40.8(𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅) Eq. E-17
IRIo = Initial IRI after construction, in/mi.
SF = Site factor.
= AGE [0.02003 (PI + 1) + 0.007947 (Precip + 1) + (0.000636 (FI + 1)]
AGE = Pavement age, years.
PI = Percent plasticity index of the soil.
Precip = Average annual precipitation or rainfall, in.
FI = Average annual freezing index, °F days.
FCTotal = Area of fatigue cracking (combined alligator, longitudinal, and reflection
cracking in the wheel path), percent of total lane area. All load-related cracks
are combined on an area basis – length of cracks is multiplied by 1 foot to
convert length into an area.
TC = Length of transverse cracking (including the reflection of transverse cracks in
existing flexible pavements), ft/mi.
RD = Average rut depth, in.
E-10
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Rigid Pavements
For JPC pavements, the MEPDG includes distress prediction models for transverse slab cracking
and mean transverse joint faulting. For CRC pavements, the MEPDG includes a distress
prediction model for punchouts. As with flexible pavements, roughness is predicted based on
initial as-constructed roughness and predicted distress. Again, it is the only functional model
included in the MEPDG; friction is not considered. Each of the above models is further
discussed below.
Transverse Slab Cracking (New/Reconstructed JPC)
The percent of slabs with transverse cracking (both bottom-up and top-down) is determined
using Equation E-18 (AASHTO 2008).
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 =
where:
1
Eq. E-18
1+(𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐹𝐹 )−1.98
CRK = Predicted amount of bottom-up or top-down cracking, fraction.
DIF = Total fatigue damage.
𝑛𝑛
= ∑ 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗,𝑘𝑘,𝑙𝑙,𝑚𝑚,𝑛𝑛,𝑜𝑜
𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗,𝑘𝑘,𝑙𝑙,𝑚𝑚 𝑛𝑛,𝑜𝑜
ni – o = Applied number of load applications at condition i, j, k, l, m, n.
Ni – o = Allowable number of load applications at condition i, j, k, l, m, n.
i = Age (accounts for change in PCC modulus of rupture and elasticity, slab/base
contact friction, deterioration of shoulder LTE).
j = Month (accounts for change in base elastic modulus and effective dynamic
modulus of subgrade reaction).
k = Axle type (single, tandem, and tridem for bottom-up cracking; short, medium,
and long wheelbase for top-down cracking).
l = Load level (for each axle type).
m = Equivalent temperature difference between top and bottom PCC surfaces.
n = Traffic offset path.
o = Hourly truck traffic fraction.
The allowable number of load applications is determined using Equation E-19 (AASHTO 2008).
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙�𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗,𝑘𝑘,𝑙𝑙,𝑚𝑚,𝑛𝑛,𝑜𝑜 � = 𝐶𝐶1 �𝜎𝜎
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖
𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗,𝑘𝑘,𝑙𝑙,𝑚𝑚,𝑛𝑛,𝑜𝑜
where:
Ni – o
MRi
σi, n
C1
C2
=
=
=
=
=
𝐶𝐶2
�
Eq. E-19
Allowable number of load applications at condition i, j, k, l, m, n.
PCC modulus of rupture at age i, psi.
Applied stress at condition i, j, k, l, m, n.
Calibration constant (PCC modulus and stress), 2.0.
Calibration constant (PCC modulus of rupture and stress), 1.22.
The total amount of fatigue cracking within the concrete layer is determined by summing
damage for both bottom-up and top-down cracking as shown in Equation E-20 (AASHTO 2008).
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
E-11
December 2014
where:
Final Report Appendices
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = �𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵−𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 + 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇−𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵−𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇−𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 � × 100 Eq. E-20
TCRACK = Total transverse cracking (percent, all severities).
CRKBottop-up = Predicted amount of bottom-up transverse cracking (fraction).
CRKTop-down = Predicted amount of top-down transverse cracking (fraction).
Mean Transverse Joint Faulting (New/Reconstructed JPC)
Mean monthly transverse joint faulting is calculated using an incremental approach as shown in
Equation E-21 (AASHTO 2008).
where:
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑚𝑚 = ∑𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1 ∆𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑖𝑖
Eq. E-21
Faultm = Mean joint faulting at the end of month m, in.
ΔFaulti = Incremental change (monthly) in mean transverse joint faulting during month
i, in.
= 𝐶𝐶34 × (𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑖𝑖−1 − 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑖𝑖−1 )2 × 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖
FAULTMAXi = Maximum mean transverse joint faulting for month i, in.
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝐶𝐶6
= 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹0 + 𝐶𝐶7 × ∑𝑚𝑚
)
𝑗𝑗=1 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑗𝑗 × 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(1 + 𝐶𝐶5 × 5.0
FAULTMAX0 = Initial maximum mean transverse joint faulting, i.
= 𝐶𝐶12 × 𝛿𝛿𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 × �𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(1 + 𝐶𝐶5 × 5.0𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 ) × 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝑃𝑃200 ×𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊
𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠
)�
𝐶𝐶6
DEi = Differential density of energy of subgrade deformation accumulated during
month i.
EROD = Base/subbase erodibility factor.
WetDays = Average annual number of wet days (greater than 0.1 in. rainfall).
δcurling = maximum mean monthly slab corner upward deflection PCC due to
temperature curling and moisture warping.
P200 = Percent subgrade material passing #200 sieve.
PS = Overburden on subgrade, lb.
C1-8 = Global calibration constants; C1 = 1.0184; C2 = 0.91656; C3 = 0.0021848; C4
= 0.000883739; C5 = 250; C6 = 0.4; C7 = 1.83312; and C8 = 400.
C12 = 𝐶𝐶1 + 𝐶𝐶2 × 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 0.25
C34 = 𝐶𝐶3 + 𝐶𝐶4 × 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 0.25
FR = Base freezing index defined as percentage of time the top base temperature is
below freezing (32 °F) temperature.
Punchouts (New/Reconstructed CRC)
Equation E-22 is used to determine the total number of medium and high-severity punchouts in a
CRC pavement. This equation is based on “accumulated fatigue damage due to top-down
stresses in the transverse direction (AASHTO 2008).”
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 =
E-12
𝐴𝐴𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝛽𝛽
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 �
1+𝛼𝛼𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 �𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
Eq. E-22
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
where:
PO
APO
αPO
DIPO
βPO
=
=
=
=
=
Total predicted number of medium and high-severity punchouts/mi.
Calibration constant; 216.8421.
Calibration constant; 33.15789.
Accumulated fatigue damage at the end of yth year.
Calibration constant; -0.58947.
Smoothness/IRI (New/Reconstructed JPC)
As noted previously, the MEPDG predicts smoothness as a function of other pavement distress
conditions. Equation E-23 is used to determine IRI for JPC pavement (AASHTO 2008).
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 + 𝐶𝐶1 (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶) + 𝐶𝐶2 (𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆) + 𝐶𝐶3 (𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇) + 𝐶𝐶4 (𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆)
where:
IRI
IRII
CRK
SPALL
=
=
=
=
Eq. E-23
Predicted IRI, in./mi.
Initial smoothness measured as IRI, in./mi.
Percent slabs with transverse cracks (all severities).
Percentage of joints with spalling (medium and high severity).
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
100
= �𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴+0.01� �1+1.005(−12×𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴×𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆) �
AGE = Pavement age since construction, years.
SCF = Scaling factor based on site, design, and climate.
= –1400 + 350(ACPCC)(0.5 + PREFORM) + 3.4f'c (0.4 – 0.2)(FTcycles)(AGE) +
43HPCC – 536WCPCC
ACPCC = PCC air content, percent.
PREFORM = 1 if preformed sealant is present; 0 if not.
f'c = PCC compressive strength, psi.
FTcycles = Average annual number of freeze-thaw cycles.
HPCC = PCC slab thickness, in.
WCPCC = PCC water/cement ratio.
TFAULT = Total joint faulting accumulated per mile, in.
SF = AGE (1+0.5556 x FI) (1 + P200) x 10-6
FI = Freezing index, °F-days.
P200 = Percent subgrade material passing No. 200 sieve.
C1, 2, 3, 4 = Calibration constants; C1 (transverse cracking) = 0.8203, C2 (spalling) =
0.4417, C3 (faulting) = 1.4929, and C4 (site factor) = 25.24.
Smoothness/IRI (New/Reconstructed CRC)
Equation E-24 illustrates the calculation for IRI on CRC pavement (AASHTO 2008).
where:
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 + 𝐶𝐶1 × 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 + 𝐶𝐶2 × 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
Eq. E-24
IRII = Initial IRI, in./mi.
C1, 2 = Calibration constants; C1 = 3.15 and C2 = 28.35.
PO = Number of medium, and high-severity punchouts/mi.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
E-13
December 2014
SF =
=
AGE =
FI =
P200 =
Final Report Appendices
Site factor.
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × (1 + 0.556𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹)(1 + 𝑃𝑃200 ) × 10−6
Pavement age, years.
Freezing index, °F days.
Percent subgrade material passing the No. 200 sieve.
Design Analysis and Outputs
This section describes the MEPDG design analysis process, as undertaken using the
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software. After entering general information about the
project being designed (location, pavement type or rehabilitation type, design life, pavement
construction date, traffic opening date, etc.), the designer sets the performance criteria for the
design in terms of the distress and smoothness levels that represent the maximum acceptable
levels before a rehabilitation should occur. A design reliability (typically 85 to 95 percent for
high-type roadways) is also set for each distress and smoothness performance criterion.
Next, current truck traffic volumes and vehicle class distributions are established and entered
into the design analysis program, along with directional and lane distribution factors, monthly
truck traffic adjustment factors, truck traffic growth factors, truck axle load distribution data,
truck wheel loading geometrics, and truck speed. This information defines the expected hourby-hour loading characteristics for the complete pavement structure over the established design
life.
Climatic information for the project is the next set of inputs for MEPDG design analysis.
Nearby weather stations are used to develop and input important weather-related data, such as
hourly air temperature, precipitation, wind speed, relative humidity, and percent cloud cover.
Ground water table depth and drainage and surface property information (surface shortwave
absorptivity, infiltration potential of the pavement, drainage path length, and pavement cross
slope) is also established and used by the program’s EICM. Together with pavement structure
and materials inputs, the EICM computes and predicts the following parameters throughout the
entire pavement/subgrade profile on an hourly basis (ARA 2004):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Temperature.
Resilient Modulus Adjustment Factors.
Pore Water Pressure.
Water Content.
Frost and Thaw Depths.
Frost Heave.
Drainage Performance.
The pavement layer temperature and moisture predictions are used in various ways to estimate
the material properties for the foundation and pavement layers throughout the design life
(AASHTO 2008).
Next, the designer selects a trial design for analysis. The inputs required are cross-section (i.e.,
layer types and thicknesses), supplemental design details (e.g., joint, reinforcement, shoulder,
and drainage design for PCC pavements), layer interface conditions (slab-base friction, bonding
between layers), and material properties for the following material groups (Darter et al. 2009b):
E-14
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
•
•
•
•
December 2014
Asphalt materials, including new and existing dense- and open-graded HMA materials.
Concrete materials, including new and existing PCC.
Chemically stabilized materials for base and subbase.
Unbound aggregate layers and subgrade/embankment soils.
As illustrated in Figure E-2, materials properties serve as direct (input data) or indirect (material
characterization models, such as asphalt dynamic modulus and PCC elastic modulus and flexural
strength) inputs into the three MEPDG modeling components: (1) the primary or critical loading
response model, (2) the various distress/transfer functions, and (3) the EICM modeling of
temperature and moisture profiles throughout the pavement layers (ARA 2004). The primary
loading response model provides the mechanistic analysis of traffic loads and environmental
influences on the pavement in terms of stresses, strains, and displacements. The distress/transfer
functions provide an empirical means for converting responses from repeated loadings over time
into accumulated damage, and then relating that damage to distress development (e.g., fatigue
cracking, permanent deformation, thermal cracking).
Figure E-2. Interaction between materials module and MEPDG modeling components (ARA 2004).
The EICM, which establishes the temperature and moisture profile throughout the pavement
system over time, helps govern the loading responses and corresponding distress predictions. All
the distresses in the MEPDG are affected by environmental factors to some degree; therefore
diurnal and seasonal fluctuations in the moisture and temperature profiles in the pavement
structure brought about by changes in ground water table, precipitation/infiltration, freeze-thaw
cycles, and other external factors are modeled comprehensively in the MEPDG (ARA 2004).
Table E-1 lists the major materials inputs required for the three MEPDG modeling components
(ARA 2004). The inputs are categorized by four material groups: HMA materials, PCC
materials, chemically stabilized materials, and unbound base/subbase and foundational soils. As
noted previously, material properties that enter into the EICM help establish the moisture and
temperature profiles throughout the pavement cross-section. Properties that enter into the
primary response model help predict the states of stress, strain, and displacements with the
pavement under an external wheel load. And, properties that enter into the distress/transfer
functions help convert loading responses into accumulated damage and damage into distress.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
E-15
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table E-1. Major material input considerations by material group.
Environmental Effects Model (EICM)
Primary Response Model
Distress/Transfer Functions
HMA
Thermal Conductivity
Heat Capacity
Surface Short-Wave Absorptivity
Asphalt Binder Viscosity/Stiffness
Drainage Properties (infiltration)
Surface Properties (cross-slope, drainage
path length)
Dynamic Modulus
Poisson’s Ratio
Tensile Strength (thermal cracking)
Creep Compliance (thermal cracking)
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
(thermal cracking)
Elastic Modulus
Poisson’s Ratio
Unit Weight
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
Flexural Strength (JPC slab cracking)
Indirect Tensile Strength (CRC
punchouts)
Compressive Strength (smoothness)
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
(curling, load transfer efficiency)
(JPC slab cracking and faulting, CRC
punchouts)
Air Content (JPC smoothness)
W/C Ratio (JPC smoothness)
Cement Type and Content (??)
Shrinkage Characteristics (warping, load
transfer efficiency) (JPC slab cracking
and faulting, CRC punchouts)
Elastic Modulus (cementitious)
Resilient Modulus (lime stabilized)
Flexural Strength
Poisson’s Ratio
Flexural Strength (fatigue cracking)
Resilient Modulus (min.)
Base Erodability (JPC faulting, CRC
punchouts)
PCC
Thermal Conductivity
Heat Capacity
Surface Short-Wave Absorptivity
Drainage Properties (infiltration)
Surface Properties (cross-slope, drainage
path length)
Chemically Stabilized Layers
Thermal Conductivity (cementitious)
Heat Capacity (cementitious)
Drainage (infiltration)
Unbound Base/Subbase & Foundational Soils
Gradation Parameters (grain/particle
sizes)
Porosity
Specific Gravity
Optimum Moisture Content
Atterburg Limits/Plasticity Index
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Soil-Water Characteristics Curve
Resilient Modulus (seasonally
adjusted)
Poisson’s Ratio
Unit Weight
Coefficient of Lateral Pressure
Gradation Parameters
Base Erodability (JPC faulting, CRC
punchouts)
For traffic, environmental, and materials inputs, a three-level hierarchical approach is employed
whereby the input values are (a) measured directly and are site- or project-specific (Level 1), (b)
estimated from correlations or regression equations and are more regional in nature (Level 2), or
(c) best estimates or global or regional default values (Level 3).
Once a trial design has been selected and the performance criteria (at the specified design
reliability levels) and all inputs have been established and properly entered into Pavement ME
Design, the program is run and the outputs are examined. Revisions to the trial design and/or
selected inputs can be made if desired.
Figures E-3 and E-4 illustrate the Pavement ME Design analysis output for an asphalt and
concrete pavement, respectively. The actual output report is several pages and only the first page
of each analysis is provided in Figures E-3 and E-4. For both analyses, the upper portion of the
output report provides the details of the user-specified design inputs (e.g., design life,
E-16
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Figure E-3. Interaction between materials module and MEPDG modeling components.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
E-17
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Figure E-4. Interaction between materials module and MEPDG modeling components.
E-18
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
construction months, weather station location), and the design structure evaluated. The next
portion of the output report provides a summary of the predicted performance indicators.
Applicable distress and IRI are shown according to the analyzed pavement type and include the
user-specified target distress/IRI criteria and reliability level, the predicted distress/IRI value and
resulting achieved reliability, and “pass” or “fail” notification on whether or not the selected
pavement structure meets the associated distress/IRI criteria.
Finally, the output report, as shown at the bottom of Figures E-3 and E-4, also provides graphical
illustration of the progression of distress/IRI over the analysis period. The remaining pages of
the output report provide the details related to the input and resulting output of the traffic
analysis, climate analysis, and materials analysis over the analysis period.
As shown in Figure E-3, the analyzed asphalt pavement structure fails to meet the user-specified
criteria associated with terminal IRI, HMA layer and total permanent deformation, and top-down
fatigue cracking. The bottom-up fatigue cracking and thermal cracking criteria easily meet the
user-specified criteria and indicated that achieved reliability levels are 99.7 and 100.0 percent,
respectively. Since HMA layer thickness does not appear to be the primary issue (i.e., bottom-up
fatigue cracking meets the design criteria) with this pavement structure, more than likely
modifications to the HMA material (e.g., binder type, percent asphalt), base material, and base
layer thickness may be warranted to achieve all design criteria.
Similarly, the concrete pavement analysis (Figure E-4) indicates that none of the predicted
distress/IRI meets the user-specified design criteria. In this case, possible design modifications
could include increasing slab thickness, increasing dowel bar diameter, decreasing joint spacing,
using widened lane or tied concrete shoulder, and/or modification of the base/subgrade layers.
Recent Refinements and Enhancements of the MEPDG Performance Prediction
Models
The following briefly summarizes recently completed and currently active NCHRP research
projects related to the pavement performance prediction models contained within the MEPDG.
NCHRP 1-40 – Facilitating the Implementation of the Guide for the Design of New and
Rehabilitated Pavement Structures
As part of this research project, completed in 2006, an independent third party review of the
MEPDG (guide and software) was conducted to test the guide’s underlying assumptions,
evaluate reasonableness and design reliability, and identify opportunities for implementation at
the state highway agency level. In conjunction with work carried out in NCHRP 9-30, the efforts
of NCHRP 1-40D resulted in a number of improvements to the MEPDG guide and software,
including updated global calibration coefficients using the same data set as used in NCHRP 137A, but expanded to include more time-history distress/smoothness data. Subsequent
verification of the calibrated models was done under NCHRP 1-40B using data from an
independent set of test sections from the WesTrack, NCAT, and MnRoad test roads and the
LTPP experiment (additional SPS sections not included in the original calibration study).
Two key products of the 1-40 research are the MEPDG Manual of Practice (AASHTO 2008)
and the Guide for the Local Calibration of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
(AASHTO 2010), developed under NCHRP Project 1-40B. This first document presents
information to guide pavement design engineers in making decisions and using the MEPDG for
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
E-19
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
new pavement and rehabilitation design. The second document provides guidance for
determining the local calibration factors for both HMA and PCC pavement types.
NCHRP 1-41 – Models for Predicting Reflection Cracking of Hot-Mix Asphalt Overlays
This research project was completed in 2010 and developed mechanistic-based models (and
accompanying software) for predicting reflection cracking in HMA overlays of both existing
flexible and rigid pavements. To date, the models developed as part of this research project have
not been incorporated into the MEPDG or Pavement ME Design software.
NCHRP 1-42A – Models for Predicting Top-Down Cracking of Hot Mix Asphalt Layers
This research project was completed in 2009 and developed mechanistic-based models for
predicting top-down cracking of HMA layers. The research report can be accessed at:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w162.pdf. To date, the models developed as
part of this research project have not been incorporated into the MEPDG or Pavement ME
Design software.
NCHRP 1-47 – Sensitivity Evaluation of MEPDG Performance Prediction
This research, which was completed in 2012, evaluated the sensitivity of the MEPDG
performance prediction equations to input value variability. Global sensitivity analyses were
performed for five pavement types under five climate conditions and three traffic levels. Design
inputs evaluated in the analyses included traffic volume, layer thicknesses, material properties
(e.g., stiffness, strength, HMA and PCC mixture characteristics, subgrade type), groundwater
depth, geometric parameters (e.g., lane width), and others. The primary benefit of this study will
be to help state highway agencies identify which input parameters influence the predicted
performance. In this manner, state highway agencies can focus efforts in the accurate collection
of the more influential MEPDG data inputs. The research report can be accessed at:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP01-47_FR.pdf.
NCHRP 1-50 – Quantifying the Influence of Geosynthetics on Pavement Performance
The objective of this research is to quantify the impacts of the MEPDG performance prediction
in relation to the use of a geosynthetic within the base, subbase, and subgrade layers. The
research effort will also evaluate which tests, or identify new tests that should be used to
characterizing geosynthetic properties, and develop a methodology for quantifying the influence
of geosynthetics on pavement performance. The expected completion date is September 2015.
NCHRP 1-51 – A Model for Incorporating Slab/Underlying Layer Interaction into the
MEPDG Concrete Pavement Analysis Procedures
This research project will develop a mechanistic-empirical model to quantify the interaction
between the concrete slab and underlying layer and its effect on pavement performance. The
research will consider both jointed plain concrete and continuously reinforced concrete
pavements and overlays. The expected completion date for this project is February 2015.
NCHRP 1-52 – A Mechanistic-Empirical Model for Top-Down Cracking of Asphalt
Pavement Layers
This research project will develop a mechanistic-empirical model for top-down cracking of
asphalt pavements. The current MEPDG model for top-down cracking was based on engineering
E-20
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
judgment since the LTPP database did not contain information related to top-down or bottom up
cracking (i.e., all fatigue cracking was considered to be bottom-up). Therefore, the intent of this
research project will be to address the issues of top –down cracking and develop a calibrated and
validated mechanistic-empirical model that can be incorporated into the MEPDG and Pavement
ME Design software. The expected completion date for this project is March 2016.
NCHRP 4-36 – Characterization of Cementitiously Stabilized Layers for Use in
Pavement Design and Analysis
This recently completed study developed proposed performance models for incorporation into
the mechanistic–empirical pavement analysis methods, as well as proposed test methods for
measuring several relevant material properties of cementitiously stabilized materials to allow
better consideration of cementitiously stabilized layers in pavement structures. The information
is presented in NCHRP Report 789 (available at
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_789.pdf) and in the associated appendices
(available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_789_Appendices.pdf).
NCHRP 9-30A – Calibration of Rutting Models for HMA Structural and Mix Design
This study recommended revisions to the MEPDG HMA rut prediction models developed as part
of NCHRP 1-37a. The recommended revisions were based on the calibration and validation of
the rut prediction models using measured material properties and performance data obtained
from the Mn/Road experiment and other state and Federal agency research projects.
Recommended revisions have been incorporated into the current version of the MEPDG. The
project was completed in 2012 and the project final report (NCHRP Report 719, Calibration of
Rutting Models for Structural and Mix Design [Von Quintus et al. 2012]) is available at
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_719.pdf.
MEPDG Evaluation, Implementation, and Use
Many SHAs have been or are currently engaged in the evaluation, implementation, and use of
the MEPDG design analysis process. During the 2010 literature review, two states—Indiana and
Missouri—reported having implemented the MEPDG and routinely using it to design their
pavements (Crawford 2009). A handful of other agencies reported having no plans to implement
the MEPDG (e.g., Alaska, Minnesota, Maine, Nebraska) or to consider the methodology as part
of the development or refinement of their own state-developed pavement design processes (e.g.,
Texas). Most states reportedly had plans for implementation and were actively engaged in
evaluation and testing.
An update of the status of MEPDG implementation and use was recently obtained under NCHRP
Project 20-05/44-06 (Pierce and McGovern 2014). Preliminary survey results from this
synthesis study (see Figure E-5) indicate that 10 more states (Arizona, Idaho, Maine, Maryland,
Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and South Carolina) have
implemented and are using the MEPDG, while six states (Alaska, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana,
New Hampshire, and Texas) have no plans to implement the procedure. The remaining states
continue to conduct evaluations of the MEPDG.
MEPDG Evaluation and Implementation Activities
Over the last 8 to 10 years, several SHAs have sponsored research intended to evaluate the
suitability of the MEPDG for agency use or to facilitate its implementation within the agency.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
E-21
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Implemented
Evaluating
No plans to implement
Figure E-5. SHA MEPDG evaluation, implementation, and use (Pierce and McGovern 2014).
A variety of reports covering these research efforts have been developed and made available. A
summary of the more notable studies (sequenced alphabetically by state) examined as part of the
NCHRP 1-48 study is provided in Table E-2. This table shows the essence of the work
performed in terms of the following evaluation/implementation areas:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
E-22
Evaluation of MEPDG functionality, use, and reasonableness of results—Overall
functionality of the procedure and software, applicability and reasonableness of the
procedure considering agency conditions and practices.
Evaluation of MEPDG functionality, use, and reasonableness of results—Overall
functionality of the procedure and software, applicability and reasonableness of the
procedure considering agency conditions and practices.
Evaluation and/or characterization of MEPDG inputs—Availability and reasonableness
of agency data, compatibility of agency data with MEPDG input requirements.
Sensitivity analysis—Impact of MEPDG input parameters (using data ranges typical for
the agency) on design outputs.
Database for MEPDG model verification and calibration—Development of database or
data files for use in evaluating overall functionality of MEPDG and its performance
prediction models.
MEPDG model verification—Comparative study of MEPDG performance predictions
(using default/national calibration factors) with actual performance results.
Local calibration of MEPDG models—Adjustments made to performance prediction
model calibration coefficients in order minimize standard error and correct for bias in the
performance predictions.
Validation of locally calibrated models—Comparative study of locally calibrated
performance predictions with actual performance results.
MEPDG overview or user guide information—General descriptions of the MEPDG
process, inputs, performance models, and/or outputs. Detailed descriptions of how to
develop inputs for the MEPDG, conduct an analysis using the MEPDG software, and/or
analyze the outputs toward identifying a suitable pavement design.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Reference
Rodezno et al.
2005
Witczak 2008
Evaluation of
Sensitivity Analysis
MEPDG Use,
for Identifying Key
Functionality, Evaluation and/or Factors Affecting
Predicted
and Results Characterization of
State Reasonableness MEPDG Inputs
Performance
AZ No.
Yes. Asphalt
No.
Rubber HMA
binder and mix
properties
examined and
defined.
AZ No.
Yes.
No.
Characterization of
AC binder types
and E* master
curves, thermal
fracture,
permanent
deformation, and
load-related
fatigue for typical
HMA mixtures.
Evaluation of
unbound base and
subgrade materials
and development
of k1, k2, k3
parameters.
Database for MEPDG
Model Verification &
Calibration
Asphalt Rubber HMA:
Historical data on I-40
Riordan pavement
section (reconstruction
with asphalt rubber
HMA).
Asphalt Rubber HMA
Overlay: Historical
data on I-40 Flagstaff
Walnut Canyon
pavement section
(asphalt rubber HMA
overlay on crack-andseat PCC).
HMA: Databases for
AC binder
characterization,
HMA mix stiffness,
HMA permanent
deformation, HMA
fatigue
characterization,
unbound materials
permanent
deformation, and
traffic
Validation of
Locally
Calibrated
Local Calibration of
MEPDG Model Verification
MEPDG Models
Models
Asphalt Rubber HMA:
Asphalt Rubber HMA: Asphalt Rubber
Actual versus predicted
Not done.
HMA: Not done.
fatigue cracking, rutting,
Asphalt Rubber HMA Asphalt Rubber
and smoothness for I-40
Overlay: Not done.
HMA Overlay: Not
Riordan pavement section.
done.
Asphalt Rubber HMA
Overlay: Actual versus
predicted fatigue cracking,
rutting, and smoothness for
I-40 Flagstaff Walnut
Canyon pavement section.
HMA: Not done.
HMA: Not done.
HMA: Not done.
MEPDG
Overview or
User Guide
Yes. Brief
description of
MEPDG approach
(including
hierarchical design
inputs), as well as
flexible pavement
performance
prediction models.
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies.
No.
December 2014
E-23
Reference
Rodezno and
Kaloush 2009
Souliman et al.
2010
Evaluation of
Sensitivity Analysis
MEPDG Use,
for Identifying Key
Functionality, Evaluation and/or Factors Affecting
Predicted
and Results Characterization of
State Reasonableness MEPDG Inputs
Performance
AZ No.
Yes. Evaluation
No.
made of asphalt
rubber HMA
binder and mix
properties.
AZ No.
No.
No.
MEPDG
Overview or
User Guide
Yes. Brief
description of
MEPDG rutting
and fatigue
cracking models.
Yes. Brief
description of
MEPDG alligator
cracking,
longitudinal
cracking, rutting,
and roughness
models.
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Validation of
Locally
Calibrated
Local Calibration of
MEPDG Model Verification
MEPDG Models
Models
Asphalt Rubber HMA Mix Asphalt Rubber HMA: Asphalt Rubber
Characterization: Dynamic Not done.
HMA: Not done.
modulus for 19 asphalt
rubber HMA mixes (gapgraded and open-graded)
predicted using Witczak
equation; then compared
with actual dynamic moduli
obtained from testing.
Asphalt Rubber HMA:
Actual versus predicted
rutting and fatigue cracking
using unconfined and
confined dynamic moduli
for asphalt rubber HMA
mixes (gap-graded and
open-graded) for I-40
Buffalo Range pavement
section.
HMA: Traffic data,
HMA: Actual versus
HMA: Calibration of
HMA: Not done.
climatic data,
predicted fatigue cracking
fatigue cracking,
Before-and-after
pavement structure
(bottom-up alligator
rutting, and roughness comparisons made
and material
cracking and top-down
models using available to assess
properties data, and
longitudinal cracking),
performance data from improvement of
pavement
rutting, and roughness using 39 LTPP test sections. calibrated models.
performance (distress data from 39 LTPP test
New calibration factors
and roughness) data
sections in Arizona. Future for HMA rutting (βr1,
compiled for 39 LTPP verification efforts
βr2, βr3), unbound and
test sections (9 GPS
recommended using more
subgrade rutting (βgb,
sections, 30 SPS
pavement sections with
βsg), alligator cracking
sections).
wider ranges of distress.
(βf1, βf2, βf3, C1, C2),
longitudinal cracking
(βf1, βf2, βf3, C1, C2),
and smoothness (C1,
C2 C3, C4). Future
calibration efforts
recommended using
more pavement
sections with wider
ranges of distress.
Database for MEPDG
Model Verification &
Calibration
Asphalt rubber HMA:
Binder and mix
property database.
Asphalt Rubber HMA:
Historical data on I-40
Buffalo Range
pavement section (2.5in mill and 2-in
asphalt rubber HMA
overlay).
December 2014
E-24
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies (continued).
Evaluation of
Sensitivity Analysis
MEPDG Use,
for Identifying Key
Functionality, Evaluation and/or Factors Affecting Database for MEPDG
Predicted
and Results Characterization of
Model Verification &
Reference
State Reasonableness MEPDG Inputs
Performance
Calibration
Wang et al. 2008 AR No.
No.
No.
HMA and JPC:
Comprehensive
database and software
tool (PrepME)
developed to store and
process climate,
traffic, material, and
performance data for
the state of Arkansas.
Hall et al. 2011
AR No.
No.
No.
HMA: Traffic data,
climatic data,
pavement structure
and material
properties data, and
pavement
performance (distress
and roughness) data
compiled for 26
sections (18 LTPP
sections, 8 PMS
sections).
Kannekanti and
Harvey 2006a
CA Yes.
Identification
of limitations
and bugs in
the software.
No.
HMA: Actual versus
predicted fatigue cracking
(bottom-up alligator and
top-down longitudinal),
transverse cracking, rutting,
and roughness using data
from all 26 selected
sections.
JPC: Not done.
HMA: Calibration of
fatigue cracking
(bottom-up alligator
and top-down
longitudinal) and
rutting models using
available performance
data from 80% of the
26 selected sections
(i.e., 20 sections).
New calibration factors
for HMA rutting (βr1,
βr3) and subgrade
rutting (βs1), alligator
cracking (C1, C2), and
longitudinal cracking
(C1, C2).
JPC: Not done.
HMA: Validation of No.
calibrated fatigue
cracking (bottom-up
alligator and topdown longitudinal)
and rutting models
using remaining
20% of the 26
selected sections
(i.e., 6 sections).
JPC: Not done.
No.
E-25
December 2014
JPC: Several key
JPC: Not done.
inputs (traffic
volume, axle load
distribution,
climate zone,
thickness, shoulder
type, joint spacing,
load transfer
efficiency, PCC
strength, base type,
and subgrade type)
evaluated for
transverse
cracking, faulting,
and IRI.
Local Calibration of
MEPDG Model Verification
MEPDG Models
HMA and JPC: Not done.
HMA and JPC: Not
done.
Validation of
Locally
MEPDG
Calibrated
Overview or
Models
User Guide
HMA and JPC: Not No.
done.
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies (continued).
Reference
Kannekanti and
Harvey 2006b
Evaluation of
Sensitivity Analysis
MEPDG Use,
for Identifying Key
Functionality, Evaluation and/or Factors Affecting Database for MEPDG
Predicted
and Results Characterization of
Model Verification &
Local Calibration of
State Reasonableness MEPDG Inputs
Performance
Calibration
MEPDG Model Verification
MEPDG Models
CA No.
No.
JPC: Not done.
JPC: Not done.
JPC: Not done.
JPC: Not done.
However, ranges of
values for many
different inputs loaded
into a database,
resulting in 2,160
design combinations.
CA Yes.
Evaluation of
overall trends
of the damage
models in the
draft CalME
mechanisticempirical
pavement
design
software.
No.
HMA and
HMAOL: Not
done.
Ullidtz et al.
2006b (see Note
1)
CA Yes.
Evaluation of
overall trends
of the damage
models in the
draft CalME
mechanisticempirical
pavement
design
software.
No.
HMA and
HMAOL: Not
done.
HMA and HMAOL:
HVS test data from 27
flexible pavements in
California collected
between 1995 and
2004. Test data
include in situ and labdetermined materials
properties, resilient
deflections under
loadings, and distress
data.
HMA and HMAOL:
Test data from 26
flexible pavement test
sections collected
from the WesTrack
test road facility in
Nevada between 1996
and 1999.
HMA and HMAOL:
Actual versus predicted
deflection response, fatigue
cracking, and rutting (HMA
and unbound layers) using
data from 27 California
HVS pavement sections.
HMA and HMAOL:
Not done. However,
CalME models were
calibrated using lab
data obtained as part of
HVS studies and then
validated through
visual comparisons
between predicted and
actual deflections,
cracking, and rutting.
HMA and HMAOL:
Actual versus predicted
deflection response, fatigue
cracking, and rutting (HMA
and unbound layers) for 26
WesTrack pavement
sections.
HMA and HMAOL:
Not done. However,
CalME models were
calibrated using lab
data obtained as part of
the WesTrack
experiment and then
validated through
visual comparisons
between predicted and
actual deflections,
cracking, and rutting.
MEPDG
Overview or
User Guide
Yes. Pavement
design catalog for
routine and smallscale JPC
pavement projects,
prepared using
results from many
runs of the
MEPDG software.
HMA and HMAOL: No.
Not done.
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Ullidtz et al.
2006a (see Note
1)
Validation of
Locally
Calibrated
Models
JPC: Not done.
December 2014
E-26
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies (continued).
Reference
Fernando et al.
2007
Bayomy et al.
2012
Evaluation of
MEPDG Use,
Functionality, Evaluation and/or
and Results Characterization of
State Reasonableness MEPDG Inputs
FL Yes, including No.
establishing a
conceptual
framework for
developing a
new pavement
design
procedure
based on the
MEPDG.
ID
Not done.
Database for MEPDG
Model Verification &
Calibration
HMA and JPC: 15
HMA pavement
sections and 16 JPC
pavement sections
identified from FDOT
pavement condition
survey (PCS) database
for verifying and
calibrating MEPDG
performance models
via field and lab tests
to characterize
material properties.
Florida weather
station data and soil
survey reports used to
build climate and soil
characterization
database.
Yes. Traffic database,
climate database,
HMA and binder
database, unbound
layer and subgrade
materials database.
Verification and local
calibration database
consisting of data
compiled for 9 LTPP
(GPS-1) sections.
Local Calibration of
MEPDG Model Verification
MEPDG Models
HMA and JPC: Not done
HMA and JPC: Not
due to incompatibilities
done due to
between MEPDG
incompatibilities
performance/condition
between MEPDG
measures and FDOT
performance/condition
measures. However,
measures and FDOT
methods proposed for
measures. However,
converting MEPDG
methods proposed for
performance predictions to converting MEPDG
flexible and rigid pavement performance
distress scores for rutting,
predictions to flexible
cracking, faulting, and
and rigid pavement
roughness.
distress scores for
rutting, cracking,
faulting, and
roughness,
HMA: Actual versus
predicted fatigue cracking
(bottom-up alligator and
top-down longitudinal),
transverse cracking, total
rutting, and IRI using data
from all 9 LTPP sections.
HMA: Local
calibration and
validation plan
developed.
Recommended that
calibrations be done in
future when sufficient
useable data become
available (only 7 of the
9 LTPP sections had
sufficient data and
additional PMS
sections were needed
to supplement the
analysis).
Validation of
Locally
Calibrated
Models
HMA and JPC: Not
done.
HMA: Local
calibration and
validation plan
developed.
MEPDG
Overview or
User Guide
Yes. Overview of
MEPDG input
requirements and
tests for
characterizing
material
properties.
No.
E-27
December 2014
Sensitivity Analysis
for Identifying Key
Factors Affecting
Predicted
Performance
HMA: Several key
material, traffic, and
climate inputs
(Levels 1-3)
evaluated for
alligator cracking,
longitudinal
cracking, rutting,
and roughness using
one typical Florida
pavement structure.
JPC: Several key
material and traffic
inputs (Levels 1-3)
evaluated for slab
cracking, faulting,
and IRI using one
typical Florida
pavement structure.
Yes. Evaluation/
HMA: Sensitivity
characterization of of fatigue cracking
HMA properties,
(bottom-up alligator
unbound/subgrade and top-down
properties, traffic longitudinal),
parameters, and
rutting (HMA, base,
climate stations.
subgrade, and total),
Evaluation of
transverse cracking,
viscosity-based
and IRI to key
Witczak Model,
material (HMA and
NCHRP 1-40Dsubgrade
binder shear
properties), traffic,
modulus (G*), and climate, and
Gyratory Stability pavement structure
(GS) model. Level input parameters.
2 and 3 inputs for
Idaho unbound
materials and
subgrade soils
developed.
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies (continued).
Reference
Nantung et al.
2005 (see Note
2)
Galal and
Chehab 2005
(see Note 2)
Evaluation of
MEPDG Use,
Functionality, Evaluation and/or
and Results Characterization of
State Reasonableness MEPDG Inputs
IN No
Yes, for various
input levels,
examined traffic
inputs, PCC
inputs, HMA
inputs, and
unbound materials
inputs.
IN
HMA: Several key
inputs (traffic,
climate, subgrade,
HMA thickness,
binder grade, air
voids, rubblized
PCC modulus)
evaluated for
fatigue cracking,
longitudinal
cracking, thermal
cracking, and
rutting using I-65
test site built in
1994 (13-in HMA
on rubblized PCC).
Database for MEPDG
Model Verification &
Calibration
PCC: Not done, but
lab testing study
recommended, along
with data mining and
data collection from
in-service test site.
HMA: Not done, but
database creation
recommended.
Unbound Mtls: Not
done, but lab testing
recommended.
HMA: Partially done
(I-65 test site).
Recommendation
made for creation of
comprehensive HMA
materials and binder
database.
MEPDG Model Verification
PCC: Not done, but
recommended for future.
HMA: Not done, but
recommended for future that
LTPP and other Indiana
sections be redesigned using
MEPDG and predicted
performance compared to
actual.
Unbound Mtls: Not done.
HMA: Actual versus
predicted cracking (fatigue,
longitudinal, thermal) and
rutting for I-65 test site.
Recommendation made for
continued verification.
Local Calibration of
MEPDG Models
PCC: Not done.
HMA: Not done.
Unbound Mtls: Not
done.
HMA: Not done, but
recommended that
calibrations be done in
future using IN miniLTPP sites.
Validation of
Locally
MEPDG
Calibrated
Overview or
Models
User Guide
PCC: Not done.
No.
HMA: Not done, but
recommended for
future that
validation be done
using INDOT
accelerated
pavement tester
(APT) and IN miniLTPP sections.
Unbound Mtls: Not
done.
HMA: Not done, but No.
recommended that
validations of
calibrated models be
done using INDOT
APT and IN miniLTPP sites.
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Yes.
No.
Preliminary
runs
performed to
test
functionality
and assess
reasonableness
of results.
Sensitivity Analysis
for Identifying Key
Factors Affecting
Predicted
Performance
PCC: 17 inputs
evaluated for
cracking, faulting,
and roughness
using base case
JPC pavement
example.
HMA: Several key
inputs evaluated for
fatigue cracking,
longitudinal
cracking, rutting,
and roughness
using example
design trials.
Unbound Mtls: Not
done.
December 2014
E-28
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies (continued).
Evaluation of
MEPDG Use,
Functionality,
and Results
Reference
State Reasonableness
Khanum et al.
KS Yes. 5 in2008
service PCC
projects (4 on
I-70, 1 on KS
7) “redesigned” as
equivalent
JPC and HMA
structures
using MEPDG
and AASHTO
93 Design
Procedure, in
order to
evaluate
design
differences.
Romanoschi and KS No.
Bethu 2009
Evaluation and/or
Characterization of
MEPDG Inputs
Yes. Examined
many different
inputs (at different
input levels) under
the categories of
general, traffic,
climate, and
structure/materials.
Sensitivity Analysis
for Identifying Key
Factors Affecting
Predicted
Performance
JPC: Several key
inputs (traffic, PCC
thickness, base
type, PCC strength
and other material
properties, dowel
size, widened lane)
evaluated for
faulting, cracking,
and IRI.
No.
No.
Database for MEPDG
Model Verification &
Calibration
JPC: 8 in-service KS
pavement sections
(three SPS-2 sections
and six KDOT
sections), with 2003
performance data from
KDOT PMS and
LTPP Datapave.
HMA Mix
Characterization:
Development of (a)
library of material and
traffic inputs required
by MEPDG software
for HMA mixes and
(b) database of
dynamic modulus and
creep compliance and
low-temperature
tensile strength for
HMA mixes typically
used in KS.
Local Calibration of
MEPDG Model Verification
MEPDG Models
JPC: Actual versus
JPC: Not done.
predicted slab cracking,
faulting, and IRI for each of
8 in-service KS pavement
sections.
HMA Mix Characterization: Not done.
HMA dynamic moduli
predicted using Witczak
equation and Hirsch model
compared with actual
dynamic moduli obtained
through testing of 8 HMA
mixes using Universal
Testing Machine (UTM).
Also, low-temperature
indirect tensile strength and
creep compliance values
obtained via MEPDG
prediction compared to
actual values obtained using
AASHTO T 322 test
procedure.
Validation of
Locally
Calibrated
Models
JPC: Not done.
Not done.
MEPDG
Overview or
User Guide
Yes. MEPDG
framework and
process overview
for JPC pavement,
description of JPC
performance
prediction models,
MEPDG software
overview.
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies (continued).
Yes. Overview of
MEPDG flexible
pavement design
process, including
traffic, climate,
structure, and
flexible pavement
response and
distress models.
December 2014
E-29
Reference
Schwartz 2007
Schwartz and
Carvalho 2007
Evaluation of
MEPDG Use,
Functionality,
and Results
State Reasonableness
MD Yes. Five
“typical”
projects used
to compare
HMA designs
from MEPDG
against those
from 1993
AASHTO
procedure
(summary
comparison).
Sensitivity Analysis
for Identifying Key
Evaluation and/or Factors Affecting
Predicted
Characterization of
MEPDG Inputs
Performance
Yes. Examined
HMA: Several key
data needs under
inputs (HMA and
each of the four
base layer
input categories:
thicknesses, traffic,
traffic,
environment,
environmental,
material properties,
material properties performance model
(HMA, PCC,
calibration
stabilized, and
coefficients,
unbound
reliability level)
materials), and
evaluated at Level
pavement
3 for rutting and
performance (for
fatigue cracking.
local calibration).
MD Yes. Five
No.
HMA: Several key
“typical”
inputs (HMA and
projects used
base layer
to compare
thicknesses, traffic,
HMA designs
environment,
from MEPDG
material properties,
against those
performance model
from 1993
calibration
AASHTO
coefficients,
procedure
reliability level)
(detailed
evaluated at Level
comparison).
3 for rutting and
fatigue cracking.
Database for MEPDG
Model Verification &
Local Calibration of
Calibration
MEPDG Model Verification
MEPDG Models
Not done, but
Not done.
Not done.
recommendation made
for compiling data
(traffic,
environmental,
materials field/lab
testing, performance,
etc.) and developing
database for use in
implementing the
MEPDG.
HMA: Not done.
HMA: Not done. However, HMA: Not done.
three case study example
designs (I-95 at Contee
Road, US 219, and InterCounty Connector) prepared
and compared using
MEPDG and 1993
AASHTO
Validation of
Locally
Calibrated
Models
Not done.
HMA: Not done.
MEPDG
Overview or
User Guide
No.
December 2014
E-30
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies (continued).
Yes. Descriptions
of process, key
components
(inputs, models)
and use
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Evaluation of
MEPDG Use,
Functionality,
and Results
Reference
State Reasonableness
Buch et al. 2008, MI Yes.
Haider et al.
Evaluation of
2008
mathematical
viability of
performance
prediction
models for
HMA and JPC
pavements
through
preliminary
sensitivity
testing.
Sensitivity Analysis
for Identifying Key
Evaluation and/or Factors Affecting
Predicted
Characterization of
MEPDG Inputs
Performance
Yes. Investigation HMA: Several key
of Level 1-3
traffic, climate,
design inputs and materials, and
determination of
pavement structure
availability of
inputs evaluated for
data.
input range and for
significance of
impact on fatigue
cracking (bottomup alligator),
transverse
cracking, rutting,
and IRI.
JPC: Several key
traffic, climate,
materials, and
pavement structure
inputs evaluated for
input range and for
significance of
impact on faulting,
cracking, and IRI.
Database for MEPDG
Model Verification &
Calibration
Yes. Databases
developed for
sensitivity testing and
for model verification.
Local Calibration of
MEPDG Model Verification
MEPDG Models
HMA: Actual versus
HMA: Results of
predicted fatigue cracking
verification indicated
(bottom-up alligator, and
local calibration
top-down longitudinal),
needed. However,
transverse cracking, rutting, local calibration not
and IRI using data from five done.
PMS sections and one LTPP JPC: Results of
section (SPS-1).
verification indicated
local calibration
JPC: Actual versus
needed. However,
predicted slab cracking,
faulting, and IRI using data local calibration not
from five PMS sections and done.
one LTPP section (SPS-2).
Validation of
Locally
Calibrated
Models
HMA: Not done.
JPC: Not done.
MEPDG
Overview or
User Guide
No.
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies (continued).
December 2014
E-31
Reference
Valesquez et al.
2009
Evaluation of
MEPDG Use,
Functionality,
and Results
State Reasonableness
MN Yes.
Identification
of
deficiencies in
the software.
Evaluation and/or
Characterization of
MEPDG Inputs
Yes. Evaluation of
MEPDG inputs
(design life,
traffic, climate,
pavement crosssection, HMA
binder and mix
properties, PCC
mix properties and
slab/joint design,
unbound material
properties). Levels
1-3, including
recommended
default values and
methods of
establishing
project-specific
values.
Sensitivity Analysis
for Identifying Key
Factors Affecting
Predicted
Performance
HMA: Several key
inputs (HMA, base,
and subbase layer
thicknesses,
subgrade type,
traffic, climate,
HMA properties)
evaluated for
alligator cracking,
longitudinal
cracking, rutting,
transverse
cracking, and
roughness.
PCC: Several key
inputs (traffic,
climate, slab and
base thicknesses,
base and subgrade
types, joint
spacing, dowel
diameter, PCC
properties)
evaluated for slab
cracking and
faulting.
Database for MEPDG
Model Verification &
Calibration
HMA: Data compiled
from several
Mn/ROAD flexible
pavement test
sections.
PCC: Data compiled
from 65 rigid
pavement sections
located in MN, IA,
WI, and IL (LTPP,
Mn/Road, and
AASHTO Road Test).
Local Calibration of
MEPDG Model Verification
MEPDG Models
HMA: Actual versus
HMA: Calibration of
predicted rutting, alligator
rutting, transverse
cracking, transverse
cracking, longitudinal
cracking, and roughness
cracking, and
using 12 to 14 Mn/ROAD
roughness models
test sections, representative using Mn/ROAD test
of MN conditions.
sections (default
calibration coefficients
PCC: Actual versus
for longitudinal
predicted slab cracking,
cracking and
faulting, and roughness
roughness models
using 65 Mn/ROAD and
found reasonable).
other Midwest pavement
Calibration of alligator
sections, representative of
cracking model using
MN conditions.
MnPAVE M-E design
software.
PCC: Calibration of
cracking, faulting, and
roughness models
using Mn/ROAD and
neighboring state test
sections (default
calibration coefficients
for faulting model
found reasonable).
Validation of
Locally
Calibrated
Models
HMA: Not done.
PCC: Not done.
MEPDG
Overview or
User Guide
Yes. Brief
descriptions of
MEPDG inputs
and performance
prediction models.
December 2014
E-32
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies (continued).
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Reference
ARA 2009a
ARA 2009b
Evaluation of
MEPDG Use,
Functionality, Evaluation and/or
and Results Characterization of
State Reasonableness MEPDG Inputs
MO No.
Yes. Reviewed
and developed
recommendations
for inputs under
major input
categories—
traffic, climate,
materials (HMA,
PCC, unbound
materials, and inplace structure [for
rehab design]).
MO No.
No.
Sensitivity Analysis
for Identifying Key
Factors Affecting
Predicted
Performance
HMA: Baseline/
reference design
selected (US 54
Camden County)
and used to
evaluate effects of
variations in key
inputs (traffic,
climate, structure/
materials, and
distress/smoothness
thresholds) on
fatigue cracking,
rutting, thermal
cracking, and
smoothness.
PCC: Baseline/
reference design
selected (US 60
Butler County) and
used to evaluate
effects of variations
in key inputs
(traffic, climate,
structure/ materials,
and
distress/smoothness
thresholds) on slab
cracking, faulting,
and smoothness.
No.
Database for MEPDG
Model Verification &
Calibration
Yes, brief mention of
Microsoft Access®
database created for
study, consisting of
library information
(past research and
historical materials
testing data) and
calibration
information
(inventory, testing,
traffic, and site data
related to 113
pavement sections [73
MODOT sections
from 39 projects and
40 LTPP sections]
used in calibration).
No.
No.
No.
MEPDG
Overview or
User Guide
No.
Yes. Brief
overview of
MEPDG model
development and
descriptions of
MEPDG models.
E-33
December 2014
Yes. Detailed
descriptions of MO
pavement sections
selected for MEPDG
local calibration,
collection of data for
those sections, and
development of
Microsoft Access®
database.
Validation of
Locally
Calibrated
Local Calibration of
MEPDG Model Verification
MEPDG Models
Models
HMA & HMAOL: Actual
HMA & HMAOL:
No, but some
versus predicted cracking
Calibrations made of
sensitivity testing
(fatigue and thermal),
thermal cracking
performed to assess
rutting, and smoothness
model (βt), HMA layer reasonableness of
using 52 HMA or HMAcalibrated models.
rutting model (β1r),
surfaced pavement sections unbound layer rutting
(18 MODOT, 34 LTPP).
model (βs1), subgrade
rutting model (βs2), and
PCC: Actual versus
smoothness model (α1,
predicted slab cracking,
faulting, and smoothness
α2, α3, α4), based on
using 61 JPC or unbonded
results of verification.
JPC overlaid pavement
Recalibration of
sections (55 MODOT, 6
fatigue cracking model
LTPP).
not needed.
PCC: Calibration made
of smoothness model
(C1, C2, C3, C4), based
on verification results.
Recalibration of
cracking and faulting
models not needed.
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies (continued).
Evaluation of
Sensitivity Analysis
MEPDG Use,
for Identifying Key
Functionality, Evaluation and/or Factors Affecting
Predicted
and Results Characterization of
Reference
State Reasonableness MEPDG Inputs
Performance
Von Quintus and MT No.
Yes. Evaluation
No.
Moulthrop
and
2007a (Volume
characterization of
I-Executive
climate, traffic,
Summary
and materials
Report)
(HMA and treated
and untreated
layers) inputs.
Recommended
default input
values for use in
MT.
Yes. Evaluation of No.
inputs and
summary of
recommended
input values for
use in MT.
Validation of
Locally
Calibrated
Models
HMA (conventional,
deep-strength, and
semi-rigid) and
HMAOL: Not done.
Local Calibration of
MEPDG Model Verification
MEPDG Models
HMA (conventional, deep- HMA (conventional,
strength, and semi-rigid)
deep-strength, and
and HMAOL: Actual versus semi-rigid) and
predicted rutting, fatigue
HMAOL: Calibration
cracking (bottom-up
of HMA layer rutting
alligator, top-down
model (kr1, kr2, kr3),
longitudinal), and roughness unbound and subgrade
layer rutting models
using various MT and
(βs1, βs2), fatigue
neighboring state/province
test sections.
cracking model (kf3,
C2), and transverse
cracking model (βs3)
using various MT and
neighboring state/
province test sections.
Additional calibrations
recommended for
future.
Yes. Overview of MT Not done.
Not done.
Not done.
M-E database
®
(Microsoft Access )
developed for
verification and
calibration, along with
descriptions of
database structure and
data fields/elements.
Total of 106 test
sections—38 MT
LTPP, 13 MT nonLTPP, and 55
neighboring state/
province LTPP
sections.
MEPDG
Overview or
User Guide
Yes. MEPDG
design process,
hierarchical input
levels, flexible
pavement
performance
prediction models.
Yes. MEPDG
performance
prediction model
overviews.
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Von Quintus and MT Partially.
Moulthrop
Detailed
2007b (Volume
descriptions of
II-Reference
available
Manual)
models for
HMA fatigue
cracking,
rutting, and
transverse
cracking, and
for
base/subgrade
rutting and
pavement
roughness.
Identification
of models
recommended
for use in MT.
Database for MEPDG
Model Verification &
Calibration
HMA (conventional,
deep-strength, and
semi-rigid) and
HMAOL: Field testing
and condition/
performance data
compiled in Microsoft
Access® for 89 LTPP
test sections (34 in
MT, 55 in neighboring
states and provinces
[ID, ND, SD, WY,
ALB, SAS]) and 13
non-LTPP test
sections (all in MT).
December 2014
E-34
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies (continued).
Evaluation of
Sensitivity Analysis
MEPDG Use,
for Identifying Key
Functionality, Evaluation and/or Factors Affecting Database for MEPDG
Predicted
and Results Characterization of
Model Verification &
Reference
State Reasonableness MEPDG Inputs
Performance
Calibration
MEPDG Model Verification
Von Quintus and MT No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Moulthrop
2007c (Volume
III-Field Guide)
Local Calibration of
MEPDG Models
Not done. However,
guidance and
recommendations
provided regarding
future calibrations of
performance prediction
models.
Validation of
Locally
Calibrated
Models
Not done.
MEPDG
Overview or
User Guide
Yes. MEPDG
process overview
(including
hierarchical input
levels) and
MEPDG software
use (including
step-by-step
instructions for
selecting and
entering inputs and
performing a new
or rehabilitated
pavement design).
Also, presentation
of local calibration
factors for
prediction models.
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies (continued).
December 2014
E-35
Reference
Muthadi 2007;
Muthadi and
Kim 2008
Database for MEPDG
Model Verification &
Calibration
HMA: 30 LTPP
flexible pavement
sections (16 new
design, 14 rehab
design) and 23
additional NCDOT
flexible pavement
sections (these latter
sections required
conversion of
performance data due
to discrepancies
between LTPP and
NCDOT distress
measurement
processes).
Local Calibration of
MEPDG Model Verification
MEPDG Models
HMA: Actual versus
HMA: Calibration of
predicted fatigue cracking
fatigue cracking and
and rutting for (a) 30 LTPP rutting models using
sections (minus those used
80% of the LTPP and
in national calibration) and NCDOT sections.
(b) 30 LTPP and 23
HMA calibration
NCDOT sections combined. coefficients (k1, k2,
and k3), granular base
coefficient (βGB),
subgrade coefficient
(βSG) developed for
rutting model and
HMA calibration
coefficients (k1, k2,
k3, C1, and C2)
developed for fatigue
cracking model.
Validation of
Locally
Calibrated
Models
HMA: Validation of
calibrated fatigue
cracking and rutting
models using
remaining 20% of
LTPP and NCDOT
sections. More
rigorous calibrations
planned in future
using increased
number of sections.
MEPDG
Overview or
User Guide
Yes. Brief
discussion of
principles and
methodology, with
focus on traffic,
climate, materials,
and required
inputs.
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Evaluation of
Sensitivity Analysis
MEPDG Use,
for Identifying Key
Functionality, Evaluation and/or Factors Affecting
Predicted
and Results Characterization of
State Reasonableness MEPDG Inputs
Performance
NC No.
No.
HMA: Using LTPP
sections grouped
by geography
(coast, piedmonts,
mountains), various
input parameters
(traffic, climate,
material, structure)
evaluated in terms
of IRI, fatigue
cracking,
longitudinal
cracking, HMA
and total rutting,
and thermal
cracking
PCC: Using LTPP
pavement sections
grouped by
geography, various
input parameters
(traffic, climate,
material, structure)
evaluated in terms
of IRI, slab
cracking, faulting,
and CRCP
punchouts.
December 2014
E-36
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies (continued).
Reference
Kim et al. 2011
FHWA 2010
Evaluation of
MEPDG Use,
Functionality, Evaluation and/or
and Results Characterization of
State Reasonableness MEPDG Inputs
NC No.
Yes. Evaluation
and
characterization of
traffic, unbound
materials, and 12
commonly used
HMA mixes
(rutting and
fatigue cracking
properties).
NC No.
Sensitivity Analysis
for Identifying Key
Factors Affecting
Predicted
Performance
Yes. Damagebased sensitivity
analysis using four
traffic parameters.
Yes. Data
No.
contained in
NCDOT PMS
identified for
applicability/use.
Where
appropriate,
MEPDG default
values established.
E-37
December 2014
Validation of
Locally
MEPDG
Calibrated
Overview or
Local Calibration of
MEPDG Model Verification
MEPDG Models
Models
User Guide
HMA: Actual versus
HMA: Calibration of
HMA: Validation of No.
predicted fatigue cracking
fatigue cracking
calibrated fatigue
(bottom-up alligator) and
(bottom-up alligator)
cracking (bottom-up
rutting using data from all
and rutting models
alligator) and rutting
46 selected sections.
using available
models using
performance data from available
the 22 selected LTPP
performance data
sections and two
from the 24 selected
calibration approaches PMS sections.
(generalized reduced
gradient method using
Excel® Solver and
genetic algorithm
optimization method
using MATLAB®).
New calibration factors
for HMA rutting (βr1,
βr2, βr3), base rutting
(βgb), and subgrade
rutting (βsg), alligator
cracking (βf1, βf2, βf3,
C1, C2).
Yes. Verification and HMA: Actual versus
HMA: Calibration of
HMA: Not done.
Yes. Identifies in
local calibration
predicted fatigue cracking
bottom-up alligator
PCC: Not done.
detail the type of
database consisting of (bottom-up alligator),
cracking (βf1, βf2, βf3),
information a SHA
data compiled for 31
rutting, and thermal
needs to support
HMA layer rutting (βr1,
PMS sections (19 new cracking using data from 3- βr2, βr3), and thermal
efforts to locally
HMA, 3 thin-layer
5 of the 19 HMA sections.
calibrate the
cracking (βt1) models
HMA, 3 HMAOL, 6
MEPDG models
using data from same
PCC: Actual versus
PCC).
using PMS data.
sections used in
predicted transverse
Itemizes specific
cracking and faulting using verification.
activities that are
data from 3 of the 6 PCC
PCC: Calibration of
needed prior to
sections.
transverse cracking
populating the
(C1, C2) and faulting
MEPDG
(C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6,
calibration
C7) models using data
database.
from same sections
used in verification.
Database for MEPDG
Model Verification &
Calibration
Yes. Traffic data,
climatic data,
pavement structure
and material
properties data, and
pavement
performance (distress
and roughness) data
compiled for 46
sections (16 LTPP
GPS sections, 6 LTPP
SPS sections, 24 PMS
sections). Also,
development of a GISbased data extraction
system (for extracting
local subgrade soils
data from a national
database) and a North
Carolina MEPDG
traffic database.
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies (continued).
Reference
Baus and Stires
2010
TX No.
Sensitivity Analysis
for Identifying Key
Factors Affecting
Predicted
Performance
HMA
(conventional and
semi-rigid):
Several key
material, traffic,
and climate inputs
(Level 3) evaluated
for alligator
cracking,
longitudinal
cracking, rutting,
and roughness
using four inservice pavement
structures in
Kershaw,
Greenville, and
Richland Counties.
JPC: Several key
material and traffic
inputs (Level 3)
evaluated for slab
cracking, faulting,
and IRI using an
in-service
pavement structure
in Aiken County.
PCC: CRCP
PCC: Key CRCP
design inputs
inputs (zero-stress
evaluated using
temperature, builtdata collected on
in curling, slab
27 CRCP sections. thickness, steel
content) evaluated
for effect on load
transfer efficiency
(LTE) and
punchouts.
Database for MEPDG
Model Verification &
Calibration
HMA (conventional
and semi-rigid): Not
done, but data
collection and
database development
efforts recommended.
PCC: Rigid pavement
database compiled
using data on 27
CRCP sections.
However, database
used to evaluate
inputs, not
verify/calibrate
models.
Validation of
Locally
Calibrated
Local Calibration of
MEPDG Model Verification
MEPDG Models
Models
HMA (conventional and
HMA (conventional
HMA (conventional
semi-rigid): Not done, but
and semi-rigid): Not
and semi-rigid): Not
recommendation made to
done, but
done, but
establish minimum of 20
recommendation made recommendation
test sections for MEPDG
to establish minimum made to establish
verification, calibration, and of 20 test sections for
minimum of 20 test
validation.
MEPDG verification, sections for
calibration, and
MEPDG
validation.
verification,
calibration, and
validation.
PCC: CRCP punchout
performance data from
section on US 287 near
Iowa Park (built 1970, 8 in
thick) compared with
predicted punchouts from
MEPDG.
PCC: Partly done.
Limitations in inputs
and discrepancies in
punchout mechanisms
prevented complete
calibration.
PCC: Not done.
MEPDG
Overview or
User Guide
Yes. MEPDG
design process,
design inputs,
performance
criteria, and
performance
prediction model
overviews.
Yes. MEPDG
CRCP punchout
model overview.
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Won 2009
Evaluation of
MEPDG Use,
Functionality, Evaluation and/or
and Results Characterization of
State Reasonableness MEPDG Inputs
SC Yes.
No.
Preliminary
runs
performed to
assess
reasonableness
of predicted
performance
using Level 3
inputs.
December 2014
E-38
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies (continued).
Evaluation of
MEPDG Use,
Functionality,
and Results
Reference
State Reasonableness
Zhou et al. 2008 TX Partially.
(First-year report
Detailed
for Project 0descriptions of
5798-1, the goal
available
of which was to
models for
develop a
HMA fatigue
framework for
cracking,
development and
HMA rutting,
implementation
base/subgrade
of next level
rutting, and
MEPDG for
stabilized
TxDOT (Texlayer fatigue
ME)
cracking.
Identification
of models
recommended
for Tex-ME.
Banerjee 2009
TX No.
Sensitivity Analysis
for Identifying Key
Evaluation and/or Factors Affecting Database for MEPDG
Predicted
Model Verification &
Characterization of
MEPDG Inputs
Performance
Calibration
Yes. Identification Not done. Future
No.
and evaluation of project work will
test procedures.
evaluate
performance
Evaluation of
prediction models
performance
prediction models through sensitivity
testing.
through
practicality of data
inputs.
No.
HMA: Using data
from an SPS-3 test
section in El Paso
District, sensitivity
of rutting
predictions to two
key inputs
(AADTT and
HMA thickness) in
the rutting model
and to each of the
three rutting model
calibration
coefficients (βr1,
βr2, and βr3)
evaluated.
HMA: Data on 6
Texas LTPP test sites
compiled for analysis
(1 SPS-1 site [5 test
sections], 4 SPS-3
sites [13 test sections],
and 1 SPS-5 site [8
test sections).
Local Calibration of
MEPDG Model Verification
MEPDG Models
Not done. Future project
Not done. Future
work will evaluate
project work will
performance prediction
calibrate performance
models through simulation
prediction models
results.
using performance data
from LTPP, test track
studies, and various
TX sections.
HMA: Actual versus
predicted rutting for each
SPS-1, SPS-3, and SPS-5
test section.
Validation of
Locally
Calibrated
Models
Not done.
Yes. Overview of
MEPDG process
and MEPDG
HMA permanent
deformation
prediction model.
E-39
December 2014
HMA: Level 1 bias
HMA: Not done.
correction factors (βr1,
βr3) developed for each
LTPP test section;
Level 2 bias correction
factors developed for
each LTPP site; Level
3 bias correction
factors developed for
Texas. Influence of
SPS-5 rehab variables
(milling, overlay
thickness, recycled
mix) and SPS-3
preservation variables
(thin overlay, chip
seal, climate) on bias
correction factors for
rutting.
MEPDG
Overview or
User Guide
No.
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies (continued).
Reference
Banerjee et al.
2010a and
Banerjee et al.
2009
Evaluation of
Sensitivity Analysis
MEPDG Use,
for Identifying Key
Functionality, Evaluation and/or Factors Affecting Database for MEPDG
Predicted
and Results Characterization of
Model Verification &
State Reasonableness MEPDG Inputs
Performance
Calibration
TX No.
No.
Not done.
HMA: Texas Flexible
Pavement Database
(TFPD), which
includes over 200 test
sections comprised of
about 185 LTPP and
41 Texas PMIS test
sections.
TX No.
No.
Not done.
HMA. Data on 5
Texas LTPP test sites
compiled for analysis
(4 SPS-3 sites [13 test
sections] and 1 SPS-5
site [8 test sections]).
Darter et al.
2009a (Report)
UT Yes.
Evaluated
suitability of
MEPDG for
Utah.
HMA and PCC:
Review of UDOT
design policy,
traffic data
collection
practices,
materials and
subgrade soil
characterization
practices for
determination of
recommended
input levels.
HMA and HMAOL
on HMA: Several
key inputs (HMA
and base layer
thicknesses, HMA
dynamic modulus
and other properties,
traffic, climate,
initial IRI) evaluated
for cracking
(fatigue, thermal),
rutting, and IRI.
JPC and CPR of
JPC: Several key
inputs (PCC
thickness, PCC
strength and other
properties, base
type, traffic, climate,
initial IRI) evaluated
for slab cracking,
faulting, and IRI.
Sampling matrix
created for project
selection. Total of 60
LTPP (16) and UDOT
projects (44) (26
HMA, 4 HMAOL on
HMA, 21 JPC, and 9
CPR of JPC)
identified for possible
use, with 50 actually
used. LTPP database
and various UDOT
databases used to
compile database for
verification/calibration
projects.
Local Calibration of
MEPDG Model Verification
MEPDG Models
HMA: Actual versus
HMA: Level 1 bias
predicted rutting for 18
correction factors (βr1,
LTPP test sections (5
βr3) developed for each
sections comprising one
of 18 LTPP test
SPS-1 site, 13 sections
sections; Level 2 bias
comprising four SPS-3
correction factors
sites).
developed for each of
five Texas regions;
Level 3 bias correction
factors developed for
Texas.
HMA: Actual versus
HMA: Level 1bias
HMA: Not done.
predicted rutting for each
correction factors (βr1,
LTPP test section.
βr3) developed for each
test section.
HMA and HMAOL on
HMA: Actual versus
predicted cracking (fatigue,
thermal), rutting, and IRI.
With exception of rutting
model, which was locally
calibrated, all models
predicted reasonably well.
Recommended continued
verification.
JPC and CPR of JPC:
Actual versus predicted slab
cracking, faulting, and IRI.
All models predicted
reasonably well and hence
local calibration not needed.
Recommended continued
verification.
MEPDG
Overview or
User Guide
Yes. Overview of
MEPDG process
and MEPDG
HMA permanent
deformation
prediction model.
Yes. Overview of
MEPDG HMA
permanent
deformation
prediction model.
Also, background
on LTPP SPS-3
and SPS-5
experiments.
HMA and HMAOL on Not done. However, Yes. MEPDG
HMA: Local
sensitivity analysis
model overview.
of the locally
calibration of rutting
model: new calibration calibrated HMA
performance models
coefficients of βr1
conducted using a
=0.560 (HMA),
βB1=0.604 (base), and representative
βs1)=0.400 (subgrade) baseline HMA
JPC and CPR of JPC: pavement design.
Not done.
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Banerjee et al.
2010b
Validation of
Locally
Calibrated
Models
HMA: Not done.
December 2014
E-40
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies (continued).
Reference
Darter et al.
2009b
(User Guide)
Flintsch et al.
2007
Evaluation of
Sensitivity Analysis
MEPDG Use,
for Identifying Key
Functionality, Evaluation and/or Factors Affecting Database for MEPDG
Predicted
and Results Characterization of
Model Verification &
Local Calibration of
State Reasonableness MEPDG Inputs
Performance
Calibration
MEPDG Model Verification
MEPDG Models
UT No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
VA No.
No.
Yes.
Characterization of
11 different HMA
surface,
intermediate, and
base mixes in
terms of dynamic
modulus, creep
compliance, and
tensile strength.
Development of
dynamic modulus
master curves for
individual mixes.
Yes. Sensitivity
testing of dynamic
modulus to
different mix
constituents.
No.
No.
No.
Validation of
Locally
Calibrated
Models
MEPDG
Overview or
User Guide
Yes. MEPDG
process overview,
MEPDG software
installation and
use, step-by-step
instructions for
performing a new
or rehabilitated
pavement design,
recommended
values for entire
range of inputs
(general, traffic,
climate, reliability,
structure/materials,
and performance
criteria), and two
example designs
(1 HMA, 1 PCC).
No.
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies (continued).
December 2014
E-41
Reference
Gramajo et al.
2007
Diefenderfer
2010
Evaluation of
Sensitivity Analysis
MEPDG Use,
for Identifying Key
Functionality, Evaluation and/or Factors Affecting Database for MEPDG
Predicted
and Results Characterization of
Model Verification &
State Reasonableness MEPDG Inputs
Performance
Calibration
VA No.
No.
Not done.
Flexible: Structure and
condition data on 3 inservice, high-traffic
pavement sections
collected in 2004 via
coring, FWD, GPR,
IRI, and video
surveys.
Composite: Structure
and condition data on
4 in-service, hightraffic pavement
sections collected in
2004 via coring,
FWD, GPR, IRI, and
video surveys.
VA No.
No.
Yes. Catalog of binder No.
and mix properties for
11 VDOT asphalt
mixes compiled to
provide input values.
Pavement condition
data collected on two
model pavement
sections, an interstate
route (I-81 Augusta
County) and a primary
route (US 17 Stafford
County)
Local Calibration of
MEPDG Models
Flexible/Composite:
Not done, but
recommended for
future due to
discrepancies between
actual and predicted
performance.
Not done.
Recommendation
made that local
calibration of the
rutting and fatigue
cracking prediction
models be done.
Not done.
No.
Recommendation
made that local
validation of
calibrated rutting
and fatigue cracking
prediction models
be done.
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
HMA: Sensitivity
analysis of fatigue
cracking and
rutting using Level
1, 2, and 3 asphalt
material inputs for
all combinations of
3 different HMA
surface mixes, 4
different HMA
intermediate mixes,
and 4 different
HMA base mixes.
MEPDG Model Verification
Flexible: Actual versus
predicted fatigue cracking,
longitudinal cracking,
rutting, and smoothness for
3 case-study sections.
Composite: Actual versus
predicted fatigue cracking,
longitudinal cracking,
rutting, and smoothness for
4 case-study sections.
Validation of
Locally
MEPDG
Calibrated
Overview or
Models
User Guide
Flexible/Composite: Yes. Overview of
Not done.
MEPDG design
process, inputs,
and pavement
response and
distress models.
December 2014
E-42
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies (continued).
Reference
Li et al. 2006
Li et al. 2009
Evaluation of
MEPDG Use,
Functionality, Evaluation and/or
and Results Characterization of
State Reasonableness MEPDG Inputs
WA Yes. Bench
No.
testing for
model
prediction
reasonableness
WA Yes. Bench
No.
testing for
model
prediction
reasonableness
Database for MEPDG
Model Verification &
Calibration
MEPDG Model Verification
PCC. Data for 3
Yes, but not described.
calibration sections
and 5 validation
sections.
HMA: Data for 2
calibration sections
and 13 validation
sections.
Yes, but not described.
Validation of
Locally
MEPDG
Calibrated
Overview or
Local Calibration of
MEPDG Models
Models
User Guide
PCC: Local calibration PCC: Validation of No.
of cracking, faulting,
calibrated cracking,
and smoothness
faulting, and
models for JPC-ND (I- smoothness models
5 section), Mountain
using 3 JPC-ND
Pass JPC-ND (I-90
sections (I-82, I-82,
section), and JPC DBR and I-5), 1 Mountain
(I-5 section).
Pass JPC-ND
section (I-90), and 2
JPC DBR sections
(I-82, I-90)
HMA: Local
calibration of cracking,
rutting, and
smoothness models
using 2 calibration
sections (I-20 and I195). New rutting
model coefficients of
βr1=1.05, βr2=1.109,
βr3=1.1, βs1=0.0, and
new cracking model
coefficients of
βf1=0.96, βf2=0.97,
βf3=1.03, bottom-up
C1=1.071 and C2=1.0,
top-down C1=6.42 and
C2=3.596.
Recommendation
made for continued
testing and calibration
of models, and for
calibration of HMA
overlay models.
HMA: Validation of
calibrated cracking,
rutting, and
smoothness models
using 13 HMA
sections with
varying traffic
levels, subgrades,
and geographical
locations.
No, but
recommendation
made for
developing a user
guide.
E-43
December 2014
Sensitivity Analysis
for Identifying Key
Factors Affecting
Predicted
Performance
PCC: Several key
inputs (traffic,
climate, slab
thickness, joint
spacing, dowels,
base type, soil
type) evaluated for
slab cracking,
faulting, and
smoothness.
Subsequently, 16
different
calibration factors
associated with the
cracking, faulting,
and smoothness
prediction models
evaluated.
HMA: Several key
inputs (traffic,
climate, layer
thickness, soil
properties)
evaluated for
cracking
(longitudinal,
fatigue, thermal)
and smoothness.
Subsequently, 13
different
calibration factors
associated with the
cracking (fatigue,
longitudinal,
thermal), rutting,
and smoothness
prediction models
evaluated.
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies (continued).
Evaluation of
Sensitivity Analysis
MEPDG Use,
for Identifying Key
Functionality, Evaluation and/or Factors Affecting Database for MEPDG
Predicted
and Results Characterization of
Model Verification &
State Reasonableness MEPDG Inputs
Performance
Calibration
WA No.
No.
No.
HMA: Data for
selected re-calibration
sections.
PCC: Data for
selected re-calibration
sections.
Validation of
Locally
MEPDG
Calibrated
Overview or
Local Calibration of
Reference
MEPDG Model Verification
MEPDG Models
Models
User Guide
Li et al. 2010
HMA: Comparison of
HMA: Re-calibration
Design outputs
Pavement
cracking, rutting, and
of cracking, rutting,
using re-calibrated
thickness design
smoothness model outputs
and smoothness
MEPDG models
catalog for flexible
with WSDOT historical
models using WSDOT checked against
and rigid
performance data.
historical performance design outputs from pavements,
data.
1993 AASHTO
prepared using
PCC: Comparison of
1993 AASHTO
cracking, faulting, and
PCC: Re-calibration of Design Guide
Guide, MEPDG,
smoothness model outputs
cracking, faulting, and procedure.
Confirmation that
and WSDOT
with WSDOT historical
smoothness models
1993 AASHTO
historical records.
performance data.
using WSDOT
historical performance procedure produces
overly thick designs
data.
for high traffic
levels.
Note 1: Study involves evaluation and implementation of the mechanistic-empirical flexible pavement design program CalME, developed by Caltrans and University of California. The program uses
different response and performance prediction models than those contained in the MEPDG.
Note 2: Indiana DOT has completed MEPDG model calibrations, but reports on these efforts are not available. Indiana DOT implemented MEPDG in December 2008. The process is detailed in chapter 52
of the Indiana Design Manual.
JPC: Jointed plain concrete
JPC-ND: Nondoweled JPC
DBR: Dowel bar retrofit
December 2014
E-44
Table E-2. Summary of MEPDG evaluation and implementation studies (continued).
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Consideration of Preservation in the MEPDG
A few notable observations regarding the MEPDG studies and their relevance to NCHRP Project
1-48 are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Most agencies have moved past a basic evaluation of the MEPDG and are focusing on
developing reliable inputs (particularly, traffic and materials properties) through
extensive field and lab testing activities; building databases, libraries, and data leveraging
tools to support MEPDG design analyses; evaluating the accuracy of the default
prediction models for local conditions; and performing local calibrations and validations
of some of the models.
The performance prediction models most commonly evaluated and/or calibrated include
the permanent deformation, fatigue cracking, and IRI models for HMA pavements and
the faulting, cracking, and IRI models for JPC pavements.
Although some agencies have performed model verification or local calibration using
performance data from only a few test sections or in-service sections, most have
identified and used data from a mix of in-state LTPP and PMS sections. Some, like
Montana, have used comparable sections from adjacent states.
Most of the model verification or local calibration efforts appear to have excluded postpreservation treatment performance data from the analysis. Hence, the calibrated models
represent the performance of the original pavement, whether new construction,
reconstruction, or an overlay.
Several of the local calibration studies were limited to an assessment of the
improvements resulting from the calibrated models or to sensitivity testing as a check for
reasonableness; no validation testing was performed. For those studies that included both
local calibration and validation testing, the percentage of sections used for calibration
typically ranged from 50 percent to 80 percent, leaving the percentage of sections for
validation between 20 and 50 percent.
All of the studies reviewed used one of the several prototype versions of the MEPDG
software for design analysis—research-grade versions ranging from the initial version [v.
0.7 released in June 2004] to the AASHTO Interim Standard version [v. 1.00 released in
April 2007] to the final version [v. 1.10 released in August 2009]). None used the nextgeneration, AASHTO commercial grade software, DARWin-ME (released in April 2011),
currently marketed as AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design.
Of interest in reviewing the various MEPDG studies was instances where the effects of
preservation treatment were recognized as a factor in the performance prediction models or the
models were specifically calibrated or modified to account for the effects of preservation
treatments. Three such studies were identified in the literature: work carried out in Texas
(Banerjee et al. 2010a), Montana (Von Quintus and Moulthrop 2007), and California (Ullidtz et
al. 2010). Summaries of these studies are provided below.
Permanent Deformation in Asphalt Overlays of HMA Pavement
In evaluating rutting data from eight test sections at an SPS-5 site in Texas (Dallas District),
Banerjee et al. (2010a) found that recycled mix (HMA with up to 35 percent reclaimed asphalt
pavement [RAP]) has a significant effect on the HMA rutting model bias correction factor βr3
(long-term rutting progression component), but not on the bias correction factor βr1 (initial or
early-age rutting component). Compared to virgin mixes, the recycled mix was more likely to
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
E-45
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
reduce the rate of rut development. Other SPS-5 experiment variables (milling and overlay
thickness) were determined to have no statistically significant effect on either βr1 or βr3.
Permanent Deformation in Preservation Treatments Applied to HMA Pavement
Using rutting data from 13 test sections at four SPS-3 sites in Texas (El Paso, Tyler, Abilene, and
Brownwood Districts), Banerjee et al (2010a) also examined the influence of pavement
preservation variables (thin overlay, chip seal, warm climate, wet climate) on the HMA rutting
model bias correction factors, βr1 and βr3. Results indicated that both thin overlays and chip seals
have a significant effect on βr1 and the product of βr1 and βr3; however, the effect was beneficial
for thin overlays (reduced initial and overall rutting) and adverse for chip seals. In explaining
the findings, Banerjee et al. noted that “thin overlays are often used to retard or correct minor
rutting problems and therefore they should influence the bias correction factors,” whereas
“…seal coats are not designed to stop or arrest rutting, but rather to seal the underlying pavement
structure and thus stop aging of the bituminous mix.”
Statistical analysis also showed that warm climate had a significant beneficial effect on βr1 and
the product of βr1 and βr3. While contrary to the logic that warmer temperatures translate to
higher rutting, one explanation offered by the author was that there may have been differences in
the binder that was used for each of the projects, which resulted in superior performance for the
test sections in the warmer climate zones.
Fatigue Cracking, Transverse Cracking, Rutting, and Roughness in New/Reconstructed
HMA Pavements and HMA Overlays
As part of the implementation of the MEPDG in Montana, Von Quintus and Moulthrop (2007)
developed pavement performance prediction models through verification testing and local
calibration of the MEPDG distress and roughness models for HMA pavements (new/original
conventional and semi-rigid pavement structures and HMA overlays). Test data and historical
performance data for 102 pavement sections (34 LTPP test sections in Montana, 55 LTPP
sections in neighboring states/provinces, and 13 non-LTPP sections in Montana) were compiled
for the analysis, based largely on the experimental matrix shown in Table E-3 (Von Quintus and
Moulthrop 2007). Data for LTPP sections were obtained from the LTPP database (DataPave),
while data for non-LTPP sections were obtained through extensive field and laboratory materials
testing and field distress surveys and profile (transverse and longitudinal) testing.
An initial review of the test section data compiled for the analysis yielded several key
performance observations. One observation was that the Montana sections consisting of
new/original pavement structures (i.e., non-overlaid) were performing better than the similar (yet
slightly older) structures that comprised the neighboring-state sections (Von Quintus and
Moulthrop 2007). This was partly attributed to the differences in the HMA mixture properties
(e.g., air voids). Another observation was that many of the older Montana and neighboring-state
sections had chip seals or other surface treatments placed on them early in their life, and that the
amount of cracking (transverse, longitudinal, and alligator) on these sections was less than on the
sections where no treatment had been placed. 1 With regard to this observation, the authors noted
that “application and use of different pavement preservation policies and materials between the
different agencies and test sections will need to be considered in the verification and calibration
process of the global transfer function for each distress.”
1
This is 38 percent of the sections in Montana (18 of 47) and 49 percent of the sections in neighboring states (27 of
55).
E-46
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table E-3. Experimental matrix for Montana local calibration study (Von Quintus and
Moulthrop 2007).
Climate
Mixture Type
New
Construction;
Design Features
& Strategies
Reconstruction
Using In-Place
Recycling
HMA Overlay;
Rehabilitation
Strategies
Western
Eastern
Total
B
D
SP
B
DP
SP
Conventional Base-Type A
2–2
0–2
2–0
4–2
1–2
0–0
9–8
Conventional Base-Type B
0–7
5–4
0–0
3–0
1–0
0–0
9 – 11
Deep Strength
0–2
3–3
0–0
1–4
1–3
0–0
5 – 12
Drainage Layer
0–0
6–0
0–0
0–0
0–0
0–0
6–0
Semi-Rigid Pavement
0–5
0–4
0–0
3–1
1–0
2–0
6 – 10
Total New Construction
2 – 18
14 – 27
2–2
11 – 18
4–9
2–2
35 – 41
Pulverized; Semi-Rigid
1–0
0–0
2–0
2–0
1–0
2–0
8–0
Pulverized Pavement
2–0
1–0
2–0
0–0
1–0
2–0
8–0
Total In-Place Recycling
3–0
1–0
4–0
2–0
2–0
4–0
16 – 0
Overlay, Semi-Rigid
0–1
0–1
0–0
0–0
0–0
0–0
0–2
Simple Overlay
0–5
6–6
0–0
0–3
3–1
0–0
9 – 15
Mill & Overlay
0–4
4–0
0–0
0–0
0–0
0–0
4–4
Total Rehabilitation
0 – 10
10 – 7
0–0
0–3
3–1
0–0
13 – 21
Total
5 – 26
25 – 20
6–0
13 – 10
9–6
6–0
64 – 62
Note 1: The first number in the table defines the number of test sections located in Montana, while the second number lists the
test sections located in States adjacent to Montana.
Note 2: Cells with bold borders designate those experimental factor combinations for which no test section is available.
Verification testing (comparison of predicted versus measured distress) and local calibrations of
the various distress/roughness models were subsequently performed as part of the Montana
MEPDG implementation project (Von Quintus and Moulthrop 2007). Briefly described below
are the verification and calibration efforts that are considered most applicable to the issue of
incorporating pavement preservation into the MEPDG. Although validation of the new
calibration factors using independent test sections was not done, the adequacy of the calibrations
was evaluated in terms of the bias and standard error computed for the new models.
•
MEPDG Transverse (Thermal) Cracking Model—Verification testing of this model
showed that it generally over-predicts the length of transverse cracking on Montana
sections and under-predicts the length of cracking on test sections located in adjacent
states/provinces. Comparative analysis showed that the average length of transverse
cracks was 479 ft/mi for Montana sections and 2,026 ft/mi for neighboring-state sections.
This substantial difference was believed to be related to differences in the HMA mixtures
(differences in air voids) and the use of pavement preservation treatments on some of the
older Montana sections. Calibration of the transverse cracking model was subsequently
done using only the Montana test sections with a focus on the Level 3 inputs for the
model. The new calibration coefficient (βs3) was found to provide acceptable predictions
of transverse cracking in original HMA pavements and overlays, with the computed
standard errors being similar to those determined in the updated calibration work
completed under NCHRP Project 1-40D.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
E-47
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
•
MEPDG Rutting Models—Verification testing of the constitutive models indicated that
they over-predict total rut depth, due in part to the minimal rutting exhibited in the
unbound and subgrade soil layers of the Montana test sections. Calibration of the rutting
model for unbound layers was done using the Montana sections with negligible rutting in
the underlying layers, resulting in new values for βs1 and βs2 (coarse- and fine-grained
soils, respectively). The HMA rut depth model coefficients (kr1, kr2, and kr3) were also
re-calibrated (using the HMA mixture adjustment procedure recommended for use under
NCHRP Project 1-40B) to better account for differences in the HMA volumetric
properties between Montana and neighboring state test sections. Although the effects of
preservation treatments may have been a factor in the need for model re-calibrations, the
authors suggested that a key factor was the lower air voids in the HMA mixes (at time of
construction) of the Montana sections compared to the neighboring-state sections.
•
MEPDG Alligator/Bottom-Up Cracking—Verification testing of this model revealed that
it over-predicts the amount of alligator cracking on test sections comprised of
new/original HMA pavements and HMA overlays and under-predicts alligator cracking
on HMA overlay sections. Moreover, it showed that for sections that had received a
preservation treatment (both original pavements and HMA overlays), the model overpredicts the amount of alligator cracking. Using the HMA mixture adjustment procedure
recommended in NCHRP Project 1-40B, local calibration was performed whereby the kf1,
kf2, and C2 model parameters for the lower HMA layers were adjusted based on the voids
filled with asphalt (VFA) mix parameter. Further calibration analysis resulted in the
development of separate functions of the C2 coefficient for sections with and without
preservation treatments, as illustrated in Figure E-6. Use of the preservation C2
coefficient in the cracking model scales back the predicted cracking to account for the
effects of a future preservation treatment.
Figure E-6. Determination of the C2 parameter from the VFA of the lower dense-graded HMA
layers (Von Quintus and Moulthrop 2007).
E-48
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Fatigue Cracking, Permanent Deformation, and Reflective Cracking in
New/Reconstructed HMA Pavements and HMA Overlays
The California DOT has developed an incremental-recursive mechanistic-empirical (M-E)
design procedure for flexible pavements (new/reconstructed HMA and HMA overlays) and
packaged the procedure with other design procedures (Caltrans’ R-Value and Deflection
Reduction methods, as well as the M-E method developed by The Asphalt Institute), into one
software program titled CalME. The program was developed beginning in the late 1990s using
research products from SHRP, subsequent DOT-sponsored research and development, and
models and data from research programs around the world (Ullidtz et al. 2010). While CalME
uses some of the MEPDG models (e.g., asphalt modulus), it is primarily based on a variety of
models developed by the University of California Partnered Research Center (UCPRC) to fill
gaps in the MEPDG, including the following:
•
Calibrated models for conventional binders, not modified binders.
•
Primary emphasis on new construction, as opposed to rehabilitation (which is a key
interest area to California).
•
Some of the models are not mechanistic.
•
Difficulties in calibration using accelerated pavement testing results.
•
Primary reliance on laboratory testing for moduli.
To date, the CalME incremental-recursive M-E procedure has undergone model calibration and
validation using test data from California’s heavy vehicle simulation (HVS) experiment
conducted between 1995 and 2004 (Ullitdz et al. 2006a) and the WesTrack experiment
conducted in Nevada between 1996 and 1999 (Ullitdz et al. 2006a; Ullitdz et al. 2006b). These
calibration and validation efforts were performed sequentially from 2004 to 2006. Additional
calibrations and validations are currently underway using test data from the National Center for
Asphalt Technology (NCAT) test road in Alabama and the MnROAD test facility in Minnesota
(Wu, Signore, and Harvey 2010).
Unlike the MEPDG, which includes an incremental model for aging (and the consequential
stiffening of asphalt concrete layers over time), CalME’s incremental-recursive procedure
accounts for decreases in modulus due to fatigue damage as well as increases in modulus due to
aging. Through Monte Carlo simulation, the program is able to model material properties and
pavement structure mechanical properties on an hour-by-hour basis, and correspondingly predict
deflection responses and progressions of fatigue cracking, permanent deformation, and reflective
cracking (Ullitdz et al. 2010).
CalME also offers the user the ability to schedule one or more pre-defined M&R or preservation
treatments, either on the basis of a specified time from the beginning of the design cycle or when
a predicted distress reaches a specified threshold. The immediate impact of the application of
these treatments on rutting is defined by the user in terms of rut depth reduction (Ullidtz et al.
2010). An example of the former approach is shown in Figure E-7 (Ullitdz et al. 2010).
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
E-49
December 2014
0
Final Report Appendices
20
Time, years
Figure E-7. Performance prediction with mill-and-fill preservation treatment scheduled after 20
years (Ullitdz et al. 2010).
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2008.
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide—A Manual of Practice. Interim Edition.
Publication Code MEPDG-1. AASHTO, Washington, DC.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2010. Guide
for the Local Calibration of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide. AASHTO,
Washington, DC.
Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA). 2004. Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of
New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. NCHRP Project 1-37A Final Report. National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Washington, DC. Online at
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/mepdg/home.htm.
Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA). 2009a. Implementing the AASHTO MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design Guide in Missouri: Volume I–Study Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendations. MODOT Study RI04-002. Missouri Department of Transportation,
Jefferson City, MO.
Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA). 2009b. Implementing the AASHTO MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design Guide in Missouri: Volume II–MEPDG Model Validation and
Calibration. MODOT Study RI04-002. Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City,
MO.
Banerjee, J.A. 2009. Calibration of the Permanent Deformation Models in the Mechanistic
Empirical Pavement Design Guide. Master Thesis, University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Banerjee, A., J.A. Prozzi, and J.P. Aguiar-Moya. 2009. “Texas Experience using LTPP for
Calibration of the MEPDG Permanent Deformation Models.” 09-0829, Compendium of Papers
DVD. 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.
E-50
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Banerjee, A., J.A. Prozzi, and J.P. Aguiar-Moya. 2010a. “Calibrating the MEPDG Permanent
Deformation Performance Model for Different Maintenance and Rehabilitation Strategies.” 102355, Compendium of Papers DVD. 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Banerjee, A., J.P. Aguiar-Moya, A.F. Smit, and J.A. Prozzi. 2010b. Development of the Texas
Flexible Pavements Database. FHWA/TX-10/0-5513-2. Texas Department of Transportation,
Austin, TX.
Baus, R.L. and N.R. Stires. 2010. Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
Implementation. FHWA-SC-10-01. South Carolina Department of Transportation, Columbia,
SC.
Bayomy, F., S. El-Badawy, and A. Awed. 2012. Implementation of the MEPDG for Flexible
Pavements in Idaho. Final Report. Idaho Transportation Department, Boise, ID. 375 p.
Buch, N., K. Chatti, S.W. Haider, and A. Manik. 2008. Evaluation of the 1-37A Design Process
for New and Rehabilitated JPCP and HMA Pavements. Report No. RC-1516. Michigan
Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI.
Crawford, G. 2009. “National Update of MEPDG Activities.” Presented at the 88th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington DC.
Darter, M.I., Titus-Glover, L. and H.L. Von Quintus. 2009a. Draft User’s Guide for UDOT
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design. UT-09.11a. Utah Department of Transportation, Salt
Lake City, UT.
Darter, M.I., Titus-Glover, L. and H.L. Von Quintus. 2009b. Implementation of the
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide in Utah: Validation, Calibration, and
Development of the UDOT MEPDG User’s Guide. UT-09 11. Utah Department of
Transportation, Salt Lake City, UT.
Diefenderfer, S. 2010. Analysis of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
Performance Predictions: Influence of Asphalt Material Input Properties. FHWA/VTRC 11-R3.
Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, VA.
Fernando E.G., J. Oh, and D. Ryu. 2007. Phase I of M-E PDG Program Implementation in
Florida. Research Report No. D04491/PR15281-1. Florida Department of Transportation,
Tallahassee, FL.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2010. “Local Calibration of the MEPDG Using
Pavement Management Systems.” Volume I. Report No. FHWA-HIF-11-026. FHWA,
Washington, DC. Online at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/pub_details.cfm?id=722.
Flintsch, G.W., A. Loulizi, S.D. Diefenderfer, K.A. Galal, and B.K. Diefenderfer. 2007.
Asphalt Materials Characterization in Support of Implementation of the Proposed MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design Guide. Report No. VTRC 07-CR10. Virginia Department of
Transportation, Richmond, VA.
Galal, K.A. and G.R. Chehab. 2005. “Implementing the Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide
Procedure for a Hot-Mix Asphalt-Rehabilitated Pavement in Indiana.” Transportation Research
Record 1919. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
E-51
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Gramajo, C.R., G.W. Flintsch, A. Loulizi, A., and E.D. de Leon Izeppi. 2007. “Verification of
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Deterioration Models Based on Field Evaluation of In-Service
High-Priority Pavements.” Compendium of Papers CD. 86th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Haider, S. W., N. Buch, and K. Chatti. 2008. “Evaluation of M-E PDG for Rigid Pavements—
Incorporating the State-of-the-Practice in Michigan.” 9th International Conference on Concrete
Pavements. San Francisco, CA.
Hall, K.D., S.X. Xiao, and K.C.P. Wang. 2011. “Calibration of the MEPDG for Flexible
Pavement Design in Arkansas.” Paper 11-3562. Compendium of Papers DVD. 90th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Kannekanti, V. and J. Harvey. 2006a. Sensitivity Analysis of 2002 Design Guide Pavement
Distress Prediction Models. UCPRC-DG-2006-01. Final Report. California Department of
Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
Kannekanti, V. and J. Harvey. 2006b. Sample Rigid Pavement Design Tables Based on Version
0.8 of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide. Technical Memorandum UCPRCTM-2006-04. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
Khanum, T., J.N. Mulandi, and M. Hossain. 2008. Implementation of the 2002 AASHTO Design
Guide for Pavement Structures in KDOT. K-TRAN: KSU-04-4. Kansas Department of
Transportation, Topeka, KS.
Kim, Y.R., F.M. Jadoun, T. Hou, and N. Muthadi. 2011. Local Calibration of the MEPDG for
Flexible Pavement Design. Report No. FHWA\NC\2007-07. North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Raleigh, NC.
Li, J., S.T. Muench, J.P. Mahoney, N. Sivaneswaran, and L.M. Pierce. 2006. “Calibration of the
NCHRP 1-37A Software for the Washington State Department of Transportation: Rigid
Pavement Portion.” Transportation Research Record 1949. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
Li, J., L.M. Pierce, and J.S. Uhlmeyer. 2009. “Calibration of the Flexible Pavement Portion of
the Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide for the Washington State Department of
Transportation.” Compendium of Papers DVD. 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Li, J., J.S. Uhlmeyer, J.P. Mahoney, and S.T. Muench. 2010. “Use of the AASHTO 1993
Guide, MEPDG, and Historical Performance to Update the WSDOT Pavement Design Catalog.”
Compendium of Papers DVD. 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Record.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Muthadi N.R. 2007. Local Calibration of the MEPDG for Flexible Pavement Design. M.S.
Thesis Dissertation for North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Muthadi N.R. and Y.R. Kim. 2008. “Local Calibration of the MEPDG for Flexible Pavement
Design.” 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Record. Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.
E-52
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Nantung, T., G. Chehab, S. Newbolds, K. Galal, S. Li, and D.H. Kim. 2005. “Implementation
Initiatives of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guides in Indiana.” 84th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC.
Pierce, L.M. and G. McGovern. 2014. Implementation of the AASHTO Mechanistic Empirical
Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) and Software. NCHRP Synthesis 457. National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Washington, DC.
Rodezno, M.C., K.E. Kaloush, and G.B. Way. 2005. “Distress Assessment of Conventional
HMA and Asphalt-Rubber Overlays on PCC Pavements using the Mechanistic-Empirical Design
of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures.” Compendium of Papers CD. 84th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC.
Rodezno, M.C. and K.E. Kaloush. 2009. “Comparison of Asphalt Rubber and Conventional
Mixtures Properties and Considerations for MEPDG Implementation.” Compendium of Papers
DVD. 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Romanoschi, S.A. and S. Bethu. 2009. Implementation of the 2002 AASHTO Design Guide for
Pavement Structures in KDOT, Part-II: Asphalt Concrete Pavements. K-TRAN: KSU-04-4 Part
2. Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka, KS.
Schwartz, C.W. 2007. Implementation of the NCHRP 1-37A Design Guide: Volume I-Summary
of Findings and Implementation Plan. Final Report for MDSHA Project SP0077B41. Maryland
State Highway Administration, Lutherville, MD.
Schwartz, C.W. and R.L. Carvalho. 2007. Implementation of the NCHRP 1-37A Design Guide:
Volume 2-Evaluation of Mechanistic-Empirical Design Procedure. Final Report for MDSHA
Project SP0077B41. Maryland State Highway Administration, Lutherville, MD.
Souliman, M., M. Mamlouk, M. El-Basyouny, and C.E. Zapata. 2010. “Calibration of the
AASHTO MEPDG for Flexible Pavement for Arizona Conditions.” Compendium of Papers
DVD. 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Ullidtz, P., J. Harvey, I. Basheer, D. Jones, R. Wu, J. Lea, and Q. Lu. 2010. “CalME: A New
Mechanistic-Empirical Design Program for Flexible Pavement Rehabilitation.” Paper 10-1938.
Compendium of Papers DVD. 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C.
Ullidtz, P., J.T. Harvey, B.W. Tsai, and C.L. Monismith. 2006a. “Calibration of IncrementalRecursive Flexible Damage Models in CalME Using HVS Experiments.” Report No. UCPRCRR-2005-06. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA. Online at
http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/research/publications/publication-detail/?pub_id=1189.
Ullidtz, P., J.T. Harvey, B.W. Tsai, and C.L. Monismith. 2006b. “Calibration of CalME models
using WesTrack Performance Data.” Report No. UCPRC-RR-2006-14. California Department
of Transportation, Sacramento, CA. Online at
http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/research/publications/publication-detail/?pub_id=1190.
Velasquez, R., K. Hoegh, I. Yut, N. Funk, G. Cochran, M. Marasteanu, and L. Khazanovich.
2009. Implementation of the MEPDG for New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures for
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
E-53
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Design of Concrete and Asphalt Pavements in Minnesota. MN/RC 2009-06. Minnesota
Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN.
Von Quintus, H.L. and J.S. Moulthrop. 2007a. Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
Flexible Pavement Performance Prediction Models for Montana—Volume I Executive Research
Summary. FHWA/MT-07-008/8158-1. Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, MT.
Online at http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=836590.
Von Quintus, H.L. and J.S. Moulthrop. 2007b. Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
Flexible Pavement Performance Prediction Models for Montana—Volume II Reference Manual.
FHWA/MT-07-008/8158-2. Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, MT.
Von Quintus, H.L. and J.S. Moulthrop. 2007c. Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
Flexible Pavement Performance Prediction Models for Montana: Volume III—Field Guide.
FHWA/MT-07-008/8158-3. Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, MT.
Von Quintus, H., J. Mallela, R. Bonaquist, C. W. Schwartz, and R. L. Carvalho. 2012.
Calibration of Rutting Models for Structural and Mix Design. NCHRP Report 719. NCHRP,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_719.pdf.
Wang, K.C., Q. Li, K.D. Hall, V. Nguyen, W. Gong, and Z. Hou. 2008. Database Support for
the New Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide. Transportation Research Record 2087.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Witczak. M.W. 2008. Development of Performance-Related Specifications for Asphalt
Pavements in the State of Arizona. Report No. FHWA-SPR-08-402-2. Arizona Department of
Transportation, Phoenix, AZ.
Won, M. 2009. Evaluation of MEPDG with TxDOT Rigid Pavement Database. FHWA/TX09/0-5445-3. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX.
Wu, R., J.M. Signore, and J.T. Harvey. 2010. Summary of SPTC Pooled-Fund Study for
Sharing and Evaluation of CalME Flexible Pavement Design Software. Report WA-RD 764.1.
Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA.
Zhou F., E. Fernando, and T. Scullion. 2008. Transfer Functions for Various Distress Types.
FHWA/TX-08/0-5798-P2. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX.
E-54
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
APPENDIX F. SHA INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses.
SHA
What is the background, nature, and status of your agency’s pavement preservation program?
Arizona DOT
In AZ, they take pavement preservation and stretch it pretty far. Also, like some agencies, there is
sometimes confusion as to the terminology of preservation. In this interview discussion, it is understood
that preservation essentially refers to preventive maintenance.
Caltrans has Preventive Maintenance (PM) and Capital Preventive Maintenance (CAPM) programs.
Preventive Maintenance program is the equivalent of Pavement Preservation, as defined in the NCHRP
1-48 study. Capital Preventive Maintenance represents light/minor rehabilitation, such as 2- to 2.5-in
HMA overlays, more extensive slab replacements (up to 10%), and dowel bar retrofit. For purposes of
this interview, Preservation = Preventive Maintenance.
California DOT (&
John Harvey)
(John Harvey): PM falls under Contract Highway Maintenance Program (work designation HM-1. The
CAPM is designated HA-22, while rehab is designated under HA-21. Reference the report entitled
“Alligator Cracking Performance and LCCA of Pavement Preservation Treatments” (Lee, Nokes and
Harvey 2008), which shows preservation projects selected for analysis and the designations in which
those projects fell under (mostly HM-1). An interesting finding in this report was that HM-1 overlays
(i.e., PM) were placed on pavements with an average alligator cracking level of 17 percent, HA-21
overlays (i.e., rehab overlays) were placed on pavements with an average cracking level of 16 percent,
and HA-22 overlays (i.e., CAPM) were placed on pavements with average cracking level of 12 percent.
Needless to say, it was recommended that future HM-1 treatments need to be placed on pavements with
lower levels of alligator cracking.
Indiana DOT
Have a PP initiative and are in their 4th year. First year was FY 09. Are just now developing FY 12
program.
Kansas DOT
For many years in KS, preservation was broader than the thin stuff. The current definition of
preservation is “taking care of what we’ve got.” This actually includes the heavy actions like
reconstruction and rehabilitation, if it doesn’t add capacity. (Note: For clarity and understanding in this
interview, it was explained that preservation essentially refers to preventive maintenance).
Maryland SHA
Minnesota DOT
Missouri DOT
New Jersey DOT
North Carolina
DOT
Ohio DOT
Texas DOT
Utah DOT
Virginia DOT
Washington State
DOT
MnDOT has no formal preservation (i.e., preventive maintenance) program, but is very active in the use
of preservation treatments on their system of roads.
Described below.
Described below.
Described below.
Described below.
Described below.
UDOT has been doing pavement preservation activities since the late 1980s. They try to include
pavement preservation in everything they do. They try to create and sustain a preservation culture.
Described below.
In terms of nomenclature, they consider preservation as including (in addition to maintenance)
resurfacing up through reconstruction. Maintenance has a separate budget and that is where preventive
maintenance would occur. When they talk about their preservation budget, they are primarily talking
about resurfacing, which is 0.15 ft or 3 in. They also have a Mobility program, which is a separate
program. What we would call preventive maintenance they just call maintenance.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
F-1
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
Is there an established Preservation unit with a lead engineer?
Arizona DOT
Yes, they do have a Preservation unit with a lead engineer. The lead engineer is Mr. Mafiz Mian, who
operates out of Pavement Management. He is dedicated full-time to preservation efforts. He initiates, funds,
and coordinates all the projects. Being in Pavement Management, he has access to the field crews that do
ride/distress surveys. And, he works closely with the maintenance superintendents throughout the Districts.
Maintenance used to be involved substantially in preservation, but since budgets have been slashed, it is not
doing much now.
California DOT There is no established Preservation unit, but Larry Rouen (Office of Pavement Engineering) is considered to
(& John Harvey) be the lead engineer for Preservation.
Indiana DOT
Kansas DOT
Maryland SHA
Minnesota
DOT
Missouri DOT
New Jersey
DOT
Have a PP engineer, Bill Tompkins, but he’s now being called the Roadway Preservation engineer.
Roadway Preservation and Bridge Preservation fall under Maintenance Division.
No.
Don’t really have an official program. Until 3 years ago there really wasn’t much going on in preservation in
MD. About 95% of their program was “fix it with overlays.” In the past year or so, they’ve really been
trying to implement a program. They’re also looking at integration into their pavement management
program. Had NCPP’s assessment and got a report in 2008 and are trying to implement their
recommendations. Geoff is the champion. He’s in the pavement unit that includes pavement management
and pavement design. Pavement Design group is the one responsible for preparing pavement preservation
decision trees.
Luke is the Pavement Preservation Engineer, but they’re decentralized so the Districts do their own decisionmaking, funding, project selection, and so on. From the central office, they’re mostly providing advice and
monitoring/tracking what the Districts do preservation-wise. The Districts are encouraged to include
preservation—some actually have a line item in the STIPP—but this is up to them. About half have this.
Some Districts put preventive maintenance in their road repair/emergency maintenance fund, so if they have
an emergency they will do that rather than preservation. Districts are also asked to submit a plan at the start
of the year and a report at the end of the year that says what they did for preventive maintenance (i.e.,
locations, treatments, costs). These reports become part of the Commissioner’s report.
No.
Not officially. Preservation has come out of the Pavement Management and Technology Unit (formerly
pavement design). The Maintenance and Operations Department puts out maintenance and preservation
projects and the Capital Programs Department manages overlays and reconstruction. Crack sealing and
patching is done internally by Maintenance and Operations; the rest is contracted out, either by Maintenance
and Operations or by Capital Programs.
North Carolina
DOT
Don’t have a preservation unit, but do have a state preservation program engineer (Dennis Wofford) in the
State Road Maintenance unit. However, he works very closely with Judith because pavement management is
very much a part of the mix.
Ohio DOT
Not Officially. However, the Pavement Design Section of the Office of Pavement Engineering (specifically,
Aric Morse) handles all the pavement preventive maintenance guidance (Note: ODOT uses the term
preventive maintenance, not preservation; they consider preservation to include all things done to a pavement
to keep it functional).
Texas DOT
Utah DOT
No, there is no established Preservation unit and no lead engineer.
No, there is not a preservation unit or a lead engineer.
Virginia DOT
Washington
State DOT
F-2
Yes. Raja Shekharan is Pavement Management and Pavement Preservation Engineer. Preservation within
VDOT has evolved more from Pavement Management than Maintenance. Raja and the Pavement
Management group prepare a comprehensive annual program for pavement upkeep, that includes the full
range of treatments from reconstruction to preventive maintenance. Preservation treatments are selected
based on a formal treatment selection process (decision trees). The program is provided as recommendations
to the 9 VDOT Districts, who ultimately decide what projects get done and what treatments are used. In
general, the Districts end up going with 70 to 80 percent of the treatments recommended by Pavement
Management.
Currently, there is no established Preservation unit. However, they are working to integrate Maintenance
with Pavement Management to have a unique preservation function. In WSDOT’s Pavement Division is
Pavement Design (Mark Russell) and Pavement Management (Dave Luhr). These are all housed in the
Materials Lab under the State Pavement Engineer (Jeff Uhlmeyer).
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
Arizona DOT
If there is no separate Preservation unit, where are preservation activities handled (i.e., maintenance,
pavement management, research)?
Not applicable.
Pavement preservation is handled through multiple units. Office of Pavement Engineering is in charge of
evaluating and developing guidance on when to use preservation and specifically which treatments to use.
Pavement Management is responsible for tracking performance of preservation treatments and developing
treatment performance models (though no models have been developed yet). Programming is responsible for
working with the Districts in selecting projects for Preservation.
California DOT
(John Harvey): Caltrans indeed has no lead preservation engineer or separate preservation unit, but they
(& John Harvey)
are working collectively to have one of the most advanced preservation programs in the country. Several of
the key players in the program came up through Maintenance and understand the importance of keeping
good roads good. Probably the thing that has hampered the program the most is the lack of good quality
data from pavement management, as the Department sees the need for a data-driven preservation
policy/program. In the last couple years, they have been taking major steps to upgrade the PMS; the hope is
that within a few years there will be good performance data to work with to further the cause of preservation.
Indiana DOT
Kansas DOT
Maryland SHA
Minnesota DOT
Missouri DOT
New Jersey
DOT
North Carolina
DOT
Ohio DOT
Texas DOT
Utah DOT
Not applicable.
Don’t have anything formally named pavement preservation. It is actually a cooperative effort across groups.
Roy Rissky (Chief of Construction and Maintenance) oversees the purse strings, but there are a lot of people
who help him with the responsibility of making decisions about how to spend the money (e.g., Materials and
Research, Pavement Management).
There is no separate unit. It’s in the Office of Materials and Technology (OMT). The Office of Maintenance
does reactive maintenance only. Preventive maintenance is handled by Districts. There is no distinct
research unit; OMT does their own research.
Preservation is handled at the District level. Information from the Districts (starting with the year-end
reports) goes into their pavement management database, which is tracked by central office and used to
generate a listing of candidate preservation projects for future consideration by Districts.
Preservation is split up among three different divisions: Maintenance, Planning, and Construction and
Materials. Maintenance interfaces with field personnel and gets immediate feedback from the field about
what’s working and what’s not. They disseminate this information to Planning and Construction and
Materials. Budgeted funds are either targeted for a specific roadway or improvement to the roadway. This is
done in Planning. The Pavement Section is under Construction and Materials and does a project-by-project
evaluation to look at what’s appropriate for the timeframe the District is trying to improve a roadway in. A
fourth group that gets involved is Interstate Corridor Engineers. There are five subsections and each engineer
is responsible for programming everything that’s done to the interstates. The Districts do have a lot of
autonomy in treatment selection, especially when it comes to minor preservation treatments. This includes
their 1-in lower quality lifts, chip seals, slurry seals, patching and so on. HQ is starting to get involved more
in preventive maintenance, including project selection, timing, standardization of the treatments, and so on.
Pavement Management and Technology. Most of the decision-making comes from Pavement Management.
Have switched to dTIMS and Deighton is working with Rutgers to spit out projects that make sense. The
Regions have some input on project selection, but mostly provide feedback.
Mainly through State Road Maintenance unit, however project selection and execution is handled by
Divisions (what others would call Districts), Pavement Management unit assists with data to support
selection, and Research manages contracts for preservation.
See above. Pavement Management (Brian Schleppi, 614-752-5745) is a separate unit, and not part of our
office. Districts can identify candidate sections for preventive maintenance through the PMS GQL Logic,
which can be found in ODOT’s 2001 Preventive Maintenance Guidelines document. The GQL Logic
identifies the appropriate conditions (pavement type, road class/traffic level, existing pavement conditions
[PCR ranges]) for using individual treatments. Research has shown that some of the logic in their queries are
not appropriate (i.e., PCR range is too high; treatments are being applied to early). Aric will be updating the
GQL Logic and Preventive Maintenance Guidelines document within the next year.
Preservation is handled through both construction and maintenance. Magdy (Pavement Systems) handles a
lot of this. The Texas PP Center is in Maintenance, and they also have a routine budget dedicated to
preservation.
For a long time, preservation was handled out of the maintenance division. Now, it is a part of Projects (i.e.,
Project Development Division), which essentially functions at the Region level. Office of Asset
Management (Gary’s unit, which operates under Systems Planning and Programming) has developed models
for funding that include pavement preservation and has prepared UDOT’s Pavement Preservation Manual.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
F-3
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
Virginia DOT
Washington
State DOT
F-4
If there is no separate Preservation unit, where are preservation activities handled (i.e., maintenance,
pavement management, research)?
Not applicable.
Preventive maintenance falls under Maintenance, and they are just introducing some preventive maintenance
projects under their capital preservation program. They are transitioning to integration of Maintenance and
Pavement Management. Preventive maintenance right now is state forces, but they’re not opposed to
contracting it out.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
What is the size of the preservation program, in terms of dollars spent, number of projects, and
miles treated yearly, by pavement type? For how many years are such records available?
Arizona DOT
About $10M is set aside every year for pavement preservation, which covers about 20 projects and 300
lane-miles. This year, they had $30M, of which $20M came from ARRA and they did about 900 miles.
They used to do more, but recently have gone to using all Federal Aid dollars. Before, when they used
state dollars, their maintenance crews could do striping and traffic control; they could do about 2,000 lanemiles. Current preservation activities are mostly all by contract.
California DOT
(& John Harvey)
The Preservation program is $200 million/year and covers about 2,700 lane-mi/year. Roughly 90% of the
preservation work is geared toward the asphalt side. An estimate of the number of projects is not available.
Decent records for the Preservation program, in terms of treatment applied and locations and corresponding
performance data, are available for the last 5 years. These records continue to be assembled into a database
at the California Pavement Preservation Center in Chico, CA.
Indiana DOT
Total annual treatment amount is 1,700 lane miles, and is a combination of in-house (chip seals) and
contract work. In-house is funded through maintenance budget. FY 2011 was about $30M, FY 12 will be
less at about $25M. Report every year. Have three reports, starting in FY 09.
Kansas DOT
KDOT’s three funding programs for preservation include $10M/year for contract maintenance,
$145M/year for non-interstates 1RR, and $56M/year for interstates ISR over the past 10 years or so.
KDOT breaks out treatments by heavy (something of 4 inches or more equivalent thickness), light (1.5 to
2.5-inch equivalent thickness), and non-structural (<1.5 inch equivalent thickness), and these treatments
typically cover about 1,200 roadway miles annually. Prior to this year, they had a category called Major
Modification and they would have all have been beyond preservation. Major Modification looks long into
the future. Substantial Maintenance (chip seals and the like) would have been the light type actions that
would have fallen under the preservation heading and would have considered what was being planned in
Major Modification. The new program (T-Works) essentially merges these two together and there is not
clear direction about where the dollars in the new program are supposed to go. It’s a work in progress.
Maryland SHA
Thin-lift HMA overlays have always been a significant part of their rehabilitation/system preservation
program, which also includes structural overlays. Unfortunately, no way to break the thin-lift HMA
overlays out of their system. For the past decade, about 75 percent of the 700 lane-miles/year of
resurfacing is thin lift overlays (i.e., 525 lane-miles/year, about 130 projects/year). About 15 projects/year
and 150 lane miles/year of non thin-lift overlays preventive maintenance is performed.
Minnesota DOT
Overall, they spend about $20M statewide annually on preventive maintenance. Sometimes more,
sometimes less. They’ve been tracking miles and locations since about 2003. At that time, they had a
spending goal of $40M and the most they ever spent was $32M. The goal of $40M was established in
2001 and expired in 2008, but the underlying process is still in place. They may be able to provide a table
showing the number of lane-miles by highway class/facility.
Missouri DOT
It would be really tough to break this out. For major roads (principal arterial and above), they spend about
$430M/year (this includes bridges), but this covers everything ranging from preventive maintenance to
rehabilitation to replacement. The Maintenance budget is entirely separate and is totally taken care of at
the District level. Historically, they spend about $35 to $60M on minor roads which are the biggest part of
their system, but they can’t break out how it’s been spent. They do have statewide goals (perhaps since
2005: 85% Good on the major roads; no published goal for the minor roads) for the distribution of
pavement conditions for the 10 Districts and this is now driving how the Districts are spending money. On
major roads, perhaps only crack sealing is done by Maintenance; otherwise, the rest of pavement
preservation is done by contracts. On minor roads, it’s the other way around, where most of the work is
done by Maintenance—crack sealing, chip seals, etc. They do have some specialized concrete repair teams
for doing in-house FDRs ahead of contracted work.
New Jersey
DOT
$3 to $4M/year was in the budget as a line item for years (overseen by Maintenance & Ops). There is also
more money available from both funding sources.
North Carolina
DOT
They have good data on chip seal program. Judy will e-mail it. Have also set aside $10M of their Federal
allocation for interstate preservation (includes both bridge and pavement preservation). Funding is divided
among Divisions (i.e., Districts), based on number of miles of interstates and deck area of bridges. Have
good records available for about 9 or 10 years of preservation on the local road system. Will have good
records on the interstates moving forward, due to interstate preservation funding. Are deficient on the
primary routes because not much preservation has been done on these roads.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
F-5
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
Ohio DOT
Texas DOT
Utah DOT
Virginia DOT
Washington
State DOT
F-6
What is the size of the preservation program, in terms of dollars spent, number of projects, and
miles treated yearly, by pavement type? For how many years are such records available?
The total answer to this question is unknown. However we have prepared a yearly preventive maintenance
report that can be provided. It might be possible for the Pavement Management Section (under the Office
of Innovation Partnerships and Energy) to create a report. See above contact.
There are two different budgets: construction (preservation portion is dedicated and starting in 2007 to
2010 was $308M, $127M, $31M, $51M) and maintenance (total funding [preservation and all other forms
of maintenance] is 2007 = $303M, $381M, $380M, $420M). It’s up to the Districts to decide how they
allocate their funds in terms of projects and treatments. There is a separate program for rehabilitation
(classified as structural overlays ≥2.0 inches), funding for which has been 2007--$1.8B, $2.17B, $1.9B,
$805M.
This information is largely unavailable. The size of the program is determined by the pavement
management program. Pavement management models are set up to include preservation treatments. So it
will make recommendations for what projects could use preservation. The Regions have a tool called “A
Plan for Every Section” which has recommended timings for various treatments. They really haven’t been
tracking how much they’ve been doing for preservation in any meaningful way. Although maintenance
dollars are tracked, these dollars only cover chip seals and crack seals which are done in-house by state
forces; the costs of the many other preservation treatments used (done by contract) are not tracked.
VDOT’s total program (reconstruction down to preservation) is about $200M per year, covering 120,000
lane-mi of roadway (Interstates, Primary, and Secondary). Currently, preservation treatments are mostly
done by contract (major jobs). State forces get involved in small, routine jobs (typically crack sealing and
patching).
Maintenance by itself is perhaps $10 to $15M. They can send a link to the Green Notebook that gives
more detail about Maintenance activities. A lot of the preventive maintenance decisions are made at the
Region level, and each Region is approaching preventive maintenance in their own unique way. Different
Regions have different priorities. There is no centralized approach. Executives are working toward and
pushing a “coordinated asset approach.” But so far there has not been good integration between
Maintenance and their capital program to date. This “coordinated asset approach” began 2 to 3 years ago.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
Arizona DOT
California DOT
(& John Harvey)
Is there dedicated funding for pavement preservation?
Yes. Typically, about $10M per year.
Yes. $200 million/year.
Indiana DOT
Yes. FY 2012 is $12M for contract work. Last year it was $18M/$13M. Looking for total of $25M in FY
2012.
Kansas DOT
Not currently. The most recent funded transportation program has a funding category called preservation
that includes major rehab and reconstruction. In the past (back to early 1980s), however, KDOT had
programs directed at preventive maintenance-type activities.
Maryland SHA
MDSHA has dedicated funding for system preservation (fund 77). Pavement preservation is a part of this,
but it also includes rehabilitation. It’s not broken out.
Minnesota DOT
There is no dedicated funding per se, due to the decentralized setup. The Districts are given an amount of
money and they get to decide their program. They have autonomy, but they have to report back what they’ve
accomplished and there are performance ratings.
Missouri DOT
New Jersey
DOT
North Carolina
DOT
Ohio DOT
Texas DOT
Utah DOT
No, the Districts have the latitude to spend their funding however they want to achieve their goals.
Yes, it is variable from year to year.
Yes there has been dedicated funding for at least 7 or 8 years.
No. Never has been.
Yes, there is dedicated funding (as outlined above).
The amount is variable and is tied in with rehabilitation. A program is set up every year, but it’s not funded
at a level where everything can be done. However, there is a very small statutory requirement to spend on
preservation and they always spend more than that amount. They also have an amount in their STIP under
“Master PM.” So in a sense, funding is dedicated, but if it needs to be moved, it is. Current program is
$43M, of which $9M is state forces maintenance and the rest is under Projects budget.
Virginia DOT
Not currently. They have tried the last 3-4 years to dedicate funding for preservation, but the idea has not
taken root yet.
Washington
State DOT
There is no dedicated funding. Funding goes into the Maintenance pool, and there is a Region–by-Region
pool. $3 to $5M per biennium.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
F-7
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
Arizona DOT
California DOT
(& John Harvey)
Indiana DOT
Kansas DOT
Maryland SHA
Minnesota DOT
Missouri DOT
New Jersey DOT
North Carolina
DOT
Ohio DOT
Texas DOT
Utah DOT
Virginia DOT
Washington State
DOT
F-8
What is the scope of your agency’s preservation program?
Described below.
Described below.
(John Harvey): The Caltrans MTAG document provides a good description of what the preservation
program consists of in terms of treatments used and on what roads and pavement types they are used on.
The “Alligator Cracking Performance and LCCA of Pavement Preservation Treatments” report mentioned
earlier only includes treatments (primarily dense- and open-graded thin overlays [neat and rubberized],
chip seals [conventional, rubberized, and polymer-modified], crack seals, and slurry seals) placed in the
1988 – 2003 timeframe, so it does not reflect the treatments that are currently used.
All state roads are subject to preservation.
Described below.
Fairly broad, as described below.
Described below.
Described below.
Described below.
Described below.
Described below.
Fairly comprehensive, as described below.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
What types of roads (e.g., low-volume, high-volume, rural, urban) are subject to preservation?
Arizona DOT
Treatments are placed on all types of roads. However, different strategies are used for the different road
types.
California DOT (&
John Harvey)
All types of roads are subject to preservation. However, it is primarily focused on low-volume roads,
whereas capital work is primarily focused on the high-volume roads. Also, Caltrans has application
criteria that are used which screen the treatments in part on traffic volume.
Indiana DOT
All state roads, regardless of traffic volume and setting. Just change treatment.
Kansas DOT
All roads are subject to preservation, however, KDOT has defined “feasible action types” which says
what treatments can be used and on what roads they can be used on. Kansas has 23 different road
categories that considers key factors, including traffic volume, pavement type, condition/distress, and
shoulders.
Maryland SHA
On paper, any road is subject to preservation, but the reality is that interstates are the exception.
Minnesota DOT
No pavements are excluded from preventive maintenance. Maybe some high volume urban freeways
don’t receive treatments, but that’s not a rule. They recommend a transition from chip seals to micros at
an ADT of 10,000, but that’s not a hard and fast rule.
Missouri DOT
New Jersey DOT
North Carolina DOT
Every road is a potential candidate for preservation.
None of the treatments are subject to traffic volume limitations. However, they aren’t using
microsurfacing on high volume roadways.
A lot of low volume roads have received preservation and recently have started preservation on highvolume roads (interstates). Also, beginning to creep into mid-volume roads, especially as they are
getting into polymer-modified asphalts.
Ohio DOT
All types of roads. However, there are criteria governing which treatments can be placed on which
roads.
Texas DOT
Preservation treatments are applied to all types of roads, interstates down to farm-to-market (FM).
Utah DOT
Roads are divided into three levels: Interstate, level 1 (ADT > 2000 or > 500 trucks/day), and level 2
(<2000 and <500 trucks/day). Level 2 is almost half of their centerline miles—they only do chip seal
and crack seals on these roads. These roads are held together with maintenance forces, funded at a
point of doing a chip seal about every 10 years. That leaves enough money to try to take care of the
interstates and Level 1 roads, which are eligible for the whole gamut of preservation treatments (except
OGSC, which they don’t recommend and have gotten away from using). This is their “Good Roads
Cost Less” strategy. One doughnut is that some of the Level 2 roads are NHS, but they are still not
doing anything other than chip seals.
Virginia DOT
Washington State
DOT
All roads are subject to pavement preservation.
All roads are candidates for preservation.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
F-9
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
Arizona DOT
California DOT (&
John Harvey)
Indiana DOT
Kansas DOT
Maryland SHA
Minnesota DOT
Missouri DOT
New Jersey DOT
North Carolina
DOT
Ohio DOT
Texas DOT
Utah DOT
Virginia DOT
Washington State
DOT
F-10
What types of pavements (asphalt, concrete, composite) receive preservation treatments?
Arizona mostly has asphalt and composite pavements, and thus the preservation treatments center
around these types of pavements. There are a few PCC pavements that have not received a friction
course, but none of these that haven’t have had any preservation.
All types of pavements receive preservation.
All types of pavements.
All types, but use is governed by “feasible action types.”
Definitely asphalt and composite, as they constitute 99 percent of the network. MDSHA also does PDR
on their PCC pavements.
All types.
All pavement surfaces are candidates for preservation.
All.
Most preservation is being done on asphalt pavements. A lot of the concrete is beyond preservation due
to age/condition.
All. However, there are criteria governing which treatments can be placed on which pavement types.
Preservation is placed on all of the flexible pavements. They don’t have much of a program on PCC.
They have a lot of CRCP and they don’t do joint sealants, dowel bar retrofit (DBR), etc. Composites are
treated the same as flexible pavements.
They do preservation on all types of pavements. 90% of interstates are HMA (new or HMA-surfaced).
Most of the PCC they have is on interstates.
All pavement types are subject to pavement preservation. As above, decision trees are used to
identify/select treatments for specific pavement types.
All pavement types are candidates for preservation.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
What types of treatments are commonly used?
Arizona DOT
For asphalt-surfaced pavements, crack seal, fog seal, chip seal, slurry seal, microsurfacing, chip seals
with cinder, sand seal, scrub seal, thin HMA overlays (many open-graded, but also some dense-graded).
They also do 2-in HMA overlays, but consider them to be structural overlays. For PCC pavements,
diamond grinding and thin HMA overlay. Thin HMA overlays are typically 0.5 in thick when placed
on asphalt-surfaced pavements, and 0.75 in thick when placed on concrete. Roughly 95% of the HMA
mixes are asphalt rubber.
California DOT (&
John Harvey)
The Caltrans Maintenance Technical Advisory (MTAG) identifies the treatments used in California.
On the asphalt side, the most common treatment is thin (≤1.5 in) HMA overlay. The mix type is usually
open-graded or gap-graded HMA using rubberized or neat asphalt binder. Milling is sometimes used
with thin overlays where smoothness or vertical constraints are an issue. Other common flexible
preservation treatments are crack sealing, slurry seals, and chip seals. Microsurfacing and thin bonded
wearing course (Novachip) treatments are also used, as is HIR surface recycling (1 to 2 in) and CIR (2
to 4 in). On the concrete side, the most common preservation treatments are isolated full-depth repair
(slab replacements) and diamond grinding.
Indiana DOT
Chip seal, microsurfacing, ultra-thin bonded wearing course (UWBC) (i.e., Novachip, thin HMA
overlay (4.75 mm, 0.75 in thick), and joint reseal, patching, and diamond grinding.
Kansas DOT
They use over 300 different treatments all together (preservation thru reconstruction), many of which
are variations of mill and overlay. All of the treatments are evaluated using the equivalent thickness
concept. For preservation, they use conventional chip seals, rout and seal, surface recycling, mill and
inlay, UBWC/Novachip (KDOT uses term UBAWS, or ultrathin bonded asphalt wearing surface).
KDOT does track “last surfacing material type,” but they don’t really use this for much.
Maryland SHA
Slurry seal and microsurfacing are the most common non-overlay treatments. Thin overlays (typically
1.5 inches, with 50/50 split of mill or no mill) are the most common. They also have some patch-only
projects. Also do some crack sealing, but rarely is this done by contract. It’s mostly done as reactive
maintenance by the Districts. Sometimes they do some grinding only as a fix. Chip seals rarely done,
as Districts hate them.
Minnesota DOT
For asphalt pavements, crack treatments (rout and seal, clean and fill), microsurfacing, and chip seals
(chip seals with fogs) are common. [life of the treatment becoming less of a concern]. Also, thin
overlays, thin mill-and-overlays using dense-graded Superpave mixes represent a lot of their
experience. They have to look closely at these latter treatments to determine if it’s preventive
maintenance or rehabilitation—generally, if thickness is less than 2 in and the existing pavement is
rated as fair or better, then they are designated as preventive maintenance. Typically, the overlays are 1
to 1.5 in thick, although in the past they did place several that were 0.75 in thick. For rigid pavements
they have joint seals, minor spall repair, partial-depth repair (PDR), and diamond grinding. They don’t
do much of this because of the cost. MnDOT has, in some cases, used ultrathin bonded wearing courses
(Novachip) on high volume (100,000 ADT) urban freeways.
Missouri DOT
The most common treatment in the past on minor roads was a 1-inch surface level course (sometimes
combined with patching). This was seen as a simple, low-cost fix that, in addition to adding a little
structure, also rejuvenates and improves smoothness. For a while they were getting this treatment on
the pavement about every 10 years before falling behind. They also put a lot of chip seals out there and
do some fly coats (i.e., fog seals). And, for a while, they used a lot of scrub seals. It helped to seal
cracks but looked terrible and made the road rough. So, in summary, minor road treatments ranged
from 1-inch surface courses to chip seals, to a surface sealer/rejuvenator.On the higher volume roads,
they did a lot of ultrathin bonded wearing courses (UBWC) (i.e., Novachip) (Note: MODOT uses term
UBAWS, for ultrathin bonded asphalt wearing surface). They have covered up hundreds and hundreds
of miles in the past several years with this treatment (placed 0.375 to 0.75 inches thick). It’s great for
sealing the surface, sealing cracks, rejuvenating, keeping a low profile, and restoring friction. On the
PCC side, they have been doing diamond grinding for 5 to 6 years, DBR, cross-stitching, undersealing
(moving away from grout slurry and toward asphalt or polyurethane), some edge drain retrofits, and
some microsurfacing. When used correctly, microsurfacing has worked well, but it has been overused.
Now they are doing UBAWS more often than anything. They are also doing thin (1.75-inch) HMA and
SMA overlays on high volume roads most commonly. Where vertical constraints are an issue, milling
is done with these overlays, but usually they are placed without milling. The milling is desired by the
contractors because it generates RAP, which is of value to them. Probably about 25 percent of projects
have milling now.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
F-11
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
What types of treatments are commonly used?
New Jersey DOT
Do both PCC (diamond grinding, PDR, joint repairs) and HMA (crack sealing, microsurfacing, thin
HMA overlays [< 1.5 in and typically without milling]). The HMA overlays include AR open-graded,
Novachip (generic), and a generic “high performance thin overlay (4.75 mm, PG 76-22)” mix. Have
not done much in terms of recycling (HIR, CIR). Are looking to ramp up in the future.
North Carolina
DOT
They use the whole toolbox, as they see it. Crack sealing, joint repair, diamond grinding (for
smoothness, not friction), ultra-thin bonded wearing course, microsurfacing, chip seals, single, double,
and triple seals, fog seals.
Ohio DOT
For asphalt-surfaced roads, they use crack seal, chip seal, microsurfacing, thin HMA (<2 inch, mostly
dense-graded, with and without pre-overlay repairs), fine-graded polymer-modified asphalt concrete
(ODOT Spec Item 424, Types A and B, this is a generic form of Smoothseal which is no longer
marketed/used). For concrete pavements, they use diamond grinding either solely (often for noise
reasons) or with full depth repairs. The do little partial-depth repairs and DBR. They do no joint
resealing, as state has gone away from sealing PCC joints.
Texas DOT
TXDOT does a lot of seal coats (they have a major chip seal program), with more lane miles than
anything else. They do some thin HMA overlays (classified as < 2.0 inches). The do very little
microsurfacing and UWBC/Novachip is rare. The do a lot of crack sealing. Their recycling projects are
light rehab, and they don’t do much HIR surface recycling. For thin HMA overlays, milling may or
may not be used depending on things like presence of rutting and vertical constraints (e.g., curbs). They
have moved away from a lot of the fancy overlay surfaces (SMA, OGFC/PFC) due to budget concerns.
Most of the HMA mixes are regular dense-graded materials. SMA and OGFC/PFC mixes are used on
high speed/high traffic facilities.
Most of the preservation work is contracted out. They do have seal coat crews and they are increasing
the lane miles that they do every year. It’s more cost effective. The big seal coat contracts are out of
the construction preservation budget.
Utah DOT
They do crack sealing and chip seals on Level 1 and interstates. They do a lot of microsurfacing, a little
bit of bonded wearing courses, some thin SMA overlays and thin HMA overlays (less than or equal to
1.5 inches, and most without milling). Microsurfacing is preferred in part because it doesn’t have to be
accompanied by milling. They do some HIR surface recycling and have done quite a few CIRs. For
PCC, they do diamond grinding, joint resealing, and spall repairs.
Virginia DOT
For asphalt pavements, crack seal, slurry seal, chip seal, UWBC/Novachip, thin HMA overlay (<1.5 in,
usually dense-graded [SMA and OGFC not typically used]). For concrete pavements, partial- and fulldepth repairs and diamond grinding.
Washington State
DOT
For asphalt, crack sealing, patching (both full-depth and blade patch), chip seal, and milling/grinding for
rutted pavements. Not a lot of overlays or mill and fills, as they have not had good performance from
thin overlays (thinnest/most common overlay is about 2 inches). No Novachip and microsurface
(performance for microsurfacing has not been good). For PCC, occasional slab replacements. May put
out a maintenance contract to do some of the maintenance work. Capital projects are not considered
preventive maintenance. A lot of their organizational structure and thoughts about this are based on
where/how the work is done.
F-12
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
To what extent does your agency track the performance of preservation treatments?
Arizona DOT
Roads are surveyed every year on 1-mi intervals. Their condition surveys are 1000 ft2 every mile at the
milepost.
Described below.
California DOT
(& John Harvey)
(John Harvey): As mentioned earlier, the Caltrans PMS database is undergoing a major upgrade. Asbuilts and other historical records are being obtained and reviewed in a big way, and the information
will be used to upgrade the database. As described in the “Alligator Cracking Performance and LCCA
of Pavement Preservation Treatments” report, there were serious issues with the consistency,
completeness, quality, and reliability of pavement performance data (particularly IRI, but also rutting
and transverse cracking). Also, dynamic segmentation has been issue, requiring the development of
algorithms to produce better section alignment. Efforts are afoot or forthcoming to re-do the above
preservation performance/LCCA study using updated PMS data. Also, a project was just started that
will look at pavement life extension provided by preservation treatments, based on project-level data
that includes do-nothing control sections. Another project will try to answer the question of pavement
life extension using network-level PMS data.
Indiana DOT
Preservation treatments done by contract work can be tracked, in-house treatments cannot be tracked.
Kansas DOT
Described below.
Maryland SHA
MDSHA is definitely in their infancy in this regard. Have to solicit from Districts what was done and
put it into the system. So there could be a lot of treatments out there they don’t know about. Now,
Pavement Management is being asked to track what has been put on the road and where. Distress
(cracking, rutting), ride (IRI), and friction data currently collected every year on roads at least 1 mile
long (ramps are excluded). Will soon change the data collection frequency from annual to biannual
(every other year), and will also go to sampling. Although data collection frequency will be reduced,
they will improve their data collection QA/QC procedures.
Minnesota DOT
MnDOT does track performance of preservation treatments, as described below.
Missouri DOT
New Jersey DOT
North Carolina
DOT
Ohio DOT
Texas DOT
Utah DOT
Virginia DOT
Washington State
DOT
Typically, they don’t identify a particular treatment type for the purpose of developing performance
curves and estimating design lives. They do ARAN van runs on an annual basis and have IRIs and
distress index scores for each pavement.
Described below.
Described below.
Described below.
Described below.
Most of the tracking is done through the “A Plan for Every Section” tool, as described below.
Described below.
They use a Pathways data collection van to survey their network every year. For 2-lane roads it’s in one
direction and for divided highways it’s in two directions. Pavements are driven in the summer and the
ratings are made during the winter. Distresses (cracking, patching, etc.) are summarized on a tenth of a
mile basis.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
F-13
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
Arizona DOT
Are the location and type of preservation treatment recorded in the pavement management system
to allow monitoring performance?
Yes. The location and type of treatment are recorded in the pavement management system. However,
they have not tracked performance.
California DOT
(& John Harvey)
The database that is being developed at the California Pavement Preservation Center has information on
the types of treatments and locations, as well as some of the performance monitoring data.
Indiana DOT
Contract work is definitely captured in the pavement management system. Right now there is no good
way of getting the in-house work in the PMS, but they are working on it. They use Agile Assets work
management system for maintenance. It’s a scheduling/accounting/man-hour planning type of system. It
doesn’t track treatment performance.
Kansas DOT
Maryland SHA
Minnesota DOT
Missouri DOT
New Jersey DOT
North Carolina
DOT
They do have information about treatments that would allow them to track treatment performance. For
each 1 mile, they know what treatment was done and when.
Perhaps since 2008 (couple years of data).
Yes, they track this. They can go back into their pavement management database to the 1970s. Luke
thinks that this is most accurate for most Districts for about the past 20 years. They have found that
pavements with initial construction problems, such as density or durability, are much better candidates for
preservation. Hot mix that doesn’t have construction problems has so far not benefitted as much from the
application of pavement preservation. They’re also looking to see if there is an effect on routine patching
from doing preservation that doesn’t get captured in the pavement management system. They’re also
asking whether preservation has an impact on safety that isn’t captured.
Information is available in the PMS datafiles that will allow them to identify treatment locations and
analyze performance. However, this is not something that is frequently done. Moreover, they don’t
evaluate the performance of the treatment; they try to look at the extension of life of the pavement that the
treatment has been placed on. Until 2010, they could track treatments in the PMS only if they were done
by contract. That has now changed. However, they still focus on looking at increasing remaining life or
extending pavement life overall, rather than the effects of individual treatments or the effects of one
treatment versus another.
Each treatment is being tracked in the pavement management system. However, there is probably not
much data.
Ride quality (IRI) surveys are done annually. Testing is done in the right lane of multiple-lane facilities
in each direction. Also do a distress survey, manually keying in distresses seen at 50 or 60 mph. Rutting
data also collected by the same vehicle. Skid evaluation is done, but limited to problematic areas.
NCDOT is currently tracking the location and, to a limited extent, the type of treatment in the pavement
management system. However, a few years ago Jennifer eliminated a lot of the differentiating codes for
treatments in the MMS, so the ability to say how specific treatments worked has been lost (PMS was
dependent upon MMS data, and Pavement Management wasn’t even consulted about the change). This
has not been changed back. Most of these treatments are being placed in-house.
Ohio DOT
Yes, this information is tracked by ODOT PMS.
Texas DOT
In the past, they have not tracked any performance data. They are going to start doing that now. They are
2 years into a 4-year plan and they are working on a web-based system in which they can track the
construction history.
Utah DOT
They don’t necessarily track the performance of the preservation treatments at a project level, but rather
track the performance of the pavement. There is a disconnect between the treatments tracked in the “A
Plan for Every Section” and what’s recorded in the UDOT pavement management system, dTIMS
(Deighton Total Infrastructure Management System). dTIMS does not have the construction histories.
UDOT does performance modeling in dTIMS and then does management of the sections in Agile Assets.
All regions are sharing same database through Agile Assets.
Virginia DOT
Washington State
DOT
F-14
Locations of treatments haven’t been tracked in the past, but they’ve started doing it this year.
They are now in discussions with Maintenance to coordinate the use of condition ratings and determine
the effectiveness of maintenance actions in the future. Maintenance crews in the past have not been good
about recording locations of treatments. With new procedures and handheld PDAs in the field, this may
not be a problem in the future. WSDOT’s MMS is a work order and tracking system and not refined
enough to track treatment locations.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
Arizona DOT
California DOT
(& John Harvey)
What techniques (e.g., time-series trends of overall condition index, smoothness, and/or key
distresses; time until next preservation or rehabilitation treatment) are used in evaluating
preservation treatment performance?
They have not evaluated performance in the past.
Current estimates of treatment performance are experience-based. These are available in the MTAG
documents. Some studies of performance have been done, but they are unsure of what techniques were
used in assessing performance.
Indiana DOT
Special task group looking at this. Proposal before their research group to come up with new lives for all
of their pavements, from new design to preservation treatments. Life estimates based on IRI, rutting, and
distress thresholds.
Kansas DOT
In terms of the models used in the KDOT Optimizer program, it is simply the distress states are stepped
through transition probabilities (Markovian transformation functions) to give performance over time (a cost
and benefit for each treatment is then used to determine what treatments to apply and when [or under what
conditions]). In terms of data analyses methods, each treatment’s benefit could be tracked as before action,
1 year later, 2 years later, etc. Studies have been done using these time-series trends, as well as survival
analysis techniques (e.g., ARA LCCA study).
Maryland SHA
As above, will be collecting IRI, cracking data, rut data, and friction data. Also, they will monitor
condition just before treatment was applied.
Minnesota DOT
Luke feels that the benefit of preventive maintenance should be measured by the extension of pavement life
(i.e., the time until a major treatment such as rehabilitation is needed). Most of the treatment decisions are
made in terms of ride. However, distress should be the primary criteria.
Missouri DOT
MODOT is focused more on extending system life and delaying the need for rehabilitation, rather than
focusing on treatment performance.
New Jersey DOT
Have been involved with this over the past several years in transitioning to the Deighton PMS system.
North Carolina
DOT
Ohio DOT
A lot of time it’s the time to next preservation or rehabilitation treatment, and usually this is based on
cracking (threshold of 30 percent alligator cracking of low or moderate severity).
All of the above techniques are used.
Texas DOT
In the past (to date) they used engineering judgment. Chip seal cycle in theory is 7 years (based on
common frequency of application and observations as to how long they last). With funding constraints
they are going to have to move away from that cycle to 9 or 10 years. In some parts of the state they can
get 10 years; in other parts, 5 years.
Utah DOT
They measure IRI, wheelpath rutting, and surface distress (cracks and other) in asphalt pavements, and
spalling, faulting, and slab cracking in concrete pavements. Also collect FWD and skid data, but they are
not used in the model.
Virginia DOT
They’ve done a couple of studies in which preservation was not the focus; they looked at evaluating
performance of different mixes of thin HMA overlays. The evaluation used the Critical Condition Index
(CCI) with a threshold value of 60 (on 100-point scale). They came up with 8- to 9-year service life
estimates for their E mixes. They have also evaluated chip seals using a frequency approach (i.e., time
between applications). They came up with about 7 years life.
Washington State
DOT
They are hoping that with the new look at collecting Maintenance data they will be able to look long term
at how maintenance affects pavement performance.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
F-15
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
Arizona DOT
California DOT
(& John Harvey)
Indiana DOT
Kansas DOT
Have performance models for pavement preservation been developed?
No. Not within their agency. They generally go with anecdotal evidence.
No models have been developed.
Crack sealing and thin overlays have been studied.
Yes. Performance models are based on equivalent thickness of each treatment. For example, a chip seal is
equal to 0.25-inches of HMA. Models are separated for roughness, primary distress (cracking), and
secondary distress.
Maryland SHA
Only have performance models for overlays, and then just based on ride quality.
Minnesota DOT
No formal models have been developed yet. They have the ability to look at performance of treated versus
untreated, since they’ve included a lot of untreated control sections as part of their preservation program.
There are about 50 of these around the state, dating back to 2000. The bulk of these were constructed in
2006/2007/2008. These should be an excellent resource in the future. Mostly for surface treatments
(microsurfacing and chip), but a few for crack seals.
Missouri DOT
No. However, they have some indications of the life of individual treatments, or when the next treatment
needs to be placed. Their information on treatment lives is based on a study of when they placed the next
treatment rather than perhaps when they needed to place it. The availability of funding also drives when
treatments are placed.
New Jersey DOT
North Carolina
DOT
Pavement Management has developed models for its use in programming.
Judy just wrote a white paper on performance of BST on aggregate base. The paper includes performance
models.
Yes, they have been developed through research for use in PMS. A couple ODOT reports of interest are:
Ohio DOT
Arudi Rajagopal. 2010. EFFECTIVENESS OF CHIP SEALING AND MICRO SURFACING ON
PAVEMENT SERVICEABILITY AND LIFE
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/TransSysDev/Research/reportsandplans/Pages/PavementReports.aspx
Eddie Chou, Haricharan Pulugurta, Debargha Datta. 2008. Pavement Forecasting Models.
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/TransSysDev/Research/reportsandplans/Pages/PavementReportsDeta
il.aspx#134148
Texas DOT
Performance models are in their pavement management system. However, they have not been rigorously
calibrated. Tammi has been working with University of Texas, which claims some models but they have
not been used in the system. Bryan says that they have performance models, but they’re not used
extensively because they haven’t been calibrated in the field and they don’t have enough confidence with
them.
Utah DOT
There are no formal models. University of Utah did studies on relationship between chip seals and skid,
and perhaps another similar study.
Virginia DOT
Washington State
DOT
F-16
They have performance models in their pavement management system; models for preventive
maintenance, as well as for corrective maintenance, rehabilitation, and major reconstruction. These
models are based on empirical data/observations, modified by experience and expert input.
No. Currently no data on how things have performed and so there are not any models. They only have
anecdotal evidence.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
Arizona DOT
California DOT
(& John Harvey)
What findings/results of preservation treatment performance evaluations are available?
Is documentation of these evaluations available?
No findings yet.
Suggest checking the Pavement Preservation Center’s website.
Indiana DOT
There are some studies planned. And have done some internal studies of a few treatments, such as thin
overlays, microsurfacing, and UBWC.
Kansas DOT
They are weak on documentation on just about everything. Kansas State (Liu et al. 2010a, 2010b, 2010c)
has done evaluations of service life of different treatments (available as TRB and PP Conference papers),
but those evaluations were kind of light.
Maryland SHA
Right now, their pavement preservation manual has assumptions about treatment performance, but no
actual data.
Minnesota DOT
There are some informal documents, but nothing formal or published. They may be able to provide some
performance curves and/or summaries that have been prepared internally in recent years.
Missouri DOT
New Jersey DOT
North Carolina
DOT
Not really; most reports are on rehab. They have been doing a chip seal challenge among Districts, for
which a report may be available. There may be a report on best practice from Research (check the
MODOT online library of reports).
Documentation should reside with the pavement management group.
UWBC on JPC TRB paper (we have), BST on aggregate white paper (we don’t have).
Preventive maintenance can be done too early. Research results are either published or soon to be. A
couple ODOT reports of interest are:
Ohio DOT
Eddie Chou, Debargha Datta, Haricharan Pulugurta. 2008. Effectiveness of Thin Hot Mix Asphalt
Overlay on Pavement Ride and Condition Performance.
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/TransSysDev/Research/reportsandplans/Pages/PavementReports
Detail.aspx#147950
Arudi S. Rajagopal and Issam A. Minkarah. 2003. Effectiveness of Crack Sealing on Pavement
Serviceability and Life.
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/TransSysDev/Research/reportsandplans/Pages/PavementReports
Detail.aspx#14738
Texas DOT
One of the main documented studies is the Texas SMERP study done in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Utah DOT
Performance evaluation studies have been very limited. A lot of what has been done is based on expert
opinion.
Virginia DOT
There have been some studies done that look at elements of preservation treatments, but not on
preservation as a whole. They have looked at Novachip and another treatment. Affan will send some
documents.
Washington State
DOT
Nothing really.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
F-17
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
Arizona DOT
Does your agency evaluate the effect of a preservation treatment on overall pavement performance (i.e.,
does it evaluate the extension in overall pavement life as a result of applying a preservation treatment)?
If so, how is this evaluation done and how is it different from the evaluation of treatment performance?
They have the capacity to do this, but are not doing it; mostly, due to lack of time and resources.
California DOT
This has not been done by Caltrans, but is recognized as being an important point.
(& John Harvey)
Indiana DOT
Only have 4 years of experience. And things have changed over time (e.g., Superpave, drainable bases, use of
new treatments such as Fibermat and UBWC). The simple answer is no. INDOT’s focus has been primarily
on specs and QA/QC to ensure preservation treatments are constructed properly for best chances of success.
Kansas DOT
No, not in the traditional sense. Yes, in the sense of internally to the Optimizer program, whereby treatments
are identified only as equivalent thicknesses). These are different from the treatments performance in that they
are stepwise probabilities of distress state levels, not specific models of condition parameters.
Maryland SHA
Still thinking about this and wondering whether it will be in terms of the treatment itself or in terms of the
treatment’s impact on pavement performance. Still working on development and application of the remaining
service life (RSL) concept, where life extension is determined as the time in which a preservation-treated
pavement reaches an RSL value that is the same as the RSL value just before application of the preservation
treatment. There is no report outlining this RSL approach, but Geoff has--and will email--a PowerPoint that
covers the approach.
Minnesota DOT They are emphasizing the extension of life and not the life of the treatment.
Missouri DOT
Yes. They really focus on the extension of the overall structure’s life and not an evaluation of the treatment
itself. The measures that they use are the average time to a major rehabilitation. Eventually, they could just
look at individual distresses and/or ride, because they’ve been collecting a lot of these data.
New Jersey DOT
Not sure how it’s being done, but most likely not in terms of pavement life extension. It is unlikely that there
are any test sections with controls where comparisons could be made.
North Carolina
DOT
The Divisions (i.e., Districts) do a good job of tracking performance of preservation treatments. In general,
NCDOT has looked at the change in pavement condition rating over time as the percentage of preservation
work has increased (versus the application of Band-Aid maintenance). Have used the reluctant Divisions
(those that don’t do preservation very much) as the controls against those who do. PMS data are used to show
positive effects of preservation to help bring reluctant Divisions along.
Ohio DOT
Texas DOT
Utah DOT
Virginia DOT
Washington
State DOT
F-18
Refer to ODOT research reports.
Bryan says that they have that capability in their pavement management system in the optimization routine.
However, this goes back to the reliability of their prediction models and that hasn’t been determined.
According to Bryan, if they were centralized and the optimization routine was viable they could use it.
They study pavement performance rather than treatment performance. In part, since they don’t really track
where they are doing treatments it would be hard to track the performance of individual treatments.
Not done.
This is all anecdotal at this point, but they are going to undertake a research project.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
Arizona DOT
California DOT
(& John Harvey)
What is your agency’s current pavement design procedure (if not MEPDG)?
Their current procedure is the 1993 AASHTO Guide. They use this procedure for both new design and
reconstruction. For rehabilitation design, they use SODA (Structural Overlay Design for Arizona), which
is deflection-based. They have used the MEPDG in limited cases, where they had to do analysis of value
engineering proposals (for new construction). It currently is not calibrated, but they are in the process of
doing that now.
For new asphalt design, they use the Caltrans Empirical R-Value method. For asphalt rehabilitation
design (overlay, mill-and-overlay, remove-and-replace), they use the Caltrans Empirical ReducedDeflection method. For concrete design, they use the MEPDG; however, the design procedure is
presented in terms of a catalog (different slab thicknesses corresponding to different traffic indexes, soil
support levels, lateral support, and base types/thicknesses).
(John Harvey): Caltrans does officially use their Empirical R-Value method for new flexible pavements,
and their Empirical Reduced-Deflection method for flexible rehab design. And, they do use MEPDGbased catalogue for rigid.
Indiana DOT
Kansas DOT
Maryland SHA
They use MEPDG (Chapter 52 of the INDOT Design Manual).
1993 AASHTO Design Guide (DARWin).
MDSHA currently (and officially) uses AASHTO 93. Design Guide.
Minnesota DOT
MnDOT’s official current design procedure is their R-Value design process. They are starting to look at a
somewhat constrained pavement selection process because of the interest in doing more alternate bid
projects. They have been using Mn/PAVE for flexible pavement design (as a check on the R-Value
design, once a pavement type selection has been made), which is a semi-ME approach. And, they have
used the MEPDG for some projects. [When they use PG 58-34 they have 1/10th the thermal cracking that
they see on other binders. This might have as much of an impact on preventive maintenance as anything
they do.] They believe that pavement decisions should be made from a holistic viewpoint, because
design, preservation, maintenance, and so on are all linked together.
Missouri DOT
New Jersey DOT
North Carolina
DOT
Ohio DOT
Texas DOT
Utah DOT
Virginia DOT
Washington State
DOT
MODOT is currently using the MEPDG. They use it for new construction and reconstruction only.
Overlay designs via MEPDG are not done as they don’t have a lot of confidence in the models and think
that they are not an improvement over their existing empirical or program-driven approaches (they note
that science is not really applied to rehabilitation). Also, MODOT has a standard overlay design of 1.75
inches and they are not tweaking this based on site inputs. If they are overlaying PCC they will put down
two lifts rather than the one. A lot of their actions are driven by funding: next year they are going from a
program that was $1.2B to $500M.
Still using AASHTO ’93 but using it side-by-side with MEPDG.
1972 AASHTO Design Guide.
AASHTO 93 Design Guide
For flexible pavements, they use (and have used for several years) the FPS-19 program that is semimechanistic and is based on deflections surface curvature, and Texas triaxial test. For flexible pavement
design, they count on staged construction. They design with a “time to first overlay” which might occur
at year 8, 10, or 12. Recently, because of funding limitations and the need to stretch dollars, they have
relaxed some of their inputs in pavement design, such as reliability, initial serviceability, with the
assumption that they are going to do preservation and maintenance to reach the intended design. The DEs
told them that they need to eliminate a lot of the conservatism so that pavements are more affordable.
This philosophy or idea of relaxing design inputs and counting on future preservation to achieve the
design life, is at the heart of the NCHRP 1-48 project. Magdy recognizes that there is no rational basis for
the degree of reduction in reliability that Texas uses and is hopeful that NCHRP 1-48 can produce a
rational, methodical procedure for doing so.
For PCC pavements, TXDOT does thickness design with AASHTO 1993 Design Guide. For steel design
(steel content), they use CRCP-10, which is a M-E program developed by McCullough and Moon Won.
Right now they are doing side-by-side 93 AASHTO and the MEPDG.
1993 AASHTO Design Guide is used for primary and interstate roadway pavements. For secondary
roads, they have a local home-grown design method developed at the Virginia Transportation Research
Council (VTRC). It’s a tweak of the 1972 AASHTO Design Guide.
1993 AASHTO Design Guide.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
F-19
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
Arizona DOT
California DOT
(& John Harvey)
Indiana DOT
Kansas DOT
Maryland SHA
Minnesota DOT
Missouri DOT
New Jersey DOT
North Carolina
DOT
Ohio DOT
Texas DOT
Utah DOT
Virginia DOT
Washington State
DOT
F-20
Is pavement preservation incorporated into the current
design process (i.e., are the expected increases in
pavement service life due to preservation treatments
factored in)?
Only indirectly. They consider the reduced layer coefficient
in rehab design (using SODA), but don’t really account for
this in looking at alternative strategies.
The current design procedures do not take into account
preservation.
Preservation is not accounted for in the MEPDG. On the
asphalt side it affects HMA aging and so would have to
change the dynamic modulus as a design input. They don’t
do that now. They do an adjustment in Level 1 in which
when it’s time to do preservation they check to make sure
that the pavement is structurally adequate. They make no
adjustments in Level II or III design. They make no
changes to the calibration models to account for
preservation. But they believe that CA (John Harvey) is
trying this as part of the CAL-ME development.
Preservation is factored into the pavement type
selection/LCCA process.
Within DARWin they do not consider preservation or try to
incorporate the effects into design. Their design approach is
short-term based, in that they look at the pavement in 10year increments. Over the years, they add a few inches of
pavement and end up getting 40 to 50 years of life. They
know that the lighter actions that they do are not on a 10year cycle, but in the end it gets you to about the same place.
No. They adjust design life based on actual experience.
99% of their activity is rehabilitation (very little new
design).
It is incorporated into both the R-Value and Mn/PAVE
procedure in that all of their pavement sections included in
the development of these models probably have received
preservation at some time. Certainly in Minnesota’s
pavement sections, preservation has been applied. But they
could not break out what treatments.
No.
No.
No, the procedure does not incorporate preservation.
No.
Only in an informal, indirect sense.
The short answer is no. However, in pavement management
models, the deterioration curves are built with the
assumption that there is going to be periodic maintenance
that provides a life benefit. It would be hard to break out the
models of pavements that do not have preservation.
Not really.
No.
If so, how is this done?
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
As described above, it is sort of “built-in”
to the models, since the sections used in
developing the models most likely had a
preservation treatment applied.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
As described above.
Not applicable.
Could maybe make the case that
preservation is counted on to get as much
life as possible in the situations where they
have to scale back design life (say from 20
to 15 years or 20 to 10 years) when the
budget won’t allow for a full design..
Not applicable.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
What is the background, nature, and status of your agency’s MEPDG implementation effort?
Arizona DOT
Described below.
Caltrans has implemented MEPDG design procedures for rigid pavements in the form of a design catalog.
Mechanistic-empirical procedures for new flexible pavements and rehabilitated flexible pavements are being
developed; they include certain parts of the MEPDG models (e.g., asphalt stiffness model) as well as nonMEPDG models (e.g., incremental-recursive damage calculation, a mechanistic reflection cracking model).
These models, as well as classical mechanistic-empirical models (i.e., Asphalt Institute rutting and fatigue
cracking models) and Caltrans’ current empirical models (R-Value and Reduced-Deflection), are featured as
options in the new Cal-ME software program.
California DOT
(& John Harvey)
Indiana DOT
Kansas DOT
Maryland SHA
Minnesota DOT
Missouri DOT
New Jersey DOT
North Carolina
DOT
Ohio DOT
Texas DOT
Utah DOT
Virginia DOT
Washington State
DOT
(John Harvey): CalME has the unique feature of being able to schedule preservation and/or rehabilitation
treatments to occur as part of the design process. Various options are provided, ranging from the scheduling
of a one-time treatment to the scheduling of a sequence of preservation and rehabilitation treatments to the
scheduling of perpetual preservation treatments (i.e., long-life pavement design with no rehabs). The
program uses Monte Carlo simulation, like the MEPDG. It calculates damage and distresses (cracking,
rutting) in an incremental fashion and has the recursive capability of resetting or adjusting damage and
corresponding distresses corresponding to the user’s scheduling of treatments. The scheduling of treatments
can be according to a certain age or according to specified thresholds for distress. John can and will
forward the CalME Users Manual along with other documentation on the program. Also, the possibility
exists for getting a copy of the program for test/evaluation purposes. There is a licensing process that must
be followed and it should begin with an email request to John asking for the CalME program.
MEPDG was implemented in December 2008.
They’ve done some assessment of the MEPDG for evaluation purposes. They have characterized their
typical HMA materials, have their traffic inputs down, and done some generalized soil characterization.
They haven’t gone much further with implementation. However, they have constructed 6 HMA sections that
are about 2 years old now and the intent is that they, and the rest of the system, will be used to calibrate the
MEPDG. They were thinking that they would be doing preservation on their calibration sections, as is
currently typically done.
Described below.
MnDOT is still in the process of deciding if they will implement the MEPDG. They hope to gather more
information in the coming months (particularly at 2011 TRB) to help them make a decision. They also think
the decision will be made based on the ability to develop a holistic approach to pavement decisions.
Described below.
Described below.
Described below.
Described below.
Texas is a lead state for MEPDG and DARWin-ME, but when they started looking at it they had problems
with the models, especially the models for CRCP. They used the existing models and they didn’t work—
results were somewhat opposite than what their data showed. Also, they didn’t like the number of inputs.
Ultimately, TxDOT made the decision to develop their own ME model. Because of the amount of CRCP,
they were told that they were on their own. They got on the task force and contributed to the DARWin-ME
in order to get access to the source code.
On the flexible design side, there were different issues behind the decision to not adopt the MEPDG. The
evaluation and implementation efforts are being managed by TTI. TXDOT has developed and uses some of
their own test procedures, such as the Hamburg tracking test They feel like their tests do a better job of
characterizing HMA than the dynamic modulus used in MEPDG. As a result, they are developing their own
design procedure, named TX-ME.
Described below.
Described below.
Although they are currently using AASHTO 93, they have developed a new hybrid catalog that allows them
to design using AASHTO 93 but then check portions of the design (especially PCC) using the MEPDG.
They found that AASHTO 93 overdesigns pavements. They are not ready to implement the MEPDG
statewide yet. They will first wait to see DARWin-ME and will play around with it, but will not implement
it. They also mostly do overlays and DARWin-ME can’t do that. They also need to develop some materials
inputs. The steep cost of DARWin-ME is going to affect their rate of adoption and implementation.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
F-21
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
Arizona DOT
California DOT (& John
Harvey)
Indiana DOT
Kansas DOT
Maryland SHA
Minnesota DOT
Missouri DOT
New Jersey DOT
North Carolina DOT
Calibration and validation work expected to be done October 2011. So, implementation just
after that time.
The MEPDG rigid design procedure has been implemented. The MEPDG flexible and flexible
rehabilitation design procedure (Cal-ME) is expected to be implemented in about 1 year.
Caltrans will gradually bring Cal-ME into the fold.
Yes, already has been (December 2008).
July 2011 is the (ambitious) target date. DARWin-ME will come out at the start of 2011 and
they have set aside money to purchase the entry-level use (probably 4 or 5 copies). They’ll
then try to get the program set up and calibrated as best as possible. By July 2011, they’ll
consider getting an unlimited site license so that everyone can use a calibrated version.
MDSHA is waiting for DARWin-ME to come out.
The formation of a committee has been announced, but they are still not sure that the MEPDG
development is moving in the right direction. Costs (licensing) are a concern. Training is also
an issue. As such, there is no final decision on whether they will implement the MEPDG.
Implementation decisions are pending a meeting of the Pavement Selection committee. They
think it would be nice for this to happen in 2011.
MODOT has been using MEPDG for the last 5 years.
Have been discussing implementation since 2002. Don’t know when they’ll get there. Rutgers
has a task order to implement the MEPDG, but unsure when this will happen.
NCDOT is committed to the implementation of the MEPDG within 3 months of the release of
DARWin-ME.
Ohio DOT
At this point, they are working toward implementation, but it is not a priority of the department,
thus there is no timetable.
Texas DOT
For now they are focusing on their own efforts (like California, with the Cal-ME). They expect
their design procedures to be completed and ready for use over the course of the next 3 years.
CA, TX, WA, and MN have a consortium to work together.
Utah DOT
MEPDG is essentially implemented in UDOT. They’ve been training their in-house designers
to be comfortable with the MEPDG and they could transition by the end of 2010 to MEPDG
exclusively. It might take a little longer to bring their consultants along. The cost is a little
intimidating: they are anticipating $25,000/year for 5 to 7 copies.
Virginia DOT
Washington State DOT
F-22
Will the MEPDG be implemented and, if so, what is the timeframe for implementation?
VDOT’s plan is to implement the MEPDG by 2013. They have set up a number of
subcommittees handling different aspects of the implementation. They also have a steering
committee with overall coordination responsibilities.
Undetermined.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
What implementation or research activities (e.g., evaluation of input types and levels, sensitivity
testing, prediction model verification, local calibration of prediction models, model validation) have
been or are currently being undertaken?
ADOT is in the process of calibrating and validating the MEPDG. They expect to be finished around
October 2011. ARA is doing this research. ASU has done a lot of work on materials characterization and
traffic. The materials characterization includes AC binders (conventional and SuperPave on different
binders) and asphalt mixes (G*, flow number, Ft, Hveem, indirect tensile), and unbound materials
(conventional soil tests and resilient modulus). Have also looked at both gap graded and open-graded
rubber materials around the state. ADOT believes it is in good shape regarding traffic and materials
characterization.
Arizona DOT
ADOT is using a lot of LTPP sections that were set up in AZ for calibration. A total of 59 additional
sections (ADOT PMS) are used in order to capture geographic and climatic zones. Their LTPP sections
include some SuperPave. Most of the sections were major rehab pavements (such as mill and fill). Some
may have a friction course on them. ARA is trying to filter out some of the sections and may have
excluded ones with preservation. Most of the projects are widening, shoulders, etc. In the past,
maintenance didn’t always communicate with HQ/PMS about where they were doing things. As such, in
the past, sections that received a fog seal, for example, would not necessarily be noted in the database.
California DOT
(& John Harvey)
Most of the MEPDG evaluations and mechanistic-empirical model development activities have taken
place through the University of California Pavement Research Center (UCPRC), which is joint UC-Davis
and UC-Berkeley. The mechanistic-empirical models were initially calibrated using data collected by
Caltrans’ two heavy vehicle simulators (HVSs) and WesTrack data. Additional calibrations of the models
are underway using data from NCAT and Mn/Road.
Indiana DOT
INDOT went through initial evaluations of MEPDG in 2004-2006 timeframe. Performed calibrations in
2006-2008 timeframe (especially for HMA). SuperPAVE implemented between 1996 and 2000 and
LTPP sections also had D-cracking and now with their drainable bases they don’t. However, they didn’t
have SuperPAVE in the LTPP sections, so performance was way off when initial MEPDG verifications
were performed. They are now doing verification/calibration with more representative pavements (i.e.,
those with Superpave mixes and other newer materials/designs). Are continuing to do calibration as more
data become available. Local calibration reports are not available.
Kansas DOT
As above, they have done general evaluation of the procedure and looked at traffic and materials
characterization. They have also done some comparative testing of 93 AASHTO and MEPDG, and have
done verification testing of the JPC models using 6 selected projects. These efforts are detailed in reports
by Khanum et al. 2008 and Romanoschi and Bethu 2009.
Maryland SHA
University of Maryland (Chuck Schwartz) did initial evaluation of MEPDG, along with implementation
plan. ARA put together an implementation guide for traffic. University of Maryland more recently put
together a guide for materials characterization, which will be available at the end of the year. No
calibration has been contemplated yet, but they know that with the default models there will be errors in
the output.
Minnesota DOT
They’ve evaluated the MEPDG and done some calibrations using MnRoad and other section data
(University of Minnesota---Valesquez, Khazanovich, et al.), but it also keeps changing. They haven’t
really done anything for the past couple years in this regard. Once a decision to implement has been
made, it won’t be very hard for MnDOT to identify PMS sections that can be used to further calibrate the
models.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
F-23
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
What implementation or research activities (e.g., evaluation of input types and levels, sensitivity
testing, prediction model verification, local calibration of prediction models, model validation) have
been or are currently being undertaken?
Missouri DOT
MODOT has a local calibration report done by ARA and they will provide a copy of the report in PDF
version. The final results were that there was some minor tweaking done to the models (new PCC and
new HMA), but not much. The one that underwent the greatest transformation was the rutting model
(HMA only, not total), which was no surprise. The result was a slight change to the model, not only the
coefficients but other aspects as well. In most of their projects, fatigue cracking has been the critical
governing distress; hence, the rutting model adjustments made really don’t play out in the design. In PCC,
they adjusted coefficients of the IRI, and some of the correlation formulas, such as between compressive
strength and flexural strength. They did purchase dynamic modulus testing equipment and learned that the
correlations with conventional inputs held up real well. They concluded that they could do Level 1 design
with Level 3 AC volumetric inputs. On the other hand, cold weather predictions for block cracking did
not match. So they can’t rely on correlations and will have to do the actual testing.
For the test sections, they used some LTPP sections. They don’t have any SPS 1 or 2 sections. They did
have some SPS-3s and -4s, but mostly had -5s and -6s (so they could look at rehab). But this wasn’t that
applicable, because any overlays placed were done with a pre-SuperPave mix on different types of
underlying PCC pavements. Mostly, they were stuck using pavements that were 10 to 12 years old
maximum for calibrating the MEPDG. They recognize that this is a limitation, because the pavements are
newer and are not exhibiting many signs of deterioration. None of these had received preservation. They
see calibration as a continual event.
New Jersey
DOT
Rutgers has looked at some specialty designs in the lab and some field experiments that have mostly been
focused on preservation. Recommend contacting Dr. Tom Bennert at the Center for Advanced
Infrastructure and Transportation (CAIT) at Rutgers for more detailed information on NJDOT’s MEPDG
implementation activities.
North Carolina
DOT
Implementation activities have been going on for about 4 years, beginning with MEPDG evaluation and
early calibration efforts at NC State (Richard Kim and Naresh Muthadi). Through other research
contracts, DOT has developed dynamic moduli for their mixes, performed more detailed local calibrations
for flexible pavements (report due later this year), and developed traffic data sets for the MEPDG (report
due on 12/31). In the local calibration study (which includes LTPP and various other NC pavement
sections), the sections probably did not have preservation applied. They were only NHS pavements and
they probably had not received preservation (recall that only recently have interstates been targeted for
preservation). Sections were pulled up to 2 years ago and there was no history of the practice at that time.
Probably looked at the distress history and not the treatment history in doing the calibration. The local
calibration report is not yet finalized. Other reports are available through the Research Unit on the web
page.
Ohio DOT
Initial calibration and sensitivity analysis have been completed. Refer to following ARA report on
MEPDG implementation:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/TransSysDev/Research/reportsandplans/Pages/PavementReportsDeta
il.aspx#134300
ODOT is currently identifying calibration sites and sources for input data. Their calibration sections will
only be focused on new construction and will mostly be Ohio PMS sections (they do have SPS-1 and SPS2 sections that they can use). They would anticipate excluding calibration section that have received
preservation.
Texas DOT
They are developing flexible and rigid pavement databases that they will use for calibrating their own
models (the database includes information from about 250 pavement sections throughout TX [these would
be in addition to TX LTPP sections]). Hopefully these can also be used to calibrate the MEPDG model if
needed. The CRCP project was just finished and the rigid pavement branch is evaluating it before they
move into implementation. For flexible pavements, a research project looked at hot mix characterization,
and now they have a new project to look at models. Completion of these efforts is probably about 3 years
away.
50% of the network is FM roads--thin pavement structures with seal coats. They’ve found out that the
MEPDG does not address these pavements. On a lot of these pavements, they do FDR followed by a seal
coat surface. They are probably developing models to address the performance of these pavements.
F-24
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
What implementation or research activities (e.g., evaluation of input types and levels, sensitivity
testing, prediction model verification, local calibration of prediction models, model validation) have
been or are currently being undertaken?
Utah DOT
Have been working on local calibration for the last 2-3 years. Calibration sections not only include LTPP
sites, but also UDOT SuperPave sites constructed since 2000. They use polymer-modified asphalts and
the MEPDG doesn’t look at that. They have found that their pavements don’t rut as much predicted.
They are comfortable using Level 3 design in Utah with the calibration factors they’ve come up with. As
for calibration sites, it’s quite possible that none had preservation treatments applied. They would have
taken out any LTPP sections or SuperPave.
Virginia DOT
There have been a number of research studies that have been ongoing to support implementation. They
are also starting training for the Districts to support the implementation. This work is being done by both
Virginia Tech and their own research council. Most of the work thus far has been evaluation, but they are
now getting into calibration/validation. They have identified pavement sections. They don’t have that
many LTPP sections in Virginia. Only one SPS site and a few GPS sites. For local calibration, they will
be relying on their PMS data. They are trying to follow the recommendations in the AASHTO calibration
guide for the number of sections to use. In terms of the calibration sections, they have not focused on
preservation. They did establish some criteria, but focused on things like availability of data. Some of the
sections may have preservation and some may not.
Washington
State DOT
They analyzed almost 40 years of PMS data to evaluate the MEPDG. These evaluations have included
bench testing (general evaluation of suitability and reasonableness), sensitivity testing, and initial
verification and calibration of the HMA and PCC models (Jianhua will send copies of papers on their
MEPDG evaluation efforts). They do not feel that the MEPDG models predict the types of top-down
longitudinal cracking which are predominant in WA PCC pavements, and do not properly account for
added roughness created by studded tire wear in both PCC and HMA. They are also looking at using
CAL-ME for overlay design.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
F-25
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
What is your agency’s expectation or desire for enabling the MEPDG analysis procedure to consider
the effects of preservation treatments on pavement performance?
Arizona DOT
Right now, they don’t know how this will be handled. They are not particularly looking at preservation.
In the future, they expect to align their PMS database with the MEPDG so that the distress and traffic data
can be captured and used in the MEPDG. Right now, the way they capture their cracking data is not
aligned with the data needed for MEPDG design inputs (i.e., incompatibilities between how cracking data
are collected/reported in AZ versus how cracking is analyzed in MEPDG). At the same time, they intend
to use the SODA program for overlay design and their PMS, while also making these compatible with the
MEPDG. They are trying to change their data collection protocols to meet the needs of the MEPDG.
Described below.
California DOT
(& John Harvey)
Indiana DOT
Kansas DOT
Maryland SHA
(John Harvey): Bill Farnbach is currently working on a process within Caltrans whereby the preservation
treatment scheduling assumptions used in the CalME design program can be transmitted directly to the
Planning/Programming system, such that there is a mechanism to ensure that those scheduled treatments
get funded when the time comes.
Preservation is not currently in the model.
Described below.
Because there’s no history of preservation, this is definitely a challenge. Geoff is a believer in
preservation, as is management. It would be great to see it in the MEPDG as well. If MEPDG is adopted,
it will be a huge help to the advancement of preservation practices in the state.
This would definitely be worthwhile. Again, Luke views pavements holistically, and not just a product of
design, construction, or maintenance alone. However, right now decisions related to each of these are for
the most part independent decisions.
Minnesota DOT
Missouri DOT
New Jersey DOT
North Carolina
DOT
Ohio DOT
[Luke has identified that pavements that are deteriorating faster seem to be better candidates for pavement
preservation than those that are not deteriorating as quickly. In effect this says that pavements that are
properly constructed may not need preventive maintenance.]
Described below.
Described below.
The place for this to be considered is in the LCCA, which is not a part of the structural analysis, but is a
part of the final pavement type selection. If the data on preservation treatment life cycles and cost is
available, this should be pretty easy to do. Although Judith believes pavement preservation is costeffective and worthwhile, she does not believe that it should be part of the structural analysis. One of the
main reason being that funding for preservation in the out-years cannot always be counted upon [don’t
want to count on the funding for preservation in the future in order to have a pavement that is structurally
adequate for the design conditions]. NCDOT has an LCCA process that provides for the opportunity to
consider pavement preservation treatments.
Described below.
Texas DOT
TxDOT would like us to come up with a methodology that they could use to incorporate preservation into
the design. They have done it based on gut feeling, but would be happy to see a more formal procedure
developed as an outcome of our research.
Utah DOT
Designs focus on providing sufficient structure to carry the pavement. UDOT prefers a conservative
approach, with the design guide focused on the structure and maintenance and pavement management
focused on maintaining and extending the pavement life through preservation. They don’t want to see
preservation included because what happens if they don’t get the funding to do the preservation? It might
be good to have the capability to include preservation as part of the design, but “we’d be afraid to use it.”
Because of this approach, there really is no interest in incorporating preservation in the MEPDG.
F-26
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
What is your agency’s expectation or desire for enabling the MEPDG analysis procedure to consider
the effects of preservation treatments on pavement performance?
Virginia DOT
They have not given much thought to this as part of the implementation. They’re just focusing on getting
things going at VDOT with the MEPDG. Getting the local calibration done. They know they won’t be
done when they get there, so maybe this is something they’ll consider later on. For now, they are trying to
minimize the variables as part of their implementation process. They see the whole incorporation of
preservation into the MEPDG as very complicated. For instance, some treatments may bring CCI back to
100, while others may only bring it up a few points, based on the distresses that are addressed.
Washington State
DOT
This is something that they’re skeptical about, but interested in. It would be difficult to mechanically
model how maintenance affects long-term performance without good long-term performance data. Their
understanding is that CAL-ME is considering this. They would love for someone to tell them what the
relationship is between the two, but they’d be skeptical.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
F-27
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
SHA
Arizona DOT
California DOT (&
John Harvey)
Indiana DOT
Kansas DOT
Maryland SHA
Minnesota DOT
Missouri DOT
New Jersey DOT
North Carolina
DOT
Ohio DOT
Texas DOT
Utah DOT
Virginia DOT
Washington State
DOT
How would the effects of preservation be addressed in a state-customized MEPDG (i.e.,
performance prediction model adjustments, design reliability adjustments, etc.)?
Not applicable.
The new Cal-ME program includes the ability to consider the effects of preservation on pavement
performance. The most visible way is through the assignment of future treatments that “reset” certain
distresses to zero at the assigned year of the treatment (e.g., a thin overlay at year 10 would bring rutting
levels to zero at that year). In a less tangible way, the program would also seem to allow for changes to
asphalt material properties (e.g., modulus) brought about in the future by some preservation treatment
(e.g., a rejuvenator that would soften the existing asphalt surface or a seal coat or overlay that would
reduce the rate at which the existing asphalt surface hardens).
One of the main considerations would be proper modeling of the changes in HMA dynamic modulus (i.e.,
application of PP treatment might either soften the HMA or change the rate at which it becomes brittle
over time). INDOT not looking at this, probably should be addressed at the national level.
Don’t know. It would be difficult without trigger values. They have so many actions that they do, on so
many different pavement types and conditions, and at various times, that they don’t know how this would
be possible. They do have 25 years of data or so, but there’s nothing typical included therein. There’s
been nothing consistently done, and then there’s the impact of funding availability. The amount of money
available determines what gets done and where. As such, funding complicates things even further.
Unsure. MDSHA would be a good example of an agency that could benefit from the results of NCHRP 148.
Unsure.
It’s addressed theoretically in their LCC analysis procedure. They are assuming that they will get a 45year design period from either new HMA or PCC. With an adequate structure to get to this design life
they assume they are just making corrections to surface irregularities. For instance, for HMA, do 1.75-in
overlays at Years 20 and 30, and maybe a thick overlay at Year 40. For PCC, do 1.5% slab repairs at Year
25, and maybe a thick overlay at Year 40.
No details known.
As above, should be a part of the LCCA but not the structural analysis.
ODOT would not consider this concept in their design process.
Not sure, but ideally it would be a rational process.
It wouldn’t. Regardless if performance prediction coefficients or design reliability levels are adjusted,
there is the issue that funding may not be available to cover the planned preservation.
They have not given this much thought.
Unsure.
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
F-28
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
SHA
Arizona DOT
California DOT
(& John Harvey)
Indiana DOT
Kansas DOT
Maryland SHA
Minnesota DOT
Missouri DOT
New Jersey
DOT
North Carolina
DOT
Ohio DOT
Texas DOT
Utah DOT
Virginia DOT
Washington
State DOT
Is your agency investigating (or has it investigated) ways of
incorporating preservation into the MEPDG through model
calibration or other types of studies?
Not applicable.
As described above, Caltrans has investigated this and developed
procedures for doing so.
No.
They have looked at the models in the MEPDG and compared
them to the performance models that KDOT has, and their models
are much different. They are not sure that they will work very
hard to marry the two (i.e., new construction and major rehab
versus preservation).
No.
No.
No. The long-term answer has to be calibration to local
conditions. As they do more preservation and monitor
performance, they can better understand the impacts of
preservation on pavement life. They don’t think that it should
consider the effects of individual treatments, but the impact on
the overall structure. They are on a schedule of doing annual
surveys of surface distresses and generating good statistical data.
They see using pavement preservation assumptions to back into
the MEPDG (i.e., loosely incorporating preservation into
MEPDG).
December 2014
If so, what procedure is being used
(or has been used) and what are
(were) the findings/results?
Not applicable.
Described above.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Probably not.
Not applicable.
No.
Not applicable.
No. A lot of ODOT preventive maintenance is on their 2-lane
system and they don’t know what they have, so it would be hard
to model mechanistically. They believe you need to crawl before
you walk and walk before you run, and currently in their infancy
with respect to MEPDG. Hence, they are far from being ready to
consider preservation in their design process. They concur with
notion that MEPDG is a design tool and that future prediction is
suspect. They wouldn’t mind MEPDG models being adjusted to
reflect preservation, as long as there was an option that would
allow the user to not consider effects of preservation.
No.
No.
No.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
No.
Not applicable.
Not applicable
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
F-29
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
SHA
What is the nature of the preservation being investigated (treatment types, single or sequential
applications)? Is documentation available?
Arizona DOT
Not applicable.
California DOT
(& John Harvey)
Indiana DOT
Kansas DOT
Maryland SHA
Minnesota DOT
Missouri DOT
New Jersey
DOT
North Carolina
DOT
Ohio DOT
Texas DOT
Utah DOT
Virginia DOT
Washington
State DOT
It could be different treatment types and single or sequential applications.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
N/A.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
F-30
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
SHA
Arizona DOT
California DOT
(& John Harvey)
Indiana DOT
Kansas DOT
Maryland SHA
Minnesota DOT
Missouri DOT
New Jersey
DOT
North Carolina
DOT
Ohio DOT
Texas DOT
December 2014
Does your agency have performance data (with and without
preservation) and other data (design, construction/materials,
traffic, climate, etc.) for use in developing procedures for
incorporating preservation into the MEPDG?
If so, for what types of pavements
would data be available and what
specific performance prediction
models could be investigated?
The database has yearly and periodic data on traffic and pavement
conditions. However, the data collection and storage are not
compatible with the MEPDG. They have completed a study to
identify what needs to be tweaked in order to collect the right
types of data.
They have distress and IRI data for
flexible pavements, IRI data for rigid
pavements, but cracking data is not
collected in a manner that can be used
in design (1000 ft2/mile, reported as
percent cracking rather than types and
extents). In the immediate future, they
will have to do manual distress surveys
to generate inputs. They are expecting
to get new pavement management
system with accessibility to data and
compatibility with MEPDG.
Yes. The data reside in a database being assembled at the
California Pavement Preservation Center. Caltrans would be
willing to provide access to the data for use in the NCHRP 1-48
study, assuming proper request protocol.
Very limited. Tried to investigate this, but the data is all squirrely,
with all of the changes that have occurred over the past 30 years.
In general, no pavement sections available which would provide
for a head-to-head comparison of PP-treated pavement versus
untreated pavement (i.e., control section). Exception is the
Fibermat sections, which do have control sections.
They have a lot of data on 11,000-mile network going back some
25 years, but it would be hard to extract something useful out of it.
At the general end, everything could be lumped together. At the
specific level, things constantly change so it would be hard to look
at specifics. Rick is looking at some approaches that might
facilitate the general analysis. KDOT would be willing to assist
the 1-48 project with provision of data, as possible.
Very limited performance data would be available, given that data
goes back only a couple years (2008).
The types of data that they have available were previously
discussed.
MODOT has not done this in the past. Only on the major roads
have they been tracking pavement treatment application. In the
future, this might be possible.
All treatments are tracked by treatment type and location in 0.1mile increments. Ride quality data goes back a long time,
especially in older data formats. RQI and distress data go back to
about 1999. IRI only goes back to 2005. These data are not in a
single database. May be hard to find side-by-side (end-to-end)
comparisons of treated and untreated sections.
Doubtful that there’s anything to contribute on the concrete data
side, but on asphalt pavements would probably be able to help.
Have some good data on UWBC/Novachip placed on 30-year old
PCC interstates that were falling apart. Had great performance
and got 10 years out of it.
Yes, but ODOT distress data is not compatible with the MEPDG.
Calibration sites will have to be manually surveyed to generate
MEPDG inputs.
They don’t really have anything that would be like a control
section to look at the effects of preservation or no preservation on
performance.
Various pavement types, certain
performance models.
Unknown.
Various pavement types and most
models for new HMA and PCC
pavements.
Primarily asphalt and composite.
Various pavement types and
performance models.
Various pavement types and probably
the rutting, fatigue cracking, and IRI
models for HMA and faulting, cracking,
and IRI models for PCC.
90% of their pavements are HMAsurfaced. About half of those are
composite pavements. That leaves
about 10% as PCC. Most of their
problematic pavements are composite.
As above, primarily asphalt pavements.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
F-31
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
SHA
Does your agency have performance data (with and without
preservation) and other data (design, construction/materials,
traffic, climate, etc.) for use in developing procedures for
incorporating preservation into the MEPDG?
Utah DOT
They have 2 years of automated distress data from Fugro, but one
year is one direction and the other is in the other direction. They
don’t have time series data for distress otherwise, but they do for
IRI.
Various pavement types. Smoothness
models might be best option for
investigation.
Very little if any data would be available, given that they just
started tracking treatment locations.
Not applicable.
Eventually MEPDG will be a great resource. But it’s going to
take a while. They intend to use the MEPDG as an analysis tool
rather than actually for design, and will continue to do
verification. calibration, and validation.
They don’t have the data because they
have not done a good job of tracking
preventive maintenance treatments.
Virginia DOT
Washington
State DOT
If so, for what types of pavements
would data be available and what
specific performance prediction
models could be investigated?
Table F-1. SHA interview questions and responses (continued).
F-32
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
SHA
December 2014
How many pavement sections could be used in the investigation and how many years of
performance data are available for analysis?
Arizona DOT
Can’t do anything going backward, but can going forward. Need time series data for performance
prediction models and they don’t have that.
California DOT
(& John Harvey)
Presumably several sections would be available, going back about 5 years or so (for decent data).
Indiana DOT
Presumably several sections, however there would only be 4 years’ worth of preservation treatment
history data, which would not include “untreated” control sections.
Kansas DOT
KDOT has done a general study looking at light, moderate, and heavy treatments and looking at their
effectiveness (ARA LCCA study). But again, things change which makes it hard to plan future actions
based on what’s been done in the past. What does it cost to do a PCC pavement and what does it cost to
do an HMA pavement? The big unknown is what will it cost if the funding changes? They don’t know
how they would do that.
Maryland SHA
Minnesota DOT
Difficult to say how many sections. As for years of data, only a couple.
Not sure that they can show that there is a big enough difference in performance to support this type of
calibration. They have done a lot of crack sealing and microsurfacing on Mn/ROAD sections, and also
some thin overlays. There is a section with staggered surface treatment timings. First round of
Mn/ROAD sections built with a very stiff binder had a lot of thermal cracking. The second round is
being built with PG 58-34. These are probably going to receive a lot less crack sealing and would
probably be a good source for data for NCHRP 1-48.
Thin overlays have definitely shown a performance benefit, but they’re still struggling to find where
this occurs with surface treatments.
Missouri DOT
New Jersey DOT
North Carolina
DOT
Ohio DOT
Texas DOT
Utah DOT
Virginia DOT
Washington State
DOT
Location information is available for several sections and time-series data are available for many years
back to construction. MODOT would be willing to assist in data, just need to make specific request.
Unsure.
Several, probably 8-10 years of data available.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Presumably several pavement sections, but the location of treatments could be an issue in terms of
piecing together time-series data. Also, limited to 2 years, if looking at using distress.
Not applicable.
They are in the process of trying to design some of this data collection effort so that they can compare
the performance of preventive maintenance treatments in the future to untreated sections.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
F-33
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Post Interview Questions and Responses
Indiana DOT
For the Indiana pavement sections used in calibrating the MEPDG, do you know if any of
them received any type of pavement preservation treatment? And, if so, did the
performance (distresses, smoothness) data that were used in the calibration include posttreatment performance data? In other words, was the performance data tainted or
untainted by the effects of preservation treatments? Second, roughly how many sections
were used in the calibration process?
The pavement sections that we used for MEPDG calibration did not receive any pavement
preservation treatment because they are all LTPP sections. Once we did the local calibration, we
decided not to use the local calibration coefficients because most of them are way off the
performance of the pavements that we have today. We used all 18 LTPP sections in Indiana, but
we decided to concentrate only on one section per District, especially the northern Districts. We
also did the local calibration based on the latest procedure from ARA (with about 2,000 HMA
mixes), but once again, the coefficients are way off the mark. Right now, we turn back to
“verification” rather than using the local calibration coefficients that we have.
New Jersey DOT
What are the main MEPDG implementation activities/studies that you have conducted
related to both the rigid and flexible design procedures? Examples might include
evaluation and sensitivity testing of the inputs, calibration/refinement of the material
characterization models (e.g., HMA dynamic modulus master curves), database
development for model verification and calibration, verification testing of the nationally
calibrated models for distress and smoothness, and local calibration of the distress and
smoothness models.
The main MEPDG implementation activities have been focused on material database
development. We decided early on, when there was talk about revamping the models, that model
calibration should be left towards the end of our implementation activities. Therefore, we did a
significant amount of work on the characterization of unbound materials (subgrade soils and
base/subbase aggregates), as well as HMA (dynamic modulus of asphalt mixture and asphalt
binder characterization). We conducted some preliminary studies early on to test the
appropriateness of the current models when compared to the LTPP locations in NJ used in the
model development and found that the current models/coefficients were appropriate for NJ.
Recently, we have established calibration sites to begin the local calibration. NJ’s conditions,
and recent paving activities, are very difficult to “fit” into the typical MEPDG calibration. For
example, for the flexible pavement calibration, NJ will not be building new roads, nor do we
generally reconstruct (most of our distresses are surface distresses consisting of top-down
cracking and failure of longitudinal joints). NJDOT also has approximately 50% of its network
consisting of composite pavements (HMA overlay on PCC). Therefore, our major focus is on
flexible rehabilitation on flexible and rigid pavements. That being said, we established some
preliminary flexible rehab locations last year (we did material characterization of the site and
paving materials). However, one of the sections ended up being overlaid with an OGFC mixture,
making it very difficult to characterize. We are in the process of selecting sections for the HMA
over PCC/composite now and will be conducting material characterization within the next few
months.
F-34
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Post Interview Questions—New Jersey DOT (continued)
If local calibrations of the MEPDG models have been performed, what was the nature and
scope of the pavement sections used in calibrating the models? For instance, were LTPP
test sections used or were pavement sections from the New Jersey network selected and
used? How many total sections were used and how many years of performance data for
those sections were available for analysis? And, were the performance data for those
sections possibly influenced by the application of preservation treatments?
Initially, LTPP sections (SPS-5) were proposed. However, due to general noise complaints and
wet weather safety issues, this area was overlaid with an OGFC mixture. As mentioned earlier, a
full year of traffic has yet to be applied to the flexible rehab sections selected for the regional
calibration, and one may be difficult due to the nature of the surface course (OGFC). The second
with the OGFC (I-195) will certainly be influenced by the OGFC surface course as there is yet to
be a standardized method to incorporate gap-graded mixtures into the MEPDG. FWD could be
used to get you a modulus value, but it would be of the entire asphalt pavement thickness. A
PSPA device could be used, but it may be influenced by the underlying material (below the
OGFC) and only gives you one modulus value at that temperature tested (and at that known
frequency of the test apparatus) – nothing that could provide you a master stiffness curve.
Prediction equations (Witczak, Hirsch, etc.) were never calibrated to include gap-graded
mixtures (OGFC or SMA) and are not recommended for its use. So the major question is; how
would you include these materials into the pavement structure, as a separate material, when there
currently is no good way to accurately characterize them? Hopefully your study will shed some
light onto this. There were four total sections for the flexible on flexible rehab were this stage
(mainly due to budgetary reasons). We are looking to include additional test sections in the
future.
Is there documentation available regarding any of the implementation activities/studies
done, particularly those involving calibration?
No documentation at this time regarding implementation, except for the material
characterization. We are looking at putting together a summary document in 2 years that would
include the first 2 years of the flexible rehab and first year of the PCC/composite rehab.
Summary of SHA Responses on Key Topics
Tables F-2 through F-5 summarize the SHA’s responses to interview questions on key topics,
including preservation programs and practices; preservation treatment performance and model
development; MEPDG evaluation, implementation, and use; and incorporating preservation into
the MEPDG, respectively.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
F-35
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table F-2. Summary of SHA responses regarding pavement preservation programs and
practices.
SHA
Arizona DOT
Degree of Established Preservation Program
 Moderate—Established preservation unit and Lead
Engineer. Dedicated funds. Program in place for several
years.
Scope of Preservation Treatments
 Asphalt-Surfaced—CrS, FS, ChS, SlS, SS, MS, ScS, thin
HMAOL (dense- or open-graded with neat or rubberized
binder).
 Concrete-Surfaced—DG, thin HMAOL.
California DOT  Extensive—Preventive Maintenance and Capital Preventive  Asphalt-Surfaced—CrS, ChS, SlS, MS, UTBWC, thin
Maintenance programs. No established preservation unit or
HMAOL (open- or gap-graded with neat or rubberized
Lead Engineer, but broad internal support. Dedicated
binder).
funds.
 Concrete-Surfaced—-FDR, DG.
Indiana DOT
 Moderate—Established preservation unit and Lead
Engineer. Dedicated funds. Program in place 3 to 4 years.
 Asphalt-Surfaced—ChS (in-house), MS, thin HMAOL,
UTBWC.
 Concrete-Surfaced—JRS, patching, DG.
Kansas DOT
 Moderate—Formerly carried out under Substantial
Maintenance program, now part of overall T-Works
program. No established preservation unit and Lead
Engineer, but broad internal support. No dedicated funds.
 Asphalt-Surfaced—Crack rout and seal, ChS, HIR surface
recycling, thin mill and HMA inlay, UTBWC.
 Concrete-Surfaced—??
Maryland SHA  Limited—No official program, although working to
 Asphalt-Surfaced—CrS (in-house), SlS, MS, Thin-lift
establish one in last couple years. Preservation champion
HMAOL (with/without milling).
and broad internal support. Dedicated funding, but grouped  Concrete-Surfaced—PDR.
with rehabilitation. Districts decide the preservation
projects.
Minnesota
DOT
 Moderate—No formal program, but very active in use of
preservation. No established preservation unit, but a Lead
Engineer. No dedicated funds. Districts decide the
preservation projects.
 Asphalt-Surfaced—CrS, ChS, MS, UTBWC, thin HMAOL
(with/without milling).
 Concrete-Surfaced—JRS, minor spall repair, PDR, DG.
Missouri DOT
 Moderate—No established preservation unit and no Lead
Engineer, but broad internal support. No dedicated funds.
Districts have considerable autonomy in selection
preservation projects.
 Asphalt-Surfaced—Sealer/rejuvenator, chip seals, and 1-in
surface courses on minor roads; UTBWC on higher volume
roads.
 Concrete-Surfaced—DG, DBR, cross-stitching,
undersealing.
New Jersey
DOT
 Limited—No official program, but fairly active in use of
 Asphalt-Surfaced—CrS, MS, UTBWC, thin HMAOL
preservation. No established preservation unit and no Lead
(open-graded with rubberized binder), high-performance
thin overlay (fine-graded, polymer mix).
Engineer. Dedicated funds that vary year to year.
 Concrete-Surfaced—DG, joint repair, PDR.
North Carolina
DOT
 Moderate—No established preservation unit but a Lead
Engineer, but broad internal support. Dedicated funds for
last 7 years. Districts decide the preservation projects.
 Asphalt-Surfaced—CrS, FS, ChS (single, double, and triple
course), UTBWC, MS.
 Concrete-Surfaced—DG, joint repair, CrS.
Ohio DOT
 Moderate—No official program, but have been active. No
preservation unit or Lead Engineer. No dedicated funds.
Districts decide the preservation projects.
 Asphalt-Surfaced—CrS, ChS, MS, thin HMAOL
(with/without pre-overlay repair), fine-graded polymermodified asphalt concrete.
 Concrete-Surfaced—DG, FDR
Texas DOT
 Moderate—No established preservation unit and no Lead
Engineer. Dedicated funds derived from two sources:
construction and maintenance.
 Asphalt-Surfaced—CrS, ChS (in-house and contracted),
thin HMAOL (mostly dense-graded mixes with/without
milling).
 Concrete-Surfaced—??
Utah DOT
 Limited—No established preservation unit and no Lead
Engineer. Dedicated funding, but grouped with
rehabilitation. Regions decide the preservation projects.
 Asphalt-Surfaced—CrS, ChS, MS, thin HMAOL (mostly
without milling, some with SMA mix), HIR surface
recycling, CIR.
 Concrete-Surfaced—JRS, DG, spall repair.
Virginia DOT
 Moderate—Established preservation unit and Lead
Engineer. No dedicated funds. Districts decide
preservation projects, most of which are done by contract.
 Asphalt-Surfaced—CrS, SlS, ChS, UTBWC, thin HMAOL
(usually dense-graded).
 Concrete-Surfaced—DG, PDR, FDR.
Washington
State DOT
 Limited—No established preservation unit and no Lead
 Asphalt-Surfaced—CrS, ChS, FDR, milling.
Engineer. No dedicated funds. Transitioning to integration  Concrete-Surfaced—FDR.
between Maintenance and Pavement Management, which
will help advance preservation. Preservation done by inhouse forces. Districts decide the preservation projects.
Treatment Acronyms: UTBWC: Ultrathin bonded wearing course (i.e., Novachip) HMAOL: HMA overlay FDR: Full-depth repair
PDR: Partial-depth repair DBR: Dowel bar retrofit HIR: Hot in-place recycling CIR: Cold in-place recycling DG: Diamond grinding
FS: Fog seal ScS: Scrub seal CrS: Crack seal ChS: Chip seal SlS: Slurry seal MS: Microsurfacing JRS: Joint resealing
SMA: Stone matrix asphalt.
F-36
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table F-3. Summary of SHA responses regarding preservation treatment performance.
SHA
Arizona DOT
Adequate PMS for Tracking Treatment
Location and Performance
 Yes—Location and type of treatment. Annual
condition survey on 1-mi intervals, with IRI and
various distress data collected.
Experience in Evaluating Treatment
Performance and Developing Performance Models
 Limited—Past performance of treatments not evaluated and no
performance models developed. DOT has the capacity to do this,
but lacks time and resources.
California DOT  Yes—Location and type of treatment; however, past  Limited/Significant—Study on fatigue cracking performance of
issues with location and performance data.
preservation treatments done, but had data issues. With major
PMS database update, DOT planning on comprehensive evaluation
of pavement life extension of various preservation treatments.
Indiana DOT
 Yes—Contract work tracked, but not in-house
work. Distress, rutting, and IRI data collected
annually.
 Significant/Extensive—Evaluated performance of crack seal, thin
HMA overlay, UTBWC, and microsurfacing. DOT plans to
develop life estimates (based on IRI, rutting, and distress
thresholds) for all pavements, including preservation.
Kansas DOT
 Yes—Location and type of treatment. Distress and
IRI collected annually on 1-mi intervals.
 Significant/Extensive—Evaluated treatment service life based on
time until next preservation or rehabilitation treatment. Developed
performance models (for equivalent thickness treatments) using
IRI, primary distress, and secondary distress parameters.
Maryland SHA  Yes/No—Location and type of treatment since
 Limited—Developed IRI models for thin overlays. DOT is
2008. Cracking, rutting, and IRI data collected
considering RSL concept of analyzing performance.
annually on 1-mi-plus intervals (moving to biannual
data collection).
Minnesota
DOT
 Yes—Location and type of treatment since 2003
(and possibly as far back as 20 years). Ride and
distress data collected annually on 1-mi intervals.
 Limited/Significant—Informally evaluated treatment
(microsurfacing, chip seal, and crack seal) performance based on
ride using data from 50 treated and untreated companion sections.
DOT expects to evaluate treatment performance in the future based
on pavement life extension using distress and safety measures.
Missouri DOT
 Yes—Location and type of treatment (if
contracted). IRI and distress data collected
annually.
 Limited—Although data have been available, performance
evaluations have not often been done. When they were done,
performance was evaluated in terms of time until next treatment.
DOT expects future evaluations to be focused on life extension.
New Jersey
DOT
 Yes—Location and type of treatment. IRI, rutting,
and distress data collected annually.
 Limited/Significant—Performance models developed by Pavement
Management group for use in programming; however, models may
not be based on pavement life extension.
North Carolina
DOT
 Yes—Location and, to a lesser extent, type of
treatment. IRI, rutting, and distress data collected
biennially.
 Limited/Significant—Evaluated performance of UTBWC on JPC.
Evaluated performance in terms of time until next treatment (or a
fatigue cracking threshold that would trigger a treatment).
Ohio DOT
 Yes—Location and type of treatment. Distress
(cracking, rutting) and IRI data collected.
 Significant/Extensive—Evaluated performance and developed
performance models for chip seals, thin overlays, and
microsurfacing (PMS).
Texas DOT
 Yes/No—Location and type of treatment not
historically tracked, but recently started doing so.
IRI and distress data collected annually.
 Limited/Significant—Evaluated treatment performance since
1990s as part of SMERP study. Developed some performance
models for treatments as part of PMS, but models have not been
rigorously calibrated.
Utah DOT
 Yes/No—Type of treatment tracked, but location
not well tracked. IRI, rutting, cracking, spalling,
and faulting data collected.
 Limited—Evaluated relationship between chip seals and friction.
No formal models developed.
Virginia DOT
 Yes/No—Location and type of treatment not
historically tracked, but have begun to do so. IRI
and distress data collected annually (automated
system since 2006).
 Limited/Significant—Evaluated thin overlay performance based on
condition threshold and chip seal performance based on time until
next treatment. Developed performance models for PMS, but
models are based on empirical data/observations.
Washington
State DOT
 Yes/No—Treatment locations not recorded well in
the past and the MMS which feeds the PMS is not
refined enough to track treatment locations (steps
have been taken to allow for future tracking). IRI
and distress data collected annually.
 Limited—Treatment performance not significantly evaluated.
Performance models not developed.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
F-37
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table F-4. Summary of SHA responses regarding MEPDG evaluation, implementation, and use.
SHA
Arizona DOT
Current Design Procedure
 AASHTO 1993 (new design and
construction).
 Structural Overlay Design for
Arizona (SODA) (rehab design).
California DOT  Empirical R-Value method (new
asphalt design).
 Empirical Reduced-Deflection
method (asphalt rehab design).
 MEPDG Design Catalog (new
concrete design).
MEPDG Implementation Status
 Not currently implemented—
expected in 2011.
Experience with MEPDG Local Calibration
 Extensive—calibrations in recent years and ongoing through 2011. Calibrations done using 39
LTPP sections and 59 PMS sections.
 Partly implemented—rigid
 Limited—PMS database now undergoing major
design catalog used, flexible M-E
upgrade due to issues with location and
design procedure expected in
performance data. Upcoming preservation and
2012.
LCCA studies will look at pavement life
extension using updated PMS data.
Indiana DOT
 MEPDG.
 Implemented in 2008.
 Extensive—calibrations in recent years (20062008) and on-going. Calibrations done using 18
LTPP sections in Indiana. Calibration factors
poor due to lack of Superpave sections; hence,
calibration factors not being used.
Kansas DOT
 AASHTO 1993.
 Not currently implemented—
expected in July 2011.
 Limited—no calibrations yet, but constructed
six HMA sections 2 years ago for purpose of
calibrations.
Maryland SHA  AASHTO 1993.
 Not currently implemented—
expected in 2011.
 None—no calibrations yet.
Minnesota
DOT
 R-Value method (new and rehab
design).
 MnPave (flexible design check)
 MEPDG (for a few projects).
 Not currently implemented—in
process of deciding whether to
implement MEPDG.
 Moderate—calibrations in recent years.
Calibrations done using data from MnROAD
and other sections.
Missouri DOT
 MEPDG.
 Implemented.
 Extensive—calibrations done for new HMA and
PCC designs. Calibrations done using
combination of LTPP and non-LTPP PMS
sections that had not received preservation.
New Jersey
DOT
 AASHTO 1993.
 MEPDG (for comparison).
 Not currently implemented—no
timetable set regarding
implementation.
 Moderate—initial calibrations done for HMA
overlays of flexible pavements using data from
4 calibration sites. Calibration sites for HMA
overlays of rigid pavements currently being
identified.
North Carolina
DOT
 AASHTO 1972.
 Not currently implemented—
committed to implementation
within 3 months of release of
DARWin-ME (due
Spring/Summer 2011).
 Moderate—calibrations in recent years.
Calibrations done using combination of LTPP
and non-LTPP PMS sections, which most likely
had not received preservation.
Ohio DOT
 AASHTO 1993.
 Not currently implemented—
working toward implementation,
but no timetable.
 Moderate—initial calibrations in 2008/2009.
Additional calibrations planned.
Texas DOT
 Semi-mechanistic FPS-19 (flexible  Not currently implemented—
design).
have decided not to adopt
MEPDG and instead develop its
 AASHTO 1993 (JPC design).
own M-E procedure (TexME),
 CRCP-10 (CRCP design).
with expected completion in 3
years.
Utah DOT
 AASHTO 1993.
 MEPDG (for comparison).
 Essentially implemented—could  Extensive—calibrations done over the last 2 to 3
transition exclusively to MEPDG
years. Calibrations done using combination of
by end of 2010.
LTPP and PMS Superpave sections that most
likely had not received preservation.
Virginia DOT
 AASHTO 1993.
 Not currently implemented—plan  Limited—beginning calibration process and
to implement by 2013.
have identified pavement sections, which
consist of a few LTPP sections and several PMS
sections.
Washington
State DOT
 AASHTO 1993.
 MEPDG hybrid catalog (design
checks).
 Not currently implemented—
evaluating CalME for overlay
design and will evaluate
DARWin-ME when released.
F-38
 Limited/Moderate—have been developing
flexible and rigid pavement database for
calibration of TexME models. Calibration
sections will include 250 PMS sections as well
as some LTPP sections. With chip seals applied
to a sizeable portion of network, calibration
models will likely include preservation.
 Extensive—calibrations done for new HMA and
PCC models. Calibrations done using 40 years
of PMS section data.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table F-5. Summary of SHA responses regarding incorporation of preservation into the
MEPDG and the availability of data to support the concept.
SHA
Arizona DOT
Agency Expectation for Enabling MEPDG
How State-Customized MEPDG
to Consider Effects of Preservation
Would Address Effects of Preservation
 Currently not concerned with this ability.
Making PMS database more compatible
and in alignment with the MEPDG is a
necessary first step.
California DOT  Currently working on a process within the
new CalME design program, whereby
preservation treatments can be scheduled
into the design.
Non-LTPP Sections with Data
Available for Analysis/Calibration
 Uncertain.
 Yes/No—PMS sections have data
compatibility issues (e.g., ADOT
cracking data not collected/
analyzed per LTPP protocols, and
not directly input into MEPDG) that
may toughen ability to analyze
historical time-series data.
 CalME includes assignment of future
treatments with ability to (1) reset
certain distresses to zero and (2)
change asphalt material properties.
 Limited—PMS database now
undergoing major upgrade due to
issues with location and
performance data. Upcoming
preservation and LCCA studies will
look at pavement life extension
using updated PMS data.
Indiana DOT
 DOT not looking at this; probably should
be addressed at the national level.
Kansas DOT
 Uncertain, as there are various issues
 Uncertain. The DOT has many
 Yes/No—DOT has 25 years of PMS
involved; most notably differences between
different treatments placed on different
data on 11,000-mi network, which
pavement types, with varying
could be used for calibrations at the
the DOT’s performance models and the
conditions, and at varying times, so it
network level but would not be
MEPDG models.
is not clear if it is possible. Also,
suitable for project-level
funding allocation complicates things.
calibrations. Six HMA calibration
sections are expected to include
future preservation, as preservation
is typical DOT policy.
Maryland SHA  Inclusion of preservation in MEPDG
would be desirable but a challenge due to
limited preservation history in the state.
 Preservation is not currently an option  Yes—PMS sections representing 4
in the implemented MEPDG. Main
years of preservation projects. No
consideration would be proper
sections with head-to-head
comparison of preservation-treated
modeling of changes in HMA dynamic
modulus.
vs. untreated pavement.
 Uncertain.
 Limited—Unsure of how many
PMS sections would be suitable for
calibration. Have only 2 years of
performance data.
Minnesota
DOT
 Ability to consider effects would be
worthwhile from a holistic standpoint.
 Uncertain.
 Yes—DOT has many PMS sections
with many years of performance
data suitable for use in calibration.
About 50 pavement projects back to
2000 that include adjacent untreated
and preservation-treated (mostly
chip seal and microsurfacing)
sections. Also, MnROAD sections,
with crack sealing, microsurfacing,
and thin HMA overlay.
Missouri DOT
 Effects of preservation should be
considered in the LCCA. However, if
included in the MEPDG design analysis
process, the effects should be evaluated in
terms of the overall structure performance.
 Preservation is not currently an option
in the implemented MEPDG. It’s
addressed theoretically in their LCCA
process. However, the long-term
answer has to be calibration to local
conditions.
 Yes—Major roads hold best
opportunity for tracking
performance and performing
calibration. Several pavement
sections have location information
and time-series performance data
back to original construction.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
F-39
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table F-5. Summary of SHA responses regarding incorporation of preservation into the
MEPDG and the availability of data to support the concept (continued).
SHA
Agency Expectation for Enabling MEPDG
How State-Customized MEPDG
to Consider Effects of Preservation
Would Address Effects of Preservation
Non-LTPP Sections with Data
Available for Analysis/Calibration
New Jersey
DOT
 None currently.
 Uncertain.
 Limited—DOT has many PMS
sections (0.1-mi increments) with
IRI back to 2005 and distress back
to 1999. No sections with head-tohead comparison of preservationtreated vs. untreated).
North Carolina
DOT
 Effects of preservation should be
considered in the LCCA, which is not a
part of the structural analysis. A key
reason for this is that funding in the outyears cannot always be counted on.
 Effects of preservation should be
considered in the LCCA.
 Yes/No—Flexible pavement
sections available, but probably not
concrete sections. Probably 8-10
years of data available for flexible
pavements.
Ohio DOT
 DOT would not consider effects of
 DOT wouldn’t mind MEPDG models
preservation in their design process, as they
being adjusted to reflect preservation,
are far from ready for it.
as long as there was an option that
would allow the user to not consider
the effects.
 Limited—DOT has many PMS
sections available with historical
data, but their distress data are not
compatible with MEPDG inputs.
Texas DOT
 DOT would be interested in any
methodologies developed to allow this.
 Limited—DOT has many PMS
sections, but with limited years of
data. Little or no chance of finding
adjacent sections for direct
comparison of performance with
and without preservation.
Utah DOT
 DOT doesn’t want to see preservation
 It wouldn’t, due to the issue that
included because of the issue of no funding
funding may not be available to cover
to do the preservation.
the planned preservation.
 Limited—DOT has many pavement
sections available, but limited to 2
years of automated distress data.
Also, there is uncertainty regarding
locations of preservation treatments.
Virginia DOT
 DOT has not given much thought to this as  Uncertain, as no thought has been
they’re just focusing on getting the
given to this.
MEPDG implemented and the local
calibrations done. They see the whole
incorporation of preservation into the
MEPDG as very complicated.
 Limited—Very little if any data are
available, given that treatments have
just begun to be tracked.
Washington
State DOT
 DOT is skeptical about the concept, but
interested in it. It would be difficult to
mechanically model how maintenance
affects long-term performance without
good long-term performance data.
 Limited—DOT has many pavement
sections with several years of
performance data. Data on
preservation treatment locations
questionable.
F-40
 Uncertain, but ideally it would be a
rational process.
 Uncertain.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1972.
Design of Pavement Structures. AASHTO, Washington, DC.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1993. Guide
for Design of Pavement Structures. AASHTO, Washington, DC.
Lee, C., W.A. Nokes, and J.T. Harvey. 2008. Alligator Cracking Performance and Life-Cycle
Cost Analysis of Pavement Preservation Treatments. UCPRC-TM-2007-08. Caltrans,
Sacramento, CA.
Liu, L., V. Manepalli, D. Gedafa, and M. Hossain. 2010a. “Cost Effectiveness of Ultrathin
Bonded Bituminous Surface and Modified Slurry Seal.” Compendium of Papers, First
International Conference on Pavement Preservation, Newport Beach, CA.
Liu, L., M. Hossain, and R. Miller. 2010b. “Costs and Benefits of Thin Surface Treatments on
Bituminous Pavements in Kansas.” Compendium of Papers CD. 89th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Liu L., M. Hossain, and R. Miller. 2010c. “Life of Chip Seal on Kansas Highways.”
Compendium of Papers, First International Conference on Pavement Preservation, Newport
Beach, CA.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
F-41
December 2014
F-42
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
APPENDIX G. INDUSTRY GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND
RESPONSES
Table G-1. Industry Group interview questions and responses.
Industry
Organization
What is the organization’s familiarity and involvement with pavement preservation practices?
ACPA
They are very familiar and actively involved with PCC pavement preservation strategies.
NCPP
They are very familiar and fully involved with most aspects of pavement preservation.
AEMA
AEMA represents the asphalt emulsion manufacturers. As such, all members are involved with pavement
preservation and are very familiar with preservation practices.
ISSA
They are not familiar with the 1-48 study, but need to be. Have “been singing this song long before it was
fashionable.” The FP2 spawned from ISSA, so they’ve been involved for a long time in the preservation
industry. They market preservation both through their organizations and individual firms. They are very
active, especially in education and marketing.
NAPA
They are very familiar and actively involved; their general thrust is with thin overlays.
Table G-1. Industry Group interview questions and responses (continued).
Industry
Organization
What specific preservation treatments and/or concepts are recognized and promoted by the
organization?
ACPA
They recognize and promote a variety of treatments, including joint resealing, diamond grinding, partial- and
full-depth repairs, dowel bar retrofit, thin HMA overlays, and bonded PCC overlays. Also, to a lesser extent,
slab stabilization.
NCPP
They try to blanket all treatments (black and white) and promote the concepts around the country, while
getting into the details a little more.
AEMA
They have a marketing brochure they can provide. Crack sealing, chip seal, microsurfacing, recycling with
emulsions, tack coats, and so on are covered. In short, everything linked to emulsions is covered and
promoted.
ISSA
The treatments they represent will be changing, probably at the annual meeting in 2011. They are expected to
include emulsified asphalt slurries and micros, asphalt-based chip seals, and asphalt-based crack treatments.
This will also tie to the specifications that are on file. This will help to differentiate themselves from the
cementitious and coal tar-based sealants. They want to be clear what treatments are and are not a part of their
organization’s activities.
NAPA
Thin overlay variations include 9.5mm and smaller mixes (e.g., Ohio’s SmoothSeal, New Jersey’s HighPerformance Thin Overlay [HPTO]), SMAs, dense-graded HMA, open-graded, and mill and fill.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
G-1
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table G-1. Industry Group interview questions and responses (continued).
Industry
Organization
What aspects of these preservation treatments are key focuses to the organization? Examples might
include project and/or treatment type selection, materials and testing, design, construction/placement,
quality control/quality assurance, treatment performance, and life-cycle cost analysis.
ACPA
At the national level, they have helped sponsor and conduct training on PCC preservation strategies. This has
included many of the aspects listed above as examples. In the near future, they will shift their training efforts to
contractor training, with focus on project/treatment selection and how to apply the treatment for optimum success.
As far as research at the national level, they really haven’t done much since the national diamond grinding study
(performed by ERES circa 1997-1998) and a Caltrans study on diamond grinding.
NCPP
Probably the biggest gap they have is the timing issue: they really focus on all of the other topics. Their
experience is that agencies are using preservation more as a reactive treatment than a proactive treatment.
Often, the data aren’t available to support the benefits of preservation. Most people forget the condition of the
pavement at the time they apply the treatment. If a treatment is unsuccessful, it is almost always viewed as a
treatment problem, rather than an application timing or conditions issue. There’s also a problem on the
pavement management side, where these treatments are well tracked but the life extensions aren’t properly
recognized. Another problem is that agencies are only using treatments they’re comfortable with. Materials
and testing can also be a problem. Also can have problems with design: designers don’t know what the
treatment is about. NCPP focus is trying to help these agencies.
AEMA
One member, BASF, is focusing on eco-efficiencies, looking at this over the pavement life cycle. AEMA is
just trying to promote emulsions. They don’t focus on long-term treatments.
They are concerned with all of the above, but perhaps less so with LCCA. Their educational efforts are probably
second to none. They go out of their way to educate their constituents and have trained about 2,500 people over the
past 10 years (50% of constituents are contractors, 25% are materials suppliers and equipment manufacturers,
remaining 25% are highway agencies). This year they’ve done a cooperative effort with The Asphalt Institute in the
presentation of three webinars on introductions to the various treatments (slurries/micros, chips seals, crack seals).
All three went very well, and reached about 350 people live, with probably more purchasing the segments on
demand.
ISSA
Regarding LCCA, the association has not done much lately. BASF completed an eco-efficiency analysis that
was validated by NSF and this was covered in a recent Pavement Preservation article
(www.csrwire.com/press_releases/30338-BASF-micro-surfacing-eco-efficiency-analysis-is-verified-by-NSFInternational [Schmidt, J.C. 2010]). They’ve also talked to NCAT about perhaps putting down some
treatments on their test track.
Project selection is really key to them, treatment type selection. Selecting the right treatment at the right time
is something they try to focus on. They are not advocating the use of thin overlays on a structurally failed
pavement, for example. But they also focus on materials and testing, design, and the other topics listed here as
well.
NAPA
Table G-1. Industry Group interview questions and responses (continued).
Industry
Organization
What is the organization’s level of involvement with state highway agencies (SHAs) in evaluating
preservation treatment performance and developing preservation policies and practices?
ACPA
Most of ACPA’s involvement with states is done at the chapter level. Some of the chapters that have been
most active are the MO-KS chapter, the AR-OK chapter, and the PA chapter. The national ACPA has little
involvement with states; their only involvement might be communicating with the FHWA on decisions that in
turn impact the states.
NCPP
They have asked agencies how long 20-year design pavements last when properly designed and constructed?
The responses range from 4 to 20 years, but with an average of 8 to 12 years. It’s clear that the environmental
effects have a big impact on pavement performance. This is why it’s extremely important to have preservation
in the next pavement design guide.
AEMA
Not much involvement. They are trying to work with FHWA. They are interested primarily in promoting the
technical aspects of their products, not so much the policy aspects.
ISSA
The organization as a whole does not really do this. However, individual suppliers and equipment folks do get
involved. They think education will end up being one of their primary focal points. Education, promotion, and
technical representation.
NAPA
They aren’t really working with any specific agencies, since they are a national organization. Yet, if a
contractor in a particular state asks for help, they get involved.
G-2
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table G-1. Industry Group interview questions and responses (continued).
Industry
Organization
What SHAs has the organization worked with or is currently working with?
ACPA
Several, at the chapter level, including the MO-KS chapter and the AR-OK chapter.
NCPP
They have worked with just about every agency. One of the recurring observations is that agencies don’t
really key in on the specific distresses that preservation treatments are intended to address.
AEMA
The Emulsion Task Force is a good effort that works with a number of agencies. Companies are doing their
own promotions. AEMA doesn’t really get involved in this.
ISSA
See previous response. (The organization as a whole does not really do this. However, individual suppliers
and equipment folks do get involved.)
NAPA
They aren’t really working with any specific agencies. However, they do feed off of work that the states have
done, such as Ohio and New York.
Table G-1. Industry Group interview questions and responses (continued).
Industry
Organization
ACPA
What techniques (e.g., time-series trends of overall condition index, smoothness and/or key distresses;
time until next preservation or rehabilitation treatment) have been used in evaluating treatment
performance?
In recent years, this has not been on the radar for the national ACPA (the 1997-98 diamond grinding study
examined time-series trends of friction and mean texture depth for various projects).
There have been models developed, but they haven’t been good models. Mn/DOT, for example, focuses on
ride quality, which doesn’t help much for preservation. This puts weight on the wrong things and primarily
favors overlays. Montana puts chip seals on everything and gets long life out of their pavements, but doesn’t
necessarily do this based on what their pavement management data are showing (based more on anecdotal
evidence). Utah, North Carolina come to mind, but not sure about those states’ models.
NCPP
Most agencies focus on load-related distresses rather than on the performance measures that would trigger
preservation. And this triggers thin overlays.
Agencies are focusing on time until next treatment rather than the impact of the treatment. Agencies are
focusing more on budgets, rather than benefits of the treatment. There needs to be more of scientific basis
(i.e., monitoring of how long it takes for cracking or raveling or rutting to return to pre-treatment levels) for
determining treatment life (or more appropriately, pavement life extension).
AEMA
In Europe they’ve definitely addressed this, so that they now have performance-based guidelines for use of
chip seals. Francois thinks that this is the only way to increase quality. There should be greater emphasis on
performance.
ISSA
Being a volunteer association, ISSA does not get involved with this, but some of the individual organization
members do work on this. Florida Pavement Preservation Council, for example, is looking for this kind of
stuff and wanting to help agencies with it. ISSA recognizes it as a growing trend.
NAPA
The states have reports on treatment performance because thin overlays have been around a long time. There
are a few studies of the relationship between initial pavement condition and thin overlay performance, but
there could always be more.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
G-3
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table G-1. Industry Group interview questions and responses (continued).
Industry
Organization
Have performance models been developed for individual treatment types? If so, what factors (e.g.,
traffic, existing pavement condition and/or distresses, climate) are considered in the models?
ACPA
Other than the aforementioned diamond grinding study, the national ACPA has not developed any
performance models for PCC preservation techniques. However, they do recognize that models have been
developed by others for treatments such as thin HMA overlay and possibly bonded overlays. Again, suggest
contacting the chapters to find out if models have been developed at the state level.
NCPP
Most states aren’t really making an effort to look at life extension from pavement preservation.
AEMA
See previous response. (In Europe they’ve definitely addressed this, so that they now have performance-based
guidelines for use of chip seals. Francois thinks that this is the only way to increase quality. There should be
greater emphasis on performance.)
ISSA
See previous response. (Being a volunteer association, ISSA does not get involved with this, but some of the
individual organization members do work on this. Florida Pavement Preservation Council, for example, is
looking for this kind of stuff and wanting to help agencies with it. ISSA recognizes it as a growing trend.)
NAPA
See previous response. (The states have reports on treatment performance because thin overlays have been
around a long time. There are a few studies of the relationship between initial pavement condition and thin
overlay performance, but there could always be more.)
Table G-1. Industry Group interview questions and responses (continued).
Industry
Organization
Have treatment decision matrices/trees been developed to aid in project selection and/or treatment
selection?
ACPA
The Reference Manual for the Concrete Pavement Preservation Workshop contains decision matrix for PCC
preservation treatment selection.
NCPP
Maryland is doing a good job with selection guides. These are close to being finalized. For others, even
where they have the tools, they don’t seem to be widely used to select projects/treatments.
AEMA
Yes, but not here. We’re going to see more and more some software to look at the rate of emulsion
application for traffic and surface conditions. This is more at the contracting level but not industry-wide.
ISSA
No.
NAPA
This is not something that they have dug into themselves. Some of the states have done this. The “thin
overlays” report is the best summary of what they themselves have done.
Table G-1. Industry Group interview questions and responses (continued).
Industry
Organization
G-4
Is documentation on performance evaluations, performance models, and/or treatment decision
matrices/trees available?
ACPA
The Reference Manual for the Concrete Pavement Preservation Workshop would be a good place to start.
NCPP
Not aware of anyone who has anything good in this area. Mississippi is coming up with some
documentation. Most of the states either have or are developing some documentation.
Idaho had been promoting a two tenths program, in which they were placing a 2.4-inch overlay over their
entire system. This was going on everything, even if something like a crack seal would have been sufficient.
This is now changing.
Some states have changed their definitions so that preservation is everything that you do to a road before
rehabilitation.
AEMA
No. But there is research being done on this by state agencies, universities, and so on (e.g., Washington
State, Ohio).
ISSA
Not aware of anything specific.
NAPA
There are the SHRP reports, and a TRIS search would yield many other documented efforts.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table G-1. Industry Group interview questions and responses (continued).
Industry
Organization
What is the organization’s familiarity and involvement with the AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical
Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG), developed under NCHRP Project 1-37A?
ACPA
They are very familiar and heavily involved with the rigid design procedure within MEPDG.
NCPP
They have only been involved with the MEPDG on the fringe. They hear that it will be so time-consuming
and data intensive that it will only have limited use and then only for new construction.
They don’t touch MEPDG. Other than full-depth CIR, the MEPDG is not really applicable to pavement
preservation. Would like to see CIR somehow included. The procedure is complicated and more researchoriented.
AEMA
The relationship between preservation and the MEPDG is more based on personal experience than modeling
pavement performance.
The organization has no involvement with the MEPDG, unless it’s a particular member doing this on their
own. They know that they should be more of a player with this, but right now they have no involvement.
They are working through FP2 to try to get language in the new highway bill that includes preservation and
recognizes the language of preservation, but they haven’t really done anything beyond that.
Current economic times are such that many agencies are relegated to placing preservation treatments on
pavements in bad shape in order to hold things off until more funds come available. This in effect gives
preservation advocates a black eye because the treatments don’t perform well. ISSA can only educate
practitioners about the importance of timing and hope that practices will change for the better.
ISSA
ISSA is willing to help in any way they can on NCHRP 1-48. Test sections and more detailed studies that
generate data to help document treatment selection and performance would be a good thing from ISSA’s
perspective.
They have been involved in the initial development through participation on NCHRP panels. They have not
done any shadow studies of the MEPDG, but they have looked at comparisons between NCAT pavement
performance and the models.
NAPA
Table G-1. Industry Group interview questions and responses (continued).
Industry
Organization
What aspects of the MEPDG has the organization been actively involved in (e.g., characterization of
traffic, climate, materials, and/or pavement structure; performance criteria; structural response and
damage models, distress transfer functions)?
ACPA
All of the above aspects, as pertaining to the rigid design procedure. The rigid procedure is considered to be
more robust and more complete in its development than the flexible procedure, and has fewer operational
problems.
NCPP
They have not gotten into this. They don’t see a problem with methods used in the past. What’s going to
extend the lives of pavements is timely preservation (and not a better design procedure). Also, the use of
quality materials will help. Performance problems for new designs are more in the field side than in the
design side.
AEMA
They are not actively involved in any aspects. MEPDG is out of their league.
ISSA
They have not been involved with any aspects.
NAPA
They have not funded any studies; only looked at the software to make sure it works, and that was a while
ago.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
G-5
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table G-1. Industry Group interview questions and responses (continued).
Industry
Organization
Is the organization leading or contributing to any efforts of incorporating pavement preservation into
the MEPDG? If so, what is the nature of these efforts, which highway agencies do they involve, what
have been the findings, and is documentation available? If not, does the organization have any ideas or
thoughts as to how the MEPDG could consider the effects of preservation treatments on pavement
performance (e.g., performance prediction model adjustments/calibrations, design reliability
adjustments, material property changes)?
ACPA
The ACPA is not doing anything related to the incorporation of preservation into the MEPDG, but they are
strongly pushing the implementation of the MEPDG by states. They would like to see the impacts of
preservation incorporated into the MEPDG, as they feel it would be a plus in terms of marketing PCC
pavements. While they view preservation as a good thing, they think there are some cases where a
preservation treatment could have an adverse effect (e.g., a surfacing treatment that might tend to hold
moisture within the pavement system).
NCPP
They are not involved in any effort to look at incorporating pavement preservation into the MEPDG. They
don’t know enough about the design process to know how it could or should be done. But they do feel that it’s
about capturing life extension of the treatment and not the time until the next treatment. Materials quality and
construction workmanship are key factors to ensuring that pavements last as long as their design.
Again, MEPDG is out of their league. It’s more of interest to ARRA with CIR and the hot-mix industry, such
as NAPA.
AEMA has a short-term view. They’re looking to make a sale. It’s the agency or the engineer that worries
more about the long-term view and would be interested in the effect of preservation on long-term performance.
AEMA
COLAS has a project with the city of Portsmouth in UK that is long-term performance based. That makes
them approach things differently. They have a 10-year contract with Quebec that is also pushing them to look
at long-term benefits.
Need to look at life cycle costs. Also need to look at the sustainability aspect. Must look at costs and life and
environmental effects.
ISSA
They are not involved in any such efforts.
They aren’t involved in any such efforts, but believe the idea is good. They wonder if existing models already
incorporate preservation. And how would those models handle all of the different treatments? To truly capture these
effects, it would require a SHRP-like study, with proper control (do-nothing) sections.
MDSHA may have done a study that relates pavement condition to thickness of overlays.
NAPA
They see the integration issue as a long-term effort. Need to identify what data a state needs to start collecting and
then figure out how to get it into the analysis. This could be something off to the side rather than directly in the
MEPDG models. Perhaps it wouldn’t be a part of the MEPDG in the end.
ADOT may have established a process whereby they use construction/materials test data to trigger a certain
maintenance cycle.
G-6
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
References
Schmidt, J.C. 2010. “BASF Micro Surfacing Eco-Efficiency Analysis is Verified by NSF
International. CSR News. CSRwire. www.csrwire.com/press_releases/30338-BASF-microsurfacing-eco-efficiency-analysis-is-verified-by-NSF-International
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
G-7
December 2014
G-8
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
APPENDIX H. LTPP TEST SECTIONS USED IN MEPDG MODEL
DEVELOPMENT AND CALIBRATION
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
H-1
Maintenance History
LTPP
Experiment
State SHRP_ID
Type
Code
1
2
Type
Fog Seal Coat
Assign Date
De-Assign
Date
-
01-Oct-80
01-Jan-87
01-Jun-93
91 – 93
Yes
Date
Completed
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
1001*
GPS-6B
1988
1019
GPS-6B
-
-
-
01-Oct-86
01-Jan-87
07-Jun-98
89 – 98
No
4126
GPS-6B
-
-
-
31-May-88
31-May-88
01-Sep-00
89 – 97
No
01-Jul-93
01-Jun-94
25-Jun-99
01-Jul-99
01-May-02
01-May-02
01-May-01
02-Apr-02
07-Aug-01
01-May-02
01-May-01
02-Apr-02
04-May-01
01-May-02
1982
1984
01-Apr-89
01-Jan-90
01-Jun-03
Manual premix patch
Manual premix patch
Patch potholes
Crack Sealing
Slurry Seal Coat
Slurry Seal Coat
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Full depth patch - AC
Slurry Seal Coat
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Slurry Seal Coat
Patch potholes
Fog Seal Coat
Fog Seal Coat
Crack Sealing
Patch potholes
-
01-Jul-83
07-Jul-88
90 – 99
No
-
01-Oct-84
01-Aug-93
01-Aug-93
16-Jun-89
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
20-Jun-98
01-Jun-06
01-Jun-06
90 – 98
95 – 00
95 – 00
No
No
No
-
01-Aug-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jun-06
95 – 00
No
-
01-Aug-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jun-06
95 – 00
No
-
01-Aug-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jun-06
95 – 00
No
-
01-Aug-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jun-06
95 – 00
No
-
01-Apr-78
11-Aug-88
01-Jan-95
91 – 94
Yes
02-Jan-91
Crack Sealing
-
01-Jun-79
09-Aug-88
12-May-97
NA
Unknown
1001
GPS-6B
1002
0113
0114
GPS-6B
SPS-1
SPS-1
0115
SPS-1
0116
SPS-1
0117
SPS-1
0118
SPS-1
1007
GPS-6B
1016
GPS-6B
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
4
Date
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Overlay
December 2014
H-2
Table H-1. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of fatigue cracking model for new/reconstructed flexible pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A final report appendix EE-1 [Annex A, tables 1, 11, and 12] and appendix II).
Maintenance History
LTPP
Experiment
State SHRP_ID
Type
Code
Date
4
1024
GPS-6B
1029
GPS-6B
8
Type
01-Jan-89
17-Mar-97
01-Jan-90
01-Jan-90
07-Jul-97
03-Feb-98
19-Jun-95
Patch potholes
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Patch potholes
Patch potholes
Fog Seal Coat
Patch potholes
16-Oct-95
Surface Treatment,
Single Layer
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
9
1803
GPS-6B
12
0103
0104
0105
0106
3995
3997*
4105
SPS-1
SPS-1
SPS-1
SPS-1
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
4106
GPS-6B
15-Nov-03
4107
4108
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
-
Patch potholes
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Full depth patch - AC
Surface Treatment,
Single Layer
-
4135
GPS-6B
-
-
Assign Date
De-Assign
Date
01-Jun-72
16-Jun-88
01-Apr-99
89-98/92-98
Yes
-
01-Jun-72
28-Jul-88
01-Jun-03
91 – 95
No
-
01-Aug-82
01-Feb-84
28-Jul-88
27-Jul-88
25-Aug-92
25-Jun-01
NA
89-97/93-97
Unknown
No
-
01-Jul-85
01-Jul-88
21-May-00
89-00/91-00
Yes
-
01-Nov-95
01-Nov-95
01-Nov-95
01-Nov-95
01-Dec-75
01-Jun-74
01-Dec-84
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
17-Apr-97
07-Feb-95
03-Jun-93
96 – 00
96 – 00
96 – 00
96 – 00
92 – 96
90 – 94
89 – 93
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
15-Nov-03
15-Nov-03
89-99/91-99
No
01-Aug-87
01-Jun-86
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
04-May-98
25-Oct-96
89 – 97
89 – 96
No
No
01-Feb-71
15-Feb-92
12-Jun-06
89 - 91
No
Date
Completed
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
-
H-3
December 2014
1047*
1053*
01-Aug-02
18-Jan-95
25-Jul-96
02-Jul-00
-
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Overlay
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-1. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of fatigue cracking model for new/reconstructed flexible pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A final report appendix EE-1 [Annex A, tables 1, 11, and 12] and appendix II) continued.
LTPP
Experiment
State SHRP_ID
Type
Code
Maintenance History
Date
1031
13
GPS-6B
4111
GPS-6B
4112*
GPS-6B
15-Sep-95
Crack Sealing
31-May-97
Grinding Surface
01-Jun-97
Surface Treatment,
Single Layer
1986
05-Jun-90
1986
16
20
26
27
4113
GPS-6B
05-Jun-90
4119
1001*
1009
1021
9034
1009*
1003
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
1004
GPS-6B
1001
1004
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
01-Jun-93
20-Oct-92
01-Jul-01
19-Jul-00
05-Jun-91
01-Jun-96
NA
15-Jun-93
1018
GPS-6B
1087
GPS-6B
29-Aug-94
01-Apr-03
25-Jul-03
-
Slurry Seal Coat
Mechanical premix
patch
Slurry Seal Coat
Mechanical premix
patch
Patch potholes
Aggregate Seal Coat
Aggregate Seal Coat
Slurry Seal Coat
Crack Sealing
Skin Patching
NA
Patch potholes
Surface Treatment,
Single Layer
Crack Sealing
Aggregate Seal Coat
-
Assign Date
De-Assign
Date
-
01-Jun-81
01-Jan-87
-
91 – 96
Yes
-
01-Nov-80
01-Jan-87
20-Dec-92
89 – 92
Yes
-
01-Jun-77
01-Jan-87
01-Sep-98
89 – 98
Yes
-
01-Jun-77
01-Jan-87
01-Sep-98
89 – 98
No
-
01-Jun-78
01-Aug-73
01-Oct-74
01-Oct-85
01-Oct-88
01-Jan-85
01-Sep-74
01-Jan-87
26-Jul-88
21-Jul-88
19-Jul-88
30-Sep-88
26-Aug-95
-
21-May-96
01-Jul-00
01-Oct-02
01-Sep-06
-
NA
89 - 98
89-99/92-99
89-99/90-99
89-98/93-98
88 – 99
89 – 98
Unknown
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
-
01-Nov-74
-
89 - 00
Yes
-
01-Sep-71
01-Jul-85
01-Jan-87
23-Jul-04
88 – 99
89 - 90
No
Unknown
-
01-Jan-79
01-Jan-87
22-Jun-95
22-Jun-95
-
89 – 94
Yes
-
01-Jan-79
01-Jan-87
-
91 – 00
No
Date
Completed
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
December 2014
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
25
Type
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Overlay
Final Report Appendices
H-4
Table H-1. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of fatigue cracking model for new/reconstructed flexible pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A final report appendix EE-1 [Annex A, tables 1, 11, and 12] and appendix II) continued.
Maintenance History
LTPP
Experiment
State SHRP_ID
Type
Code
29
30
32
34
35
Overlay
Date
Completed
Original
Construction
Date
Assign Date
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
Date
Type
01-Apr-97
01-Jun-96
21-Apr-99
01-Aug-02
01-Aug-05
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Manual premix patch
Manual premix patch
-
01-Apr-86
01-Jun-81
01-Jun-88
01-Jan-87
-
03-Sep-05
-
92 – 00
89 – 91
89-99/92-99
Yes
No
No
-
01-Jun-84
06-Jul-88
11-Sep-00
91 – 98
Yes
-
01-Jul-74
08-Apr-94
01-Apr-08
NA
Unknown
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
1020
GPS-6B
1003
GPS-6B
1031
GPS-6B
NA
NA
-
01-Jul-73
-
-
92 – 95
Unknown
1033
GPS-6B
NA
NA
-
01-May-74
-
-
92 - 97
Unknown
1034
GPS-6B
-
-
-
01-Dec-88
01-Dec-88
01-Aug-07
89 – 97
No
1638
GPS-6B
NA
NA
-
01-Sep-85
-
-
89 – 97
Unknown
0101
SPS-1
-
-
-
01-Nov-95
01-Oct-94
-
97 – 99
No
0102
SPS-1
15-Mar-05
-
01-Nov-95
01-Oct-94
-
97 – 99
No
0103
SPS-1
-
-
-
01-Nov-95
01-Oct-94
-
97 – 99
No
0104
SPS-1
-
-
-
01-Nov-95
01-Oct-94
-
97 – 99
No
0105
SPS-1
-
-
-
01-Nov-95
01-Oct-94
-
97 – 99
No
0106
SPS-1
-
-
-
01-Nov-95
01-Oct-94
-
97 – 99
No
1005
GPS-6B
15-Sep-04
-
01-Oct-83
01-Jan-87
-
89 – 99
No
1022
GPS-6B
-
-
-
01-Oct-86
01-Jan-87
18-Mar-99
89 – 99
No
1112
GPS-6B
-
-
-
01-Jun-84
01-Jan-87
01-Dec-04
89 – 00
No
1006
GPS-6B
28-Aug-91
1024
1802
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
-
1817
GPS-6B
1992
GPS-6B
37
15-Nov-90
05-May-94
H-5
-
Grinding Surface
Crack Sealing
Slurry Seal Coat
Slurry Seal Coat
Machine premix
patch
-
-
01-Jul-82
01-Sep-89
08-Oct-94
NA
Unknown
-
01-Nov-80
01-Oct-85
01-Aug-88
30-Apr-96
09-Aug-92
19-Jul-04
89 – 92
91 – 96
No
No
-
01-Dec-83
01-Aug-88
18-Nov-95
NA
Unknown
-
01-Feb-90
31-Jan-90
01-Sep-96
91 – 96
No
December 2014
1008
7088
8129
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-1. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of fatigue cracking model for new/reconstructed flexible pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A final report appendix EE-1 [Annex A, tables 1, 11, and 12] and appendix II) continued.
LTPP
Experiment
State SHRP_ID
Type
Code
4087
GPS-6B
40
4163
GPS-6B
42
45
47
4165
1599
1011
3104
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
0001
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
1077
GPS-6B
1109
GPS-6B
1130*
GPS-6B
1169
GPS-6B
1174
1178
1183
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
48
Overlay
Date
Completed
Original
Construction
Date
Assign Date
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
Date
Type
21-Oct-92
04-Oct-93
28-Sep-95
20-Apr-98
01-Jun-99
15-May-98
26-Oct-89
06-Mar-97
15-May-02
Fog Seal Coat
Fog Seal Coat
Fog Seal Coat
Fog Seal Coat
Crack Sealing
Patch potholes
Full depth patch - AC
Crack Sealing
Patch potholes
-
01-Apr-86
01-Jan-98
16-Sep-97
90 - 97
No
-
01-Apr-87
31-Mar-87
17-Aug-99
90 – 99
Yes
-
01-Jun-84
01-Aug-87
01-Jun-85
01-Jun-86
01-Jan-87
01-Aug-88
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
07-Dec-07
10-Dec-99
07-Feb-97
90 - 99
89-98/93-98
92 – 99
89 – 96
No
No
No
No
31-Aug-04
Machine premix
patch
-
01-Mar-89
31-Jan-89
-
89 – 99
Yes
15-Sep-06
17-Nov-92
Crack Sealing
Fog Seal Coat
-
01-Mar-86
01-Jan-87
01-Aug-00
91 – 99
No
15-Oct-97
Mechanical premix
patch
-
01-Jan-82
01-Jan-87
01-Oct-99
89-98/91-98
Yes
07-Oct-96
14-Aug-97
15-May-00
15-May-91
22-Jul-94
15-May-00
20-Aug-00
15-Mar-95
01-Apr-91
12-Dec-90
Aggregate Seal Coat
Aggregate Seal Coat
Patch potholes
Patch potholes
Aggregate Seal Coat
Slurry Seal Coat
Aggregate Seal Coat
Grinding Surface
Crack Sealing
Skin Patching
-
01-Feb-84
01-Jan-87
01-Jul-01
90 – 96
No
-
01-Oct-71
01-Jan-87
21-Oct-92
89 – 92
No
-
01-Aug-72
01-Jan-87
-
90-99/91-99
No
-
01-Dec-73
01-Jul-88
01-Feb-75
01-Jan-87
30-Jun-88
01-Jan-87
17-Apr-98
02-May-95
10-Sep-94
90 – 98
89 – 95
90 – 94
Yes
Yes
No
December 2014
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
1060
Maintenance History
Final Report Appendices
H-6
Table H-1. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of fatigue cracking model for new/reconstructed flexible pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A final report appendix EE-1 [Annex A, tables 1, 11, and 12] and appendix II) continued.
Maintenance History
LTPP
Experiment
State SHRP_ID
Type
Code
1183
GPS-6B
3749
GPS-6B
9005*
1002
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
48
50
1004
Date
Type
19-Sep-91
31-Jan-92
06-Mar-92
28-Nov-95
1987
1998
07-Oct-98
Skin Patching
Crack Sealing
Skin Patching
Full depth patch - AC
Aggregate Seal Coat
Aggregate Seal Coat
Crack Sealing
01-Sep-00
Mechanical premix
patch
GPS-6B
01-Sep-00
51
53
56
1002
1023
2021
1008
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
1801
GPS-6B
1007
GPS-6B
01-Oct-05
1988
01-Jun-93
12-May-94
12-May-94
02-Apr-98
01-Sep-99
-
Surface Treatment,
Single Layer
-
Assign Date
De-Assign
Date
-
01-Feb-75
01-Jan-87
10-Sep-94
90 – 94
Yes
-
01-Mar-81
01-Jan-87
29-Mar-97
90 – 97
Yes
-
01-May-86
01-Aug-84
14-Sep-98
01-Aug-88
01-Jan-06
90 – 98
89-00/94-00
No
No
-
01-Sep-84
01-Aug-88
15-Jul-01
93-00
Yes
-
01-Oct-79
01-Dec-80
01-May-85
01-Nov-78
01-Aug-88
01-Jul-88
01-Jul-88
15-Jul-89
14-May-90
29-Oct-97
24-Oct-95
26-Jul-94
89
89 – 97
89 – 92
91 – 94
No
No
No
No
-
01-Sep-73
01-Jul-89
17-Aug-98
NA
Unknown
-
01-Jul-80
17-Aug-88
-
90 – 97
No
-
01-Sep-78
01-May-90
27-Aug-96
NA
Unknown
Date
Completed
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
H-7
December 2014
84
1684*
GPS-6B
* - Sections placed with HMA overlay.
Surface Treatment,
Single Layer
Crack Sealing
Strip Patching
Patch potholes
Crack Sealing
Patch potholes
Aggregate Seal Coat
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Overlay
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-1. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of fatigue cracking model for new/reconstructed flexible pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A final report appendix EE-1 [Annex A, tables 1, 11, and 12] and appendix II) continued.
LTPP
State
Code
Maintenance History
SHRP
_ID
Overlay
Experiment
Type
Original
Construction
Date
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
Date
Type
Date
Completed
-
3-Mar-89
1-Jun-89
01-Aug-74
01-Jun-76
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
04-Apr-89
01-Jun-89
89 – 99
91 – 97
No
No
1-May-94
01-Feb-71
15-Feb-92
12-Jun-06
93 – 00
No
22-Oct-88
01-Jan-76
No
01-Oct-85
96 – 00
No
15-Sep-88
2-Aug-82
18-Oct-90
1-Jul-89
13-Sep-89
13-Sep-89
1-Oct-89
1-Oct-89
08-May-90
01-Jun-80
01-Jan-87
30-Jun-87
01-Aug-73
01-Sep-71
01-Sep-71
01-Jul-68
01-Jul-68
01-Aug-68
29-Oct-88
30-Apr-96
19-Jul-04
14-Sep-88
07-Jun-92
17-Oct-90
01-Jul-89
13-Sep-89
13-Sep-89
28-May-90
01-Oct-89
91 – 99
1-May-96
01-Jan-87
01-Aug-88
30-Apr-96
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
30-Jun-87
05-Sep-88
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
88 – 99
92 – 99
91
89 – 98
89 – 98
89 – 98
89-99/93-99
89-99/93-99
89-01/91-01
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
4127*
4129*
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
-
12
4135*
GPS-6B
16-Jun-92
31
6700*
GPS-6B
37
1802*
GPS-6B
1093*
1113*
1116*
1005*
6450*
6451*
6410*
6412*
0502
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
SPS-5
01-Jul-93
01-Apr-97
-
0503
0504
0505
0506
0507
0508
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
-
-
03-May-90
24-May-90
24-May-90
24-May-90
24-May-90
08-May-90
01-Aug-68
01-Aug-68
01-Aug-68
01-Aug-68
01-Aug-68
01-Aug-68
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
91 – 01
89-00/91-00
89-01/91-01
89-01/91-01
89-00/91-00
89-00/91-00
No
No
No
No
No
No
0509
SPS-5
-
-
08-May-90
01-Aug-68
01-Jan-87
89-00/91-00
No
48
53
83
90
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
4
Surface
Treatment,
Single Layer
Patch potholes
Patch potholes
-
Final Report Appendices
1
December 2014
H-8
Table H-2. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of fatigue cracking model for HMA overlay over flexible pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix EE-2 [Annex A, tables A-1, A-11, and A-12] and appendix II).
LTPP
State
Code
27
30
34
Maintenance History
SHRP
_ID
Overlay
Experiment
Type
Date
Type
Date
Completed
Original
Construction
Date
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
0502*
SPS-5
-
-
15-Sep-90
01-Jul-69
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-06
90 - 00
No
0503*
SPS-5
-
-
15-Sep-90
01-Jul-69
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-06
90 - 00
No
SPS-5
-
0505
0506*
0507*
0508
0509
0502
0503
0504
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
15-Jun-91
-
0505
SPS-5
01-Jun-01
0506
0507
0508
0509
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
-
7066
SPS-5
01-Jun-01
0502
0503
0504
0505
0506
0507
0508
0509
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
-
* Sections placed with HMA overlay
Crack Sealing
Aggregate Seal
Coat
Aggregate Seal
Coat
-
15-Sep-90
01-Jul-69
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-06
90 - 00
No
15-Sep-90
15-Sep-90
15-Sep-90
15-Sep-90
15-Sep-90
12-Sep-91
12-Sep-91
11-Sep-91
01-Jul-69
01-Jul-69
01-Jul-69
01-Jul-69
01-Jul-69
01-Sep-82
01-Sep-82
01-Sep-82
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-06
01-Jan-06
01-Jan-06
01-Jan-06
01-Jan-06
07-May-01
07-May-01
07-May-01
90 - 00
90 – 00
90 – 00
90 – 00
90 - 00
91 - 00
91 – 00
91 - 00
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
11-Sep-91
01-Sep-82
01-Jan-87
07-May-01
91-00/90-00
No
11-Sep-91
11-Sep-91
11-Sep-91
12-Sep-91
01-Sep-82
01-Sep-82
01-Sep-82
01-Sep-82
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
07-May-01
07-May-01
07-May-01
07-May-01
91 – 00
91 – 00
91 – 00
91 – 00
No
No
No
No
13-Sep-91
01-Sep-82
12-Sep-91
07-May-01
91 – 00
No
19-Aug-92
13-Aug-92
21-Aug-92
21-Aug-92
20-Aug-92
13-Aug-92
13-Aug-92
20-Aug-92
01-Aug-72
01-Aug-72
01-Aug-72
01-Aug-72
01-Aug-72
01-Aug-72
01-Aug-72
01-Aug-72
01-Nov-91
01-Nov-91
01-Nov-91
01-Nov-91
01-Nov-91
01-Nov-91
01-Nov-91
01-Nov-91
-
92 – 00
92 – 00
92 – 00
92 – 00
92 – 00
92 – 00
92 – 00
92 – 00
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
H-9
December 2011
0504*
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-2. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of fatigue cracking model for HMA overlay over flexible pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix EE-2 [Annex A, tables A-1, A-11, and A-12] and appendix II) continued.
LTPP
State
Code
SHRP
_ID
Experiment
Type
Maintenance History
Date
15-Sep-96
40
42
0607
SPS-6
30-May-99
0608
SPS-6
31-Jan-01
15-Sep-96
0608
SPS-6
-
Type
Crack Sealing
Slurry Seal
Coat
Patch potholes
Crack Sealing
-
Overlay
Original
Construction
Date
Assign Date
7-Aug-92
01-Nov-62
01-Jan-87
7-Aug-92
01-Nov-62
01-Jan-87
23-Sep-92
01-Sep-68
01-Jan-87
Date
Completed
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
09-Aug-01
92 - 00
Yes
-
92 - 00
Yes
15-May-05
94 - 01
No
December 2014
H-10
Table H-3. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of fatigue cracking model for HMA overlay over fractured slab
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix EE-2 [Annex B, tables B-1, B-11, and B-12] and appendix II).
* Sections placed with HMA overlay
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
LTPP
State
Code
Maintenance History
29
39
3003
5393
3013
GPS-7B
GPS-7B
Type
01-Mar-95
Crack Sealing
01-Jun-01
Crack Sealing
01-Sep-97
Crack Sealing
23-Aug-99
Slurry Seal Coat
14-Jul-03
Crack Sealing
GPS-7B
-
-
28-Jul-99
Crack Sealing
01-Aug-03
Crack Sealing
50
1682
GPS-7B
40
0603
SPS-6
15-Sep-96
Crack Sealing
40
0604
SPS-6
15-Sep-96
Crack Sealing
40
0606
SPS-6
15-Sep-96
Crack Sealing
Performance
Data Range Used
De-Assign
in Development/
Date
Calibration
(Years)
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
Original
Construction
Date
Assign
Date
29-Jul-93
01-Jan-75
01-Jun-93
-
93-99/91-99
Yes
16-Jul-90
01-Oct-57
16-Jul-90
-
92 – 00
Yes
29-Jun-93
01-Jul-70
01-Jan-87
29-Jun-93
93 – 00
No
24-Sep-91
29-Jul-99
30-Nov-63
08-Sep-91
-
93-98/91-98
No
01-Jan-63
01-Jan-87
-
92-00/91-00
Yes
01-Jan-63
01-Jan-87
-
92-00/91-00
Yes
01-Jan-63
01-Jan-87
-
92-00/91-00
Yes
SHRP_ Experiment
ID
Type
Date
18
Overlay
Date
Completed
12-Jul-92 /
10-Aug-92
12-Jul-92 /
10-Aug-92
12-Jul-92 /
10-Aug-92
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-4. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of fatigue cracking model for HMA overlay over JPC pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix EE-2 [Annex C, tables C-1, C-14, and C-15] and appendix II).
* Sections placed with HMA overlay
December 2011
H-11
Maintenance History
LTPP
State
Code
SHRP_ID
4
1022
GPS-1
01-Jan-91
8
1047*
GPS-1
-
1010
GPS-1
-
1001*
GPS-1
1979
1028
GPS-1
-
Aggregate Seal
Coat
-
1037
GPS-1
01-Jun-00
Crack Sealing
20
1005
GPS-1
-
21
1034
GPS-1
-
23
1026
GPS-1
24
1634
16
18
27
29
Assign Date
De-Assign
Date
Date
10-Jan-96
01-Oct-77
16-Aug-88
10-Jan-96
NA
Unknown
25-Aug-92
01-Oct-83
28-Jul-88
25-Aug-92
NA
Unknown
-
01-Oct-69
19-Jul-88
01-Aug-97
NA
Unknown
01-Jul-00
01-Aug-73
26-Jul-88
01-Jul-00
NA
Unknown
01-Jan-75
01-Jan-87
23-Jun-95
NA
Unknown
01-Jan-83
01-Jan-87
15-Sep-94
NA
Unknown
-
23-Jun-95
15-Sep-94
05-May-03
02-Nov-00
01-Sep-71
01-Jan-87
02-Nov-00
NA
Unknown
-
20-Aug-93
01-Feb-73
01-Jan-87
20-Aug-93
NA
Unknown
-
-
01-Jul-73
01-Jul-88
26-Sep-96
NA
Unknown
GPS-1
-
-
01-Jun-76
01-Nov-88
05-May-98
NA
Unknown
1087
GPS-1
15-Feb-99
27-Sep-96
06-May-98
03-Jun-98
-
01-Jan-79
01-Jan-87
23-Jul-97
NA
Unknown
1028
GPS-1
-
-
28-Jul-97
01-Jan-72
01-Jan-87
-
NA
Unknown
1010
GPS-1
-
-
10-Oct-98
01-Aug-80
01-Jan-87
22-Jun-98
NA
Unknown
09-Sep-88
-
01-May-82
01-Jan-87
28-Jul-98
NA
Unknown
01-Jun-94
Fog Seal Coat
Aggregate Seal
Coat
Aggregate Seal
Coat
Grinding Surface
01-Jun-94
Patch potholes
-
01-Sep-76
01-Sep-88
18-Sep-97
NA
Unknown
01-Jul-96
Patch potholes
Surface
Treatment, Single
Layer
Experiment
Type
Date
1030
GPS-1
07-Aug-96
23-Sep-92
32
Performance
Data Range Effects of Preservation
Used in
Treatment
Development/ Captured/Reflected in
Calibration
Performance Data?
(Years)
Original
Construction
Date
2027
GPS-1
01-Jul-96
Type
Patch potholes
-
Patch potholes
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
31
Overlay
December 2014
H-12
Table H-5. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of thermal cracking model for new/reconstructed flexible
pavements and HMA overlays (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix HH [see Note below]).
Maintenance History
LTPP
State
Code
SHRP_ID
34
1011
GPS-1
4086*
GPS-1
4088
GPS-1
15-May-93
42
45
1597
1008
GPS-1
GPS-1
-
49
1008*
GPS-1
1985
40
Experiment
Type
1007
Original
Construction
Date
Assign Date
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range Effects of Preservation
Used in
Treatment
Development/ Captured/Reflected in
Calibration
Performance Data?
(Years)
Date
Type
Date
-
-
29-Apr-98
30-Jun-98
01-Mar-70
01-Jun-88
28-Sep-98
NA
Unknown
04-Aug-89
21-Jun-02
01-Jun-70
01-Jan-87
03-Aug-89
03-Aug-89
17-Jun-02
NA
Unknown
-
01-Jun-75
01-Jan-87
15-May-95
NA
Unknown
09-Jul-00
-
01-Sep-80
01-May-70
01-Aug-88
01-Jan-87
08-Jul-00
03-Jun-92
NA
NA
Unknown
Unknown
14-Jun-90
01-Aug-76
17-Aug-88
30-Oct-00
NA
Unknown
-
01-Jul-80
17-Aug-88
-
NA
Unknown
04-Aug-89
Crack Sealing
15-Sep-98
Crack Sealing
Manual premix
patch
Aggregate Seal
Coat
Aggregate Seal
Coat
Surface
Treatment, Single
Layer
02-Apr-98
56
Overlay
GPS-1
01-Sep-99
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-5. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of thermal cracking model for new/reconstructed flexible
pavements and HMA overlays (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix HH [see Note below]) continued.
* Sections placed with HMA overlay
Note: NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix EE-1 (Annex A, tables 1 and 13) lists 92 LTPP sections used in the thermal cracking model calibration. It is understood that these
sections were used in developing/calibrating a level 1 thermal cracking model under NCHRP 1-37A, but that the model was replaced by a level 1-3 thermal cracking model
originally developed under SHRP A005 and calibrated under NCHRP 9-19 using the 22 LTPP sections shown in this table along with 14 sections from C-SHRP, and five
MNRoad sections (41 sections total).
December 2014
H-13
Maintenance History
LTPP
State
Code
SHRP
_ID
01
1001*
1019
4126
Experiment
Type
Date
GPS-1
GPS-2
GPS-1
1988
01-Jul-93
02
GPS-1
01-Jun-94
1002*
0113
0114
GPS-1
SPS-1
SPS-1
0115
SPS-1
25-Jun-99
01-Jul-99
01-May-02
01-May-02
01-May-01
02-Apr-02
0116
SPS-1
1001
07-Aug-01
SPS-1
0118
SPS-1
1007
GPS-1
1016
GPS-1
02-Jan-91
04
Fog Seal Coat
Manual premix
patch
Manual premix
patch
Patch potholes
Crack Sealing
Slurry Seal Coat
Slurry Seal Coat
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Full depth patch AC
Slurry Seal Coat
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Slurry Seal Coat
Fog Seal Coat
Crack Sealing
Assign Date
De-Assign
Date
-
01-Oct-80
01-Jan-87
31-May-88
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
31-May-88
01-Jun-93
07-Jun-98
01-Sep-00
89 – 92
89 – 98
89 – 97
No
No
No
-
01-Jul-83
07-Jul-88
-
91 – 98
No
-
01-Oct-84
01-Aug-93
01-Aug-93
16-Jun-89
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
20-Jun-98
01-Jun-06
01-Jun-06
91 – 98
NA
95 – 99
No
Unknown
No
-
01-Aug-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jun-06
95 – 99
No
-
01-Aug-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jun-06
95 – 99
No
-
01-Aug-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jun-06
95 – 99
No
-
01-Aug-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jun-06
95 – 99
No
-
01-Apr-78
11-Aug-88
01-Jan-95
89 – 94
Yes
-
01-Jun-79
09-Aug-88
12-May-97
89 – 96
Yes
Date
Completed
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
0117
01-May-02
01-May-01
02-Apr-02
04-May-01
01-May-02
01-Apr-89
Type
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Overlay
December 2014
H-14
Table H-6. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of rutting model for new/reconstructed flexible pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix EE-1 [Annex A, tables 1 and 10] and Appendix GG).
Maintenance History
LTPP
State
Code
SHRP
_ID
Experiment
Type
Date
04
1024
GPS-1
08
1029
1047*
1053*
GPS-1
GPS-1
GPS-1
01-Jan-89
01-Jan-90
01-Jan-90
17-Mar-97
07-Jul-97
03-Feb-98
19-Jun-95
-
1030
GPS-1
16-Oct-95
GPS-1
18-Jan-95
25-Jul-96
09
1803
02-Jul-00
12
Type
Patch potholes
Crack Sealing
Patch potholes
Crack Sealing
Patch potholes
Fog Seal Coat
Patch potholes
Surface Treatment,
Single Layer
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Full depth patch AC
-
Original
Construction
Date
Assign Date
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
-
01-Jul-77
16-Jun-88
01-Apr-99
89 – 98
Yes
-
01-Jun-72
01-Aug-82
01-Feb-84
28-Jul-88
28-Jul-88
27-Jul-88
01-Jun-03
25-Aug-92
25-Jun-01
89 – 95
89 – 91
89 – 98
No
No
No
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
Unknown
-
01-Jul-85
01-Jul-88
21-May-00
21-May-00
-
90 – 98
Yes
-
01-Nov-95
01-Nov-95
01-Nov-95
01-Nov-95
01-Dec-75
01-Jun-74
01-Dec-84
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
17-Apr-97
07-Feb-95
03-Jun-93
NA
NA
NA
NA
89 – 96
89 – 94
89 – 92
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
No
No
No
Overlay
Date
Completed
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
SPS-1
SPS-1
SPS-1
SPS-1
GPS-1
GPS-1
GPS-1
-
4106
GPS-1
15-Nov-03
Surface Treatment,
Single Layer
-
01-Aug-87
30-Nov-87
15-Nov-03
89 – 97
No
4107
4108
GPS-1
GPS-1
-
-
-
01-Oct-83
01-Jun-86
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
04-May-98
25-Oct-96
89 – 96
89 – 96
No
No
4135*
GPS-1
16-Jun-92
Surface Treatment,
Single Layer
-
01-Feb-71
15-Feb-92
12-Jun-06
89 – 91
No
December 2014
H-15
0103
0104
0105
0106
3995
3997
4105
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-6. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of rutting model for new/reconstructed flexible pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix EE-1 [Annex A, tables 1 and 10] and Appendix GG) continued.
Maintenance History
LTPP
State
Code
SHRP
_ID
Experiment
Type
Date
1031
GPS-1
15-Sep-95
31-May-97
Crack Sealing
Grinding
01-Jun-97
Surface Treatment,
20
26
01-Jun-81
01-Jan-87
-
90 – 96
Yes
-
-
-
01-Nov-80
01-Jan-87
20-Dec-92
89 – 92
No
4112*
GPS-1
05-Jun-90
Mechanical premix
patch
-
01-Jun-77
01-Jan-87
01-Sep-98
89 – 98
No
4113*
GPS-1
05-Jun-90
Mechanical premix
patch
-
01-Jun-77
01-Jan-87
01-Sep-98
89 – 98
No
4119
1001*
GPS-1
GPS-1
01-Jun-93
-
-
01-Jun-78
01-Aug-73
01-Jan-87
26-Jul-88
21-May-96
01-Jul-00
90 – 94
89 – 98
No
No
1009
GPS-1
20-Oct-92
-
01-Oct-74
21-Jul-88
01-Oct-02
89 – 91
No
1021
GPS-1
-
-
01-Oct-85
19-Jul-88
-
89 – 97
No
9034
GPS-1
01-Jul-01
-
01-Oct-88
30-Sep-88
-
89 – 98
No
1009*
1003
1004
1001
1004
GPS-1
GPS-1
GPS-1
GPS-1
GPS-1
19-Jul-00
08-Jun-88
05-Jun-91
15-Jun-93
-
01-Jan-85
01-Sep-74
01-Nov-74
01-Sep-71
01-Jul-85
26-Aug-95
01-Jun-88
01-Aug-88
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Sep-06
01-Jan-99
01-Jun-01
23-Jul-04
89 – 96
89 – 98
89 - 98
89 – 96
90 - 95
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
-
01-Jan-79
01-Jan-87
22-Jun-95
22-Jun-95
-
89 – 94
No
-
01-Jan-79
01-Apr-86
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
03-Sep-05
89 – 99
89 – 96
No
No
1018
GPS-1
01-Apr-03
25-Jul-03
29
-
Date
Completed
GPS-1
29-Aug-94
27
De-Assign
Date
1087
1008
GPS-1
GPS-1
15-Feb-99
01-Apr-97
Patch potholes
Aggregate Seal
Coat
Aggregate Seal
Coat
Slurry Seal Coat
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Patch potholes
Surface Treatment,
Single Layer
Crack Sealing
Aggregate Seal
Coat
Patch potholes
Crack Sealing
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
25
Assign Date
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
4111
13
16
Type
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Overlay
December 2014
H-16
Table H-6. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of rutting model for new/reconstructed flexible pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix EE-1 [Annex A, tables 1 and 10] and Appendix GG) continued.
Maintenance History
LTPP
State
Code
30
32
34
35
Experiment
Type
Date
H-17
7088
8129
1020
1003
1011
1031
1033
1034
0101
0102
0103
0104
0105
0106
1005
1022
1112
GPS-1
GPS-1
GPS-1
GPS-1
GPS-1
GPS-1
GPS-1
GPS-1
SPS-1
SPS-1
SPS-1
SPS-1
SPS-1
SPS-1
GPS-1
GPS-1
GPS-1
1006
GPS-1
1024
GPS-1
1802*
GPS-1
1817
GPS-1
1992
GPS-1
Type
01-Jun-01
02-Jun-03
01-Jun-96
01-Aug-02
15-Mar-05
15-Sep-04
-
Agg Seal Coat
Agg Seal Coat
Crack Sealing
Manual premix
Grinding Surface
Crack Sealing
-
28-Aug-91
Strip Patching
28-Aug-91
Slurry Seal Coat
-
-
01-Jul-93
Patch potholes
01-Apr-97
Patch potholes
15-Nov-90
Strip Patching
15-Nov-90
05-May-94
-
Slurry Seal Coat
Machine premix
-
Original
Construction
Date
Assign Date
De-Assign
Date
-
01-Jun-81
01-Jun-88
01-Jun-84
01-Jul-74
01-Jan-72
01-Sep-73
01-Jul-74
01-Nov-85
01-Nov-95
01-Nov-95
01-Nov-95
01-Nov-95
01-Nov-95
01-Nov-95
01-Oct-83
01-Oct-86
01-Jun-84
07-May-01
01-Jun-03
06-Jul-88
08-Apr-94
01-Jul-88
01-Jul-88
01-Jul-88
01-Dec-88
01-Oct-94
01-Oct-94
01-Oct-94
01-Oct-94
01-Oct-94
01-Oct-94
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
11-Sep-00
01-Apr-08
28-Apr-98
04-Apr-96
11-Sep-97
01-Aug-07
18-Mar-99
01-Dec-04
89 – 91
89 – 97
89 – 99
90 – 92
89 – 97
89 – 95
89 – 97
89 – 97
97 – 99
97 – 99
97 – 99
97 – 99
97 – 99
96 – 99
89 – 99
89 – 99
89 – 99
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
-
01-Jul-82
01-Sep-89
08-Oct-94
89 – 94
Yes
-
01-Nov-80
01-Aug-88
09-Aug-92
89 – 92
No
-
01-Oct-85
01-Aug-88
30-Apr-96
30-Apr-96
19-Jul-04
89 – 96
No
-
01-Dec-83
01-Aug-88
18-Nov-95
89 – 92
Yes
-
01-Feb-90
31-Jan-90
01-Sep-98
92 – 98
No
Date
Completed
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
December 2014
37
SHRP
_ID
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Overlay
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-6. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of rutting model for new/reconstructed flexible pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix EE-1 [Annex A, tables 1 and 10] and Appendix GG) continued.
Maintenance History
LTPP
State
Code
SHRP
_ID
Experiment
Type
Date
4087
GPS-1
40
4163
GPS-1
42
4165
1599
45
47
Type
Original
Construction
Date
Assign Date
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Overlay
Date
Completed
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
01-Apr-86
01-Jan-87
16-Sep-97
90 – 95
No
-
01-Apr-87
31-Mar-87
17-Aug-99
90 – 99
Yes
-
01-Jun-84
01-Aug-87
01-Jan-87
01-Aug-88
07-Dec-07
-
NA
89 – 98
Unknown
No
1011
GPS-1
15-May-98
-
01-Jun-85
01-Jan-87
10-Dec-99
89 – 99
No
3104
GPS-1
26-Oct-89
Patch potholes
Full depth patch AC
Crack Sealing
Patch potholes
-
01-Jun-86
01-Jan-87
07-Feb-97
89 – 95
No
31-Aug-04
Machine premix
patch
-
01-Mar-89
31-Jan-89
-
89 – 98
Yes
15-Sep-06
17-Nov-92
Crack Sealing
Fog Seal Coat
-
01-Mar-86
01-Jan-87
01-Aug-00
90 – 99
No
15-Oct-97
Mechanical premix
patch
-
01-Jan-82
01-Jan-87
01-Oct-99
89 – 98
Yes
07-Oct-96
14-Aug-97
15-May-00
15-May-91
22-Jul-94
15-May-00
Agg Seal Coat
Agg Seal Coat
Patch potholes
Patch potholes
Agg Seal Coat
Slurry Seal Coat
-
01-Feb-84
01-Jan-87
01-Jul-01
90 – 95
No
-
01-Oct-71
01-Jan-87
21-Oct-92
21-Oct-92
-
89 – 92
No
20-Aug-00
Agg Seal Coat
-
01-Aug-72
01-Jan-87
-
90 – 95
No
06-Mar-97
15-May-02
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
0001
GPS-1
1060
GPS-1
1077
GPS-1
48
1109
GPS-1
1130
GPS-1
1169
GPS-1
Final Report Appendices
Fog Seal Coat
Fog Seal Coat
Fog Seal Coat
Fog Seal Coat
Crack Sealing
-
GPS-1
GPS-1
21-Oct-92
04-Oct-93
28-Sep-95
20-Apr-98
01-Jun-99
December 2014
H-18
Table H-6. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of rutting model for new/reconstructed flexible pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix EE-1 [Annex A, tables 1 and 10] and Appendix GG) continued.
Maintenance History
LTPP
State
Code
SHRP
_ID
Experiment
Type
1174
1178
GPS-1
GPS-1
1183
GPS-1
3749
GPS-1
9005
GPS-1
1002
GPS-1
1004
GPS-1
48
50
51
53
Type
15-Mar-95
01-Apr-91
12-Dec-90
19-Sep-91
31-Jan-92
06-Mar-92
Grinding Surface
Crack Sealing
Skin Patching
Skin Patching
Crack Sealing
Skin Patching
Full depth patch AC
Aggregate Seal Coat
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Mechanical premix
patch
28-Nov-95
15-Sep-98
15-Sep-04
07-Oct-98
01-Sep-00
1002
1023
2021
1008
GPS-1
GPS-1
GPS-1
GPS-1
1801
GPS-1
1007
GPS-1
84
1684
GPS-1
* Sections placed with AC
01-Sep-00
Surface Treatment,
Single Layer
01-Oct-05
01-Jun-93
12-May-94
12-May-94
02-Apr-98
Crack Sealing
Patch potholes
Crack Sealing
Patch potholes
Seal Coat
01-Sep-99
-
Surface Treatment,
Single Layer
-
Assign Date
De-Assign
Date
-
01-Dec-73
01-Jul-88
01-Jan-87
30-Jun-88
17-Apr-98
02-May-95
89 – 95
89 – 90
No
No
-
01-Feb-75
01-Jan-87
10-Sep-94
89 – 90
No
-
01-Mar-81
01-Jan-87
29-Mar-97
90 – 97
No
-
01-Jul-86
14-Sep-98
-
89 – 98
No
-
01-Aug-84
01-Aug-88
01-Jan-06
89 – 98
No
-
01-Sep-84
01-Aug-88
15-Jul-01
15-Jul-01
-
89 – 97
No
-
01-Oct-79
01-Dec-80
01-May-85
01-Nov-78
01-Aug-88
01-Jul-88
01-Jul-88
15-Jul-89
14-May-90
29-Oct-97
24-Oct-95
26-Jul-94
89
89 – 97
89 – 92
89 – 94
No
No
No
No
-
01-Sep-73
01-Jul-89
17-Aug-98
89 – 97
Yes
-
01-Jul-80
17-Aug-88
-
89 – 97
No
-
01-Sep-78
01-May-90
27-Aug-96
90 – 95
No
Date
Completed
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
H-19
December 2014
56
Date
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Overlay
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-6. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of rutting model for new/reconstructed flexible pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix EE-1 [Annex A, tables 1 and 10] and Appendix GG) continued.
LTPP
State
Code
Maintenance History
SHRP
_ID
Experiment
Type
Date
1
Overlay
GPS-6B
GPS-6B
0502
SPS-5
0503
SPS-5
0504
SPS-5
0505
SPS-5
0506
SPS-5
0507
SPS-5
0508
SPS-5
0509
SPS-5
4
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
28-May-98
01-May-02
16-Apr-03
28-May-98
01-May-02
16-Apr-03
28-May-98
01-May-02
16-Apr-03
28-May-98
23-Aug-01
01-May-02
16-Apr-03
28-May-98
23-Aug-01
01-May-02
16-Apr-03
28-May-98
16-Apr-03
28-May-98
01-May-02
16-Apr-03
28-May-98
23-Aug-01
01-May-02
16-Apr-03
Fog Seal Coat
Crack Sealing
Fog Seal Coat
Fog Seal Coat
Crack Sealing
Fog Seal Coat
Fog Seal Coat
Crack Sealing
Fog Seal Coat
Fog Seal Coat
Fog Seal Coat
Crack Sealing
Fog Seal Coat
Fog Seal Coat
Fog Seal Coat
Crack Sealing
Fog Seal Coat
Fog Seal Coat
Fog Seal Coat
Fog Seal Coat
Crack Sealing
Fog Seal Coat
Fog Seal Coat
Fog Seal Coat
Crack Sealing
Fog Seal Coat
Date
Completed
Assign Date
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
03-Apr-89
01-Jun-89
01-Aug-74
01-Jun-76
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
04-Apr-89
01-Jun-89
89 – 97
89 – 97
No
No
08-May-90
01-Aug-68
01-Jan-87
-
91 – 00
Yes
03-May-90
01-Aug-68
01-Jan-87
-
91 – 00
Yes
24-May-90
01-Aug-68
01-Jan-87
-
91 – 00
Yes
24-May-90
01-Aug-68
01-Jan-87
-
91 – 00
Yes
24-May-90
01-Aug-68
01-Jan-87
-
91 – 00
Yes
24-May-90
01-Aug-68
01-Jan-87
-
91 – 00
Yes
08-May-90
01-Aug-68
01-Jan-87
-
91 – 00
Yes
08-May-90
01-Aug-68
01-Jan-87
-
91 – 00
Yes
Final Report Appendices
4127
4129
Type
Original
Construction
Date
December 2014
H-20
Table H-7. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of rutting model for HMA overlays over flexible pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix EE-2 [Annex A, tables A-1 and A-10] and Appendix GG).
LTPP
State
Code
Maintenance History
SHRP
_ID
Type
De-Assign
Date
Surface
Treatment,
Single Layer
15-Jun-91
01-Aug-01
15-Jun-91
01-Aug-01
15-Jun-91
01-Aug-01
15-Jun-91
04-Jun-99
01-Aug-01
15-Jun-91
04-Jun-99
01-Aug-01
15-Jun-91
01-Jun-99
01-Aug-01
15-Jun-91
01-Aug-01
15-Jun-91
01-Aug-01
01-Jun-00
Crack Sealing
Skin Patching
Crack Sealing
Skin Patching
Crack Sealing
Skin Patching
Crack Sealing
Skin Patching
Skin Patching
Crack Sealing
Skin Patching
Skin Patching
Crack Sealing
Skin Patching
Skin Patching
Crack Sealing
Skin Patching
Crack Sealing
Skin Patching
Patch potholes
GPS-6B
01-May-94
01-Feb-71
15-Feb-92
12-Jun-06
94 – 97
Yes
0502
SPS-5
15-Sep-90
01-Jul-69
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-06
93 – 00
No
0503*
SPS-5
15-Sep-90
01-Jul-69
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-06
93 – 00
Yes
0504*
SPS-5
15-Sep-90
01-Jul-69
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-06
93 – 00
Yes
0505*
SPS-5
15-Sep-90
01-Jul-69
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-06
93 – 00
Yes
0506*
SPS-5
15-Sep-90
01-Jul-69
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-06
93 – 00
Yes
0507*
SPS-5
15-Sep-90
01-Jul-69
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-06
93 – 00
Yes
0508
SPS-5
15-Sep-90
01-Jul-69
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-06
93 – 00
Yes
0509
SPS-5
15-Sep-90
01-Jul-69
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-06
93 – 00
Yes
0502
SPS-5
0503
SPS-5
01-Jun-01
0504
SPS-5
01-Jun-01
01-Jun-01
30
Aggregate Seal
Coat
Aggregate Seal
Coat
Aggregate Seal
Coat
12-Sep-91
01-Sep-82
01-Jan-87
07-May-01
07-May-01
-
91 – 00
No
12-Sep-91
01-Sep-82
07-May-01
-
91 – 00
No
11-Sep-91
01-Sep-82
07-May-01
-
91 – 00
No
Date
Completed
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
December 2014
16-Jun-92
4135
27
H-21
Assign Date
Overlay
Experiment
Type
Date
12
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-7. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of rutting model for HMA overlays over flexible pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix EE-2 [Annex A, tables A-1 and A-10] and Appendix GG) continued.
LTPP
State
Code
Maintenance History
SHRP
_ID
Overlay
30
0505
0506
0507
0508
0509
7066
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
GPS-6B
31
6700
GPS-6B
01-Jun-01
01-Jun-01
01-Jun-01
01-Jun-01
01-Jun-01
01-Jun-01
01-Aug-91
01-Aug-94
19-Mar-99
25-Jan-01
Agg Seal Coat
Agg Seal Coat
Agg Seal Coat
Agg Seal Coat
Agg Seal Coat
Agg Seal Coat
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Surf Treatment,
Single Layer
Patch potholes
Patch potholes
Surf Treatment,
Single Layer
Machine premix
patch
Aggregate Seal
Coat
04-Sep-02
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Assign Date
De-Assign
Date
11-Sep-91
11-Sep-91
11-Sep-91
12-Sep-91
12-Sep-91
13-Sep-91
01-Sep-82
01-Sep-82
01-Sep-82
01-Sep-82
01-Sep-82
01-Sep-82
07-May-01
07-May-01
07-May-01
07-May-01
07-May-01
-
-
22-Oct-88
01-Jan-76
29-Oct-88
16-Jun-97
16-Jun-97
01-Jul-06
89 – 96
Yes
34
0502
0503
0504
0505
0506
0507
0508
0509
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
SPS-5
37
1802
GPS-6B
1093
GPS-6B
01-Jul-93
01-Apr-97
19-Aug-92
13-Aug-92
21-Aug-92
21-Aug-92
20-Aug-92
13-Aug-92
13-Aug-92
20-Aug-92
01-Aug-72
01-Aug-72
01-Aug-72
01-Aug-72
01-Aug-72
01-Aug-72
01-Aug-72
01-Aug-72
01-Nov-91
01-Nov-91
01-Nov-91
01-Nov-91
01-Nov-91
01-Nov-91
01-Nov-91
01-Nov-91
-
92 – 00
92 – 00
92 – 00
92 – 00
92 – 00
92 – 00
92 – 00
92 – 00
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
01-May-96
01-Oct-85
01-Aug-88
30-Apr-96
96 – 97
No
15-Sep-88
15-May-96
15-Sep-88
01-Jun-80
14-Sep-88
26-Aug-05
89 – 95
Yes
48
1113
GPS-6B
08-Jun-92
02-Aug-92
01-Jan-86
07-Jun-92
31-Jan-05
92 – 97
Yes
1116*
GPS-6B
15-May-98
Patch potholes
18-Oct-90
01-Jul-87
02-Feb-92
01-Sep-99
91 – 92
No
Date
Completed
Final Report Appendices
Type
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Original
Construction
Date
Experiment
Type
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
91 – 00
91 – 00
91 – 00
91 – 00
91 – 00
91 – 00
December 2014
H-22
Table H-7. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of rutting model for HMA overlays over flexible pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix EE-2 [Annex A, tables A-1 and A-10] and Appendix GG) continued.
LTPP
State
Code
53
Maintenance History
SHRP
_ID
GPS-6B
6450*
GPS-6B
Date
Type
21-Apr-93
16-Jul-01
6410*
GPS-6B
-
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Aggregate Seal
Coat
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Aggregate Seal
Coat
-
6412*
GPS-6B
-
-
01-Jun-05
83
GPS-6B
21-Apr-93
16-Jul-01
01-Jun-05
90
Assign Date
De-Assign
Date
01-Jul-89
01-Aug-73
-
-
13-Sep-89
01-Sep-71
13-Sep-89
-
89 – 98
Yes
13-Sep-89
01-Sep-71
13-Sep-89
-
89 – 98
Yes
01-Oct-89
01-Jul-68
01-Jan-87
28-May-90
89 – 93
No
01-Oct-89
01-Jul-68
01-Jan-87
01-Oct-89
89 – 93
No
Overlay
Experiment
Type
1005
6451*
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
89 – 98
Date
Completed
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
No
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-7. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of rutting model for HMA overlays over flexible pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix EE-2 [Annex A, tables A-1 and A-10] and Appendix GG) continued.
* Sections placed with HMA overlay
December 2014
H-23
Maintenance History
LTPP
State
Code
SHRP_
ID
Experiment
Type
Date
15-Sep-96
40
42
0607
SPS-6
01-Jun-99
608
SPS-6
15-Sep-96
608
SPS-6
-
Type
Crack
Sealing
Slurry Seal
Coat
Crack
Sealing
-
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflecte
d in Performance
Data?
01-Jan-87
09-Aug-01
91 - 00
Yes
01-Nov-62
01-Jan-87
-
91 - 00
Yes
01-Sep-68
01-Jan-87
15-May-05
94 - 00
No
Overlay
Date
Completed
Original
Construction
Date
Assign Date
07-Aug-92
01-Nov-62
07-Aug-92
23-Sep-92
December 2014
H-24
Table H-8. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of rutting model for HMA overlays over existing fractured
PCC pavements (based on NHCRP 1-37A Final Report appendix EE-2 [Annex B, tables B-1 and B-10] and appendix GG).
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Maintenance History
LTPP
State
Code
SHRP_
ID
Experiment
Type
Date
Type
18
3003
GPS-7B
01-Jun-01
29
5393
GPS-7B
28-Sep-99
39
3013
GPS-7B
--
Crack Sealing
Slurry Seal
Coat
-
603
SPS-6
15-Sep-96
Crack Sealing
604
SPS-6
15-Sep-96
Crack Sealing
606
SPS-6
15-Sep-96
Crack Sealing
1682
GPS-7B
29-Jul-99
Crack Sealing
40
50
Overlay
01-Jun-93
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
89 - 96
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
No
01-Jan-87
16-Jul-90
89 - 00
Yes
01-Mar-70
01-Jan-87
29-Jun-93
91 - 99
No
01-Nov-62
01-Jan-87
-
91 - 00
Yes
01-Nov-62
01-Jan-87
-
91 - 00
Yes
01-Nov-62
01-Jan-87
-
91 - 99
Yes
01-Sep-63
01-Jun-89
08-Sep-91
89 - 98
No
Date
Completed
Original
Construction
Date
Assign Date
De-Assign
Date
29-Jul-93
01-Jan-75
01-Jan-87
16-Jul-90
01-Oct-57
29-Jun-23
12-Jul-92,
10-Aug-92
12-Jul-92,
10-Aug-92
13-Jul-92,
10-Aug-92
24-Sep-91,
29-Jul-99
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-9. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of rutting model for HMA overlays over JPC pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix EE-2 [Annex C, tables C-1 and C-13] and appendix GG).
December 2014
H-25
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
No
No
No
No
Yes
SHRP
_ID
Experiment
Type
6
5008
7079
5803
5805
7455
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
16
5025
GPS-5
5020
GPS-5
5843
GPS-5
1
4
5
17
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
18
19
28
28
5849
5854
5869
5908
9267
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
5022
GPS-5
5043
5518
5042
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
9116
GPS-5
3099
5006
5025
5803
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
Date
Type
1988
1988
Lane-Shoulder Joint Sealing
Lane-Shoulder Joint Sealing
Partial Depth patching
(except joint)
Crack Sealing
Partial depth PCC patching
Full depth Transverse joint
repair
Partial depth PCC patching
PCC Slab Replacement
Full depth patching - PCC
Crack Sealing
Partial depth PCC
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Full depth patching - PCC
Crack Sealing
Aggregate Seal Coat
Partial depth PCC patching
1988
20-Jul-88
03-Aug-95
95
Yes
01-Aug-06
15-Jul-98
01-May-86
01-Jan-87
-
98 – 01
No
11-Nov-98
17-Oct-00
02-Oct-01
19-Apr-02
15-Apr-99
16-Sep-99
01-Jun-02
01-Jun-95
01-Sep-00
14-May-92
01-Sep-95
11-Jul-00
15-May-92
01-Aug-82
01-Jan-87
30-Oct-02
91 – 98
No
01-Jan-71
01-Sep-82
01-Aug-79
01-Dec-70
01-Jan-66
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
31-Mar-98
10-Sep-99
31-May-97
01-Jan-06
05-Jul-04
31-Mar-98
97
91
98 – 00
93 – 01
88
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
01-Jan-72
16-May-92
15-Oct-02
88
No
01-Jan-69
01-Oct-70
01-Sep-75
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Sep-02
15-Nov-93
-
98
90 – 93
94 – 99
No
Yes
No
01-Jun-72
15-Sep-89
-
94 – 99
Yes
01-Nov-70
01-Apr-79
01-Jul-78
01-Sep-79
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Nov-92
-
91
93 – 99
91 – 99
93 – 99
No
No
No
Yes
Original
Construction
Date
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
01-Sep-76
01-Mar-89
01-May-73
01-Aug-75
01-May-71
01-Jan-87
28-Feb-89
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
07-Sep-00
01-Sep-72
Final Report Appendices
-
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
93 – 98
95 – 01
94 – 00
91 – 00
91 – 00
Maintenance History
LTPP
State
Code
December 2014
H-26
Table H-10. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of punchout model for new/reconstructed CRC pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.5 and FF.9] and appendix LL [see Note below]).
LTPP
State
Code
29
31
SHRP
_ID
Experiment
Type
5805
5047
5052
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
5037
GPS-5
Date
15-May-99
01-Oct-01
01-Oct-01
16-Sep-98
37
02-Sep-02
5827
GPS-5
02-Sep-02
38
39
40
5002
5003
GPS-5
GPS-5
5010
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
5021
GPS-5
5022
7081
5020
5017
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
42
45
02-Sep-02
01-Jun-01
01-Jun-03
01-Mar-99
01-May-01
01-Apr-03
05-Apr-05
-
Type
Partial depth PCC patching
Crack Sealing
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
joint sealing
Partial depth PCC patching
Full depth Transverse joint
repair
Partial depth PCC patching
at joints
Partial depth PCC patching
Surface Treatment, Single
Layer
Patch potholes
Partial depth PCC patching
Partial depth PCC patching
Partial depth PCC patching
Full depth patching - PCC
-
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
01-Jun-75
01-Oct-71
01-Dec-69
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Feb-99
15-Aug-02
28-May-97
90
99
93
01-Oct-72
01-Aug-88
-
01-Mar-73
01-Aug-88
01-Mar-03
96 – 01
Yes
01-Oct-73
01-Jun-88
01-Jan-87
01-Jun-88
06-Jul-99
-
89 – 95
00 – 01
No
No
01-Jul-75
01-Jun-90
01-Sep-05
89
No
01-Jun-89
01-May-90
01-Oct-87
01-Oct-85
01-Jun-73
01-Jun-72
31-May-89
30-Apr-90
30-Sep-87
25-May-88
23-May-88
23-May-89
01-Sep-03
01-Sep-03
92 - 00
NA
NA
94 – 01
96 – 01
96 – 01
No
Unknown
Unknown
No
No
No
01-Jul-86
19-May-88
-
94 – 01
Yes
01-Oct-84
01-Sept-88
01-Mar-78
01-Feb-79
19-May-88
31-Aug-88
01-Jul-88
01-Jan-87
01-Jun-99
-
96 – 01
96 – 01
96 – 98
91 – 01
No
No
No
No
96 – 01
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
No
No
No
No
December 2014
4158
4166
5021
5005
5006
5008
41
H-27
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Maintenance History
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-10. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of punchout model for new/reconstructed CRC pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.5 and FF.9] and appendix LL [see Note below]) continued.
Original
Construction
Date
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
01-May-75
01-Jan-87
-
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
92 – 01
01-Oct-75
01-Jan-87
-
92 – 99
Yes
01-Aug-72
01-Nov-74
01-Jun-78
01-Jul-81
01-Mar-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
-
93 – 99
99
93 – 97
91 – 01
91 – 01
No
No
No
No
No
01-Jul-71
01-Jan-87,
11-Jun-01
91-99
Yes
01-Jun-75
01-Jan-87
91 – 99
Yes
Maintenance History
LTPP
State
Code
SHRP
_ID
Experiment
Type
5034
GPS-5
Date
15-Sep-97
15-May-98
-
Type
11-Jun-01
-
01-Sept-75
01-Jan-87
91 – 98
No
01-Apr-70
01-Jan-87
15-Feb-01
91 – 99
No
01-Aug-85
15-May-88
91 – 95
No
01-Feb-69
01-Jul-88
97 – 01
Yes
01-May-88
01-Jul-88
01-Nov-00
97 – 00
No
01-Sept-73
01-Jan-87
01-Sep-98
96
No
01-Nov-80
01-Jan-87
01-Sep-98
91 – 94
No
These sections consisted of eight sections on Illinois I-80, three sections on Illinois I-94, and six
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Crack Sealing
5035
GPS-5
Full depth patching - PCC
5020
GPS-5
46
5025
GPS-5
3779
GPS-5
5024
GPS-5
5026
GPS-5
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
25-Oct-90
joint sealing
5154
GPS-5
10-Jun-01
Full depth patching - PCC
48
11-Jun-01
Aggregate Seal Coat
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
5278
GPS-5
15-Jun-98
joint sealing
5328
GPS-5
5334
GPS-5
5336
GPS-5
2564
GPS-5
08-Jun-98
Grooving Surface
51
5010
GPS-5
5037
GPS-5
55
5040
GPS-5
Note: Calibration of the punchout model included an additional 17 non-LTPP sections.
sections on Vandalia Illinois experimental CRC project.
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
No
December 2014
H-28
Table H-10. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of punchout model for new/reconstructed CRC pavements
(based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.5 and FF.9] and appendix LL [see Note below]) continued.
LTPP
State
Code
Maintenance History
SHRP_
ID
Experiment
Type
Date
28-Oct-99
1
4
5
GPS-3
0213
SPS-2
28-Oct-99
-
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
01-Jun-71
1-Jan-87
-
94 - 98
No
09-Sept-93
01-Jan-93
-
95 - 00
No
Type
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
joint sealing
-
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
0214
SPS-2
-
-
15-Sept-93
01-Jan-93
-
95 - 00
No
0215
SPS-2
-
-
13-Sept-93
01-Jan-93
-
95 - 00
No
0216
SPS-2
-
-
13-Sept-93
01-Jan-93
-
95 - 00
No
0217
SPS-2
-
-
10-Sept-93
01-Jan-93
-
95 - 00
No
0218
SPS-2
-
-
14-Sept-93
01-Jan-93
-
95 - 00
No
0219
SPS-2
-
-
12-Sept-93
01-Jan-93
-
95 - 00
No
0220
SPS-2
-
-
14-Sept-93
01-Jan-93
-
95 - 00
No
0221
SPS-2
-
-
10-Sept-93
01-Jan-93
-
95 - 00
No
0222
SPS-2
-
-
14-Sept-93
01-Jan-93
-
95 - 00
No
0223
SPS-2
-
-
13-Sept-93
01-Jan-93
-
95 - 00
No
0224
SPS-2
-
-
13-Sept-93
01-Jan-93
-
95 - 00
No
7613
GPS-3
-
-
01-Mar-79
-
-
94 - 00
No
7614
GPS-3
01-Jun-03
01-May-84
14-Dec-88
-
94 - 99
No
3011
GPS-3
-
01-May-83
01-Jan-87
-
91 - 97
No
01-Nov-73
01-Sep-89
1-Nov-05
NA
Unknown
3005
GPS-3
01-May-96
01-May-96
01-Jul-99
01-Jul-00
01-Jul-00
Grinding Surface
Skin Patching
Full depth patching - PCC
Full depth patching - PCC
Crack Sealing
Transverse Joint Sealing
H-29
December 2014
6
3028
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-11. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse joint faulting model for new/reconstructed
JPC pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.7 and FF.8] and appendix JJ [see Note below]).
LTPP
State
Code
Maintenance History
SHRP_
ID
Experiment
Type
Date
01-Jul-00
3005
GPS-3
6
01-Apr-04
3021
GPS-3
3030
GPS-3
3042
GPS-3
-
De-Assign
Date
01-Nov-73
1-Sep-89
1-Nov-05
NA
Unknown
01-Apr-74
28-Jun-88
-
91 - 00
No
01-Oct-72
30-Jun-88
1-Jun-06
NA
Unknown
01-Jun-79
01-Jan-87
1-Oct-93
NA
Unknown
Type
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
joint sealing
Full depth patching - PCC
Full depth patching - PCC
Crack Sealing
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
joint sealing
-
01-Jun-01
Full depth patching - PCC
01-Jul-03
Full depth patching - PCC
-
Assign
Date
-
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
0213
SPS-2
-
-
11-Oct-93
01-Jan-93
-
96 - 99
No
0214
SPS-2
-
-
13-Oct-93
01-Jan-93
-
96 - 99
No
0215
SPS-2
01-Jun-94
12-Oct-93
01-Jan-93
-
96 - 99
Yes
0216
SPS-2
-
-
11-Oct-93
01-Jan-93
-
96 - 99
No
0217
SPS-2
-
-
09-Sept-93
01-Jan-93
-
96 - 99
No
0218
SPS-2
-
-
21-Oct-93
01-Jan-93
-
96 - 99
No
0219
SPS-2
-
-
22-Oct-93
01-Jan-93
-
96 - 99
No
0220
SPS-2
-
-
09-Sept-93
01-Jan-93
-
96 - 99
No
0221
SPS-2
-
-
09-Sept-93
01-Jan-93
-
96 - 99
No
0222
SPS-2
-
-
03-Sept-93
01-Jan-93
-
96 - 99
No
0223
SPS-2
-
-
03-Sept-93
01-Jan-93
-
96 - 99
No
0224
SPS-2
-
-
08-Sept-93
01-Jan-93
-
96 - 99
No
Full depth patching - PCC
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
8
01-Jul-00
01-Jul-02
01-Apr-04
01-Apr-04
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
December 2014
H-30
Table H-11. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse joint faulting model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.7 and FF.8] and appendix JJ [see Note below]) continued.
LTPP
State
Code
SHRP_
ID
01-Jun-07
01-Jun-07
3032
GPS-3
3804
GPS-3
3811
GPS-3
4000
4057
4059
4109
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
01-Jun-07
01-Jun-07
15-Sep-95
16-Jun-03
15-Sep-95
01-Sep-93
12
4138
GPS-3
01-Sep-93
01-Sep-93
01-Sep-93
15-Jun-98
15-Jun-98
H-31
18
De-Assign
Date
01-Jun-77
28-Jul-88
-
92 - 98
No
01-Jul-85
01-Jan-87
-
91 - 99
No
01-Feb-76
01-Jan-87
-
91 - 94
No
01-Nov-74
01-Jun-86
01-Jun-89
01-Mar-89
01-Jan-87
31-Jan-87
28-Feb-89
28-Feb-89
-
91 - 99
91 - 00
91 - 97
91 - 00
Yes
No
No
No
01-Nov-74
01-Jan-87
-
91 - 97
Yes
-
01-Sept-86
01-Jan-87
-
92 - 99
No
-
01-Oct-83
25-Jul-88
-
NA
Unknown
01-Aug-76
01-Jan-87
-
93 - 97
Yes
15-Jun-98
Partial depth PCC patching
Partial depth PCC patching
15-May-04
Partial depth PCC patching
GPS-3
-
3023
GPS-3
-
GPS-3
Crack Sealing
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
joint sealing
Partial depth PCC patching
Crack Sealing
Full depth patching - PCC
Crack Sealing
Full depth Transverse joint
repair
Full depth patching - PCC
Partial depth PCC patching
PCC Slab Replacement
AC Shoulder Replacement
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
joint sealing
15-May-01
3017
3002
Type
25-Mar-96
25-Mar-96
Partial depth PCC patching at
joints
Partial depth PCC patching
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
December 2014
16
Assign
Date
Experiment
Type
Date
8
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Maintenance History
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-11. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse joint faulting model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.7 and FF.8] and appendix JJ [see Note below]) continued.
LTPP
State
Code
Maintenance History
SHRP_
ID
Experiment
Type
Date
01-Jun-00
3002
GPS-3
01-Jun-02
18
19
01-Sep-91
3003*
GPS-3
3031
3006*
GPS-3
GPS-3
01-Mar-95
01-Jun-01
05-Dec-95
0201
SPS-2
05-Dec-95
01-Jun-02
09-Sep-04
22-Apr-05
22-Apr-05
22-Apr-05
SPS-2
0203
SPS-2
20
22-Apr-05
22-Apr-05
22-Apr-05
01-Jun-95
0204
SPS-2
01-Apr-97
22-Apr-05
22-Apr-05
0205
SPS-2
22-Apr-05
22-Apr-05
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
01-Aug-76
01-Jan-87
-
93 - 97
No
01-Jan-75
01-Jan-87,
01-Jun-93
01-Jun-93
91 - 92
Yes
01-Jul-77
01-Oct-75
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Sep-00
93 - 95
NA
No
Unknown
25-Jul-92
01-Jan-92
-
97 - 99
Yes
18-Jul-92
01-Jan-92
-
97 - 99
No
27-Jul-92
01-Jan-92
-
93 - 99
No
27-Jul-92
01-Jan-92
-
93 - 99
Yes
18-Jul-92
01-Jan-92
-
97 - 99
No
Type
Partial depth PCC patching at
joints
Partial depth PCC patching at
joints
Partial depth PCC patching at
joints
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Partial depth PCC patching at
joints
PCC Slab Replacement
PCC Slab Replacement
PCC Slab Replacement
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
joint sealing
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
joint sealing
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
joint sealing
Partial depth PCC patching at
joints
Partial depth PCC patching at
joints
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
joint sealing
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
0202
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
December 2014
H-32
Table H-11. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse joint faulting model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.7 and FF.8] and appendix JJ [see Note below]) continued.
LTPP
State
Code
Maintenance History
SHRP_
ID
Experiment
Type
Date
22-Apr-05
SPS-2
0207
SPS-2
0208
SPS-2
0209
SPS-2
0210
SPS-2
0211
SPS-2
0212
SPS-2
3016
0213
0215
0216
0217
0218
GPS-3
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
-
0219
SPS-2
01-Jun-06
22-Apr-05
22-Apr-05
20
22-Apr-05
22-Apr-05
22-Apr-05
22-Apr-05
22-Apr-05
22-Apr-05
22-Apr-05
22-Apr-05
22-Apr-05
22-Apr-05
21
26
22-Apr-05
H-33
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
18-Jul-92
01-Jan-92
-
93 - 99
No
17-Jul-92
01-Jan-92
-
97 - 99
No
17-Jul-92
01-Jan-92
-
97 - 99
No
02-Jul-92
01-Jan-92
-
97 - 99
No
02-Jul-92
01-Jan-92
-
97 - 99
No
07-Jul-92
01-Jan-92
-
93 - 99
No
17-Jul-92
01-Jan-92
-
93 - 99
No
01-Nov-85
19-Sept-93
12-Sept-93
21-Sept-93
19-Sept-93
13-Sept-93
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
-
91 - 98
93 - 96
93 - 99
93 - 99
93 - 97
93 - 95
No
No
No
No
No
No
15-Sept-93
01-Jan-93
-
93 - 98
No
Type
joint sealing
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
joint sealing
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
joint sealing
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane joint sealing
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
joint sealing
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
joint sealing
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
joint sealing
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
joint sealing
Partial depth PCC patching at
joints
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
December 2014
0206
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-11. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse joint faulting model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.7 and FF.8] and appendix JJ [see Note below]) continued.
LTPP
State
Code
Maintenance History
SHRP_
ID
Experiment
Type
Date
26
27
28
31
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
-
3013
GPS-3
15-Mar-01
3018
GPS-3
-
3019
GPS-3
15-May-02
3018
GPS-3
3010
GPS-3
3013
7084
0200
0201
0202
0203
0204
0205
0206
0207
0208
0209
GPS-3
GPS-3
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
01-Aug-98
01-Aug-99
-
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
21-Sept-93
19-Sept-93
13-Sept-93
12-Sept-93
21-Sept-93
01-Oct-74
01-Jan-74
01-Oct-86
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
30-May-93
01-Sep-04
-
93 - 99
93 - 99
93 - 98
93 - 98
93 - 99
NA
NA
NA
No
No
No
No
No
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown-
01-Oct-85
01-Jan-87
-
NA
Unknown
01-Oct-84
01-Jan-87
-
91 - 00
No
01-Oct-84
01-Jan-87
-
91 - 00
Yes
01-May-85
01-Jan-87
-
95 - 97
No
01-Aug-82
12-Jul-88
01-Jul-00
92 - 00
Yes
01-Aug-81
01-Feb-90
NA
18-Jul-95
28-Jul-95
20-Jul-95
24-Jul-95
17-Jul-95
31-Jul-95
21-Jul-95
21-Jul-95
18-Jul-95
12-Jul-88
30-Jun-90
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Aug-99
16-Oct-00
-
NA
96 - 98
95
96 - 99
96 - 97
96 - 99
96 - 99
96 - 99
96 - 97
96 - 99
96 - 99
96 - 99
Unknown
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Type
Partial depth PCC patching at
joints
Partial depth PCC patching at
joints
Partial depth PCC patching
Partial depth PCC patching
-
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
32
0220
0221
0222
0223
0224
3068
3069
3003
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
December 2014
H-34
Table H-11. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse joint faulting model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.7 and FF.8] and appendix JJ [see Note below]) continued.
LTPP
State
Code
Maintenance History
SHRP_
ID
Experiment
Type
Date
37
H-35
40
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
3008
GPS-3
01-Apr-99
01-Apr-99
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
28-Jul-95
20-Jul-95
22-Nov-93
21-Nov-93
11-Nov-93
08-Nov-93
22-Nov-93
21-Nov-93
18-Nov-93
20-Nov-93
23-Nov-93
23-Nov-93
12-Nov-93
09-Nov-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
96 - 99
96 - 99
95 - 00
97 - 99
97 - 99
97
97 - 99
97 – 99
97 – 99
97 - 99
95 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
01-Jun-84
01-Mar-88,
01-May-02
01-May-02
-
96 - 99
No
01-Sept-77
01-Aug-66
01-Aug-80
01-Aug-88
01-Aug-88
01-Aug-88
01-Apr-06
18-Jul-95
-
96 - 00
NA
97
No
Unknown
No
01-Apr-73
01-Aug-88
-
95 - 00
No
Type
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
joint sealing
Crack Sealing
Partial depth PCC patching
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
joint sealing
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
3011
3044
3807
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
01-Oct-00
01-May-02
-
3816
GPS-3
01-Sep-02
3013*
GPS-3
-
-
01-Mar-70
01-Jan-87
-
93
No
3801
3018
4160
4162
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
-
-
01-Jun-83
01-Jun-76
01-Jun-79
01-Jun-85
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
15-Sep-05
01-Mar-99
93 - 95
NA
NA
91 – 98
No
Unknown
Unknown
No
December 2014
39
0210
0211
0201
0202
0203
0204
0205
0206
0207
0208
0209
0210
0211
0212
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-11. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse joint faulting model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.7 and FF.8] and appendix JJ [see Note below]) continued.
LTPP
State
Code
Maintenance History
SHRP_
ID
Experiment
Type
Date
12-Jul-89
01-Jun-97
01-Jun-97
3012
GPS-3
46
3012
GPS-3
0201
0202
0203
0204
0205
0206
0207
0208
0209
0210
0211
0212
3011
3013
3014
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
-
3019
GPS-3
19-Jul-07
3813*
7409
3008
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
3009
GPS-3
3010
GPS-3
22-May-95
01-Jun-03
-
53
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
55
01-Jun-97
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
01-Sept-81
01-Jan-87
-
93
Yes
01-Sept-81
01-Jan-87
-
93
No
28-Sept-95
28-Sept-95
28-Sept-95
28-Sept-95
28-Sept-95
26-Sept-95
26-Sept-95
28-Sept-95
28-Sept-95
28-Sept-95
29-Sept-95
28-Sept-95
01-May-77
01-Oct-70
01-Apr-86
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
01-Jan-93
16-Aug-88
15-Jul-89
10-May-89
-
95 - 99
95 - 99
95 - 99
95 - 99
95 - 99
95 - 99
94 - 97
95 - 99
95 - 99
95 - 99
95 - 99
95 - 99
97 - 99
94
97 - 00
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
01-Apr-86
10-Aug-88
-
97 - 99
No
01-Aug-66
01-May-81
01-Dec-75
22-Aug-88
31-Mar-88
01-Jan-87
-
95 - 98
97 - 99
NA
No
No
Unknown
01-Oct-84
01-Jan-87
-
94 - 95
No
01-Oct-78
01-Jan-87
-
94
No
Type
Transverse Joint Sealing
Grinding Surface
Transverse Joint Sealing
Full depth Transverse joint
repair
Partial depth PCC patching at
joints
Grinding Surface
Grinding Surface
-
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
Final Report Appendices
46
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
December 2014
H-36
Table H-11. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse joint faulting model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.7 and FF.8] and appendix JJ [see Note below]) continued.
LTPP
State
Code
Maintenance History
SHRP_
ID
Experiment
Type
Date
55
83
89
3016
GPS-3
01-May-94
6351
6352
GPS-3
GPS-3
-
6353
GPS-3
01-Jun-02
6354
6355
3802
3015
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
-
Original
Construction
Date
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
01-Jun-86
01-Jan-87
26-Apr-99
94
No
01-Jun-89
01-Jun-89
31-Dec-87
31-Dec-87
-
99
99
No
No
01-Jun-89
31-Dec-87
-
94 - 99
No
01-Jun-89
01-Jun-89
01-Sept-85
01-Sept-84
31-Dec-87
31-Dec-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jul-88
01-Sep-00
14-May-99
94 - 99
99
-
No
No
No
No
Type
Lane-shoulder longitudinal
joint sealing
Partial depth patching of PCC
at joints
-
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-11. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse joint faulting model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.7 and FF.8] and appendix JJ [see Note below]) continued.
Note: Calibration of the joint faulting model included an additional 110 FHWA RPPR sections located throughout the U.S. (248 total sections consisting of 138 GPS-3 and SPS-2
sections, and 110 RPPR sections).
December 2014
H-37
Maintenance History
SHRP
_ID
1
3028
GPS-3
5
0213
0214
0215
0216
0217
0218
0219
0220
0221
0222
0223
0224
7614
3011
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
GPS-3
GPS-3
6
3005
GPS-3
4
Experiment
Type
Date
Type
28-Oct-99
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane-shoulder longitudinal joint
sealing
28-Oct-99
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
1-Jun-03
1-May-96
1-May-96
1-Jul-99
1-Jul-00
1-Jul-00
Grinding Surface
Skin Patching
Full depth patching - PCC
Full depth patching - PCC
Crack Sealing
Transverse Joint Sealing
Original
Construction
Date
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
Jun-71
1-Jan-87
1-Jan-96
91 - 97
No
Sept-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
May-84
May-83
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
14-Dec-88
1-Jan-87
-
95 - 00
95 - 00
95 - 00
95 - 00
95 - 00
95 - 00
95 - 00
95 - 00
95 - 00
95 - 00
95 - 00
95 - 00
94 - 99
91 - 97
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Nov-73
1-Sep-89
1-Nov-05
92 - 99
Yes
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
Final Report Appendices
LTPP
State
Code
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
December 2014
H-38
Table H-12. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse cracking model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.4 and FF.7] and appendix KK [see Note below]).
LTPP
State
Code
Maintenance History
SHRP
_ID
3005
Experiment
Type
Date
Type
1-Jul-00
Lane-shoulder longitudinal joint
sealing
SPS-2
-
-
6
1-Apr-04
8
3021
GPS-3
3030
GPS-3
3042
0213
0214
0215
0216
0217
0218
0219
0220
0221
0222
0223
0224
3032
GPS-3
H-39
1-Jun-07
1-Jun-07
Crack Sealing
Transverse Joint Sealing
1-Jun-07
Lane-shoulder longitudinal joint
sealing
1-Jun-07
Partial depth PCC patching
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
Nov-73
1-Sep-89
1-Nov-05
92 - 99
No
Apr-74
28-Jun-88
91 - 00
No
Oct-72
30-Jun-88
1-Jun-06
91 - 99
No
Jun-79
Oct-93
Oct-93
Oct-93
Oct-93
Sept-93
Oct-93
Oct-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
1-Jan-87
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Oct-93
-
91 - 00
96 - 99
96 - 99
96 - 99
96 - 99
96 - 99
96 - 00
96 - 99
96 - 99
96 - 99
96 - 99
96 - 99
1-Jan-93
-
96 - 99
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Jun-77
28-Jul-88
-
92 - 98
No
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
December 2014
GPS-3
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
1-Jun-01
1-Jul-03
1-Jun-94
-
Full depth patching - PCC
Full depth patching - PCC
Crack Sealing
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane-shoulder longitudinal joint
sealing
Full depth patching - PCC
Full depth patching - PCC
Full depth patching - PCC
-
GPS-3
1-Jul-00
1-Jul-02
1-Apr-04
1-Apr-04
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-12. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse cracking model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.4 and FF.7] and appendix KK [see Note below]) continued.
LTPP
State
Code
Maintenance History
SHRP
_ID
Experiment
Type
3804
GPS-3
3811
GPS-3
4000
4057
4059
4109
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
12
4138
GPS-3
Date
Type
15-Sep-95
16-Jun-03
15-Sep-95
-
Crack Sealing
Full depth patching - PCC
Crack Sealing
-
1-Sep-93
Full depth Transverse joint repair
1-Sep-93
Full depth patching - PCC
1-Sep-93
Partial depth PCC patching
1-Sep-93
PCC Slab Replacement
15-Jun-98
AC Shoulder Replacement
15-Jun-98
3017
3023
GPS-3
GPS-3
25-Mar-96
25-Mar-96
3002
GPS-3
18
3003*
GPS-3
1-Jun-00
Partial depth PCC patching
Partial depth PCC patching at
joints
1-Jun-02
Partial depth PCC patching at
joints
1-Sep-91
Partial depth PCC patching at
joints
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
Jul-85
1-Jan-87
-
NA
Unknown
Feb-76
1-Jan-87
-
91 - 99
Yes
Nov-74
Jun-86
Jun-89
Mar-89
1-Jan-87
31-Jan-87
28-Feb-89
28-Feb-89
-
91 - 99
91 - 00
NA
91 - 00
Yes
No
Unknown
No
Nov-74
1-Jan-87
-
91 - 00
Yes
Sept-86
Oct-83
1-Jan-87
25-Jul-88
-
92 - 99
89 - 99
No
No
Aug-76
1-Jan-87
-
88 - 97
Yes
Jan-75
1-Jan-87
1-Jun-93
91 - 01
Yes
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
16
15-Jun-98
15-May-01
15-May-04
-
Lane-shoulder longitudinal joint
sealing
Partial depth PCC patching
Partial depth PCC patching
Partial depth PCC patching
Partial depth PCC patching at
joints
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
December 2014
H-40
Table H-12. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse cracking model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.4 and FF.7] and appendix KK [see Note below]) continued.
LTPP
State
Code
18
19
20
Maintenance History
SHRP
_ID
Experiment
Type
Date
3003*
GPS-3
3031
3006*
0201
0202
0203
0204
0205
0206
0207
0208
0209
0210
0211
0212
GPS-3
GPS-3
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
3015
GPS-3
GPS-3
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
De-Assign
Date
Jan-75
1-Jan-87
1-Jun-93
91 - 01
Yes
Jul-77
Oct-75
Jul-92
Jul-92
Jul-92
Jul-92
Jul-92
Jul-92
Jul-92
Jul-92
Jul-92
Jul-92
Jul-92
Jul-92
1-Jan-87
1-Jan-87
1-Jan-92
1-Jan-92
1-Jan-92
1-Jan-92
1-Jan-92
1-Jan-92
1-Jan-92
1-Jan-92
1-Jan-92
1-Jan-92
1-Jan-92
1-Jan-92
1-Sep-00
-
91 - 99
94 - 00
97 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
11-Aug-98
Transverse Joint Sealing
11-Aug-98
Lane-shoulder longitudinal joint
sealing
15-Aug-03
Full depth Transverse joint repair
Jan-85
1-Jan-87
-
89 - 99
Yes
15-Sep-03
5-Oct-03
Grinding Surface
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane-shoulder longitudinal joint
sealing
-
Nov-85
Sept-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
1-Jan-87
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
-
88 - 98
94 - 98
94 - 99
94 - 99
No
No
No
No
-
-
December 2014
H-41
26
3016
0213
0214
0215
Assign
Date
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
1-Mar-95
1-Jun-01
-
5-Oct-03
21
Type
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-12. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse cracking model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.4 and FF.7] and appendix KK [see Note below]) continued.
LTPP
State
Code
26
27
28
32
SHRP
_ID
Experiment
Type
Date
Type
Partial depth PCC patching at
joints
Partial depth PCC patching at
joints
Partial depth PCC patching
Partial depth PCC patching
Original
Construction
Date
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
Sept-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
Sept-93
Oct-74
Jan-74
Oct-86
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-87
1-Jan-87
1-Jan-87
30-May-93
1-Sep-04
-
94 - 99
94 - 97
94 - 95
94 - 99
94 - 99
94 - 99
94 - 99
94 - 99
94 - 99
NA
NA
88 - 99
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Unknown
Unknown
No
Oct-85
1-Jan-87
-
88 - 99
No
Oct-84
1-Jan-87
-
91 - 00
No
Oct-84
1-Jan-87
-
91 - 00
No
May-85
1-Jan-87
1-Aug-04
88 - 97
No
Aug-82
12-Jul-88
1-Jul-00
91 - 00
Yes
0216
0217
0218
0219
0220
0221
0222
0223
0224
3068
3069
3003
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
-
3013
GPS-3
15-Mar-01
3018
GPS-3
-
3019
GPS-3
15-May-02
3018
GPS-3
3010
GPS-3
1-Aug-98
1-Aug-99
3013
GPS-3
-
-
Aug-81
12-Jul-88
1-Aug-99
92 - 97
No
7084
GPS-3
-
-
Feb-90
30-Jun-90
16-Oct-00
96 - 00
No
0200
SPS-2
-
-
Jul-95
1-Jan-93
-
95
No
0201
SPS-2
-
-
Jul-95
1-Jan-93
-
97 - 99
No
0202
SPS-2
-
-
Jul-95
1-Jan-93
-
96 - 99
No
0203
SPS-2
-
-
Jul-95
1-Jan-93
-
96 - 99
No
0204
SPS-2
-
-
Jul-95
1-Jan-93
-
96 - 99
No
0205
SPS-2
-
-
Jul-95
1-Jan-93
-
96 - 99
No
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
31
Maintenance History
December 2014
H-42
Table H-12. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse cracking model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.4 and FF.7] and appendix KK [see Note below]) continued.
LTPP
State
Code
32
37
Maintenance History
SHRP
_ID
0206
0207
0208
0209
0210
0211
0201
0202
0203
0204
0205
0206
0207
0208
0209
0210
0211
0212
3008
Experiment
Type
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
Date
Type
-
-
1-Apr-99
Transverse Joint Sealing
1-Apr-99
Lane-shoulder longitudinal joint
sealing
GPS-3
Crack Sealing
1-May-02
Partial depth PCC patching
H-43
3011
3044
3807
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
-
3816
GPS-3
1-Sep-02
Lane-shoulder longitudinal joint
sealing
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
Jul-95
Jul-95
Jul-95
Jul-95
Jul-95
Jul-95
Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
95 - 00
97 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
95 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Jun-84
1-Mar-88,
1-May-02
1-May-02
96 - 99
No
Sept-77
Aug-66
Aug-80
1-Aug-88
1-Aug-88
1-Aug-88
1-Apr-06
18-Jul-95
-
96 - 00
95
97
No
No
No
Apr-73
1-Aug-88
-
95 - 00
No
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
December 2014
1-Oct-00
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-12. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse cracking model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.4 and FF.7] and appendix KK [see Note below]) continued.
LTPP
State
Code
39
40
46
SHRP
_ID
Experiment
Type
Date
Type
Original
Construction
Date
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
29-Jun-93
88 - 93
88 - 95
No
No
91 - 99
No
91 - 99
No
3013
GPS-3
-
-
Mar-70
1-Jan-87
3801
GPS-3
-
-
Jun-83
1-Jan-87
3018
GPS-3
-
-
Jun-76
1-Jan-87
4160
GPS-3
-
-
Jun-79
1-Jan-87
4162
GPS-3
1-Jan-87
1-Mar-99
91 - 98
No
GPS-3
Sept-81
1-Jan-87
-
88 - 99
Yes
0201
SPS-2
Transverse Joint Sealing
Grinding Surface
Transverse Joint Sealing
Full depth Transverse joint repair
-
Jun-85
3012
12-Jul-89
1-Jun-97
1-Jun-97
1-Jun-97
-
1-Jan-93
-
97 - 99
No
0202
SPS-2
-
-
Sept-95
Sept-95
1-Jan-93
-
97 - 99
No
0203
SPS-2
-
-
Sept-95
1-Jan-93
-
97 - 99
No
0204
SPS-2
-
-
Sept-95
1-Jan-93
-
97 - 99
No
1-Jan-93
-
97 - 00
No
15-Sep-05
0205
SPS-2
-
-
Sept-95
0206
SPS-2
-
-
Sept-95
1-Jan-93
-
97 - 00
No
0207
SPS-2
-
-
Sept-95
1-Jan-93
-
97 - 99
No
0208
SPS-2
-
-
Sept-95
1-Jan-93
-
97 - 99
No
-
Sept-95
Sept-95
Sept-95
Sept-95
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
1-Jan-93
16-Aug-88
15-Jul-89
10-May-89
10-Aug-88
22-Aug-88
31-Mar-88
1-Jun-99
1-May-02
-
97 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
97 - 99
94 - 98
97 - 00
97 - 99
95 - 00
97 - 99
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
0209
0210
0211
0212
3011
3013
3014
3019
3813*
7409
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
SPS-2
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
-
May-77
Oct-70
Apr-86
Apr-86
Aug-66
May-81
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
53
Maintenance History
December 2014
H-44
Table H-12. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse cracking model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.4 and FF.7] and appendix KK [see Note below]) continued.
LTPP
State
Code
Maintenance History
SHRP
_ID
Experiment
Type
Date
3008
GPS-3
3009
GPS-3
3010
GPS-3
22-May-95
1-Jun-03
-
Type
Grinding Surface
Grinding Surface
Lane-shoulder longitudinal joint
sealing
-
Original
Construction
Date
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Dec-75
1-Jan-87
-
88 - 94
No
Oct-84
1-Jan-87
-
88 - 99
Yes
Oct-78
1-Jan-87
-
88 - 99
No
Jun-86
1-Jan-87
26-Apr-99
89 - 94
No
Jun-89
Jun-89
31-Dec-87
31-Dec-87
-
99
99
No
No
Jun-89
31-Dec-87
-
94 - 99
No
Jun-89
Jun-89
31-Dec-87
31-Dec-87
-
94 - 99
99
1-Sep-00
14-May99
NA
No
No
Unknown
NA
Unknown
3016
GPS-3
1-May-94
6351
6352
GPS-3
GPS-3
-
6353
GPS-3
1-Jun-02
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
-
83
6354
6355
3802
Partial depth patching of PCC at
joints
-
-
-
Sept-85
1-Jan-87
89
3015
GPS-3
-
-
Sept-84
1-Jul-88
55
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-12. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse cracking model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [tables FF.4 and FF.7] and appendix KK [see Note below]) continued.
* Sections placed with HMA overlay
Note: Calibration of the transverse cracking model included an additional 36 FHWA RPPR sections located throughout the U.S. (196 total sections consisting of 82 GPS-3 sections, 78
SPS-2 sections, and 36 RPPR sections).
December 2014
H-45
LTPP
SHRP_ Experiment
State
ID
Type
Code
Maintenance History
Date
Type
Restoration/
Original
Overlay
Construction
Date
Date
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
1
0600
SPS-6
-
-
12-Apr-98
May-66
18-Nov-97
-
4
6
46
47
29
29
0600
0600
0600
0600
SPS-6
SPS-6
SPS-6
SPS-6
SPS-6
SPS-6
-
-
25-Jul-90
5-May-92
2-May-92
25-Mar-96
Sept-66
Aug-77
Apr-73
Jun-64
1-Jan-87
1-Jan-87
1-Jan-92
1-Jan-87
1-Nov-02
1-Nov-05
1-May-04
2-Jul-98
23-Jun-98
23-Jun-98
3-Sept-88
3-Sept-88
3-Sept-88
1-Jan-89
1-Jan-89
1-Jan-89
15-Mar-04
15-Mar-04
23-Jan-98
29
A601
A602
A605
SPS-6
15-Mar-04 Crack Sealing
15-Mar-04 Crack Sealing
15-Mar-04 Crack Sealing
Performance Data
Range Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Effects of Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected in
Performance Data?
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
December 2014
H-46
Table H-13. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse joint faulting and transverse cracking models
for restored JPC pavements (based NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix NN [tables 7 and 11]).
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Maintenance History
LTPP
SHRP_ Experiment
State
Type
ID
Code
Date
9048
GPS-9
25-Apr-01
1-May-94
6
9049
GPS-9
1-Aug-98
1-Sep-01
1-Sep-01
1-Sep-01
1-May-03
8
13
18
20
27
28
9107
GPS-9
1988
9019
9020
4118
9020
9037
9075
7012
GPS-9
GPS-9
GPS-9
GPS-9
GPS-9
GPS-9
GPS-9
1979
15-Sep-92
15-Jan-00
15-Jan-00
6701
GPS-9
28-Feb-02
28-Feb-02
9-Mar-04
15-Feb-05
H-47
40
4155
GPS-9
-
Original
Construction
Date
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
04-Apr-01
May-69
1-Jul-88
1-Mar-06
NA
Unknown
01-May-03
Jun-54
26-Jun-88
1-Mar-06
NA
Unknown
1-Jul-88
Oct-64
1-Jul-88
1-Mar-06
NA
Unknown
20-Jul-88
20-Jul-88
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
15-Sep-92
01-Jan-87
15-Mar-93
Sept-66
Oct-62
Jun-63
Jun-64
Jun-57
Jan-47
Jul-59
20-Jul-88
20-Jul-88
1-Jan-87
1-Jan-87
1-Jan-87
1-Jan-87
1-Jan-87
1-Mar-06
1-Mar-06
1-Aug-02
1-Sep-04
1-Aug-94
15-Jun-97
15-Mar-93
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
15-Feb-05
Jun-64
1-Aug-88
1-Jan-06
NA
Unknown
15-Sep-89
Jun-70
15-Sep-89
17-Mar-06
NA
Unknown
Type
PCC Slab Replacement
Lane-shldr longitudinal
joint sealing
Full depth patching – PCC
Grinding Surface
Full depth patch – AC
Full depth patching – PCC
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
Partial depth PCC
patching at joints
Surface Treatment Single
Layer
Grinding Surface
Full depth patching – PCC
Crack Sealing
Lane-shldr longitudinal
joint sealing
Crack Sealing
Transverse Joint Sealing
Partial depth PCC
patching
Partial depth PCC
patching
-
December 2014
31
Restoration/
Overlay
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-14. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse joint faulting and transverse cracking models for
unbonded JPC overlays on existing rigid or composite pavements (based NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix NN [tables 7 and 11]).
LTPP
SHRP_ Experiment
State
Type
ID
Code
Maintenance History
Date
42
48
89
1627
9167
9355
9018
GPS-9
GPS-9
GPS-9
GPS-9
1-Sep-02
-
Restoration/
Overlay
Date
Original
Construction
Date
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
01-Sep-02
15-May-88
15-May-89
01-Jul-88
May-67
Jul-67
Nov-60
Jan-75
1-Dec-88
15-May-88
15-Sep-89
1-Jul-88
1-Jan-06
17-Mar-06
17-Mar-06
1-Jan-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
Type
Grinding Surface
-
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
December 2014
H-48
Table H-14. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of transverse joint faulting and transverse cracking models for
unbonded JPC overlays on existing rigid or composite pavements (based NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix NN [tables 7 and 11])
continued.
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Maintenance History
LTPP
SHRP_ Experiment
State
ID
Type
Code
48
Date
Type
Restoration/
Overlay
Date
Original
Construction
Date
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
Effects of
Performance
Preservation
Data Range Used
Treatment
in Development/
Captured/Reflected
Calibration
in Performance
(Years)
Data?
3569
GPS-9
-
-
01-Jan-87
Jun-60
1-Jan-87
17-Mar-06
NA
Unknown
3845
GPS-9
-
-
01-Jul-89
Jun-60
1-Jul-89
17-Mar-06
NA
Unknown
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-15. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of punchout model for unbonded CRC overlays on existing
rigid or composite pavements (based NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix NN [tables 7 and 14]).
December 2014
H-49
LTPP
State
Code
Maintenance History
SHRP_
ID
Experiment
Type
Date
Type
Restoration/
Overlay
Date
Original
Construction
Date
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range Used
in Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflecte
d in Performance
Data?
19
0700
SPS-7
-
-
1992
Sept-67
1-Jan-92
1-Jan-06
NA
Unknown
22
27
0700
0700
SPS-7
SPS-7
-
-
1992
2001
Apr-78
Jul-70
1-Jan-87
1-Jan-87
30-Jan-06
1-Jan-06
NA
NA
Unknown
Unknown
29
0700
SPS-7
-
-
1987
Sept-55
1-Jan-87
1-Jan-06
NA
Unknown
December 2014
H-50
Table H-16. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of punchout model for bonded PCC overlay on existing
CRC pavements (based NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix NN [tables 7 and 14]).
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
1-Jan-87
-
91 - 93
No
May-84
14-Dec-88
-
97
No
May-83
1-Jan-87
-
92 - 98
No
01-Apr-78
28-Jun-88
01-Apr-05
92 - 97
No
01-Jul-82
01-Jul-78
01-Dec-79
01-Nov-80
Oct-72
15-Jul-88
12-Jul-88
5-Jul-88
5-Jul-88
1-Jun-06
01-Jun-06
91 - 97
91 - 97
91 - 96
91 - 96
91 - 96
No
No
No
No
No
Jun-79
7-Jul-88
-
92 - 96
No
01-Jul-71
02-Oct-89
06-Sep-00
91 - 95
No
01-Jun-83
28-Jun-88
-
91 - 97
No
Jul-85
01-Jan-87
-
91
No
Feb-76
01-Jan-87
-
92 - 95
No
Maintenance History
LTPP
State
Code
SHRP_
ID
Experiment
Type
1
3028
GPS-3
28-Oct-99
4
7614
GPS-3
1-Jun-03
5
3011
GPS-3
-
3010
GPS-3
3013
3017
3019
3024
3030
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
1-Jul-03
3042
GPS-3
1-Sep-96
7456
GPS-3
1-Jul-00
AC Shoulder Replacement
GPS-3
1-Jul-00
Grinding Surface
Lane Shoulder Longitudinal Joint
Sealing
-
Date
1-Jun-00
6
7493
1-Nov-02
1-Jul-03
GPS-3
3811
GPS-3
-
Transverse and Lane-shoulder
Joint Sealing
Grinding Surface
Grinding Surface
Transverse and Lane-shoulder
Joint Sealing
Full Depth Patching – PCC
Transverse and Lane-shoulder
Joint Sealing
-
15-Sep-05
Crack Sealing
16-Jun-03
Full Depth Patching - PCC
4057
GPS-3
-
4059
4109
GPS-3
GPS-3
-
4138
GPS-3
1-Sep-93
H-51
1-Sep-93
Full Depth Transverse Joint
Repair Patch
Full Depth Patching - PCC
Assign
Date
Jun-71
Jun-86
31-Jan-87
-
91
No
Jun-89
Mar-89
28-Feb-89
28-Feb-89
-
91 - 97
92 - 97
No
No
Nov-74
01-Jan-87
-
91 - 96
Yes
December 2014
12
3804
Type
Original
Construction
Date
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-17. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of smoothness prediction model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [table FF.4] and appendix PP [table 16]).
LTPP
State
Code
SHRP_
ID
Experiment
Type
Date
1-Jun-00
1-Jun-02
1-Sep-91
1-Mar-95
1-Jun-01
Partial Depth Patching (except
joint)
PCC Slab Replacement
AC Shoulder Replacement
Lane Shoulder Longitudinal Joint
Sealing
Partial Depth Patching (except
joint)
Partial Depth Patching (except
joint)
Partial Depth Patching (except
joint)
Grinding Surface
Full Depth Patching - PCC
Partial Depth Patching at joints
Partial Depth Patching (except
joint)
Partial Depth Patching at joints
Partial Depth Patching at joints
Partial Depth Patching at joints
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
1-Sep-02
Partial Depth Patching at joints
1-Sep-93
1-Sep-93
15-Jun-98
12
4138
GPS-3
15-Jun-98
15-Jun-98
15-Jun-01
15-May-04
13
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
16
3007
3011
3015
3016
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
3017
GPS-3
3018
3019
3020
3017
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
3002
GPS-3
18
3003
GPS-3
3030
GPS-3
Type
15-May-00
15-May-01
25-Mar-96
25-Mar-96
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
Nov-74
01-Jan-87
-
91 - 96
Yes
01-Dec-81
01-May-75
01-Sep-78
01-Dec-77
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
-
90 - 94
91 - 97
90 - 96
91 - 94
No
No
No
No
01-Dec-73
01-Jan-87
-
90 - 96
No
01-Jul-73
01-Dec-81
01-Sep-85
01-Sep-86
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
21-Jul-88
23-Oct-00
-
91 - 97
90 - 96
91 - 97
91 - 97
No
No
No
No
Aug-76
01-Jan-87
-
93 – 96
No
Jan-75
01-Jan-87
01-Jun-93
91 – 93
Yes
01-Jan-81
01-Jan-87
-
95
No
Final Report Appendices
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Maintenance History
December 2014
H-52
Table H-17. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of smoothness prediction model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [table FF.4] and appendix PP [table 16]) continued.
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Maintenance History
LTPP
State
Code
SHRP_
ID
Experiment
Type
3006
GPS-3
3009
GPS-3
19
Date
Type
Original
Construction
Date
-
-
Oct-75
01-Jan-87
01-Sep-00
94
No
-
01-Dec-75
01-Jan-87
-
93
No
NA
01-Jan-87
-
(10 yrs after
construction)
Unknown
01-Jan-84
01-Jan-87
01-Mar-04
95
No
1-Sep-99
3028
3013
GPS-3
GPS-3
1-Jun-06
Grinding Surface
15-Nov-03
Transverse Joint Sealing
15-Nov-03
Partial Depth Patching at joints
20-Jun-05
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane Shoulder Longitudinal Joint
Sealing
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane Shoulder Longitudinal Joint
Sealing
Full Depth Transverse Joint
Repair Patch
Grinding Surface
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane Shoulder Longitudinal Joint
Sealing
Jan-85
01-Jan-87
-
NA
Unknown
11-Aug-98
11-Aug-98
GPS-3
15-Aug-03
15-Sep-03
5-Oct-03
5-Oct-03
3060
GPS-3
-
-
01-Nov-84
01-Jan-87
01-May-04
94
No
3016
GPS-3
-
-
01-Nov-85
01-Jan-87
-
92
No
3013
GPS-3
-
-
01-Nov-73
01-Jul-88
01-Jun-07
95
No
3014
GPS-3
-
-
01-Nov-73
01-Jul-88
01-Jun-07
94 - 95
No
23
H-53
December 2014
21
Lane Shoulder Longitudinal Joint
Sealing
Full Depth Transverse Joint
Repair Patch
15-Nov-03
20-Jun-05
3015
Ac Shoulder Restoration
Full Depth Transverse Joint
Repair Patch
15-Nov-03
15-Nov-03
20
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-17. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of smoothness prediction model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [table FF.4] and appendix PP [table 16]) continued.
LTPP
State
Code
28
SHRP_
ID
Experiment
Type
3018
3019
3018
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
Date
Type
15-May-02
1-Nov-99
1-Jun-03
Partial Depth Patching at joints
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane Shoulder Longitudinal Joint
Sealing
Full Depth Patching
Full Depth Transverse Joint
Repair Patch
Full Depth Patching
8-Jul-05
Full Depth Patching
1-Nov-99
3023
GPS-3
1-Jun-01
1-Jun-03
31
3028
GPS-3
8-Jul-05
21-Jun-07
19-Jul-07
21-Aug-07
21-Aug-07
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
1-Aug-98
32
3010
GPS-3
1-Aug-99
3013
GPS-3
3008
GPS-3
1-Apr-99
1-Apr-99
37
1-Oct-00
1-May-02
3011
3044
GPS-3
GPS-3
-
PCC Slab Replacement
Partial depth patching at joints
Grinding Surface
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane Shoulder Longitudinal Joint
Sealing
Partial Depth Patching (except
joint)
Partial Depth Patching (except
joint)
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane Shoulder Longitudinal Joint
Sealing
Crack Sealing
Partial Depth Patching (except
joint)
-
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
Oct-84
Oct-84
May-85
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Jan-87
01-Aug-04
90 - 95
90 - 95
94 - 98
No
No
No
01-Jun-84
01-Jan-87
-
93 - 97
No
01-Apr-81
01-Jan-87
-
91 - 97
No
Aug-82
12-Jul-88
01-Jul-00
91 - 96
No
Aug-81
12-Jul-88
01-Aug-99
92
No
Jun-84
01-Mar-88,
01-May-02
01-May-02
96
No
Sept-77
Aug-66
01-Aug-88
01-Aug-88
01-Apr-06
18-Jul-95
96
95
No
No
Final Report Appendices
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Maintenance History
December 2014
H-54
Table H-17. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of smoothness prediction model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [table FF.4] and appendix PP [table 16]) continued.
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Maintenance History
LTPP
State
Code
38
39
SHRP_
ID
Experiment
Type
3005
GPS-3
3006
GPS-3
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
Date
Type
Original
Construction
Date
-
-
01-Jul-85
01-Jan-87
01-Jul-04
93
No
01-Oct-87
01-Oct-87
-
93
No
2000
Crack Sealing
2001
Mechanical premix patch
2001
Strip patching
2002
Mechanical premix patch
2003
Mechanical premix patch
3801
GPS-3
-
-
Jun-83
01-Jan-87
-
95
No
4157
GPS-3
-
-
01-Mar-86
01-Jan-87
-
92 - 97
No
40
4160
GPS-3
-
-
Jun-79
01-Jan-87
-
91 - 97
No
4162
GPS-3
-
-
Jun-85
01-Jan-87
01-Mar-99
91 - 97
No
45
3012
GPS-3
-
-
01-Jan-87
-
93 - 97
No
3009
GPS-3
1990
Transverse Joint Sealing
01-Nov-81
01-Oct-75
01-Jan-87
01-May-06
93
Yes
3010
GPS-3
1-Jun-99
Grinding Surface
01-Sep-83
01-Jan-87
-
93
No
Sept-81
01-Jan-87
-
93
Yes
01-Oct-85
01-Jan-87
-
93
No
NA
01-Jan-87
-
(18 yrs after
construction)
Unknown
1989
3012
GPS-3
3053
GPS-3
Grinding Surface
1-Jun-97
Transverse Joint Sealing
-
GPS-3
Full Depth Transverse Joint
Repair Patch
Full Depth Transverse Joint
Repair Patch
H-55
1-Sep-98
Partial Depth Patching at joints
1-Sep-00
Partial Depth Patching at joints
1-Sep-00
PCC Slab Replacement
1-Jun-03
Partial Depth Patching at joints
December 2014
27-Oct-92
6600
Transverse Joint Sealing
1-Jun-97
1-Jun-97
46
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-17. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of smoothness prediction model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [table FF.4] and appendix PP [table 16]) continued.
LTPP
State
Code
SHRP_
ID
Experiment
Type
3003
GPS-3
Date
Type
1990
30-Jul-92
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane Shoulder Longitudinal Joint
Sealing
Partial Depth Patching at joints
1-Oct-97
Partial Depth Patching at joints
30-Sep-99
Partial Depth Patching at joints
1990
48
3589
3010
GPS-3
GPS-3
27-Jan-04
Crack Sealing
27-Jan-04
Transverse Joint Sealing
Lane Shoulder Longitudinal Joint
Sealing
Lane Shoulder Longitudinal Joint
Sealing
Partial Depth Patching (except
joint)
Partial Depth Patching (except
joint)
Partial Depth Patching at joints
Asphalt Concrete Overlay
Grinding Surface
Grinding Surface
Lane Shoulder Longitudinal Joint
Sealing
-
27-Jan-04
49
3011
GPS-3
1-Aug-99
3015
GPS-3
1-Aug-99
1-Jun-04
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
53
55
56
3011
3019
3813
7409
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
GPS-3
3009
GPS-3
3010
GPS-3
19-Jul-07
01-May-02
22-May-95
1-Jun-03
-
3016
GPS-3
1-May-94
5037
GPS-3
-
3027
GPS-3
1-Aug-97
Partial Depth Patching at joints
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
01-Jul-74
01-Jan-87
-
92 - 96
No
01-Sep-60
01-Jan-87
30-Jun-00
91 - 94
Yes
01-Aug-78
16-Aug-88
01-Apr-04
97
No
01-May-86
05-Apr-89
-
93 - 95
No
01-Aug-85
05-Apr-89
-
92 – 97
No
May-77
Apr-86
Aug-66
May-81
16-Aug-88
10-Aug-88
01-May-02
31-Mar-88
01-Jun-99
01-May-05
-
97
97
95 - 96
97
No
No
No
No
Oct-84
01-Jan-87
-
94 - 95
No
Oct-78
01-Jan-87
-
94
No
Jun-86
01-Jan-87
26-Apr-99
94
No
Sept-73
01-Jan-87
01-Sep-98
93 - 96
No
01-Jun-81
20-Aug-88
01-May-07
92 - 97
No
Final Report Appendices
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Maintenance History
December 2014
H-56
Table H-17. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of smoothness prediction model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [table FF.4] and appendix PP [table 16]) continued.
Original
Construction
Date
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Sept-85
01-Jan-87,
01-Sep-00
01-Sep-00
93 - 97
No
01-Jun-77
01-Jul-88
-
96 - 97
Yes
Sept-84
01-Jul-88,
26-Oct-01,
25-Aug-03
26-Oct-01,
25-Aug-03
-
94 – 97
Yes
Maintenance History
LTPP
State
Code
SHRP_
ID
Experiment
Type
83
3802*
GPS-3
Date
13-Aug-97
01-Sep-00
1-Aug-90
Transverse Joint Sealing
Asphalt Concrete Overlay
Patch Potholes
1-Aug-95
Patch Potholes
Full Depth Transverse Joint
Repair Patch
Full Depth Transverse Joint
Repair Patch
1-Aug-95
1-Aug-99
3001
GPS-3
1-Aug-99
1-Jun-03
1-Jun-03
1-Aug-06
1-Aug-06
89
1-Aug-06
3-Sep-92
6-Sep-94
1-May-96
3015*
GPS-3
Full Depth Patching (except joint)
Full Depth Transverse Joint
Repair Patch
Full Depth Patching
Patch Potholes
Full Depth Transverse Joint
Repair Patch
Full Depth Patching
Partial Depth Patching (except
joint)
Partial Depth Patching (except
joint)
Partial Depth Patching (except
joint)
Crack Sealing
21-Jul-99
Partial Depth Patching at joints
25-Aug-03
Partial Depth Patching (except
joint)
Mill off HMA and Overlay with
HMA
H-57
December 2014
21-Jul-99
27-Oct-01
* - Sections placed with HMA overlay
Type
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflected
in Performance
Data?
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-17. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of smoothness prediction model for new/reconstructed JPC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [table FF.4] and appendix PP [table 16]) continued.
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
Partial Depth Patching (except joint)
Full Depth Transverse Joint Repair
Patch
Partial Depth Patching (except joint)
PCC Slab Replacement
Full Depth Patching - PCC
Crack Sealing
Partial Depth Patching (except joint)
Sept-76
Mar-89
May-73
May-71
01-Jun-74
1-Jan-87
28-Feb-89
1-Jan-87
23-May-89
1-Jan-87
7-Sep-00
1-Jun-98
94 - 96
93 – 95
93 - 96
93 - 95
94 - 96
No
No
No
No
No
Aug-82
1-Jan-87
30-Oct-02
93 - 96
No
Jan-71
Aug-79
Dec-70
1-Jan-87
1-Jan-87
1-Jan-87
10-Sep-99
1-Jan-06
5-Jul-04
95 - 96
94 - 96
94 - 95
No
No
No
1-Jun-02
2-Nov-90
1-Sep-02
Crack Sealing
Jan-66
Sept-75
01-Sep-75
1-Jan-87
1-Jan-87
1-Jan-87
31-Mar-98
-
93
93 - 96
93 - 96
No
No
No
01-Sep-88
1-Apr-89
1-Oct-06
92 - 95
Yes
1-Jun-95
Partial Depth Patching (except joint)
1-Sep-96
Partial Depth Patching (except joint)
01-Nov-76
1-Jan-87
1-Apr-98
93 - 95
No
-
Jul-78
1-Jan-87
-
93 - 96
No
-
Apr-79
1-Jan-87
-
93
No
Sept-79
1-Jan-87
-
92 - 95
Yes
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflecte
d in Performance
Data?
LTPP
State
Code
SHRP_
ID
Experiment
Type
1
4
5
6
13
5008
7079
5803
7455
5023
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
5843
GPS-5
5849
5869
5908
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
9267
5042
5046
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
24
5807
GPS-5
26
5363
GPS-5
5025
GPS-5
-
5006
GPS-5
-
5803
GPS-5
5805
GPS-5
-
-
Jun-75
1-Jan-87
1-Feb-99
93 - 95
No
5047
GPS-5
-
-
Oct-71
1-Jan-87
15-Aug-02
93 - 96
No
Date
15-Jul-98
11-Nov-98
17
19
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
28
29
17-Oct-00
2-Oct-01
19-Apr-02
15-Apr-99
16-Sep-99
Type
Grinding Surface
Full Depth Patching (except joint)
15-May-92
Partial Depth Patching (except joint)
15-May-99
Partial Depth Patching (except joint)
Final Report Appendices
Original
Construction
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Maintenance History
December 2014
H-58
Table H-18. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of smoothness prediction model for new/reconstructed
CRC pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [table FF.5] and appendix PP [table 16]).
Original
Construction
Date
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Oct-72
1-Aug-88
-
92 - 95
No
Mar-73
1-Aug-88
1-Mar-03
96 - 98
No
Jun-88
Oct-87
Oct-85
Jun-73
Oct-84
1-Jun-88
30-Sep-87
25-May-88
23-May-88
19-May-88
1-Sep-03
-
92 - 95
NA
93 - 95
93 - 95
93 - 95
No
Unknown
No
No
No
Sept-88
31-Aug-88
-
93 - 95
No
01-Jan-75
Mar-78
May-75
1-Aug-88
1-Jul-88
1-Jan-87
1-May-99
1-Jun-99
-
93 - 96
93 - 96
93 - 96
No
No
No
Oct-75
1-Jan-87
-
92 - 95
No
Maintenance History
LTPP
State
Code
SHRP_
ID
Experiment
Type
5037
GPS-5
Date
1-Oct-01
16-Sep-98
37
5827*
39
40
41
42
45
46
1-Oct-01
GPS-5
2-Sep-02
2-Sep-02
2-Sep-02
1-Jun-99
30-Jun-03
15-Sep-97
15-May-98
Crack Sealing
Lane Shoulder Longitudinal Joint
Sealing
Partial Depth Patching (except joint)
Full Depth Transverse Joint Repair
Patch
Partial Depth Patching at joints
Partial Depth Patching (except joint)
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Crack Sealing
Full Depth Patching
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
7081
GPS-5
1598
5020
5034
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
5035
GPS-5
5020
GPS-5
-
-
Aug-72
1-Jan-87
-
93 - 96
No
5026
GPS-5
-
-
Mar-87
1-Jan-87
-
94 - 96
No
5035
GPS-5
-
01-Sep-79
1-Jan-87
-
93 - 95
No
Jul-71
1-Jan-87,
11-Jun-01
11-Jun-01
93 - 95
Yes
01-Mar-73
1-Jan-87
27-Jun-00
93
No
5154*
GPS-5
10-Jun-01
11-Jun-01
5274
GPS-5
15-Jun-95
Lane Shoulder Longitudinal Joint
Sealing
Full Depth Patching (except joint)
H-59
Aggregate Seal Coat
Lane Shoulder Longitudinal Joint
Sealing
December 2014
5003
5021
5005
5006
5022
25-Oct-90
48
Type
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflecte
d in Performance
Data?
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table H-18. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of smoothness prediction model for new/reconstructed CRC
pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [table FF.5] and appendix PP [table 16]) continued.
Original
Construction
Date
Assign
Date
De-Assign
Date
Performance
Data Range
Used in
Development/
Calibration
(Years)
Jun-75
1-Jan-87
-
92 - 95
No
01-Nov-87
31-Oct-87
-
92 - 94
No
01-Feb-82
01-Jan-87
-
93 - 95
No
01-May-79
01-Jan-87
-
93 - 95
No
Apr-70
Aug-85
01-Aug-73
01-May-88
Sept-73
01-Jan-87
15-May-88
1-Aug-01
1-Jul-88
1-Jan-87
15-Feb-01
1-Aug-01
1-Nov-00
1-Sep-98
93 - 95
94 - 97
93 - 95
92 - 96
93 - 96
No
No
No
No
No
Maintenance History
LTPP
State
Code
48
51
55
SHRP_
ID
Experiment
Type
5278
GPS-5
15-Jun-98
5283
GPS-5
-
5301
GPS-5
15-Sep-00
5323
GPS-5
1995
5334
5336
5287*
5010
5037
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
GPS-5
15-Sep-02
-
Date
Type
Lane Shoulder Longitudinal Joint
Sealing
Lane Shoulder Longitudinal Joint
Sealing
Lane Shoulder Longitudinal Joint
Sealing
Crack Sealing
-
Effects of
Preservation
Treatment
Captured/Reflecte
d in Performance
Data?
December 2014
H-60
Table H-18. Summary of test sections used in development/calibration of smoothness prediction model for new/reconstructed
CRC pavements (based on NCHRP 1-37A Final Report appendix FF [table FF.5] and appendix PP [table 16]) continued.
* - Sections placed with HMA overlay
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
References
Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA). 2004. Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of
New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. NCHRP Project 1-37A Final Report. National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Washington, DC. Online at
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/mepdg/home.htm.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
H-61
December 2014
H-62
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
APPENDIX I. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ON AVAILABILITY OF
STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY DATA
Introduction
Background
In Phase I of the NCHRP 1-48 study, researchers compiled and evaluated information on the
pavement preservation, pavement design (including evaluation/implementation of the
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide [MEPDG]), and pavement management
practices and experiences of state highway agencies (SHAs). The information was obtained
through a detailed literature search/review and a telephone interview with selected SHAs and
industry groups, and was then used to further evaluate three possible approaches for
incorporating pavement preservation into the MEPDG. These approaches included the
following:
•
•
•
Development of Pavement Preservation Response Models and Distress Transfer
Functions.
Local Calibration using Pavement Preservation Performance Results.
Incorporation of Preservation Treatments after Distress Prediction:
–
Option A: Adjustment of Pavement Distress and Corresponding Life using Expert
Opinion.
–
Option B: Adjustment of Pavement Distress and Corresponding Life using the
OPTime Timing Tool.
An interim report was developed that described and illustrated how each approach can be applied
and that provided recommendations and a detailed work plan for fully developing the latter two
approaches under Phase II of this project. The first approach was not recommended because it
would have required a massive and long-term experimental effort that would exceed the
available time and funding of the 1-48 project.
A subsequent NCHRP project panel meeting convened to discuss the findings,
recommendations, and work plan given in the interim report. This meeting resulted in the
recommendation to pursue the two options for incorporating preservation treatments after
distress prediction, but not the local calibration approach due to the limited number of potential
users. The meeting also resulted in the recommended pursuit of the following third option
identified by the panel:
•
Incorporation of Preservation Treatments after Distress Prediction.
–
Option C—Adjustment of Pavement Distress and Corresponding Life by
Modification of Pavement Materials and/or Structure Properties.
A revised Phase II work plan was then prepared outlining the development of the three options
for incorporating preservation treatments after distress prediction. In reviewing this plan, the
NCHRP noted that insufficient information was provided regarding the availability and
suitability of state data to support the development of Options B and C, which are more datadriven. Consequently, it was decided that an interim Task 5a was needed to more fully assess
the availability of data and to better determine the likelihood that each approach can be
successfully developed.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
I-1
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Task Objectives
The objective of Task 5a was to investigate the availability and suitability of data at the state
level to support the development of the two proposed approaches for incorporating pavement
preservation into the MEPDG and to develop a recommended research plan for Phase II that
describes the approaches to be pursued (if any) given the identified data constraints and the
available project funding.
Task Overview
In performing this task, the research team carried out the following step-wise activities:
1. Identify the data elements required for pursuing each proposed approach.
2. Determine the extent of the availability of the required data elements.
3. Assess the appropriateness of the available data toward supporting the proposed
approaches.
In carrying out steps 2 and 3 above, the research team reviewed previously collected information
on 15 SHAs, obtained and reviewed additional information for those states, and then conducted
additional discussions with representatives of five of the SHAs that were identified as most
promising for their ability to provide useful data for Phase II.
Required Data Elements
The development of the two approaches of interest—Adjustment of Pavement Distress and
Corresponding Life using the OPTime Timing Tool (Option A) and Adjustment of Pavement
Distress and Corresponding Life by Modification of Pavement Materials and/or Structure
Properties (Option B)—will entail AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design analysis of a
baseline/untreated design and a corresponding preservation-treated design. In the case of Option
B, the design analysis will be preceded by an analysis of the optimal timing of the preservation
treatment using the OPTime software program developed under NCHRP Project 14-14. The
sections below present the data elements required in developing each proposed approach. Brief
descriptions of the steps to be followed in developing each approach using state data are
provided as a backdrop. It should be noted that, because pavement preservation is more
commonly used for flexible pavements, the development of the two proposed approaches—and
thus the assessment of data availability/suitability—focuses on flexible pavement preservation.
Approach Overview
Adjustment of Pavement Distress and Corresponding Life Using the OPTime Timing
Tool
The following methodology represents a Generic Design and Network-Level Analysis approach.
As an alternative, an Actual Design and Project-Level Analysis approach can be used, whereby
data for an actual flexible pavement containing adjoining test sections—one treated with a
preservation treatment and the other left untreated (i.e., a control section)—are compiled and
analyzed in a similar fashion.
1. Identify a generic flexible pavement design (either conventional HMA or full-depth
HMA design, used as new construction or reconstruction) and corresponding use scenario
(defined by a specific functional or highway class, similar levels of traffic, and/or a
I-2
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
similar climatic zone) for which sufficient data exists for analysis (see step 2 below)
(Figure I-1).
–
Also, identify a specific preservation treatment that has been commonly applied to
this generic design at some time following construction (also for which sufficient data
exists [see step 2 below]).
Example---Conventional HMA Pavement, Arterial Routes w/ ADT<15,000, Wet-Freeze
Generic Design (original pavement w/
subsequent preservation treatment)
Generic Design (original pavement
with no preservation)
HMA
HMA
Agg Base
Agg Base
Subgrade
Subgrade
Preservation
Treatment =
Thin HMA
Overlay
Figure I-1. Example illustration of baseline/untreated design and preservation-treated design.
2. Identify a number of pavement sections (say 15 or more) from the agency’s pavement
management system (PMS) that would represent the generic design without the
preservation treatment applied and that would have at least 5 to 7 years of annual or
biennial time-series condition/performance data (or established condition/performance
models) available for analysis (Figure I-2, left).
–
Also, identify several sections from the agency’s PMS that would represent the
generic design with the preservation treatment applied and that would have at least 4
to 5 years of annual or biennial time-series condition/performance data (or established
condition/performance models) covering the preservation period (Figure I-2, right).
3. Identify agency threshold value (for each condition/performance indicator evaluated),
indicating pavement or preservation treatment failure and thus the need for rehabilitation
(e.g., rutting > 0.5 in, IRI > 125 in/mi).
Example---Rutting for Generic Design w/ and w/o Preservation
Rut
Depth
Generic Design (no preservation)
Rut
Depth
Generic Design (following preservation)
Rutting levels just prior
to preservation treatment
Note: Each symbol type represents
data for 1 pavement section
Rutting over time after
preservation treatment
Time, years
Time, years
Figure I-2. Example condition/performance data for baseline/untreated
design and preservation-treated design.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
I-3
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
4. Estimate the application cost of the selected preservation treatment.
–
Also, identify agency’s discount rate used in life-cycle cost analysis.
5. Use OPTime to identify optimal timing of the selected preservation treatment and the
impact on pavement life provided by the treatment.
6. Develop a “Baseline Design” (generic design with no preservation treatment factored into
the design) using the Pavement ME Design software—Perform a design analysis of the
generic design using representative or typical agency design inputs for traffic, climate,
and materials properties. Use a specified design life, specified reliability levels for the
individual condition/performance indicators, and agency-specified condition/performance
indicator threshold values for rehabilitation. Either the nationally calibrated (default)
performance prediction models or the agency’s locally calibrated models can be used.
7. Develop a “Preservation-Treated Design” (generic design with preservation treatment
factored in) outside of the Pavement ME Design software—Using the
condition/performance-prediction output curves for the Baseline Design, manually
adjust/modify the curves to reflect the impact on pavement life provided by the
preservation treatment, as identified by OPTime.
Adjustment of Pavement Distress and Corresponding Life by Modification of Pavement
Materials and/or Structure Properties
1. Identify a generic flexible pavement design (either conventional HMA or full-depth
HMA design, used as new construction or reconstruction) and corresponding use scenario
(defined by a specific functional or highway class, similar levels of traffic, and/or a
similar climatic zone).
–
Also, identify a specific preservation treatment that has been commonly applied to
this generic design at some time following construction of the design.
2. Identify time when the preservation treatment should be applied in terms of thresholds for
each of the MEPDG condition/performance indicators (e.g., transverse cracking = 10
m/km/lane, rutting = 0.25 in).
3. Identify key material properties of the preservation treatment (engineering/thermal
properties [e.g., dynamic modulus, creep compliance, coefficient of thermal contraction]
and volumetric properties [e.g., air voids, mix density, effective asphalt content]).
4. Quantify impact of preservation treatment on existing pavement structure (e.g., milling
depth [if any], preservation treatment thickness).
5. Identify short- and long-term impact of preservation treatment on existing HMA surface
layer material properties (i.e., changes in engineering/thermal properties and/or
volumetric properties of the HMA surface layer).
6. Identify short- and long-term impact of preservation treatment on moisture and thermal
profile of existing pavement structure (e.g., drainage/infiltration potential, cross-slope
and drainage path length).
I-4
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
7. Identify/establish the immediate impact of the treatment on the condition/performance of
the existing pavement (e.g., rutting reduces to 0, IRI decreases to 60 in/mi).
8. Identify the MEPDG reflection cracking model coefficient “d”, which governs the
acceleration (d > 1) or delay (d < 1) in the formation of reflective cracks (from fatigue
and transverse cracks in existing HMA pavement) in the preservation treatment.
9. Develop a “Baseline Design” (generic design with no preservation treatment factored into
the design) using Pavement ME Design—Perform a design analysis of the generic design
using representative or typical agency design inputs for traffic, climate, and materials
properties. Use a specified design life, specified reliability levels for the individual
condition/performance indicators, and agency-specified condition/performance indicator
threshold values for rehabilitation. Either the nationally calibrated (default) performance
prediction models or the agency’s locally calibrated models can be used.
10. Develop a “Preservation-Treated Design” (generic design with preservation treatment
factored in) using Pavement ME Design—Using information from steps 2 through 8 and
the same basic design parameters as those for the Baseline Design, perform a design
analysis for the Preservation-Treated Design. This entails supplementing the output from
the baseline design (i.e., predicted distress and roughness levels) covering the timeframe
of original construction to the time when the first condition/performance indicator
threshold is reached, with output from a Pavement ME Design run that essentially treats
the preservation treatment as an overlay design. The effects of the treatment on the
MEPDG condition/performance indicators would be evaluated in terms of (a) the
immediate change in distress/roughness and the redevelopment of distress/roughness, (b)
an immediate and/or long-lasting change in the mechanistic properties of the pavement
surface layer, (c) an immediate change in the pavement structural cross-section, and (d) a
change in the drainage and/or thermal properties of the pavement surface layer that lead
to different moisture and/or temperature profiles throughout the pavement.
OPTime Analysis
OPTime analysis is required only for one approach—“Adjustment of Pavement Distress and
Corresponding Life Using the OPTime Timing Tool.” The OPTime tool determines the optimal
timing of a preservation treatment by evaluating the cost-effectiveness (benefit-to-cost ratio
[B/C]) of the treatment under different application timing scenarios (i.e., time following
construction at which the treatment is applied). The most cost-effective treatment is defined as
the treatment that results in the highest increase in one or more condition/performance indicators
at the lowest cost. Because OPTime allows the analysis of a single application of one
preservation treatment and not that of a series of treatments, the development of the OPTime
approach will be centered on a one-time preservation treatment application.
A detailed listing of the data elements required to perform an OPTime analysis is provided in
Table I-1. While the specific details of the pavement structure to be analyzed are not directly
needed to run OPTime, it will be necessary to have this information in developing the condition/
performance models to be used in the analysis, as well as possibly defining some of the cost
modeling parameters. Some additional notes regarding data needed for OPTime analysis are
provided below.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
I-5
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table I-1. Data elements required for OPTime analysis.
Data Category
Analysis Parameters
Data Element





Performance Modeling
Parameters


Cost Modeling Parameters
•
•
•
•
•





Treatment type
Condition/performance indicators to be evaluated
Treatment timing scenarios
Lower- and upper-benefit cutoff values for selected condition/performance
indicators
o Premature application thresholds
o Pavement/treatment failure thresholds
Benefit weighting factors for selected condition/performance indicators (if 2 or
more indicators are used in the analysis)
“Do-Nothing” condition/performance curves or time-series data points
(corresponding to baseline/untreated design)
“Post-Treatment condition/performance curves or time-series data points
(corresponding to preservation-treated design)
Treatment application cost
Subsequent rehabilitation treatment cost (optional)
Routine maintenance cost (optional)
Work-zone user delay cost (optional)
Discount rate
Ideally, OPTime analysis will use actual condition/performance indicator data or models,
including MEPDG distress types (rutting, transverse cracking, fatigue cracking),
smoothness (international roughness index [IRI]), and possibly an overall condition
index (e.g., pavement condition index/rating [PCI/PCR], pavement serviceability
index/rating [PSI/PSR]). Although less ideal, estimated condition/performance indicator
trends based on agency expert opinion could be developed and used (such subjective
trends might be based on history data [e.g., frequency of application]).
Time-series condition/performance indicator data for the preservation-treated design
must include the immediate post-treatment distress/smoothness level.
Ideally, treatment application and other costs will be based on historical data. However,
they could be based on agency expert opinion.
Lower/upper benefit values will likely be defined or set according to agency expert
opinion or agency maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) policy.
Benefit weighting factors will be based on agency expert opinion.
Finally, it should be noted that the condition/performance data/models for the baseline/untreated
design and the preservation-treated design will be used in OPTime analysis to identify “optimal”
preservation treatment timing. Subsequent Pavement ME Design analysis will use the nationally
calibrated (default) models for the baseline/untreated design (and/or the agency’s locally
calibrated models, if they exist). The resulting distress/smoothness prediction curves will then
be manually adjusted to reflect the impacts of the optimally timed preservation treatment (i.e.,
incorporation of preservation after distress prediction), as determined from the OPTime analysis.
Pavement ME Design Analysis
Pavement ME Design Analysis is required for both approaches—“Adjustment of Pavement
Distress and Corresponding Life Using the OPTime Timing Tool” and “Adjustment of Pavement
Distress and Corresponding Life by Modification of Pavement Materials and/or Structure
Properties.” To perform the Pavement ME Design analysis runs, data inputs for design
I-6
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
properties and analysis parameters, traffic and climate characteristics, structure properties,
material layer properties, and foundation and bedrock properties will have to be established. A
complete listing of the specific design input parameters is available in the FHWA report, Local
Calibration of the MEPDG Using Pavement Management Systems (FHWA 2010). Table I-2
provides a more targeted list of the required data elements as they relate to the design analysis of
the two strategies—baseline/untreated and preservation-treated.
As noted previously, the OPTime approach requires that Pavement ME Design runs be made for
the baseline/untreated design only, whereas the Materials/Structure Properties Modifications
approach requires that Pavement ME Design runs be made for both the baseline/untreated design
and the preservation-treated design. Some additional notes regarding data needed for Pavement
ME Design analysis are provided below.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Preservation treatment timing will ideally be determined from pavement management
data (e.g., pre-treatment distress/smoothness measurements). However, it could be based
on agency expert opinion or on preservation treatment application criteria/guidelines
(e.g., preventive maintenance decision matrices/trees).
Preservation treatment material properties data will ideally be based on actual historical
materials test data. However, they could be based on research test data or agency expert
opinion.
Pavement structure data (as altered/impacted by preservation treatment) will ideally be
based on design and/or as-built records. However, they could be based on agency expert
opinion.
Existing HMA surface material properties data (as altered/impacted by preservation
treatment) will ideally be obtained from actual historical materials test data (either in the
lab [before-and-after modulus or IDT/creep compliance testing] or in the field [beforeand-after FWD testing/backcalculation]). However, they could be based on research test
data or agency expert opinion.
Existing pavement moisture and thermal profile data (as altered/impacted by the
preservation treatment) will ideally be derived from properly instrumented agency test
track section data. However, it will most likely be based on agency expert opinion or
available national research.
Immediate post-treatment distress/smoothness data will ideally be available from
pavement management data. Alternatively, they could be based on agency expert
opinion.
For the reflection cracking model, it is unlikely that pavement management or other data
exists to help define the “d” model parameter; agency expert opinion is likely needed.
Data Verification
The Revised Draft Phase II Work Plan identified the following states as top-tier candidates for
the approach development effort: Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North
Carolina, and Washington. It noted that each agency would be evaluated for suitability in
accomplishing the objective of developing each approach, and that the highest ranked agency
would be selected for inclusion.
Due to concern over the availability and reliability of data to support each approach, a detailed
evaluation of the data in the above seven states was undertaken, consisting of an additional
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
I-7
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Table I-2. Data elements required for Pavement ME Design analysis.
Data Category
Analysis Parameters
Structure Properties
Preservation Treatment
Application Parameters
Performance Modeling
Parameters
Data Element
 Baseline/untreated design strategy—typical design upon which a specific
preservation treatment type has been commonly applied in the past
 Preservation-treated design strategy—same as above, except a specific preservation
treatment is applied
 Design life
 Design reliability (for individual distresses and smoothness)
 Condition/performance indicators to be evaluated—options include rutting,
transverse cracking, bottom-up alligator cracking, top-down longitudinal cracking,
reflective cracking, and IRI
 Pavement/treatment failure thresholds (corresponding to the application of a
rehabilitation treatment or a follow-up preservation treatment)
 Baseline/untreated design strategy—layer types, materials, and thicknesses
 Preservation-treated design strategy—layer types, materials, and thicknesses (same
as baseline/untreated)
 Surface short-wave absorptivity
 Treatment timing corresponding to either the optimal timing identified using
OPTime or to an agency-specified timing value
o distress, smoothness, and/or overall condition levels of original pavement at
time of treatment application
 Treatment material properties
o engineering and thermal properties (e.g., Poisson’s ratio, dynamic modulus,
tensile strength, creep compliance, thermal conductivity, heat capacity, surface
shortwave absorptivity, coefficient of thermal contraction)
o volumetric properties (e.g., air voids, effective asphalt content, voids filled with
asphalt, mix density, asphalt binder grade/viscosity
 Treatment impact on existing pavement structure, including:
o removal depth of existing HMA surface (milling)
o treatment application thickness
o layer interface condition (degree of bond between treatment and existing HMA
surface)
 Treatment impact (short- and long-term) on existing HMA surface layer material
properties
o engineering and thermal properties (same as above)
o volumetric properties (same as above)
 Treatment impact (short- and long-term) on moisture and thermal profile of existing
pavement
o Drainage/infiltration potential, cross-slope and drainage path length, surface
shortwave absorptivity
 Immediate adjustment of post-treatment condition/performance levels
o Post-treatment distress/smoothness measurements
 Long-term adjustment of post-treatment distress level via rate of redevelopment of
distresses/smoothness
o reflection cracking (of fatigue and thermal cracks in existing flexible
pavement)—data for defining “a” and “b” model parameters (essentially
treatment thickness) and data for defining “d” model parameter which governs
the acceleration (d > 1) or delay (d < 1) in the formation of reflective cracks
literature search/review and a questionnaire survey. An eighth state, Texas, was added to this
investigation, based on a follow-up review of information obtained/provided in Phase I.
Described below are the data evaluation activities conducted under Task 5, and the
corresponding findings/results.
I-8
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Preliminary Evaluation of State Highway Agency Data
The first step in evaluating the availability and reliability of data involved preparing a data
evaluation matrix (in MS Excel®) for each approach, consisting of pertinent information
compiled in Phase I for each of the eight candidate states, as well as additional information
obtained through internet and other searches. This additional information focused on (a) each
state’s efforts to evaluate preservation treatment performance and to evaluate, calibrate,
implement, and/or use the MEPDG, and (b) details about each state’s pavement management
program and system database, its construction/materials database, and the availability of any type
of MEPDG design/materials database.
Each data evaluation matrix was structured to show the required data elements and other useful
information in the first column of the matrix and the eight candidate states along the top row of
the matrix. The information compiled in the two data evaluation matrices was then carefully
reviewed and assessed. A summary of the assessments made for the eight candidate states,
including a 1-to-10 suitability rating assigned for each approach (1 = poor, 10 = excellent), is
provided below.
•
Arizona—The Arizona DOT uses many different preservation treatments. They have a
PMS system with historical treatment location and performance data; however, the
performance data are not compatible with MEPDG and there may not be sufficient timeseries data. The DOT is in the process of implementing a new PMS which will be more
compatible and which will allow detailed analyses of maintenance and rehabilitation
(M&R) treatment performance. Consequently, while there currently is not much
historical data to work with, data should be available in the future. Arizona was one of
four states that supported and served as a case study in the NCHRP 14-14 OPTime
development/demonstration effort. The DOT has performed evaluations and calibrations
of the MEPDG, but has not implemented it. For calibration, they have used several LTPP
sections as well as 59 PMS sections. It is not clear if any of the 59 PMS sections have
preservation performance data to work with.
–
Suitability rating for OPTime Approach: 5.0
–
Suitability rating for Materials/Structure Properties Modifications Approach: 5.0
•
Indiana—The Indiana DOT uses quite a few preservation treatments and has carried out
performance evaluations of the treatments. However, the evaluations have primarily
looked at treatment life using network-level data, with little to no consideration of pretreatment pavement condition. Furthermore, no project-level analyses using untreated
control sections have been done. Researchers (Ong, Irfan, Labi, etc.) have developed
performance models (both initial performance jump and long-term deterioration rate) of
base case pavements (control/untreated) and a few preservation-treated pavements, which
would seem to facilitate application of the OPTime Approach. The DOT has evaluated
and implemented the MEPDG, and has performed several formal designs using the
MEPDG.
–
Suitability rating for OPTime Approach: 8.0
–
Suitability rating for Materials/Structure Properties Modifications Approach: 7.0
•
Kansas—The Kansas DOT uses over 300 different treatments (preventive maintenance
through reconstruction) and classifies its treatments in terms of Equivalent Thickness.
Preservation treatment application is governed by 23 feasible action types that consider
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
I-9
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
traffic volume, pavement type, condition/distress, and shoulders. They have more than
25 years of historical data on 11,000 one-mile sections, but there are so many activities,
pavement types, and conditions (and a lack of consistency), that it would be hard to
evaluate. The DOT believes it would be hard to extract something useful out of their
database. Another concern is incompatibility of data with MEPDG. Researchers (Liu,
Hossain, and Miller) have investigated the service life of several treatments using PMS
section data by computing the average time between the treatment application and either
the next treatment application or a rehabilitation/reconstruction treatment; performance in
terms of specific distresses and/or roughness was not evaluated. The DOT has
constructed six HMA projects for local calibration. The sections are 2 to 3 years old now
and the DOT anticipates applying preservation to them at some point, as such an
application reflects their practice. Currently, there are huge differences between the
MEPDG models and the DOT’s models, and the Department thinks marrying the two will
be very difficult.
–
Suitability rating for OPTime Approach: 5.5
–
Suitability rating for Materials/Structure Properties Modifications Approach: 4.5
I-10
•
Minnesota—The Minnesota DOT has an extensive PMS database, with the right types of
condition/performance data for evaluation at both the network and project levels. For the
former, they have developed performance models for a variety of pavements. For the
latter, they have several preservation treatment test sections with untreated control
sections. Minnesota also has the MnROAD test track which has a few cells/sections
containing preservation treatments. The DOT has done some MEPDG evaluation/
implementation activities, but this has primarily been with concrete pavements. With
flexible pavements the focus has been on materials characterization using MnROAD
sections.
–
Suitability rating for OPTime Approach: 8.5
–
Suitability rating for Materials/Structure Properties Modifications Approach: 6.0
•
Missouri—The Missouri DOT has good historical performance data going back many
years to original construction. They have applied preservation treatments on many roads;
however, a network-level analysis approach would likely be needed as there do not
appear to be any test sections with both treated and untreated/control pavements. They
have only done one or two studies looking at preservation treatment performance, but the
studies did use condition/performance data rather than history (frequency of application)
data. The DOT has evaluated and implemented the MEPDG, and has used the MEPDG
to formally design several pavements. They have 52 HMA or HMA-surfaced pavement
sections (34 LTPP and 18 PMS) that have been used to perform local calibrations.
–
Suitability rating for OPTime Approach: 8.0
–
Suitability rating for Materials/Structure Properties Modifications Approach: 7.0
•
North Carolina—The North Carolina DOT appears to have preservation treatment
condition/performance data largely available for local roads, but less so on the interstate
and other primary roads (due to the fact that they only started applying preservation to
these roads in recent years). The DOT has a fairly comprehensive pavement management
database, which would allow tracking condition/performance of treated and untreated
sections at the network level, but they do not have project-level treated and
untreated/control sections. They have also noted a recent problem (due to a coding
change in the maintenance management system) in identifying the specific preservation
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
treatment type applied. They have done at least one study of the performance of a
preservation treatment using actual condition/performance data (ultrathin bonded wearing
course [UBWC] on concrete) and established thresholds to determine the life of that
treatment. North Carolina was one of four states that supported and served as a case
study in the NCHRP 14-14 OPTime development/demonstration effort. The DOT has
performed various MEPDG evaluation studies and continues to move toward
implementation. They do appear to have some condition/performance data compatibility
issues that they are working through. NCDOT served as a demonstration participant in a
recent FHWA study on local calibration using PMS data.
–
Suitability rating for OPTime Approach: 7.0
–
Suitability rating for Materials/Structure Properties Modifications Approach: 6.5
•
Washington—The Washington DOT has a very comprehensive pavement management
database containing condition/performance data on pavement sections going back many
years. The data appear to be quite compatible with the MEPDG. Their commonly
applied preservation treatments include crack sealing (applied by maintenance forces)
and chip seals (applied by maintenance forces in isolated areas and on a project basis,
typically on district-wide contracts). The DOT has had challenges in tracking
maintenance-applied preservation treatments in the PMS and, consequently, the
information needed to link treatment application with performance data may be lacking.
The DOT has performed evaluations and local calibrations of the MEPDG, but
implementation is on hold due in part to problems encountered with some of the models
(e.g., rutting).
–
Suitability rating for OPTime Approach: 4.0
–
Suitability rating for Materials/Structure Properties Modifications Approach: 4.0
•
Texas—The Texas DOT’s most common preservation treatment is chip seals (they have
a major chip seal program). Their pavement management information system (PMIS)
database contains most of the typical condition/performance indicator data going back
several years for the various network sections. In addition to some LTPP sections, they
have the Supplemental Maintenance Effectiveness Research Program (SMERP) sections
which would have control/untreated sections for direct comparison. Some DOT Districts
(e.g., Atlanta, San Antonio) have sponsored performance evaluation studies of chip seals
using different binders. These studies consisted of several sections (network-level
analysis) and used various condition/performance data. The DOT has performed several
evaluations and calibrations of the MEPDG, but has not implemented it. They are
seeking to develop their own M-E procedure and to support this effort on the flexible
pavement side have developed the Texas Flexible Pavements Database (TFPD). The
TFPD includes detailed design, materials/construction, and performance data for over
200 test sections (about 185 LTPP sections and 41 PMIS sections) in Texas.
–
Suitability rating for OPTime Approach: 6.5
–
Suitability rating for Materials/Structure Properties Modifications Approach: 7.0
Based on the assessment results, five states were selected for detailed investigation of available
data—Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, and Texas.
Detailed Evaluation of State Highway Agency Data
To better determine the availability of the required data elements at each of the five targeted
states, a detailed questionnaire was developed covering the following topics:
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
I-11
December 2014
•
•
•
•
•
•
Final Report Appendices
The availability and suitability of data at the network and/or project levels that would
facilitate a performance comparison of preservation-treated and untreated pavements
The specific performance/condition indicators/measures and corresponding threshold
levels (both for rehabilitation and preservation) used in managing pavements.
The nature of any incompatibilities between the agency’s indicators/measures and the
ones used for design by MEPDG.
The amount of experience the SHA has in performing Pavement ME Design analyses and
whether and to what extent the SHA has developed a satellite design/materials/
performance database for MEPDG implementation, use, and refinement.
The extent to which the SHA has evaluated the material and structure properties of
preservation treatments and the impact of their placement on the properties of existing
pavement layers.
The availability and suitability of data that would allow an MEPDG design analysis
involving two generic pavement designs—a baseline design (i.e., a typical
new/reconstructed pavement) and a preservation-treated design (i.e., same typical
pavement, but the design altered to account for the effects of a future planned
preservation treatment).
The questionnaire focused only on flexible pavement preservation applied to new conventional
or full-depth HMA pavements. A representative for each of the five states was identified,
contacted, and asked if they would be willing to participate in the survey. All five agreed and
each was sent an electronic copy of the questionnaire.
Tables I-3 and I-4 summarize the key information obtained through this survey as it relates to the
availability and reliability of data to support the OPTime and Materials/Structure Properties
Modification approaches. Table I-3 focuses on the data required for OPTime analysis (OPTime
approach only), while table I-4 focuses on the data required for Pavement ME Design analysis
(OPTime and Properties Modification approaches).
Some key points about the data each agency indicated they could provide are given below.
•
I-12
Indiana—The formal application of preservation treatments as part of Indiana DOT’s
Pavement Preservation (PP) program did not begin until about 2008. Hence,
condition/performance data for these treatments at the network level are limited to 3 to 4
years. In addition, the DOT entered a period recently where cracking is not measured;
rather, only IRI and rutting are measured using a Pathways vehicle and its profiling
system. Although the DOT has done several preservation jobs since the PP program
started and does anticipate collecting cracking and other distresses in the near future
using a semi-automated distress collection vehicle, the DOT representative believes there
are currently too few years of data with only two condition/performance parameters (IRI
and rutting) to provide meaningful results, and that there would be a significant degree of
difficulty in compiling the data (especially if the preservation projects were done inhouse).
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Component
Project-Level Analysis
(e.g., special
preservation test
sections with untreated
controls)
Network-Level
Analysis (e.g., multiple
untreated PMS
sections, multiple
preservation-treated
sections)
Other Analysis
Parameters
Data Elements
Indiana
Missouri
Minnesota
Potential Preservation
Treatments and Pvt.
Scenarios
MS / CHMA or FDHMA / WF
ThOL / CHMA or FDHMA / WF
None
PM Study
CrS, ChS, ThOL, & MS / Flex / FC*
MnRoad
CrS, ThOL, SS, MS, & ChS / Flex
Number of Sections
Treated: 4 (2 MS, 2 UBWC)
Untreated/Control: 4
N/A
PM Study
Treated: 53 (42 CS, 5 MS, 2 CrS)
Untreated/Control: 53
MnRoad
Treated: 3+
Untreated/Control: 3+
Cond./Perf. Indicators
IRI, PCR, SN, rut depth, transverse cracking,
longitudinal cracking, friction number
N/A
IRI, rut depth, distresses
Time-Series Data
(Plots/Curves/Models)
Treated: 3 yrs (2008-2010)
Untreated/Control: 3 yrs (2008-2010)
N/A
PM Study
Treated & Untreated: 8 yrs (2000-2008)
MnRoad
Treated & Untreated: 4+ yrs
Potential Preservation
Treatments and Pvt.
Scenarios
ChS / CHMA or FDHMA / ADT<5,000
ThOL / CHMA or FDHMA/ ADT<10,000
MS / CHMA or FDHMA / Any ADT
ChS / CHMA or FDHMA / LVSec
ThOL / CHMA or FDHMA / NHS or RemArt
UBWC / CHMA or FDHMA / NHS or RemArt
CrS / CHMA or FDHMA / FC*
ChS / CHMA or FDHMA / FC*
ThOL / CHMA or FDHMA / FC*
MS / CHMA or FDHMA / FC*
Number of Sections
Treated: Limited (<15) on major routes, limited
(<15) on collector routes
Untreated/Control: Limited (<15) on major
routes, limited (<15) on collector routes
Treated: Limited (≤15) on NHS & RemArt,
Several (>15) on LVSec
Untreated/Control: Limited on NHS & RemArt,
Several on LVSec
Treated: Several (>15)
Untreated: Several (>15)
Cond./Perf. Indicators
IRI, PCR, rut depth
IRI, rut depth, distress indexes, condition score
(distress-based), ride score (IRI-based), PSR
IRI, rut depth, distress, RQI, SR, PQI
Time-Series Data
(Plots/Curves/Models)
Treated: 3 to 4 yrs
Untreated: >5 yrs
Treated: Multiple years (back to placement)
Untreated: Multiple years (back to construction)
Treated: Multiple years (back to placement)
Untreated: Multiple years (back to construction)
Yes (MNDOT network-level decision tree)
Lower/Upper Benefit Cutoff Yes, but the data would reflect measurements
Values (pvt./treatment
made anywhere between 0 and 1 years prior to
failure thresholds)
treatment (IRI, PCR, rut depth)
Yes, but the data would reflect measurements
made anywhere between 0 and 1 years prior to
treatment (IRI, PCR, rut depth)
Yes (MNDOT network-level decision tree)
Benefit Weighting Factors
No, but can probably be developed by INDOT
No, but can probably be developed by MODOT
No, but can probably be developed by MODOT
Treatment Costs
Yes
Yes, for contracted treatments
Yes
Rehab and Other Costs and
Discount Rate
Yes
Yes
Yes
I-13
N/A: Not applicable ChS: Chip seal MS: Microsurfacing ThOL: Thin HMA overlay UBWC: Ultrathin Bonded Wearing Course
CHMA: Conventional HMA pavement (HMA on aggregate base) FDHMA: Full-depth HMA pavement Flex: Flexible pavement
NHS: National Highway System routes RemArt: Remaining Arterial routes ADT: Average daily traffic LVSec: Low-volume secondary routes FC*: 12 functional class options
IRI: International roughness index PCR: Pavement condition rating (cracking measure based on distress deducts and weights) PSR: Pavement serviceability rating (combined ride and condition)
RQI: Ride quality index (0-to-5 rating scale) SR: Surface rating (combined pavement distress, 0-to-4 scale) PQI: Pavement quality index (0-to-4.5 rating scale) SN: Structure number
December 2014
Treatment Timing Scenarios Yes (INDOT Preservation Treatment Guidelines) Yes (guideline values)
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table I-3. Summary of state data required for OPTime analysis (OPTime approach only).
Component
Data Elements
North Carolina
Project-Level Analysis
Potential Preservation
None
(e.g., special
Treatments and Pvt. Scenarios
preservation test sections Number of Sections
N/A
with untreated controls)
Cond./Perf. Indicators
N/A
Network-Level Analysis
(e.g., multiple untreated
PMS sections, multiple
preservation-treated
sections)
Other Analysis
Parameters
Texas
None
N/A
December 2014
I-14
Table I-3. Summary of state data required for OPTime analysis (OPTime approach only) (continued).
N/A
Time-Series Data
(Plots/Curves/Models)
N/A
N/A
Potential Preservation
Treatments and Pvt.
Scenarios1
MS / CHMA or FDHMA / LVSec (only in one Division)
ThOL / CHMA or FDHMA / LVSec
PM-OGFC / CHMA or FDHMA / LVSec (mostly in wet-nonfreeze
climate)
None
Number of Sections
Treated: Unknown
Untreated: Unknown
N/A
Cond./Perf. Indicators
IRI, rutting, distress, PCR
N/A
Time-Series Data
(Plots/Curves/Models)
Treated: Multiple yrs for LVSec, 2-3 yrs for Interstates/Primary (back to
placement)
Untreated: Multiple yrs (back to construction)
N/A
Treatment Timing Scenarios
Yes (NCDOT pavement preservation selection tool / PMS decision trees) Yes (TXDOT PMIS decision tree / screening tool)
Lower/Upper Benefit Cutoff
Values (pvt./treatment failure
thresholds)
Yes (PCR for all roads, IRI for primary and interstate roads)
Yes (Condition Score, which is a combination of Ride Score and Distress
Score)
Benefit Weighting Factors
No, but can probably be developed by NCDOT
No, but can probably be developed by TXDOT
Treatment Costs
Yes (PMS and Road Maintenance Unit files)
Yes
Rehab and Other Costs and
Discount Rate
Yes
Partly (LCCA in Texas is optional and at discretion of Districts)
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
N/A: Not applicable ChS: Chip seal MS: Microsurfacing ThOL: Thin HMA overlay UBWC: Ultrathin Bonded Wearing Course PM-OFGC: Polymer-modified open-graded friction course
CHMA: Conventional HMA pavement (HMA on aggregate base) FDHMA: Full-depth HMA pavement Flex: Flexible pavement
NHS: National Highway System routes RemArt: Remaining Arterial routes ADT: Average daily traffic LVSec: Low-volume secondary routes FC*: 12 functional class options
IRI: International roughness index PCR: Pavement condition rating (cracking measure based on distress deducts and weights) PSR: Pavement serviceability rating (combined ride and condition)
RQI: Ride quality index (0-to-5 rating scale) SR: Surface rating (combined pavement distress, 0-to-4 scale) PQI: Pavement quality index (0-to-4.5 rating scale)
1
For both North Carolina and Texas, chip seals are frequently applied on low-volume secondary or farm-to-market roads. Although these roads may be constructed as HMA pavements, they are most
often constructed as bituminous surface treated (BST) pavements. For North Carolina, ultrathin bonded wearing course is used very little due to push back from the asphalt industry.
Component
Analysis Parameters
Data Elements
Indiana
Missouri
Minnesota
Baseline/Untreated & PreservationTreated Designs
Yes
Yes
Yes
Design Life & Reliability Levels
Yes (INDOT MEPDG Design Manual)
Yes (MODOT M-E Design Manual)
Possibly (based on current design method)
Cond./Perf. Indicators
IRI and rut depth (possibly transverse and
fatigue cracking, derived from PCR)
IRI and rut depth (possibly transverse and
IRI, rut depth, transverse and fatigue cracking
fatigue cracking, derived from cracking score,
although this could be problematic)
Pvt./Treatment Failure Thresholds
(rehabilitation trigger)
Possibly (INDOT MEPDG Design Manual
lists thresholds, but INDOT survey suggests
there are no thresholds)
Yes (MODOT M-E Design Manual lists
thresholds and MODOT questionnaire
response affirms thresholds)
Possibly (MNDOT does not have MEPDG
thresholds, but they could possibly be derived
from MNDOT’s network-level bituminous
decision tree)
Structure Properties
(Baseline Design)
Pvt. Cross-Section (layer types,
materials, & thicknesses)
Yes (PMS, materials/construction database)
Yes (PMS, materials/construction database)
Yes (PMS, materials/construction database)
Preservation
Treatment
Application
Parameters
Treatment Timing–OPTime
Determined
Yes
Yes
Yes
Treatment Timing–Agency Specified
(preservation trigger)
Possibly (INDOT MEPDG Design Manual
lists thresholds, but INDOT survey suggests
there are no thresholds)
Possibly (only a threshold for PSR has been
established, but MODOT survey suggests
thresholds could be set for IRI and rutting)
Yes (cracking, rutting, and possibly IRI, based
on MNDOT’s network-level bituminous
decision tree)
Treatment Material Properties
No.
No
Possibly (some work has been done, but it
will be difficult to find the data)
Treatment Impact on Existing Pvt.
Structure
Yes, for treatment thickness (mix design
database), except UBWC and MS warranty
projects.
Yes, but only for projects on NHS and
RemArt routes
Yes
Treatment Impact on Existing HMA
Surface Layer Material Properties
Partly (engineering properties through before- No
and-after FWD testing of microsurfacing
projects)
No
Treatment Impact on Moisture/
Thermal Profile of Existing Pvt.
No, but have begun a study looking at effects
of microsurfacing.
No
Yes (MnRoad test sections are fitted with
sensors for moisture, temperature, and frost
measurement. MNDOT has conducted study
of microsurfacing and moisture infiltration)
Partly (depends on relative timing of
treatment application and annual Pathways
profile testing)
Partly (depends on relative timing of
treatment application and annual ARAN
testing)
Partly (depends on relative timing of
treatment application and annual Pathways
testing)
Performance
Immediate Adjustment of PostModeling Parameters Treatment Cond./Perf.
PMS: Pavement management system
No (MODOT calibration study did not look at No
reflective cracking model)
I-15
December 2014
Long-Term Adjustment of PostNo.
Treatment Distress Level—Reflection
cracking model “d” calibration
coefficient
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Table I-4. Summary of state data required for Pavement ME Design analysis (OPTime and Properties Modification approaches).
Component
Analysis Parameters
Data Elements
North Carolina
Texas
Baseline/Untreated & PreservationTreated Designs
Yes
Yes
Design Life & Reliability Levels
Yes
Possibly (based on current design method)
Cond./Perf. Indicators
IRI, rut depth, and transverse and fatigue cracking
IRI and rut depth (possibly fatigue and transverse cracking)
Pvt./Treatment Failure Thresholds
(rehabilitation trigger)
Yes
Yes (but only Condition Score)
Structure Properties
(Baseline Design)
Pvt. Cross-Section (layer types,
materials, & thicknesses)
Yes (PMS, materials/construction database)
Yes (PMIS, TFPD, materials/construction database)
Preservation
Treatment
Application
Parameters
Treatment Timing–OPTime
Determined
Yes
Yes
Treatment Timing–Agency Specified
(preservation trigger)
Yes (NCDOT pavement preservation selection tool / PMS decision
trees)
Yes (TXDOT PMIS decision tree / screening tool)
Treatment Material Properties
No
??
Treatment Impact on Existing Pvt.
Structure
Partly (experience-based, but no design thicknesses or as-builts)
No
Treatment Impact on Existing HMA
Surface Layer Material Properties
No
Partly (binder aging study and impact of maintenance surface
treatments on aging)
Treatment Impact on Moisture/
Thermal Profile of Existing Pvt.
No
No
Partly, in terms of PCR (depends on relative timing of treatment
application and annual condition surveys and profile testing)
Partly (depends on relative timing of treatment application and annual
condition surveys and profile testing.
Performance
Immediate Adjustment of PostModeling Parameters Treatment Cond./Perf.
Long-Term Adjustment of PostNo
Treatment Distress Level—Reflection
cracking model “d” calibration
coefficient
No
TFPD: Texas flexible pavements database
Final Report Appendices
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
PMIS: Pavement management information system
December 2014
I-16
Table I-4. Summary of state data required for Pavement ME Design analysis (OPTime and Properties Modification approaches) (continued).
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Preservation treatments were placed prior to the start of the PP program, going back at
least to the mid-1990s. However, these treatments were placed as maintenance surface
treatments without much regard for timing (i.e., existing pavement condition), which is
an important aspect of preservation. A recent Indiana DOT report (Ong et al. 2010)
evaluated the performance of thin HMA overlays and microsurfacing placed on asphalt
pavements (as well as untreated asphalt pavement control sections) located on NHS
routes and non-NHS routes covering the 10-year period from 1998 to 2008. Performance
models for both the treated and untreated sections were developed in the study, and
assessments of treatment timing and immediate post-treatment condition/performance
levels were done. The DOT believes the data used in this study could be tracked down
and used in an OPTime analysis.
Indiana does have a few recently placed preservation test sections (two microsurfacing
and two UBWC), with corresponding untreated control sections that could be analyzed at
the project level. However, the time-series condition/performance data are limited (3
years) and would therefore not be adequate for an OPTime analysis.
The Indiana DOT has evaluated and implemented the MEPDG, and has performed
several formal designs using the MEPDG—typically Level 1 data are used for new
pavement design, while level 3 data are used for resurfacing. Calibrations of the MEPDG
models were attempted from 2006 to 2008 using 18 LTPP sections, but the factors were
poor due to lack of Superpave sections. Hence, they use the national calibration factors.
Chapter 52 of the DOT’s Design Manual provides MEPDG pavement design procedures
and guidelines for design inputs (Indiana DOT 2011). While the agency has an
experience and knowledge base with performing MEPDG designs, there is a general lack
of data to support the development of preservation treatment properties and the impacts
of preservation treatments on the existing HMA surface layer material properties and the
moisture/thermal profiles of the existing pavement. As such, expert opinion would likely
be needed to help develop the Properties Modifications approach.
Finally, there is a concern with the compatibility of condition/performance data between
what the agency collects for pavement management and what MEPDG design uses. As
mentioned above, only IRI and rutting are currently being measured for HMA pavements,
and past pavement management data included PCR ratings derived from distress data that
were sometimes different from the LTPP distress data collection protocols. In the future,
compatibility is not expected to be a problem, as the DOT plans to use a Pathways semiautomated distress data collection system that is consistent with LTPP protocols.
•
Minnesota—At the network level, the Minnesota DOT has data going back several years
for preservation treatments and the pavements on which they were applied. Trunkline
pavement sections are tested/surveyed annually and reliable condition/performance data
(M-records) and design (D-records) are available for many years in the agency’s PMS
database. The now-retired Pavement Preservation Engineer, Mr. Erland Lukanen,
developed and updated (2011) preservation treatment curves/models, which along with
various original or overlaid pavement performance models developed by the Department,
could be used in an OPTime analysis.
Minnesota also has data for project-level analyses. This includes several preservation
treatment test sections (primarily chip seals, but also microsurfacing and crack sealing)
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
I-17
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
and corresponding untreated/control sections placed throughout the state between 2000
and 2008 as part of the Department’s Preventive Maintenance study. Although the lead
investigator of this study, Mr. Lukanen, has retired, the Department believes the data for
these sections can be located and compiled for use in this study.
Minnesota also has the MnRoad test track, which includes various preventive
maintenance test sections (along with corresponding untreated control sections) in both
the low-volume and mainline loops. The treatments have been applied at various times
going back to 1998. Data for these test sections are available from the MnRoad database,
which can be accessed with assistance from DOT representatives.
The Minnesota DOT has not implemented the MEPDG, but has sponsored various
evaluation and verification studies. Most of the emphasis of this work, however, has
been on the concrete side; work on the asphalt side has mostly been with materials. No
formal designs have been performed using the MEPDG and no formal design input
guidelines have been produced. Pavement ME Design analysis using Minnesota data
would likely involve the use of mostly Level 3 data inputs. For the development of the
Properties Modifications approach, there appears to be data available regarding the
impact of treatment application on existing pavement structure and perhaps on pavement
moisture and temperature profiles, but expert opinion would likely be required for a
complete analysis.
Regarding the compatibility of condition/performance data, the DOT can provide distress
data in all of the MEPDG units of measure. However, they do not classify longitudinal
cracks as top-down or bottom up and they do not have a severity level for alligator
cracking.
•
Missouri—At the network level, the Missouri DOT has reliable data for treatments
placed on moderate to high-volume routes (NHS and Remaining Arterials) going back
many years to original construction. Likewise, reliable data exist for the pavements on
which those treatments were applied. However, because a high percentage of the roads
on these routes were built with concrete, there are believed to be a limited number of
conventional and/or full-depth HMA pavements available for analysis. On the other
hand, most of the low-volume secondary routes were built as conventional or full-depth
HMA, and thus there are many sections available for analysis. However, the DOT
representative believes that the history data (as it relates to pavement layers and
treatments) for these sections are suspect—particularly for treatments performed in
house—and that it would be somewhat challenging to compile reliable data for analysis.
The representative noted that while the DOT has developed performance curves over the
years for various preservation treatments, not much confidence has been put in the curves
due to the uncertainty of the existing pavement condition at time of treatment placement.
One such example was the development of a performance model for thin HMA overlays.
At the project level, Missouri has no special preservation test sections with untreated
controls. They did have some SPS-3 preventive maintenance sections, but those sections
were covered up years ago.
The Missouri DOT has evaluated and implemented the MEPDG, and has used the
MEPDG to formally design new pavements since 2005. They completed a local
I-18
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
calibration of the national models (rutting, cracking, smoothness), using 52 HMA or
HMA-surfaced pavement sections (34 LTPP and 18 PMS) sections. They do use some
Level 1 inputs, but rely heavily on Level 3 defaults. The Department has produced a
two-volume M-E Design Manual that has detailed information on design inputs to be
used for a design analysis; however, it is in reference to an earlier version of the MEPDG
software, not the current Pavement ME Design. Like Indiana, Missouri has experience
and a knowledge base with performing MEPDG designs, but there is a general lack of
data to support the development of preservation treatment properties and the impacts of
preservation treatments on the existing HMA surface layer material properties and the
moisture/thermal profiles of the existing pavement. As such, expert opinion would likely
be needed to help develop the Properties Modifications approach.
Some incompatibilities exist between the agency’s pavement management data and the
MEPDG performance parameters. Fatigue cracking is one example; the MEPDG fatigue
cracking output is quantity-based only, whereas Missouri’s cracking index obtained from
the ARAN is a composite score of quantity and severity. Also, for rutting, the MEPDG
total rutting metric is theoretically compatible with ARAN rutting value; however, there
is currently insufficient data to evaluate the two.
•
North Carolina—The North Carolina DOT reports having good records for about 9 to
10 years of preservation on secondary roads (i.e., low-volume state routes and local roads
often consisting of bituminous surface-treated [BST] pavements, but also some HMA
pavements), but only a couple years of good records for preservation on interstate and
other primary routes (the result of only recently allowing the use of preservation
treatments on these higher volume facilities). Although their pavement management
database is fairly comprehensive, the Department anticipates some degree of difficulty in
identifying comparable sets of pavement sections (i.e., similar traffic, cross-sections,
subgrade) to represent the baseline/untreated design and the preservation-treated design
as part of a network-level analysis. Moreover, there are no special test sections and
corresponding untreated/control sections that would allow an evaluation at the project
level. That said, the DOT did serve as a case study for NCHRP Project 14-14, providing
data for an evaluation of the optimal timing of double and triple chip seals on flexible
pavements.
North Carolina has performed various MEPDG evaluation and local calibration studies,
and continues to move toward implementation of the procedure. Although no formal
guidelines document has been prepared, many of the design inputs have been established
with an overall goal of designing with Level 2 data. The DOT served as a demonstration
participant in the recent FHWA study on local calibration using PMS data and has been
using the MEPDG in a trial manner to design projects. While they do possess some
experience and knowledge in performing MEPDG designs, there is a lack of data to
support the development of preservation treatment properties and the impacts of
preservation treatments on the existing HMA surface layer material properties and the
moisture/thermal profiles of the existing pavement. As with the other states, expert
opinion would likely be needed to help develop the Properties Modifications approach.
According to the Local Calibration of the MEPDG Using Pavement Management
Systems report (FHWA 2010), the DOT’s pavement condition surveys do not conform to
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
I-19
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
the LTPP Distress ID Manual and thus there is some incompatibility in
condition/performance data. Examples include:
–
The DOT collects alligator cracking data (no distinction between bottom-up alligator
cracking and top-down longitudinal cracking) in terms of severity level and extent
(percent of roadway area), and thus top-down longitudinal cracking would have to be
estimated and converted to a ft/mi basis.
–
The DOT includes block and reflective cracking under transverse thermal cracking.
–
The DOT uses three severity levels for rutting, based on depth. LTPP simply uses
depth.
•
Texas—The Texas DOT reports having insufficient data to evaluate the impact of
preservation treatments on pavement life. Although they have a major chip seal program,
a substantial portion of these treatments are applied to low-volume farm-to-market routes
that were originally constructed as bituminous surface treatment (BST) pavements.
Because of the relatively thin nature of these pavements and the general uncertainty of
the condition of the pavements prior to treatment application, it is believed that they
would not be a good representation of the preservation philosophy. And, while the DOT
does use chip seals and other preservation treatments (thin HMA overlay,
microsurfacing) for HMA roads, there appear to be too few sections available with
sufficient time-series condition/performance data (2 to 3 years is the most available) to
perform a network-level or project-level analysis to support the development of the
OPTime approach. Moreover, they have not modeled the performance of preservation
treatments.
Data for the development of the Properties Modifications approach also appears to be
inadequate. Although the DOT has done evaluations of the MEPDG, they are developing
their own mechanistic-empirical design method due to a variety of issues with the
MEPDG (e.g., inaccurate pavement response models, inadequate/incorrect transfer
functions or pavement performance models to capture Texas pavement design
technology, lack of calibration to local environmental conditions in Texas). MEPDG
design input information is fairly incomplete because of this redirected focus. Hence, a
Pavement ME Design analysis using Texas data would likely involve the use of mostly
Level 3 data inputs. For the development of the Properties Modifications approach, there
may be data available regarding the impact of treatment application on the materials
properties of the existing HMA surface, but expert opinion would likely be needed to
characterize other effects of the treatment.
Lastly, the DOT reports non-compatibility between its condition/performance indicators
and those parameters used in the MEPDG.
While assembling this section of the report, information concerning a recently initiated
preventive maintenance study in Michigan was considered (Ram and Peshkin 2013). The study
involves the performance evaluation of 10 different preventive maintenance treatments (eight
flexible pavement treatments, two rigid pavement treatments), based on approximately 2,000
projects constructed since the mid-1990’s. A brief summary of the potential usefulness of the
data from this Michigan DOT study is provided below, along with a summary of that agency’s
experience and status with MEPDG implementation.
I-20
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
•
December 2014
Michigan—The Michigan DOT has an extensive pavement preservation program with
many years of experience. Much of its preservation maintenance is applied through a
Capital Preventive Maintenance (CPM) program aimed at protecting the pavement
structure, slowing the rate of pavement deterioration, and correcting pavement surface
deficiencies through the use of surface treatments. The Michigan preventive maintenance
study includes the following types of flexible pavement treatments and corresponding
number of pavement sections that will be evaluated for performance:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Single (233) and double chip seals (87).
Crack seal/treatment (1,109).
Thin (263) and ultrathin HMA overlays (72).
Mill and thin HMA overlay (743).
Double microsurfacing (541).
Paver-placed surface seal (38).
All of the treatments in the study were placed as part of the CPM program on Michigan
trunkline roads, with most of those roads being low- to moderate-traffic volume arterial
and collector routes. Biennially collected condition/performance data exist going back to
1992. These data consist of detailed distress data, IRI data, and distress index (DI) data.
None of the sections appear to include untreated control sections for direct comparison of
performance. However, the study will evaluate the performance of untreated pavement
using pre-treatment condition/performance data. A majority of the pavements that
received the treatments consisted of HMA overlays of asphalt or concrete pavement. The
rest included original conventional or full-depth HMA pavements. Pavement crosssection and history information for all sections is available, but would require on-site
collection from the DOT’s hardcopy and microfiche archives.
The Michigan DOT was one of four states that served as a case study to demonstrate the
use of the OPTime optimal timing program as part of NCHRP 14-14. The data used in
that demonstration likely represent a portion of the projects that will be evaluated in the
new preventive maintenance study. It is believed that data from the preventive
maintenance study could be used in a network-level OPTime analysis, but that historical
data would have to be obtained from the DOT archives to identify sections with similar
cross-sectional designs.
A cursory review of the Department’s MEPDG activities indicates that they have been
transitioning to the use of the MEPDG since 2004. They have performed sensitivity
testing and verification studies, as well as local calibrations of the performance models.
Although some recommendations regarding design input selections have been put forth in
study reports, no formal set of design input guidelines has been developed that would aid
in performing Pavement ME Design analysis runs. And, while the DOT has formal
detailed guidelines for when preservation treatments should be applied and when
rehabilitation is needed, there appears to be a lack of data available regarding the impact
of treatment application on HMA surface layer materials properties and the
moisture/thermal profiles of the existing pavement.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
I-21
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
Appropriateness of Data to Support Proposed Approaches
The information obtained from the states regarding the availability and reliability of data was
evaluated by the research team. For each of the key data elements, a score of 1 through 5 was
assigned, based on criteria established specifically for each element. A rating score of 1 was
used to denote a lack of data to support the development of the proposed approach, while a score
of 5 was used to denote good overall availability of useful data.
Tables I-5 and I-6 summarize the results of the assessment as they apply to the development of
the OPTime and Properties Modification approaches, respectively. The tables list the data
elements included in the evaluation, the rating criteria used, and the scores assigned to each of
the five surveyed agencies, as well as Michigan. The total possible rating score for the OPTime
approach is 50 (10 data elements at 5 maximum points each), while the total possible rating score
for Properties Modifications approach is 60 (12 data elements at 5 maximum points each).
Table I-5. Assessment of data availability for development of the OPTime approach.
State Agency
Component
Data Element
Rating Criteria
MO
NC
TX
ID
Baseline/Untreated
and PreservationTreated Designs
1=ID not possible
3=ID fairly probable
5=ID highly probable
4
4
4
4
3
3
Cond./Perf.
Indicators Available
for Use
1=No MEPDG-related indicators
3=2 MEPDG-related indicators
5=4+ MEPDG-related indicators
3
4
5
4
4
3
Number of Sections
with Reliable
Location, History,
Cross-Section, &
Performance Data
1=N-L analysis (0), P-L analysis (0)
3=N-L analysis (5-10), P-L analysis (3-4)
5=N-L analysis (15+), P-L analysis (5+)
4 (N-L)
or
3 (P-L)
5 (N-L)
or
1 (P-L)
5 (N-L)
or
4 (P-L)
2 (N-L)
or
1 (P-L)
3 (N-L)
or
1 (P-L)
1 (N-L)
or
1 (P-L)
Number of Years of
Reliable Time-Series
Performance Data
1=Less than 3
3=3 to 5
5=Greater than 5
3
5
5
5
5
1
Preservation
Treatment Timing
Data
1=Expert opinion
3=Policy guidelines
5=Actual data (with <6-month gap between
pre- and post-treatment measurements)
3
3
3
3
3
3
Pvt./Treatment
Failure Threshold
Data (i.e., rehab
trigger)
1=Expert opinion
3=Policy guidelines
5=Actual data (with <6-month gap between
pre- and post-treatment measurements)
3
3
3
3
3
3
Treatment
Application Costs
1=Expert opinion
3=Established agency estimates
5=Actual data
5
5
5
4
5
5
Design Life &
Reliability Levels
1=Not established
3=Established for other design method
5=Established for MEPDG design method
5
3
3
5
4
3
MEPDG Design
Inputs (Materials,
Traffic, Climate)
1=Not established (Level 3 default inputs)
3=Partly established at Levels 1 and/or 2
5=Largely established at Levels 1 and/or 2
3
2
2
3
3
2
Local Calibration of
Rutting, Transverse
Cracking, Fatigue
Cracking, and IRI
Models
1=No models formally calibrated
3=2 models formally calibrated
5=All models formally calibrated
1
1
1
3
1
1
TOTAL RATING SCORE
34
35
N-L analysis: Network-level analysis involving pavement management sections.
P-L analysis: Project-level analysis involving special test sections and untreated control sections.
36
36
34
25
OPTime
Analysis
Pavement
ME Design
Analysis
I-22
IN
MI
MN
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Table I-6. Assessment of data availability for development of the Properties Modifications
approach.
State Agency
Component
Pre-Analysis
Pavement ME
Design
Analysis
Data Element
Rating Criteria
MN
MO
NC
TX
ID Baseline/Untreated and
Preservation-Treated
Designs
1=ID not possible
3=ID fairly probable
5=ID highly probable
4
4
4
4
3
3
Cond./Perf. Indicators
Available for Use
1=None MEPDG-related
3=2 MEPDG-related indicators
5=4+ MEPDG-related indicators
3
4
5
4
4
3
Preservation Treatment
Timing Data
1=Expert opinion
3=Policy guidelines
5=Actual data (with <6-month gap between preand post-treatment measurements)
3
3
3
3
3
3
Pvt./Treatment Failure
Threshold Data (i.e., rehab
trigger)
1=Expert opinion
3=Policy guidelines
5=Actual data (with <6-month gap between preand post-treatment measurements)
3
3
3
3
3
3
Reliable Data on Treatment 1=Not available
Material Properties
3=Some data available
5=Substantial data available
1
2
2
1
1
1
Reliable Data on Treatment 1=Not available
Application Thickness
3=Some data available or established agency
estimates
5=Substantial data available
4
4
5
4
3
2
Reliable Data on Treatment 1=Not available
Impact on HMA Surface
3=Some data available
Layer Material Properties
5=Substantial data available
2
1
1
1
1
2
Reliable Data on Treatment 1=Not available
Impact on
3=Some data available
Moisture/Thermal Profile
5=Substantial data available
of Existing Pavement
2
1
3
1
1
1
MEPDG Design Inputs
(Materials, Traffic,
Climate)
1=Not established (Level 3 default inputs)
3=Partly established at Levels 1 and/or 2
5=Largely established at Levels 1 and/or 2
3
2
2
3
3
2
Local Calibration of
Rutting, Transverse
Cracking, Fatigue
Cracking, and IRI Models
1=No models formally calibrated
3=2 models formally calibrated
5=All models formally calibrated
1
1
1
3
1
1
Immediate Adjustment of
Post-Treatment
Condition/Performance
1=Not available
3=Some data available (with <6-month gap
between pre- and post-treatment measurements)
5=Substantial data available (with <6-month gap
between pre- and post-treatment measurements)
2
2
2
2
1
2
Reflection Cracking Model
“d” Calibration Coefficient
1=Not evaluated/calibrated
3=Evaluated/calibrated, but results somewhat
questionable
5=Evaluated/calibrated, with reliable results
1
1
1
1
1
1
29
28
32
30
25
24
TOTAL RATING SCORE
IN
MI
The agency with the highest rating score for both approaches is Minnesota, with scores of 36 for
the OPTime approach and 32 for the Materials/Structure Properties Modifications approach.
Missouri also has a score of 36 for the OPTime approach, while Michigan’s score is one less at
35. Missouri’s and Indiana’s scores for the Properties Modifications approach are slightly less
than Minnesota’s score of 36.
These scores represent a somewhat subjective assessment of the relative abilities of the agencies
to support a given approach. However, they do not address the likelihood that Minnesota or the
other top-rated states have the data to successfully develop one or both approaches. It is the
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
I-23
December 2014
Final Report Appendices
research team’s belief that the development of both approaches using state agency data is not
fully feasible at this time, both from a preservation performance standpoint and a Pavement ME
Design analysis standpoint. With respect to the former, while some states have several years of
network-level data available for preservation treatments there are issues with the data that would
complicate the data collection process and greatly diminish the reliability of the analysis results.
Such issues include the data not being truly representative of the preservation philosophy;
inaccurate or hard-to-access location, cross-section, and history information; limitations with
respect to condition/performance indicators used for pavement management; and
incompatibilities between the pavement management condition/performance indicators and the
MEPDG performance parameters.
While there are certainly states with network-level data to work with, corresponding to formal
implementation of a preservation program in recent years or to the extension of the preservation
program to higher type facilities (interstates and other NHS routes) in recent years, the data in
these cases generally involve only a few pavement sections or consist of limited time-series
condition/performance data (maximum of 3 to 4 years and/or 2 to 3 data points). These data
would likely not provide any meaningful results concerning the impacts of preservation, and thus
would limit the effectiveness of approach development.
Several states have sections with preservation treatments and corresponding untreated control
sections that could be used in a project-level analysis. However, some of the same issues as
above would likely be encountered during the data collection and analysis process, thereby
limiting the effectiveness of approach development.
With respect to Pavement ME Design analysis, some states are farther along in the
implementation and use of the MEPDG than others, and one state is pursuing its own M-E
design methodology. Design input information and guidelines have been developed in two
states, along with design performance criteria. While some of the input recommendations are
based on Level 1 or 2 data, many represent Level 3 defaults. Also, only one of these states uses
calibrated performance models.
Actual data on the impacts of preservation treatments on HMA surface layer material properties
and the moisture and thermal profile of the existing pavement is limited. Only two of the toprated states have looked at these issues and the extent and nature of the data are not known.
Expert opinion would likely be needed to model these impacts, as well as to establish the
immediate adjustment of post-treatment condition/performance and the MEPDG reflection
cracking model “d” calibration coefficient.
References
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2010. “Local Calibration of the MEPDG Using
Pavement Management Systems.” Volume I. Report No. FHWA-HIF-11-026. FHWA,
Washington, DC. Online at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/pub_details.cfm?id=722.
Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT). 2011. Indiana Design Manual. Part III,
Chapter 52, “MEPDG Pavement and Underdrain Design Elements.” INDOT, Indianapolis, IN.
Ong, G.P., T. Nantung, and K.C. Sinha. 2010. Indiana Pavement Preservation Program.
Report No. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2010/14. Indiana Department of Transportation, West Lafayette,
IN.
I-24
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Final Report Appendices
December 2014
Ram, P. and D. Peshkin. 2013. Cost Effectiveness of the MDOT Preventive Maintenance
Program. Report No. RC-1579. Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI. Online
at http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/168999.aspx.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
I-25