Necessary Assessment of Use of State Pavement Management System Data in Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide Calibration Process

Abstract

Calibration and validation of the Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) for state department of transportation (DOT) networks requires detailed information for a variety of pavement inputs. The biggest database resource that most states possess is their pavement management system (PMS). It is understandable for any DOT to maximize the use of this resource to the greatest extent possible. However, before any state uses PMS data in MEPDG calibration, it is important that a careful comparison be made of the equality of the measurements, data, and so forth in the PMS database with national Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) values. The purpose of this paper is to review possible differences between several key data found in a state PMS database and the LTPP database. Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) PMS data are used for this purpose. The specific variables examined in this paper deal with distress type (rutting, cracking, and roughness) and nondestructive deflection testing (NDT) backcalculated moduli to predict in situ pavement layer properties. It was concluded that significant differences did exist between the ADOT PMS values and LTPP measurements. Differences were found between ADOT's NDT measurements and LTPP data in rut measurements, asphalt cracking, international roughness index, and all layer backcalculated moduli. Consequently, ADOT may incur significant expense to calibrate the MEPDG to Arizona conditions. The paper discusses several possible reasons for differences between the PMS data of a specific agency and those in the LTPP database.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ARA, Inc., ERES Consultants Division. Guide for Mechanistic–Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. Final report, NCHRP Project 1–37A. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004. http://www.trb.org/mepdg/guide.htm.

2002 Design Guide: Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures, Draft Final Report. Engineering Research Services Division, Applied Research Associates, Inc., Champaign, Ill., 2002.

ARA, Inc., ERES Consultants Division. Recommended Practice for Local Calibration of the ME Pavement Design Guide. Draft report, NCHRP Project 1–40B. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007.

FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. Long-Term Pavement Performance Program. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/ltpp/. Accessed 2009.

Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program. Publication FHWA-RD-03-031. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, June 2003.

Muthadi

Local Calibration of the MEPDG for Flexible Pavement Design. MS thesis. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, 2007.

Von Quintus

, and Moulthrop

Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide Flexible Pavement Performance Prediction Models for Montana: Volume I Executive Research Summary. Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, Aug. 2007.

, Pierce

L. M.

, and Uhlmeyer

J. S.

Calibration of Flexible Pavement in Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide for Washington State Department of Transportation. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2095, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 73–83.

Aguiar-Moya

J. P.

, Hong

, and Prozzi

J. A.

Use of Texas LTPP Database to Support Validation and Calibration of MEPDG. Presented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2008.

10.

Pavement Management System Database. CD-ROM. Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, 2009.

11.

Delton

, and Mousavi

Pavement Maintenance Services Pavement Performance Operation Manual. Materials Group, Pavement Management Section, Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, June 2000.

12.

Adequacy of Rut Bar Collection. Publication FHWA-RD-01-027. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Jan. 2001.

13.

Cary

C. E.

, and Zapata

C. E.

Evaluating the Utility of Existing PMS State FWD Deflection Data for Use in Implementing the ME-PDG for the Arizona DOT. SPR 606—Development and Implementation of the Mechanistic Empirical (M-E) Pavement Design Guide for Arizona, Inter Team Technical Report, Aug. 2008.

14.

Zaghloul

, Ahmed

, Swan

D. J.

, Jumikis

A. A.

, and, Vitillo

Falling Weight Deflectometer Correlation. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1905, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 90–96.

15.

Van Gurp

Consistency and Reproducibility of Falling Weight Deflectometer. Proc., Road and Airport Pavement Response Monitoring Systems Conference, U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, N.H., Sept. 1991.

16.

Stubstad

R. N.

, Irwin

L. H.

, Lukanen

E. O.

, and Clevenson

M. L.

It's 10 O'Clock: Do You Know Where Your Sensors Are? In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1716, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 10–19.

17.

Rauhut

J. B.

, and Jordhal

P. R.

Variability in Measured Deflections and Backcalculated Moduli for the Strategic Highway Research Program Southern Region. In Transportation Research Record 1377, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1992, pp. 45–56.