The objective of this study was to propose an approach to integrate AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software into pavement preservation strategies of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation. The use of Pavement ME Design software could assist in the prioritization of mitigation alternatives; this procedure would optimize resources in Rhode Island. Four representative pavement sections on state highways in Rhode Island were selected and then analyzed with the Pavement ME Design software. Weigh-in-motion traffic data also were collected from nine stations in Rhode Island to establish representative state traffic patterns. This information was used as input to Pavement ME Design, and the predicted performance measures (i.e., international roughness index, rutting, longitudinal cracking) were then used to determine when the typical Rhode Island pavement mitigation alternatives [e.g., crack seals; level and overlay; mill and overlay with and without friction course; paver placed elastomeric surface treatment; rubberized chip seals; reconstruction and reclamation; and stress-absorbing membrane interlayer (SAMI)] were triggered. In addition, a cost-based approach and an incremental benefit–cost alternative prioritization method were analyzed to determine the most cost-effective alternatives and the most beneficial alternatives, respectively. On the basis of the analysis, the Pavement ME Design software was found to have potential for use in the enhancement of pavement preservation strategies. Crack seals, rubberized chip seals, and SAMI were found to be the most cost-effective and the most beneficial of all alternatives assessed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
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. www.trb.org/mepdg/guide.html.
2.
Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide. Interim Edition: A Manual of Practice.AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2008.
3.
PierceL. M., and McGovernG.NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 457: Implementation of the AASHTO Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide and Software.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2014.
4.
MeagherW., DanielsJ. S., JacobsJ., and LinderE.Method for Evaluating Implications of Climate Change for Design and Performance of Flexible Pavements. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2305, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 111–120.
5.
GravesR. C., and MahboubK. C.Streamlining Use of Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2305, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 170–176.
6.
RobbinsM. M., and TimmD. H.Evaluation of Dynamic Modulus Predictive Equations for Southeastern United States Asphalt Mixtures. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2210, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 122–129.
7.
SinghD., ZamanM., and CommuriS.Evaluation of Predictive Models for Estimating Dynamic Modulus of Hot-Mix Asphalt in Oklahoma. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2210, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 57–72.
8.
RobertsL., RomeroP., VanFrankK., and FerrinR.Evaluation of Asphalt Mixture Performance Tester: Utah Experience. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2296, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 69–76.
9.
KweonY., and CottrellB. H.Jr.Analysis of Weigh-in-Motion Data for Truck Weight Grouping in Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2256, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 169–178.
10.
JadounF. M., and KimY. R.Calibrating Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide for North Carolina. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2305, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 131–140.
11.
MohammadL., ElseifiM., CooperS., and RaghavendraA.Evaluating Effects of Volumetric and Mechanistic Test Variability on Predicted Performance of Asphalt Pavement: Applying the Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2268, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 43–49.
12.
DelgadilloR., WahrC., and AlarconJ. P.Toward Implementation of the Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide in Latin America. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2226, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 142–148.
13.
HaiderS. W., BuchN., ChattiK., and BrownJ.Development of Traffic Inputs for Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide in Michigan. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2256, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 179–190.
14.
LiQ., XiaoD. X., and HallK. D.Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide-Based Pavement Design Catalog for Low-Volume Roads in Arkansas. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2203, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 169–177.
15.
RomanoschiS. A., MominS., BethuS., and BendanaL.Development of Traffic Inputs for New Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide: Case Study. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2256, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 142–150.
PeshkinD., KoehnerT., and ZimmermanK.NCHRP Synthesis 523 of Highway Practice: Optimal Timing of Pavement Preventive Maintenance Treatment Applications.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004.
National Highway Institute. Pavement Management Systems: Participant Workbook.FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, McLean, Va., 1998.
27.
GalehouseL., MoulthropJ. S., and HicksR. G.Principles of Pavement Preservation: Definitions, Benefits, Issues, and Barriers. In Pavement Preservation Compendium II. FHWA-IF-06-049. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006, pp. 67–73.
