Welcome to ROSA P | Mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide calibration for pavement rehabilitation. - 25790 | US Transportation Collection
Stacks Logo
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.
 
 
Help
Clear All Simple Search
Advanced Search
Mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide calibration for pavement rehabilitation.
  • Published Date:
    2013-01-01
  • Language:
    English
Filetype[PDF-2.47 MB]


Details:
  • Publication/ Report Number:
    SPR 718
  • Resource Type:
  • Geographical Coverage:
  • Edition:
    Final report.
  • NTL Classification:
    NTL-HIGHWAY/ROAD TRANSPORTATION-Pavement Management and Performance
  • Format:
  • Abstract:
    The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is in the process of implementing the recently introduced AASHTO

    Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) for new pavement sections. The majority of pavement work

    conducted by ODOT involves rehabilitation of existing pavements. Hot mix asphalt (HMA) overlays are preferred for both

    flexible and rigid pavements. However, HMA overlays are susceptible to fatigue cracking (alligator and longitudinal

    cracking), rutting, and thermal cracking. This study conducted work to calibrate the design process for rehabilitation of

    existing pavement structures. Forty-four pavement sections throughout Oregon were included. A detailed comparison of

    predictive and measured distresses was made using MEPDG software Darwin M-E (Version 1.1). It was found that Darwin

    M-E predictive distresses did not accurately reflect measured distresses, calling for a local calibration of performance

    prediction models. Darwin M-E over predicted total rutting compared to the measured total rutting and most of the rutting

    predicted by Darwin M-E occurs in the subgrade. For alligator (bottom-up) and thermal cracking, Darwin M-E

    underestimated the amount of cracking considerably as compared to in-field measurements. A high amount of variability

    between predicted and measured values was observed for longitudinal (top-down) cracking. The performance (punch-out)

    model was also assessed for continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) using Darwin M-E's default (nationally

    calibrated) coefficients.

    Four distress prediction models (rutting, alligator, longitudinal, and thermal cracking) of the HMA overlays were calibrated

    for Oregon conditions. It was found that the locally calibrated models for rutting, alligator, and longitudinal cracking

    provided better predictions with lower bias and standard error than the nationally (default) calibrated models. However,

    there was a high degree of variability between the predicted and measured distresses, especially for longitudinal and

    transverse cracking, even after the calibration. It is believed that there is a significant lack-of-fit modeling error for the

    occurrence of longitudinal cracks. The Darwin M-E calibrated models of rutting and alligator cracking can be implemented,

    however, it is recommended that additional sites be established and included in the future calibration efforts to improve the

    accuracy of the prediction models.

  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Supporting Files:
    No Additional Files
No Related Documents.
You May Also Like:
Submit Feedback >