Review of AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design Version 3.0

Details

• Creators:
  Lee, Jusang ; Jeon, Jongmyung ; Haddock, John E.
• Corporate Creators:
  Purdue University. Joint Transportation Research Program
• Corporate Contributors:
  Indiana Department of Transportation ; United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration
• Subject/TRT Terms:
  • Mechanistic-empirical pavement design
  • Pavement design
  • Pavement performance
  • Full-depth asphalt pavements
  • Software
  • Evaluation
  • Performance
  • Portland cement
  • Thermal degradation
  • AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
  More +
• Publication/ Report Number:
  FHWA/IN/JTRP-2026/20
• Resource Type:
  Tech Report
• Geographical Coverage:
  United States ; Indiana
• Edition:
  Final Report
• Corporate Publisher:
  Purdue University. Joint Transportation Research Program
• Abstract:
  This study evaluated the differences between AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design (PMED) Version 2.6 and Version 3.0 using representative Indiana pavement structures and traffic conditions. PMED Version 3.0 introduces several major updates, including adoption of the MERRA-2 climate database, revised rigid pavement slab-base interaction models, updated calibration coefficients, and support for Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR)-based asphalt binder grading. Because the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) currently uses PMED Version 2.6 with locally calibrated distress models, evaluation of Version 3.0 was necessary prior to implementation. A total of 114 pavement design files representing full-depth asphalt pavements, asphalt overlay pavements, and Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements, were analyzed using both PMED Version 2.6 and Version 3.0. Level 1 and Level 3 analyses were conducted, and predicted pavement distresses, including International Roughness Index (IRI), rutting, fatigue cracking, thermal cracking, faulting, and transverse cracking, were compared. The results indicated that PMED Version 3.0 generally produces pavement performance predictions consistent with those from Version 2.6 for most distress indicators. The largest differences were observed in thermal cracking predictions, particularly for asphalt overlay pavements, where Version 3.0 generally predicted higher cracking levels than Version 2.6. For PCC pavements, Version 3.0 predicted lower IRI values and moderate differences in faulting and transverse cracking. MSCR-based asphalt binder grading was successfully implemented in Level 3 analyses; however, software errors occurred during Level 1 analyses. Overall, the study demonstrated that PMED Version 3.0 Level 3 analyses can be implemented for pavement design applications in Indiana because the overall pavement performance prediction trends remain generally consistent with those from Version 2.6. However, implementation of Level 1 analyses is recommended after appropriate thermal cracking input properties are developed and validated through the ongoing SPR-4912 study.
• Format:
  PDF
• Funding:
  SPR-4910
• Download URL:
  https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/93203/dot_93203_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 3.09 MB]
• Collection(s):
  US Transportation Collection
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha-512:05f8fd185a26f49d41a2f01a7d85893676747527d390238e972707c1afd402eb03043185f7ec07ba4f3b750451afa68d840ca417f9a293285d72faf38252ed5b