Click for next page ( 468


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 467
APPENDIX D S~OO18NESS LIFE "LAlIONSHIPS AND SENSIlIVIb PLOlS

OCR for page 467
To oN ~ ~ ~ id ~ ~ Go o o c o o o o o o To Go ~ _ ~ or ~ ~ ~ in hi if ~ c ~ ~ id ~ Pa ~ ~ Cal +~-..'..~++1 i55:'5' t.1 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ Cal ~1 ~O -~ ISd punoq~saM , ~ Cal or ox Cal , or ~ To Do cr ~4 r ox ~ ~ ~ ~r CO 0\ 0~ 0\ _ ~4 _ _ _ O O O O O ~ ~ 0\ ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ t ~ ': ~ + ~ ~ ~ IO ~ C~ ~4 SuO!l: - a ll~og ,; ISa aSma~`r o . o~ _ ~ a~ 0 \0 ~ ~ 0 ,. 0 2 ~ ~ ~ =, + ~ :.:: os C, -::--:1 h11 ~ u1: ~ ~ 3.-i .e ~.. O ~.-::: =_ r.-. .s ~ a, U ~_ o 0\ 00 oo C~ ~0 0\ 1 1 1 1 1 ~ crx O ~ ISd punoqlsaM U) ~ _ ~ g _ g ,O1 ~ g U~ ~D ~ 00 0\ ~r ~ ~ er ~ er ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ & ~ ~ ~ t! . +~+ _~n C~ o 4 ~ C-120 ISd punOqlsaM _` a ,= o ~_ cn o = tJ a) ~n :^ Ct - - u, o u u) ` a) c) au - a, ~n o cn u) v, a) o a -

OCR for page 467
APPENDIX D SMOOTHNESS-LIFE RELATIONSHIPS AND SENSITIVITY PLOTS The first step in developing initial smoothness-pavement life relationships for various SHA pavement projects, involved the development of regression models for the available time-series smoothness data. The following three different model types were investigated toward this end: multinTe linear model without an initial . ~ . ~ smootnness-nme ~nteracuon term, multiple linear model with an initial smoothness-time interaction term, and multiple non-linear model. The individual section time-series data were closely scrutinized prior to the development of the regression models in order to determine Me general trend representative of the maioritv of the sections within a project. Any obvious outlier 1 ~ - J J ~ ~ data from the project's overall general trend were excluded from the regression analysis. The decision to exclude such data points was based on the belief that certain anomalies (localized settlements/heaves, maintenance patches, etc.) existed in the sections. Mode! ~ Multiple Linear Model Without Interaction Term A first attempt at finding a good-fit model for future smoothness involved performing multiple linear regressions without an initial smoothness-time interaction term. The form of these regression models is as follows: St = aO + also + a2t where: So = Pavement smoothness at time i. as, al, a2 = Regression coefficients. Si = Initial pavement smoothness. t = Time (age), years since construction or overlay to time of smoothness So. Mode} 2-Multiple Linear Mode} With Interaction Term (D-~) A second set of multiple linear regression models were developed for the projects, with these models including an initial smoothness-time interaction term. The form of these regression models is as follows: D-l

OCR for page 467
St = an + alSi + a2t +a3Sit (D-2) where: st aO, al, a2, a3 si t Pavement smoothness at time i. Regression coefficients. Initial pavement smoothness. Time (age), years since construction or overlay to time of smoothness So. Mode} 3 Multiple Non-T~inear Model A bird set of multiple non-linear regression models were developed for the projects. Observations of all of the time-series roughness data indicated that a multiple nonlinear regression mocle} of exponential form was appropriate for most sections. The following equation represents this mode} form: St = aO + asset + a2ib2 +a3Si ~ where: st aO, al, a2, a3 bl, b2, be, b4 si t Pavement smoothness at time t. Regression coefficients. Exponent coefficients for initial smoothness, time, and Crucial smoothness-time interaction variables. Initial pavement smoothness. Time (age), years since construction or overlay to time of smoothness S'. (D-3) The best-fit mode} for each pavement project was selected from one of these three developed models. Table D-1 summarizes the selected best fit models for all of the projects investigated. The selected best-fit mode} type for each project is identified In the table using a number (l, 2, or 3) corresponding to mode} types one Trough three discussed above. The appropriate coefficients (aO, a,, a2, as, b,, b2, be, and b4) for each best-fit mode! are also listed in table Dot. D-2

OCR for page 467
Table D-~. Selected best-fit models for various pave;~ent projects. | Project ~ Pavement ConsL No. of Age l ~I Model ID | Type ~Year ~ Sections ~ Range'~ aO ~ al ~a2 ~a3 I bl I b2 ~b3 ~b4 1 1 r | Alabama-BPR Roughometer, in/ml . 1-20-1(18) E8 Jefferson ~r St. Clair Co. 1-20-1(18) WB Jefferson ~ St. Claire Co. 1~1(19) NB Mobile Co. 1 65-1(19) SB Mobile Co. I-85-1(15) NB Macon Co. 1~1(15) SB Macon Co. F372(4) EB Tuscaloosa Co. F372(4) WB_uscaloosa Co. F372(5) EB Tuscaloosa Co. F372(5) WB Tuscaloosa Co. F`cU122(5) NB Houston Co. F5cU122(5) SB Houston Co. F&U122(6) NB Houston Co. FtcU122(6) SB Houston Co. I-2~1(14) EB St. Clair 45c Talladego Co. I-20-1(14) WB St. Clair J5c Talladego Co. 1-20-1(19) EB St. Cla~re Co. 1-20-1(19) WB St. Claire Co. 1-59-2(22) NB DeKalb Co. 1 ~ 1-59-2(22) SB DeKalb Co. . . 1-59-2(23) NB DeKalb Co. - 1-59-2(23) SB DeKalb Co. 1-59-2(24) NB DelCalb Co. 1 1-59-2(24) SB DeKalb Co. 1~3(1) NB Jefferson Co. 1~3(1) SB Jefferson Co. I~3(14) NB Jefferson dc Blount Co. 1~3(14) SB Jefferson ~ Blount Co. 1~3(15) NB Blount Co. 1~3(15) SB Blount Co. I~3(16) NB Blount Co. 1~3(16) SB Blount Co. - 1-65-3(17) NB Jefferson Co. 1~3(17) SB Jefferson Co. - I~3(20) NB Cullman Co. I 6!;3(20) SB Cullman Co. I~3(21) NB Cullman Co. 1~3(21) SB Cullman Co. 1~3(22)19B Cullman Co. I~3(22) SB Cullman Co. 1-17 SB Cocon~no Co. (2) I-17 SB Coconino Co. (1) 1~40 EB Cocon~no Co. (2) 1-17 SB Coconino Co. (3) 1-10 WB Mancopa Co. 1-10 EB LaPaz Co. 1-19 SB Pima Co. 1~0 WB M~ave Co. 20.68 22.18 5.71 -6.28 22.68 -4.78 1.98 4.24 9.01 0.00 -9.63 -6.67 8.07 14.47 0.00 0.00 19.09 26.08 11.99 0.03 3.70 22.65 7.31 1.29 51.88 0.00 12.50 -4.78 7.55 -6.31 3.79 3.48 -6.68 14.48 7.81 10.99 10.14 0.09 -1.14 18.69 0.46 0.40 0.92 1.07 0.73 1.06 0.97 0.94 0.89 1.01 1.13 1.09 0.90 0.79 2.44 1.42 0.82 0.75 0.82 0.88 0.98 0.79 0.78 1.19 0.01 0.64 0.86 1.05 0.92 1.06 0.96 0.96 1.04 0.83 0.92 0.90 1.00 2.58 1.01 0.82 Arizona-Mays Meter, inlmi 0.04 0.00 19.38 0.00 0.00 0.52 5.90 0.00 575 0.01 0.00 0.14 6.68 1.12 0.80 ~25 .44 0.25 0.00 2.81 0.00 0.22 2.65 o.oo 1 1 0.95 1 1.11 1 0.10 1 0.09 1 1.03 rO.35-l 1.14 1 0.34 1 0~05 T 1~40 3.22 4.43 5.14 4.21 3.67 3.58 3.69 4.56 3.72 4.09 4.51 4.32 1.60 3.43 0.00 0.00 3.52 3.19 0.00 4.29 3.04 1.80 2.02 3.91 0.00 0.00 ~_ ~_ _ 4.93 1 5.19 1 4.97 1 5.79 1 4.13 i -_ _ 7.80 1 ~_ , 7.66 1 4.43 1 ~ir - ~ 4.56 _ 1 0.OO 1 5.57 1 0.97 1 7.63 ~ 0.OO 1 0~95 1 3 1.42 1 0~03 1 0~79 1 1.34 1 0~97 1 0~68 1 3 4.37 1 ~ _ I -0.28 1 1.00 1 1.02 1 0~45 1 0~94 1

OCR for page 467
Table D-1. Selected best-fif h Pavement Co=L No, of . l~e Year Sechons AC 1976 12 1974 8 _ . _ ^C 19 ~7 ^C/=C 1987 5 ^c/ ~1987 5 ~/ ~1~ 6 _ ^c/ ~19 ~6 ^C ~19 ~9 _ ^c/^c 1982 5 1981 6 ~/^C 19 ~10 _~C 19 ~6 1 _ 1~ < 1{ _ . ^C ~/~ _ _ _ ~/~C _ _ ^C/~ _ _ ~/~ _ ~/{C _ ~/~ _ _ _ _ =/~ _ _ =/~ _ ~/~ ~/~ _ =/~ _ P=iect 1-10 EBC~Co. I I-15 NB ~ a~o. I ~ 1~ EB Navaig Co. 1 1- ~ Co=_o Co. (1) ! I I~ ~ C=o^o Co. (1) I I~ ~ C=o^o Co. (2) 1 ~1-17 SB ~pavi Co. I 1 J I 1- EB Ne~io Co. (3) 1- WB Na~o Co. (3) =~ EB ~pavi . 1-17 N; Yapav' Co. I_ I ~ ~ ~ ~U C~ C^316~Co. 1~ ~ ~_ ~ ~s Co, G^ ~ ~ ~w_ ~ ~p^ Co. 1 G^ 3~ NB H_~ C~ I C^ ~ SB S-_ Co. 1= SB ~ld-u Co. I 1 ~m I 1~SB~& ~Co. 1~ ~ H_1~ Co. I ~- M__ ~ ~^ ~ ~ 1~ NB H~ ~ F~ Co. I~_& Co. 1-1~ ~ n~p Co. 1- ~ N~ ~ I~ ~ ~d Co. ^ .. ^ 1 I I-" EB ~c Co. I 1~4~_c Co. 1~4 EB 1~ Co. 1 ~- 1 1-57 SB ~ ~. T l~WB~Co. T I~ EB ~c~ Co. O I I~ ~ ~c~ Co. 1 l~.linr~ 1~5 SB ~ome~ Co. 1~5 NB ~c~ Co. O 1~5 SB ~c~ Co. (2) 1~5 NB ~c~ Co. (1) 1~5 SB ~c~ Co. (1) ~_~m 1~5 SB U^~t~ Co. (2) 1-39 SB ~le Co. (1) 1-39 ~ ~e Co. (1) -models for various pavement projects tcondnued). Age Range, Year 0-17 0-19 0-12 0~ 0~ 0-6 ~10 0-8 ~8 0-8 0-14 _ 0-10 aO 3.16 7. 1 8. 1 0.31 I 1.94 ~ 13.39 Ioo1 1 1 5~w T 5~ -13.47 0.~ I 9.~2 Geo~1a~ays ~e1e~ ~1 - I al I a2 1 [ 1 o~ 1 o.~ #1 1-t 0.~ 1 3~2 1 F I 0~ 1 0 0.17 1 0. I I 0.02 1 4 33 1.76 I 4; 1 ~ [~ 1 0~89 I 4) L~I= I 1; ~ ~ 1 0) 1 3~ 1982 1 5 1 ~12 I I 1981 + 5 1 0-13 1 [ ~ 1 <8 1 2.29 T 094 I I 1 I 1981 1 5 1 0-13 1 1~ 1 0.95 19; 1 5 1 ~1 -11.17 1 1.36 I I 1 1 lel | 5 1 ~3 I 6. ~i 0 ~1 1 5 1 213 I I 1981 1 5 1 ~13 i) 1 s J o~1 ;1 Ls~L~1 I f 1981 1 5 I~11 19 ~1 5 1 0-11 19; 1 5 1 ~ I I r 1987 1 5 1 ~7 6; 1 ~1 ~R 1 1 1983 1 5 19; 1 5 1 ~7 1 1 1 1987 1 5 1 ~5 1 r I ~ I ~ ~ 1 1 1.98 1 0~ 1 0W 1 0W 1 1~14 I No _ ~ m~d d~. 1.95 1 . , ~-- ~ 1 1.12 1 ~.- ~- -- - - ~. 1 1.08 1 I ~-- ~ ~ ~'- ~ I 2.~ ~ IIII I II I II 1 -~_~d~. No ~ le m~ d~~o-. No ~_~ m^1 d~~o-. No ~ m-~ d~ ~ ~ m~ ~_. No ~_~ m~ d~, ~o1s~= ~ou~omele~ ~1 -~l1~ I 6 1 ~21 1~ 1 6 T31 1 1 1 1 I ~ 1 1971 1 7 1 ~= 1 ~ 11~l1 ~ I = II I I 1969 1 6 1 ~24 19~ T 6 1 0-19 I I ~I I 19~ 1 6 1 ~16 I ~ I 1971 I 10 I ~= 1971 1 10 [ I ~ 1 I I ~ 1 19~ I 6 1 ~20 I =. 1 ,< 5 1 0-15 I ~ 1 1978 1_5 I 0-15 1 ~ J 19~ 1 6 1 0-16 . . . L ~I 19~ I 6 1 ~16 1 ~ 1 .- f , 1 0-16 I ~ 1 19~ 1 6 I ~16 1 ~ 1 1982 1 6 1 0-11 I ~ 1 19" I 6 I ~9 D~ oe 0.05 O. O. 0. 0.~ ~1.47 10.67 O. 0. 0. 0.01 2.~ -5.m 1 67 i 0.87 0.m I O. 1 1.01 1 1. I 1 1 ' 1 1. I I ~49 1 1.= I 0.46 0.98 0.31 I 0.31 [ 1. 0.91 1.17 1 0.91 1- 1 1.e I o.W i 0.26 0.91 1 0.01 1 1 O.m 1 102 I 0.41 0.13 0.13 1.97 4.42 1 5.33 I I 18.= I o.m

OCR for page 467
Table D-1. Selected tees -fit models fc~r v~r ~us pa~rement projects (contirlued!. Proj ect ~n Pavement _ Type 1-39 SB I~Salle Co. (1) CRC l . 1-39 SB LaSalle Co. (2) CRC 1-57 NB Fayette Co. AC/CRC I-57 SB Fa ette Co. AC/CRC , Y I-70 EB Eff~gham Co. AC/JRC 1 70 WB Effingham Co. AC/JRC 1-39 SB LaSalle Co. (2) I-24 EB Caldwell dc Tn~ Co. I-24 WB Caldwell 5c Tn~ Co. I-24 EB Lyon Co. 1-24 WB L on Co. Y 1-64 WB Shelbv Co. 1-71 NB Gallatin Co. 1-71 SB Gallat~n Co. 1-75 SB Grant Co. Mounta~n ParkwaY EB Clark Co. Mountain Parkway WB Clark Co. Western KY Parkwav EB Ohio Co. Western KY Parkway WB Ohio Co. Bluegrass Parkway EB Anderson Co. Bluegrass Parkway WB Anderson Co. 1-64 EB Carter Co. 1-64 WB Carter Co. 1-65 NB Hart Co. 1~65 SB Hart Co. Bluegrass Parkway WB Woodford Co. 1-94 EB Calhoun Co. 1-94 WB Calhoun Co. 1-96 EB lonia Co. 1-96 W8 lonia Co. 1-94 EB Van Buren Co. - 1-94 WB Van Buren Co. US 27 NB Clare Co. US 27 SB Clare Co. US 131 NB Osceola Co. US 131 SB Osceola Co. 1-75 NB Roscom~non Co. (1) 1-75 NB Roscorrunon Co. (2) 1-75 S8 Roscommon Co. (1 5c2) 1-96 EB Ottawa Co. MN 27 EB Dou~las Co. . MN 32 NB Red Lake Co. 1-35 SB Rice Co. MN 60 EB CoKon Wood~ Co. MN 210 EB Crow W'ng Co. ConsL Year 1984 1984 1988 1988 1985 1985 Age Range, year o-s o-s 0-5 0-5 0-8 0-8 aO o.oo 8.25 0.34 0.06 0.05 0.51 al 1.30 0.66 1.80 . 0.87 . 0.97 . 0.95 _ Kentucky-Mays Meter, converted to ndeability index _ ~ PCC 1 1982 1 11 1 _~PCC_ I 19821 11 L AC 1 1982 T 5 -tAC 1 1982_105~ L~ AC/PCC |1984 |8 AC/PCC I1983 t10 AC/PCC 198310 1 AC/PCC 19869 | AC/PCC 19860~ ~9 L AC/KC 1986 ~8 AC/PCC 19868 _ AC/PCC 1986 ~7 AC/PCC 19867 1 AC/PCC ~1986 ~ 5 T AC/PCC 19865 AC/AC 19844 _ AC/AC 19834 AC/AC 19847 AC/AC 19847 AC/AC 19824 JRC 1 1987 1 6 - 1 1 JRC 1 1987 1 6 JRC T 1987 1 12 1 1 IRC 1 1987 1 12 JRC T 1987 1 11 1 1 JRC 1 1987 1 8 AC | 1988 | 13 AC119881 13 ACT 1987 T 6 AC11987 i 6 =ACT 1986 T 14 ACT 1986 T 9 AC__1_ 1986 ~1 ~ 24 AC/PCC T 1988 T 12 AC/PCC T 1988 T 12 0-12 ~12 0-4 0-4 0-10 0-11 0-11 0-8 0-8 0-8 0-8 0-8 ~8 ~8 0-8 0-12 0-12 0-10 0-10 0-10 o.oo 1 2.13 1 o.oo 1 -1.16 1 o.oo 1 0.18 0.08 1 1 0.19 1 o.oo 1 0.10 o.s9 1 o.oo 1 o.oo 1 o.oo 1 o.oo 1 0.19 0.89 1 o.oo 1 o.oo 1 1.08 0. .02 .32 .46 .04 .33 1 1 0.87 1.16 0.64 0.78 0.68 1 0.99 1 0.98 0.69 0.86 0.77 0.63 1 1 .05 .22 Michigan-GM Profilometer, in/ml 0-7 0-7 0-7 0-7 0-7 0-7 0-6 0-6 0-7 0-7 0-8 0-8 0-8 0-6 0-6 0.59 4. 0.18 0.03 -0.08 4.0 0.02 0. 0.07 4.05 4.15 4.29 4.20 0.30 0.27 4.2s -o.Os 4.02 0.14 0.08 2.s4 1 1 1 398 1 0.00 1 . . 1 43.5s 1 gO.001 1 1 0.0 20.26 14~ 23.37 0.45 1 o.oo 1 o.oo 1 o.oo 1 1 2.64 1 o.oo 1 0.97 1 1 1.02 0.0 1 0.31 1 1 1.15 0.01 1 o.oo 1 0.0 2.2 .00 1.17 0.61 1 1 0.64 0.82 2.71 0.30 0.s8 0.87 0.10 1.29 o.oo 4.13 0.00 o.oo o.oo 1.00 o.oo 0.00 o.oo 4.s6 0.00 4.05 4.03 o.oo 4.01 4.04 - 4.08 4.04 o.oo 4.01 4.03 -0.0s 4.48 4.44 0.08 0.22 4.0 -0.0 0.14 1 1.20 4.02 T 1~00 O.Oo 1 1.91 2.88 1 1.24 1 4.02 1 0.97 o ool 2.00 1 o.oo 1 2.41 0.00 1 2.00 0.011 0.80 ~oo1 L100: l 0.01 1 0.96 0~00 1 1.12 1 0.02 1 1.10 oo1 T 1oS Minnesota-KJ Law Profilometer and PaveTech/South Dakota profiler, ir.Jmi AC AC PCC (doweled) PCC (doweled) _ KC (doweled) T 1989 T 6 1 - 1 1 990 1 4 ~1990 T 6 1 1 1 990 1 8 1 L 1991 T 7 l D-5

OCR for page 467
Table D-~. Selected best-fit models for various r?a~rement projects (continued). A e I Project Pavement Const. No. of 8 Model ! ~Type ~ Year ~ Sections I R.; nge, I aO I al I a2 a3 I bl I b2 I b3 I b4 MN 23 EB Kandiyohi Co. 1 AC/AC 1 1989 1 4 1 )-5 1 18.78 1 0.81 1 4.11 South Dakota-California Profilograph, inlmi US 14 EB Beadle Co. (1) US 14 WB Beadle Co. (1) US 14 EB Beadle Co. (2) US 14 WB Beadle Co. (2) US 85 NB Butte ~ Lawrence Co. US 16 EB Pennin~ton Co. U5 16 WB Penn~ngton Co. US 18 EB Fall River Co. (1) US 18 EB Fall River Co. (2) US 18 WB Fall River Co. (2) SD 115 NB Mir~nehoha Co. US 81 NB Brookings J5c Kingsbury Co. 1-5 SB Cowlitz Co. I-90 EB Grant Co. 1-90 WB Grant Co. . 1-90 EB Adams Co. (2) 1~90 WB Adams Co. (2) I-90 EB King Co. (2) | I -90 WB King Co. (2) 1-5 NB Snohomish Co. 1-5 SB Snohorn~sh Co. 1-90 EB King Co. (1) 1-90 WB Kin8 Co. (1) 1~0 EB Adams Co. (1) 1~0 WB Adams Co. (1) 1-82 EB Yakima Co. I-82 WB Yakima Co. US 2 EB Kinz Co. . ~ US 2 WB King Co. US 97 SB Yaki~na Co. W121 EB dc WB Adams Co. Wl 21 EB dc WB Waushara Co. (1 ) W126 NB ~ SB Fond Du Lac Co. (1) Wl 80 NB tc SB Juneau.Co. US 8 EB ~c WB Rusk Co. US 12 EB dc WB St._roix Co. US 12 EB dic WB laclcson ~ Monroe Co. US 12 EB kc WB Dane Co. (1) Wl 13 NB 6c SB Ashland Co. (1) US 18 EB ~c WB Grant Co. US 41 SB Washington Co. W180 NB dc SB Grant Co. US 151 NB dc SB Grant dc Lafayette Co. US 10 EB tc WB Outagam~e Co. (1) PCC 1985 30-8 _ PCC 1985 0-8 . PCC 1985 60-8 _ PCC 1985 0-8 , _ PCC 1986 110-7 _ PCC 1985 100-8 l PCC 1985 100-8 _ PCC 1984 0-9 PCC 1987 50- _ PCC__ 1987 5~ 0-6 _ PCC 1988 0-5 PCC 1990 100-3 PCC 1990 100~3 . AC . AC AC AC AC PCC PCC _ PCC PCC PCC PCC _ AC/AC AC/AC AC/AC AC/AC AC/AC AC/AC AC/AC l AC | AC r AC I AC _ | AC/PCC | AC/PCC l AC/PCC | AC/PCC 1 | AC/PCC AC/PCC 1 | AC/PCC | AC/PCC 1 | AC/PCC L JRC Washington-Cox (PCA) Road Meter, in/ml 1 1 1972 ' 1 1974 1974 1973 _ 1973 975 1975 1976 1976 1979 1979 1973 1973 1974 1974 1975 1975 1979 0-14 0-11 0-11 0-13 0-13 0-10 1 1 0-10 0-12 0-12 0-6 0-6 0-12 0-12 ~14 0-14 0-10 0-10 - Wisconsin-Mays Meter converted to PSI 1 1978 1 9 1 0-16 T 1978~4 1 0-16 l 1978 1 8 1 0-16 1 1980 1 6 1 0-14 1 1 1 1 1 1980 1 7 1 0-13 r 1979 T 8 1 0-14 1 1 1 1 1979 1 9 1 0-14 1 1981 1 14 1 0-12 1 1 1 1 1979 1 5 1 0-14 1979 1 10 1 0-10 1 1 1 1 1979 1 15 1 0-9 1 1981 1 9 1 0-10 1 1 1 1 1980 1 5 1 0-9 1981 1 3 1 0-11 D-6 0.99 0.80 1.77 0.64 0.51 0.00 0.53 0.09 0.00 0.00 1 0.99 1.02 0.96 1.04 1.12 1 1.00 1 1 0.99 1 1.07 1 .00 .00 .7o 1 0.43 1 1 -0.14 1 0.77 0.47 0.35 0.26 1 0.41 1 -0.10 1.05 .04 1 0~04 1 0.16 0.03 1 0.02 1 o.oo 1 0.01 1 o.oo l 0.23 0.03 . ~ ....~- ~ ...' ~ . _- 2 . ~ ... . ~ 2 _ 2 . No reasonable model developed. No reasor~ble model developed. -1.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -28.04 -51.31 -1.49 -16.30 2.41 0.00 55.22 54.84 16.48 -0.76 7.61 0.00 No reasorlable model developed. 1 1.04 | o.n 0.92 0.62 0.76 1.26 1 1.46 1 o.ss 1 1.06 1 0.99 1 0.75 1 1 0.01 1 o.oo 1 0.77 L0.98 l .94 _0.47 1 4.71 1 o.oo 1 o.oo 1 o.oo 1 o.oo 1 10.98 1 8.40 -14.46 3.51 1 12.84 1 o.oo l 5.14 3.35 1 5.63 1 1 1.34 1 o.oo ~....... . ~ ~. .... ~I ~ 1.14 1 0.02 1 0.40 1 0~93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.14 0.07 0.00 2.09 0.00 -1.11 0.00 0.00 0.58 C~ 1 0.10 1 .43 1 1.21 1 .49 0.89 1.37 .4o 1.43 1.24 0.25 1.24 0.51 -1.07 4.39 -0.27 -0.41 1.49 -0.08 -0.75 -0.31 -0.14 -0.21 -0.14 0.56 -2.24 ~: 1.16 0.00 1.11 -800.42 -1.26 4.0 0.00 ,.06 663.99 o.oo -0.24 0.72

OCR for page 467
Table D-~. Selected best-fit models for various pavement Projects (contin-~. Project ID WI 13 NB ~ SB Marathon Co. (2) US 41 NB Dod~e Co. US 10 EB ~ WB Outagarrue Co. (2) Wl 13 NB dr SB Marathon Co. (1) WI 21 EB ~ WB Waushara Co. (2) ~. ~ l US 4S NB Washin~ton Co. - US 10 EB tz WB Pierce Co. US 51 NB Marquette Co. US 61 NB ~ SB Grant Co. 1 1-94 EB St. Croix ~ Dunn Co. US 18 W8 lowa ~c Dane Co. [JS 18 WB Dane Co. US 151 N8 J5r SB Dodge Co. (1) US151 SBlowa Co. I-43 NB Sheboyzan ~ Marutowoc Co. 1-43 SB Sheboy~an tc Marutowoc Co. | 1-43 NB Brown Co. I-43 SB Brown Co. . US 53 NB Dou las Co. ~. US 53 SB Dou las Co. R . ~U~ ~_~ W126 N8 ~ SB Rock J5c Jefferson Co. 1-90 EB Dar~e Co. 1-94 EB St. Cro~x Co. (1) 1-94 WB St. CroEx Co. (1) Wl 26 N8 Fond Du Lac Co. (2) US 8 EB tc W8 Forest Co. US 8 EB tc WB Mar~nette Co. US 10 EB J5c W8 Trernnealeau Co. U5 12 EB 5c W8 Jefferson Co. W1 13 NB dr SB Ta lor Co. Y. W113 NB dc SB Ashland Co. (2) US 14 EB dc W8 Rock Co. US 51 NB J5c SB Vilas Co. US 51 N8 6c SB Iron Co. (1) US 51 NB ~ SB Iron Co. (2) Wl 11 EB tc W8 Walworth Co. US 8 EB ~ WB Barron Co. US 12 EB 15c WB Eau Claire Co. US12E8Sauk Co. Wl 13 NB J5c SB Wood Co. US 14 EB J5c WB lawa tc Dane Co. US 41 NB Waukesha 45c Washin~ton Co. 1-43 N8 Ozaukee Co. 1 43 SB Ozaukee Co. _ US 53 NB ~ SB Douglas dc Washburn Co. _ W1 67 N8 dc SB Walworth dc Waukesha Co. _ US 151 N8 ~ SB Dodge Co. (2) US 151 NB dc SB Calumet `5c Man~towoc Co. 1-94 WB St. CroL~ (2) 0.78 1.50 0.00 3.56 0.02 0.67 0.94 0.36 0.94 0.00 . 1.23 0.44 . -0.19 -0.01 -0.12 0.00 . -0.57 -0.06 . ~= . . Pavement Const. Na of Age b Model TYpe | Year | Se ~ O | Range' I aO E~[~ ~ ~| Type _ JRC 1989 8 0-5 JRC 1979 5 0-15 JRC 1980 5 0-10 JPC w/o Dwls 1984 5 0-10 JPC w/o Dwis 1988~ ~5 ~0 - JPC w/o Dwls 1985 5 0-9 lPC w/o Dwls 1983 13 0-8 JPC w/o Dwls 1984 3 0-10 . JPC w/o Dwls 1982 4 0-11 JPC w/o Dwls ~1984 _ 11 ~0-6 JPC w/o Dwls 1983 6 0-6 JPC w/o Dwls ~1984 ~ ~4~ 00-9 JPC w/o Dwls 1982 3 0-9 JPC w/o Dwls 1980 3 0-13 CRC 1980 23 0-10 CRC 1980 23 0-10 CRC 1981 5 0-9 CRC 1981 4 0-9 CRC 1981 3 0-12 CRC 1981 3 0-10 JK W/ Dwls 1988 3 ~5 . IPC W/ Dwls 1988 10 0-5 JK W/ Dwls 1989 8 ~0-4 IK W/ Dwls 1990 8 0-4 AC/AC 1989 6 0-5 AC/AC 1989 5 0-5 AC/AC 1979 5 0-15 AC/AC 1985 _ 10_~' ~7 AC/AC 1980 8 0-14 AC/AC 1984 10 0-9 _ AC/AC 1982 7 0-9 AC/AC 1988 6 0-5 _ ACiAC 1984 0-7 AC/AC 1982 4 0-7 AC/AC 1989 14 0-5 AC/AC 1987 6 0-7 AC/AC 1981 17 ~0-13 AC/AC 1981 4 0-13 AC/AC 1985 6 0-8 AC/AC 1984 5 0-9 AC/AC 1986 5 0-7 AC/AC 1982 7 0-12 AC/AC 1985 11 0-8 AC/AC 1989 6 0-5 AC/AC 1982 6 0-12 AC/AC 1982 6 0-12 AC/AC 1988 8 0-5 AC/AC 1986 6 0-8 AC/AC 1983 0-10 AC/AC 1984 5 0-10 AC/KC 1988 9 ~0-6 _ No reasor~able model develoDed. 11 _ No reasonable model developed. _ 1.13 1 050 1 0~54 1 -0.36 1 1.24 1 0.67 1 0.44 1 0.85 1 3 _ 0.00 1 1.12 1 -0.50 1 368.37 1 0.92 1 0~58 1-2595.711 188~10 1 3 11 11 No reasor~able model develooed. 11 , , , , ~ ,' , , 11 _ 0.00 1 0.45 1 -0.26 1 0.00 1 1.49 1 1~18 1 2~63 1 0~93 1 3 1.41lO.2012.71l-2.74T1.87T1.52 l-0.02 T1.54T 3 No reasonable model develoDed. 0~06 1 0~28 1 0~22 1 -0~02 1 1.80 1 0.00 1 1.68 1 0.72 1 3 No reasonable model developed. 11 - 11 ] (o reasonable model developed. o.oo i 1 23.54 0.03 1 1 o.oo 1 0.29 1 1 0.01 0.92 1 0.96 1 1.36 1 2.45 1.05 1 1.05 1 6.06 1 4.47 0.85 1 0.98 1 1.42 1 1.54 3.44 -826.8E 0.93 3.24 0.29 0.65 No reasonable model develooed. I , - 1 0.00 1 0.28 1 -0.39 1 0~45 1 1.94 1 1~13 1 4~35 1 1~20 1 3 No reasor~able model develooed. No reasorlable model developed. No reasor~able model developed. ~ _~_e __ 2.27 0.00 1 0.56 1 1 0.57 1 0~91 0.04 1 1.47 l 0.00 1 1.05 1 -0.14 o.o3 0.62 1 1 -0.10 1 l -0.01 1 1.35 ~ 0.71 1 0.21 0.181 0~95 T 0.03 1 0.71 -0.52 1 0.74 1 0.&0 1 0.24 -o.oll 0.96 1 0.00 0.56 T 37 1 1 1 0.82 1 3 0.81 T 3 _ ~_ No reasonable model develooed.11 o~oo 1 0~73 1 0~04 1 ~0~04 1 1~25 1 0~20 ~ 0~37 1 1.89 1 3 ~: 1 '1 No reasonable model developed. _ 2.07 1 0.28 1 -0.12 1 32.69 1 1.45 1 1.06 1 -50.88 1 0.00 1 3 _ 0.00 1 1.17 1 0.02 1 0.00 1 0.89 1 0.OO 1 2~04 1 1~66 1 3 No reasonable model developed. _ 0.12 1 0.64 1 0.34 1 -0.25 1 1.29 1 0.93 1 0~24 1 1~07 1 3 No reasor~able model develooed. 11 . -- ' 11 No reasonable model develooed. 1l _ 11 No reasonable model developed. _ 0.00 1 0.51 1 0.13 1 -0.37 1 1.43 1 1~22 1 -0~22 1 1~23 1 3 No reasonable model develooed. -~1 3 _ ~ _ No reasonable model developed. No reasonable model develooed. _ 028 1 0~67 1 0.OO 1 -0~69 1 1.23 1 0.97 1 -1.58 1 1.05 1 3 No reasonable model develooed. _ - ' 11 No re.sor~able model developed.

OCR for page 467
Table DO Selected best-fit models for various pavement projects (continued). Project ~ PaTe,~eent ~ Cyeenasrt. ~SeNcot~Oofs Range, an ~ al ~ a2 ~ ~ ~ be ~ b4 ~ T 53 1~4 WB Dunn Co. ~AC/PCC ~1986 I a i Ha ~N 0 reasor~ble model de !10 . =11 ped I-94 WB Eau Claire Co. AC/KC 1985 3 0-9 0.00 0.25 0.42 -0.10 1.88 0.00 0.47 0.91 3 1-94 WB Jackson Co. AC/KC 1989 3 0-5 No reasonable model developed. 1-94 WB Dane Co. AC/KC 1989 3 0-5 No reasonable model developed. 1~0 EB Juneau Co. AC/KC 1988 4 0 ~No reasonable model developed. 1-90 WB Juneau Co. AC/KC 1987 4 0-7 No reasonable model developed. D-8

OCR for page 467
50.001 4o oo t o' - . J 30.00 u i~ 20.00 10 on Regressron Equation: y = -0.1868x + 34.994 ~c ::. ;; _ .. ~ _ ~ ~ ~ _:: X _ 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 Initial Alabama BPR (in/mi) 1-20-1(14) WB St. Clair & Talladega Co. | -: 1-20-1 (1 9 ) EB St. C lair Co x 1-20-1(19) WB St. Cla~r Co. 1-59-2(22) NB DeKalb Co. -1-59-2(23) NB DeKalb Co. :~1-59-2(24) SB DeKalb Co. : 1-65-3(1 ) NB Jefferson Co. ..-.1-65-3(1 ) SB Jefferson Co. .:..1-65-3(14) NB Jefferson & Blount Co. :.: 1-65-3(14) SB Jefferson & Blount Co. : 1-65-3(1 5) NB Blount Co. -1-65-3(15) SB Blount Co. 1-65-3(1 6) NB Thou nt C 0. .1-65-3(16) SB Blount Co. '81-65-3(17) NB Jefferson Co. ^ 1-65-3(17) SB Jefferson Co. X 1-65-3(20) NB Cuilman Co. x 1-65-3(20) SB Cullman Co. 1-65-3(21 ) NB Cullman Co. ~ 1-65-3(21 ) SB Cullman Co. - 1-65-3(22) NB Cu llman Co. -1-65-3(22) SB Cullman Co. Figure D-1. Smoothness-life relationship for Alabama PCC pavements (roughness model approach; Trigger=175 in/mi). 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10 00 Regression Equ ation: y s -0.2472x + 43.025 - ',,:s ~, ;. :::. ~ - ~_ k. ~' .: . '.` ~. 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 Initial Alabama BPR (in/mi) ~:~. 1-65-1(19) NB Mobile Co. 1-65-1 (1 9) SB Mobile Co. 1-85-1(15) NB Macon Co. + 1-85-1(15) SB Macon Co. - F372(4) EB Tuscaloosa Co. ~ F372(4) WB Tuscaloosa Co. .:. F372(5) EB Tuscaloosa Co. :::: F372(5) WB Tuscaloosa Co. .:: F&U122(5) NB Houston Co. :.. F&U122(5) SB Houston Co. t: F&U122(6) SB Houston Co. Figure D-2. Smoothness-life relationship for Alabama AC pavements (roughness model approach; Trigger=175 in/mi). D-9

OCR for page 467
E ~_ u, uo 11 4) . - - - c o 91 -1 0 D - ._ - ~ OG 00 Smoother Rougher ~80.00 `:60 00 t R egression E qu atio n: 0 00 y = -0. 6033x - 4E -1 5 I I I I 0. - ~ I I I i .00 -80.00 -60.00 -40.00 -20.00 0 1 30 _ ~40.00 60.00 80.00 1OC -20.00- ~~5 -40.00 t~ -60.00 -~ ;ooootI % Change in Initial Roughness (based on target=55 in/mi) 0O L~MN 210 EB CrOW W ing Co. | I+MN 60 EB Cotton Wood Co. | Figure D-67. Sensitivity of initial roughness for Minnesota PCC pavements (roughness model approach; Trigger=150 in/mi). E ~_ o U. cn al ~i 4, - o ~ -10 D - c 4) ~e 1 00.00 Sm oother Rougher 80.00 60.00 _ Regression Equation: 40.00 - - y~-0.4527x- 1E-14 ~_ 20.00 - t I I ~ ^~ Ir I I v . v v s .00 -80.00 -60.00 -40.00 -20.00 0. 30 ~ 40.00 60.00 80.00 10( -20.00- ~ ~ -40.00 t -60.00 -80.00 t - 1 00.00 % Change in Initial Roughnese (based on target=50 in/mi) r-MN 27 EB Douglas Co. I~MN 32 NB Red Lake Co. | 00 Figure D-68. Sensitivity of initial roughness for Minnesota AC pavements (roughness model approach; Trigger=150 in/mi). D-42

OCR for page 467
E I_ go u, - - o 9; -10 cry 8 - ._ ID ._ E 0) cry al - ~o - o ~ - 1 0 D ID lo 1 00.00 Sm cot he r Rougher 80.00 - _ ~ 60.00 _ Regression Equation: 40.00- y=-0.4484x ~20.00 1 1 1 1 0 ~_ 1 1 11 .00 -80.00 -60.00 -40.00 -20.00 0. )0 -~LQ 40.00 60.00 80.00 10( __ -20.00 - A_ -40.00 - ~ . -60.00 ;oooot % Change in Initial Roughness (based on target=50 in/mi) .00 (+MN 23 EB Kandiyohi Co. | Figure D-69. Sensitivity of initial roughness for Minnesota AC/AC pavements (roughness mode! approach; Trigger=150 in/mi). 1 o" on v. Sm oother Rougher 80.00 - 60.00 40 00 Regression Equation: -go._ 20.00 I I HI i it_ I I I I .00 -80.00 -60.00 -40.00 -20.00 0. 0~, 60.00 80.00 1 OC -20.00 - = -40.00 -60.00 -80.00 - 1 00.00 % Change in Initial Roughness (based on target=7 in/mi) BUS 14 ED Beadle Co. (1) : US 14 WB Beadle Co. (2) 00 BUS 18 WB Fall River Co. (2) Figure D-70. Sensitivity of initial roughness for South Dakota PCC pavements (roughness mode! approach; Trigger=45 in/mi). D-43

OCR for page 467
~ ~ HA An Ale ~ - a' c a of To - a, a, - as ID - - -50 or C11 - J ._ On a' To or - ._ c o' o To ID 4) to - := -5C o' ~5 D - ~D al To or S m o ot he r 40.00 Rougher 30.00 20.00 m"' :.. By_ . . 1 0.00 ~:~ . :x-.-. ~: _ , .00 -40 .00 -30.00 -20.00 Regression Equation: y = -0.4038x - SE-1 5 I U:Uv ~L ~.0o -10.00 ... _ ~ _ -20.00 -30.00 -40.00 rot ^^ . _v .v v 40.00 50 % Change in Initial Roughness (based on target=100 counts/mi) I-90 EB King Co. (2 ) :: I-90 WB King Co. (2) 00 Arc 1-90 EB King Co. (1 ) Figure D-71. Sensitivity of initial roughness for Washington PCC pavements (roughness model approach; Trigger=350 counts/mi). -0.00 Sm oother .~ 40.00 Rougher 30.00 20.00 10 00 .00 -40.00 -30.00 -20.00 -10.00 0. -1 0.00 -20.00 -30.00 -40.00 en ^^ ~rV.VV . . i'. Regression Equation: y ~ -0.1621x 0 ~0 % Change in Initial Roughness (based on target=60 counts/mi) -4E-~I-go EB Adams Co. (2) ;:: I-90 WB Adams Co. (2) ;;; 1-90 EB Grant Co. i-90 WB Grant Co. Figure D-72. Sensitivity of initial roughness for Washington AC pavements (roughness model approach; Trigger=350 counts/mi). D-44

OCR for page 467
-50 o' i_ al ~0.00 S m cot her Rou gher 40.00 ._ of 30 00 o o 20.00 - ~ Regression Equation: y = -0.0683x 1 0.00 - ~. ~-1 ~ , ~' ,, ,.. 1 ~1 1 00 -40.00 -30.00 -20.00 -10.00 0. 30 10.00 20.00 30.00~ 30 -1 0.00 -20.00 -30 .0 0 -40 .00 -~0.00 /0 Change in Initial Roughness (based on target=60 counts/mi) |~I-90 WB Adams Co. (1 ) | Figure D-73. Sensitivity of initial roughness for Washington AC/AC pavements (roughness model approach; Trigger=350 counts/mi). a Or ':n - - o 00 D -2 - ~D - ~_ en TO O' 1 00.00 Rougher Sm Bother ,: 80.00- _y 60.00+ A/ 40.00- ~ ~ _~/: ,.~,.. ' ' 20.00 - ~,5.,..~ 1 ~ a, i, ~^ ~ .00 -15.00 -10.00~0. 0 5.00 10.00 15.00 20 Regression Equ ation: y ~ 3.5245x - 2E-15 -60.00 , ~ -80.00 - 1 00.00 . 1 % Change in Initial Smoothness (based on target=4.0) 00 +1-43 NB Sheboygan & Manitowoc Co. ~1-43 SB Sheboygan & Manitowoc Co. :~ 1-43 NB Brown Co. BUS 53 NB Douglas Co. Figure D-74. Sensitivity of initial serviceability for Wisconsin CRC pavements (roughness model approach; Trigger=2.75). D-45

OCR for page 467
- o ll 4) CD - ai - o o' D -20 - ._ ._ C o ~r ~D - - a~ - o -20 2 - - ~O O' _WI 13 NB & SB Marathon Co. (1 ) ~US 45 N8 Washington Co. ---: -- US 10 EB & WB Pierce Co. ~ OO.OO - ,.4 Rougher `3,0 00 Smoot ,~/' - '' ~ 2000~ ; -15 00 :0 5 00 10.00 15 00 Z0 -/ Regression Equation: ~J~; -60.00 - y ~ 3.4673x - 1 E-14 ~/'/ ~ ;oooo t /0 Change in Initial Smoothness (based on target=4.0) 00 i~US 61 NB & SB Grant Co. +US 18 WB Dan6 Co. ~ "US 151 NB & SB Dodge Co. (1) -US151 SBlowaCo. Figure D-75. Sensitivity of initial serviceability for Wisconsin JPC (w/o dowels) pavements (roughness model approach; Trigger=2.751. -- 1 00.00 / f Rougher / Smoother / 80.00- tt 60.00- / / 40.00- / 20.00- / / V~ I I t Q=i ~I ~I .00 -15.00 -10.00 -~ ~ 0 5.00 10.00 15.00 20 =__a~~ >~70 , /-40.00 . ~ f Regression Equation: / ,/ -60.00 - y, 5.7644x + 1 E-14 /~. -80.00 ~- t 00.00 /O Change in Initial Smoothness (ba~d on target=4.0) |+US 10 EB & WB Outagamie Co. (1) | 00 |~US 10 EB & WB Outagamie Co. (2)1 Figure D-76. Sensitivity of initial serviceability for Wisconsin JRC pavements (roughness model approach; Trigger=2.751. D-46

OCR for page 467
- - - o a) ~ -2C - ._ c ._ as - a~ 4) :t o ~ -2 - - - a, ~ OO.OG Rougher Sm oother 80.00 ~ 60.00 40 00 . .. ;:-" ~ 20.00- ~ 1 1 1 Q~i- 1 1 1 i, ~ O 0 5.00 1 0.00 15.0020 Regression Equation: y = 2.1466x + 3E-15 -60.00 _;oooot vv.vv /0 Change in Initial Smoothness (based on target=4.1) +WI 21 EB & WB Adams Co. MAW I 26 NB & SB Fond Du Lac Co. (1 ) 00 - . W I 80 NB & SB Juneau Co. Figure D-77. Sensitivity of initial serviceability for Wisconsin AC pavements (roughness model approach; Trigger=2.751. 1 00.00 // Rougher Soother 80.00 - // _ /^ ~ 40.00 /~/ / ~ 15~ ~1 .00 -15 Am. 30 5.00 10.00 15.00 20 _~-4000 //=' ~Regression Equation: ^~ ~y ~ 2.5741x - 2E-14 -60.00 -80.00 - 1 00.00 % Change in Initial Smoothness (based on target=4.1) 00 +US 8 EB 8` WB Rusk Co. BUS 12 EB & WB St. Croix Co. ~ BUS 12 EB ~ WB Jackson & Monroe Co. | PUS 12 EB & WB Dane Co. (1 ) ~W I 13 NB & SB Ashland Co. (1 ) . US 18 EB & WB Grant Co. -US 41 SB W ashington Co. WI 80 NB & SB Grant Co. : US 151 NB & SB Grant & Lafayette Co. | Figure D-78. Sensitivity of initial serviceability for Wisconsin AC on rigid base pavements (roughness mode! approach; Trigger=2.751. D-47

OCR for page 467
- - a, - - c) - o 4) ~ -2 - ._ ::n 00.00 R ou 9 h er Sm oothe r 80.00 ~- 60.00 40.00 - ~/ 1 20.00~ 1 .00 _~~0 5.00 10.00 15.00 20 .. :.: -40.00 - Regression Equation: . :~.: y = 2.1 84x + 5E-1 5 .;;. -60.00 _;oooot % Change in Initial Smoothness (based on target=4.1) 00 +WI 26 NB Fond Du Lac Co. (2) ~US 8 EB & WB Forest Co. --US 8 EB & WB Marinette Co. ~US 10 EB & WB Trempealeau Co. ~US 12 EB & WB Jefferson Co. f Wl 13 NB & SB Taylor Co. US 14 EB ~ WB Rock Co. ~US 51 NB & SB Iron Co. (1) :.: US 51 NB & SB Iron Co. (2) ::: US 8 EB & WB Barron Co. ::: US 14 EB & WB lowa Dane Co. .. 1-43 NB Ozaukee Co. ''::.~1-43 SB Ozaukee Co. - :;: US 151 NB & SB Dodge Co. (2) Figure D-79. Sensitivity of initial serviceability for Wisconsin AC on flexible base pavements (roughness model approach; Trigger=2.751. - cc c~ ,~ 11 ~ ~ - 1 0 U ~ 0 D - 1nn ~ , V V .v Rougher80.0 5D:~oother 60.0 40.0 20.0- ~ I I I I 0.0 - r I I I I 0.0 -80.0 -60.0 -40.0 -20.0 ', 0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 1 0 -20.0 -40.0 -6 0 0 - R egression E qu a tion: . y = 1.3016x - 8E-15 -80.0 , f~ -~ vv .v ~ Change in Serviceability (based on target Rl=4.0) ).0 Figure D-SO. Sensitivity of initial serviceability for Kentucky PCC interstate pavements (pavement faiTure approach; Trigger=2.751. D-48

OCR for page 467
- u) - 11 ~ is ~ ~ - . - - c) ~ ~ ~ - 1 0 0 us - 1 (~(~.0 - R vugh e r~ O 0 Sm oo th er 60.0 40.0 20.0 - ~ 1 1 ~1 0;~ - 1 1 1 1 0.0 -80.0 -60.0 -40.0 -20.0 _0 0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 1 0 -20.0 -40.0 Regression Equation: -6 0.0 - - y = 1.19 95x - 7E-16 loo o t ~ V V .V % Change in Serviceability (based on target RI=4.0) _ ).0 Figure D-81. Sensitivity of initial serviceability for Kentucky PCC parkway pavements (pavement failure approach; Trigger=2.751. ~ O - 11 . C; ~ ~ ~ -1 0 an a ID 100.0 Rougher Sm oother 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 1 1 1 1 44_ _. 1 1 1 1 0.0 -80.0 -60.0 -40.0 -20.0 0 0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 1 0 -2 0 .0 -40.0 - ~ Regression Equation: -60.0 - y = 0.3442x + 5E-15 -8 0.0 -100.0 . % Change in Serviceability (based on target RI=4.1) ..0 Figure D-82. Sensitivity of initial serviceability for Kentucky AC interstate pavements (pavement failure approach; Trigger=2.75~. D-49

OCR for page 467
Q) 11 . - - ~ c ~s ~ - ~ o ~ o cc D - rl r~ ~ 1 v ~ .v Rougher Sm oother SO.Q - _ _ _ _ 60.0 - ~ ? 40.0 20.0 r I I I i v.v ~ ~ ~ I r 0.0 -80.0 -60.0 -40.0 -20.0 ~ 0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 1 0 -204 ~ Regression Equation: -60.0 - _ y = 3.7536x + 6E-15 -8 0.0 - _ -100 0 % Change in Serviceability (based on target RI=4.1 ) ).0 Figure D-83. Sensitivity of initial serviceability for Kentucky AC parkway pavements (pavement faiTure approach; Trigger=2.751. ce 00 ,~ 11 ~_ s: b4 ',= ~ -1 0 u ~ O cc - ~ nr~ ~ ~ V w.v Rougher Sm oother n 60.0 40.0 20.0 - ~ 1 1 1 1 0.0~ ~1 1 1 1 0.0 -8 0.0 -6 0.0 -4 0.0 -2 0.0 ~ 0 2 0.0 4 0.0 6 0.0 8 0.0 1 0 -2~.0 -40.0 - Regression Equation: -6 0.0 - y = 1.743 7x - 1 E -1 4 -8 0.0 nn 1 vv.v % Change in Serviceability (based on target RI=4.0) ) .0 Figure D-84. Sensitivity of initial serviceability for Kentucky AC/AC interstate pavements (pavement failure approach; Trigger=2.751. D-50

OCR for page 467
~r, u) 11 e~ ~ -1 0 ~ o u, D - 1 w~.w Rougher Sm oother .sn n 60.0- _ 40.0- ~ r 20.0 - ~ 1 1 1 1 0.0~ ~1 1 1 1 0 .0 -8 0.0 -6 0.0 -4 0.0 -2 0.0 ~ 0 2 0.0 4 0.0 6 0.0 8 0.0 1 0 -J -40.0 - ~ Regression Equation: y = 3.4773x + lE-14 -60.0 - _ 1oo o t % Change in Serviceability (based on target RI=4.1) Figure D-85. Sensitivity of initial serviceability for Kentucky AC/AC parkway pavements (pavement failure approach; Trigger=2.75~. _] 11 c, . - c, _ bC C) - 1 0 z O ~r. - 1 ) .0 ~ ~r~ n ~ V V .v R o u g h e r S m o o th e r sn L- _ _ 60.0 - ~ / 40.0 20.0 , , , , ^^ ~ r ~w .v ~ ~ 0.0 -8 0.0 -6 0.0 -4 0.0 -2 0.0 ~ 0 2 0.0 4 0.0 6 0.0 8 0.0 1 0 -2 04 -4~.0 Regression Equation: y = 3.7411x + 2E-14 -6 0.0 -8 0.0 100.0 . % Change in Serviceability (based on target RI=4.1) ~ .0 Figure D-86. Sensitivity of initial serviceability for Kentucky AC/PCC interstate pavements (pavement faiTure approach; Trigger=2.751. D-51

OCR for page 467
r -199.9 Rou gher ~80.0 Sm 0 other l ~ 1 1 1 1 0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 1 0 Regression Equation: - y = 0.9823x + 6E-16 - u, ;^ rat c' ~ ._ ~ '' -1 0 5; _ 0 c, in - 60.0 40.o 20.0 , , , , r~ r1 I I , , v., 0.o -80.0 -60.0 -40.0 -20.0 ~ -20.0 -40.0 -60.0 -80.0 100.0 % Change in Serviceability (based on target PSI=4.1) .o Figure D-87. Sensitivity of initial serviceability for Wisconsin AC on rigid base pavements (pavement failure approach; Trigger=2.75~. - ~n cat en ~ _ 3 11 C) _ ._ C} ~ ~ C} ~ t-10 ~ _ U 0 c, - 100.0 Rougher Smoother _ 80.0 ~.- 60.0 40.0- ~ 20.0 t , I I tl ~ ~I I I j ~v.v_ ~, , I o.o -80.0 -60.0 -40.0 -20.0 ~ 0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 1 0 -~.0 -40.0 Regression Equation: -60.0 - - y = 1 .9504x - 9E-15 L i80:t I % Change in Serviceability (based on target PSI=4.1) .0 Figure D-88. Sensitivity of initial serviceability for Wisconsin AC on flexible base pavements (pavement failure approach; Trigger=2.751. D-52