Implementation of the AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide and Software (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 12-25
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 12... ...
12 INTRODUCTION A survey was developed to determine the implementation efforts of U.S., Puerto Rico, and Canadian state highway and provincial transportation agencies in relation to the MEPDG and accompanying AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ software. The questionnaire focused on the practices, policies, and procedures that have been successfully used by highway agencies for implementing the MEPDG and AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™.
|
From page 13... ...
13 asphalt overlay and/or a chip seal(s) or other surface treatment(s)
|
From page 14... ...
14 with a chip seal(s) over unbound or bound aggregate layers as the predominant other pavement type (four agencies)
|
From page 15... ...
15 • Mississippi DOT -- Dynatest ELMOD program (http:// www.dynatest.com/software/elmod) for asphalt overlay design of flexible and semi-rigid pavements.
|
From page 16... ...
16 FIGURE 4 Agency pavement design methods. FIGURE 5 Summary of agency MEPDG implementation status.
|
From page 17... ...
17 pavement designs. The other two agencies, Missouri DOT and Oregon DOT, reported that they use empirical design methods in addition to the MEPDG.
|
From page 18... ...
18 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES Agencies indicated that there were several challenges to implementing the MEPDG, including software complexity, availability of needed data, defining input levels, and the need for local calibration. Software Agencies reported that AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design™ software is more complex than previous versions of AASHTO pavement design procedures.
|
From page 19... ...
19 the MEPDG, but that it is expensive and time-consuming to collect. Vehicle classification and average annual daily truck traffic are the only site-specific traffic inputs that agencies are likely to have available for use.
|
From page 20... ...
20 By making these comparisons, the agency is able to determine if local calibration of the performance prediction models is necessary or if the MEPDG performance prediction models are adequate. Because the MEPDG performance prediction models are based on data contained within the LTPP database, agency pavement condition measurements need to be consistent with the Distress Identification Manual (AASHTO 2010)
|
From page 21... ...
21 mance threshold limits and reliability levels was also obtained for the Indiana, Missouri, and Oregon DOTs. The performance threshold limits and reliability levels for these three agencies are included as part of the agency case examples described in chapter five.
|
From page 22... ...
22 Functional Class IRI 1, 2 (in./mi) Transverse Cracking1 (percent slabs)
|
From page 23... ...
23 TABLE 21 INITIAL IRI VALUES -- ARIZONA DOT Pavement Type Initial IRI (in./mi) New and Reconstructed Asphalt 45 Asphalt Overlay of Existing Asphalt Pavement 52 New JPCP 63 Asphalt Rubber Friction Course over JPCP or CRCP 50 Feature MEPDG Arizona Colorado Florida Missouri Cracking C1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.8389 2.0 C2 1.22 1.22 1.22 0.9647 1.22 C4 1.0 0.19 0.6 0.5640 1.0 C5 –1.98 –2.067 –2.05 –0.5946 –1.98 Std.
|
From page 24... ...
24 Feature MEPDG Arizona Colorado Missouri Oregon Cracking C1 Bottom 1.0 1.0 0.07 1.0 0.56 C1 Top 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 1.453 C2 Bottom 1.0 4.5 2.35 1.0 0.225 C2 Top 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.097 C3 Bottom 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 C3 Top 0 0 0 0 0 C4 Top 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 Std.
|
From page 25... ...
25 traffic and materials data, and the large effort required to obtain the needed data. Agencies also indicated that contracting the applicable office (e.g., materials, traffic)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.