Investigating the Relationship of As-Constructed Asphalt Pavement Air Voids to Pavement Performance (2021) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 95-131
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 95... ...
95 Figure 2-52. Example of actual rutting performance curves of LTPP pavement sections.
|
From page 96... ...
96 State Code Section ID Location Analysis Method 1 Subgroup 10-Year Cumulative Traffic (MESALs) 5 118 Poinsett, AR Wet-No Freeze, Low Traffic, Medium Pavement 2.2 22 116 Calcasieu, LA Wet-No Freeze, Low Traffic, Medium Pavement 0.5 51 118 Pittsylvania, VA Wet-No Freeze, Low Traffic, Medium Pavement 1.8 The methodology that was followed to generate PaveME input files was as follows.
|
From page 97... ...
97 The primary focus of the comparison is the trend in performance relative to the change in as-constructed AV. Table 2-33.
|
From page 98... ...
98 Section Subgroup (New Pvmt) Data Source As-constructed Air Voids Distress Rutting @ 4 Years (in)
|
From page 99... ...
99 7. Each score obtained in step 2 was compared to the same results obtained during the development of the model in Analysis Methods 2 and 3.
|
From page 100... ...
100 Daily temperature and precipitation records were available from 1994 to 2016 on MnROAD's website. Traffic data were found in terms of AADTT and ESALs.
|
From page 101... ...
101 Table 2-37. MnROAD's pavement sections input data.
|
From page 102... ...
102 Figures 2-53 and 2-54 show typical performance curves of the mainline ride quality for MnROAD's 1993 and 2008 cycles, respectively. Steeper curves were observed during the 1993 cycle compared to the 2008 cycle.
|
From page 103... ...
103 Figure 2-55. Example of MnROAD's 1993 cycle typical rutting performance.
|
From page 104... ...
104 Table 2-38. Ride quality and rutting at MnROAD.
|
From page 105... ...
105 on the entire dataset; therefore, the majority of the thermal cracking parameters were obtained directly from the plot. Figure 2-57.
|
From page 106... ...
106 Table 2-39. Cracking parameters at MnROAD.
|
From page 107... ...
107 Test sections available for NCHRP 20-50(18) were classified as new construction (from structural experiments)
|
From page 108... ...
108 2009 NCAT Report 12-10: Phase IV NCAT Pavement Test Track Findings NCAT Report 13-02: Physical and Structural Characterization of Sustainable Asphalt Pavement Sections at the NCAT Test Track 2012 NCAT Report 16-04: Phase V (2012-2014) NCAT Test Track Findings Daily temperature and precipitation records were available from years 2000 to 2017.
|
From page 109... ...
109 Figure 2-59. NCAT Test Track original pavement layers.
|
From page 110... ...
110 Table 2-43. Summary of NCAT's pavement sections.
|
From page 111... ...
111 Figure 2-62. Cumulative ESALs on NCAT sections over an adjusted 10-year cycle.
|
From page 112... ...
112 Table 2-44. Summary of NCAT's ride quality and rutting performance.
|
From page 113... ...
113 Table 2-45. NCAT's wheel path cracking performance.
|
From page 114... ...
114 Figure 2-65. MnROAD versus LTPP rutting tendencies CL1-LOW-THIN.
|
From page 115... ...
115 There was no clear wheel path cracking trend observed from LTPP data subgroups. The same case was observed with MnROAD's subgroup datasets as shown in Figure 2-68 for LOW-THIN sections, Figure 269 for HIGH-THK sections, and Figure 2-70 for the HIGH-MED sections.
|
From page 116... ...
116 Figure 2-70. MnROAD wheel path cracking tendencies CL1-HIGH-MED.
|
From page 117... ...
117 Figure 2-72. MnROAD versus LTPP thermal cracking tendencies CL1-HIGH-THK.
|
From page 118... ...
118 Figure 2-74. MnROAD versus LTPP ride tendencies CL1-LOW-THIN.
|
From page 119... ...
119 NCAT's Test Track is located in the climatic region 4 (wet, no freeze) and the NCAT dataset contained sections that met one of the traffic-structural number subgroups established for Analysis Method 1.
|
From page 120... ...
120 Figure 2-79. NCAT rutting tendencies CL4-HIGH-LOW.
|
From page 121... ...
121 Figure 2-81. NCAT versus LTPP wheel path cracking tendencies CL4-HIGH-MED.
|
From page 122... ...
122 Figure 2-83. NCAT versus LTPP ride tendencies CL4-HIGH-MED.
|
From page 123... ...
123 Figure 2-86. NCAT ride tendencies CL4-HIGH-THK (rehabilitation)
|
From page 124... ...
124 When the validation dataset was filtered to avoid extrapolation, a better comparison of the ride quality was observed and the validation data was more in line with the model data (Figure 2-89)
|
From page 125... ...
125 Figure 2-89. Observed versus predicted validation ride data, filtered (new pavements)
|
From page 126... ...
126 Figure 2-90. Observed versus predicted validation ride data (rehabilitated pavements)
|
From page 127... ...
127 Figure 2-92. Observed versus predicted validation rutting, filtered (new pavements)
|
From page 128... ...
128 Table 2-49. Rehabilitated pavements rutting F-test results.
|
From page 129... ...
129 Figure 2-95. Observed versus predicted validation transverse cracking, filtered (new pavements)
|
From page 130... ...
130 Figure 2-96. Observed versus ANN predicted validation ride data.
|
From page 131... ...
131 Figure 2-99. Observed versus ANN predicted validation transverse cracking data.
|
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.