22108

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/22108 SHARE
Consideration of Preservation in Pavement Design and

Analysis Procedures
DETAILS
68 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-30882-3 | DOI 10.17226/22108
AUTHORS
BUY THIS BOOK Applied Pavement Technology Inc; National Cooperative Highway Research Program;
Transportation Research Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientic reports

10% off the price of print titles
Email or social media notications of new titles related to your interests
Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Consideration of Preservation in Pavement Design and Analysis Procedures
N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I V E H I G H W AY R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M
NCHRP REPORT 810

Consideration of Preservation
in Pavement Design and
Analysis Procedures
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.

Urbana, IL
Subscriber Categories
Maintenance and Preservation Pavements
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

WASHINGTON, D.C.
2015
www.TRB.org

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRPREPORT 810

RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective Project 01-48
approach to the solution of many problems facing highway ISSN 0077-5614
administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local ISBN 978-0-309-30882-3
interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually Library of Congress Control Number 2015943853
or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the 2015 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly
complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These
problems are best studied through a coordinated program of COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
cooperative research.
Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials published or copyrighted material used herein.
initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the
FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product,
Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for
Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of
any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission
Transportation.
from CRP.
The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was
requested by the Association to administer the research program
because of the Boards recognized objectivity and understanding of
NOTICE
modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this
purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of
authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal,
The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this
state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance.
relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to
procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved
objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists
by the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
directly to those who are in a position to use them. researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors.
by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research
and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not
needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers names appear herein solely
because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these
needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are
selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and
surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National
Research Council and the Transportation Research Board.
The needs for highway research are many, and the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant
contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of
mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is
intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other
highway research programs.
Published reports of the
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from:
Transportation Research Board

Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
and can be ordered through the Internet at:

http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore
Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress,

signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the
nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their
peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of
the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising
the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to
engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was

established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise
the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for
distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to
the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public
policy decisions. The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize
outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in
matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at
www.national-academies.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 810

Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Christopher Hedges, Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Amir N. Hanna, Senior Program Officer
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Doug English, Editor
NCHRP PROJECT 01-48 PANEL

Field of DesignArea of Pavements
Magdy Y. Mikhail, Texas DOT, Austin, TX (Chair)
Michael E. Ayers, Global Pavement Consultants, Inc. (formerly with American Concrete Pavement Association),
Fithian, IL
Sejal B. Barot, Maryland State Highway Administration, Hanover, MD
Bill Barstis, Mississippi DOT, Jackson, MS
Imad Basheer, California DOT, Sacramento, CA
Gary E. Elkins, AMEC Foster Wheeler, Reno, NV
Kent R. Hansen, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, MD
Leslie A. McCarthy, Villanova University, Villanova, PA
Roger C. Olson, Minnesota DOT, Maplewood, MN
Janice Poplin Williams, Louisiana DOTD, Baton Rouge, LA
Nadarajah Siva Sivaneswaran, FHWA Liaison
James W. Bryant, Jr., TRB Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research described herein was performed under NCHRP Project 1-48 by Applied Pavement Tech-
nology, Inc. (APTech). The research team included Mr. David Peshkin, who served as the principal inves-
tigator, Mr. Kelly L. Smith, and Dr. Linda M. Pierce, all from APTech. Dr. Gary Hicks, with the California
Pavement Preservation Center and the University of California, Chico, and Dr. Kevin Hall, with the
University of Arkansas, also contributed to the study.
APTech gratefully acknowledges the many individuals from state departments of transportation and
industry organizations who participated in the interviews and provided information and feedback regarding
the availability of data.

FOREWORD
By Amir N. Hanna
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
This report presents information on the effects of preservation on pavement performance

and service life and describes three different approaches for considering these effects in
pavement design and analysis procedures. These approaches could serve as a basis for devel-
oping procedures for incorporating preservation in the AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical
Pavement Design Guide: A Manual of Practice (MEPDG) and the AASHTOWare Pavement
ME Design software. The material contained in the report will be of immediate interest to
state pavement and maintenance engineers and others involved in the different aspects of
pavement design and preservation.
Pavement preservation provides a means for maintaining and improving the functional
condition of an existing highway system and slowing deterioration. Although pavement
preservation is not expected to substantially increase structural capacity, it generally leads
to improved pavement performance and longer service life and, therefore, should be con-
sidered in the pavement design process.
The AASHTO MEPDG and the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software provide
methodologies for the analysis and performance prediction of different types of flexible
and rigid pavements. However, these methodologies and related performance prediction
models focus on new design and structural rehabilitation and do not explicitly consider the
contributions of pavement preservation treatments to the overall pavement performance.
Thus research was needed to identify approaches for considering the effects of preservation
on pavement performance and to develop procedures that facilitate consideration of pave-
ment preservation treatments in the MEPDG analysis process. Such procedures will ensure
that the contributions of preservation to performance and service life are appropriately
considered in the analysis and design process.
Under NCHRP Project 1-48, Incorporating Pavement Preservation into the MEPDG,
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc., initially worked with the objective of developing pro-
cedures for incorporating pavement preservation treatments into the MEPDG analysis pro-
cess. However, as research progressed and available data associated with the performance of
preservation-treated pavements were examined, it became evident that sufficient data were
not available to support the development of performance-prediction models that account
for these effects and would be appropriate for incorporation into the MEPDG analysis pro-
cess. The research then focused on identifying and describing approaches that would serve
as a basis for developing such models and illustrating how they would be incorporated in
the MEPDG design and analysis procedures.
To accomplish this revised objective, the researchers reviewed available information
on pavement preservation and pavement design (primarily as related to the MEPDG) and

interviewed representatives of selected state highway agency (SHA) and pavement industry
groups to assess pavement preservation and pavement design practices and the availability of
data to support the development of approaches to account for the effects of pavement pres-
ervation in pavement design and analysis procedures. Based on this work, three approaches
that would allow the consideration of preservation in the MEPDG design and analysis pro-
cedures were identified. One of these approaches accounts for all aspects of structural and
functional performance associated with the application of preservation treatments. Another
approach builds off of the calibration/validation process outlined in the AASHTO Local
Calibration Guide by collecting extensive time-series performance data from a substantive
set of preservation-treated test sections to support the development of calibrated models. A
third approach considers the immediate and long-term changes in materials and structure
properties resulting from treatment application, although it involves a high level of com-
plexity to accurately define these changes. These approaches are described in detail, and
examples that illustrate the step-by-step process for their incorporation into the MEPDG
are presented.
Appendices A through I contained in the research agencys final report provide elabora-
tions and detail on several aspects of the research; they are not published herein but are
available by searching for NCHRP Report 810 on the TRB website www.trb.org.

CONTENTS
1 Chapter 1 Introduction
1 Background and Problem Statement
2 Research Objective
3 Research Scope and Approach
3 Organization of Report
4 Chapter 2 State of the Practice
4 Literature Review
4 SHA and Industry Group Interviews
10 Chapter 3Assessment of Consideration of Preservation
inMEPDG Models
10 LTPP Test Sections
10 MEPDG Consideration of Preservation
11 MEPDG Design Approach
12 Evaluation of Data Availability
16 Chapter 4Developing Response Models for Considering the
Effects of Preservation in the MEPDG Procedures
16 Process Description
17 Feasibility Assessment
17 Example of Implementation Process
21 Chapter 5Calibrating MEPDG Models to Account
for Preservation
31 Example of Implementation Process
36 Chapter 6Using Modified Material and Pavement Structural
Properties in MEPDG Models to Account
for Preservation
41 Examples of Implementation Process
55 Chapter 7 Summary and Recommendations for Research
55 Summary
56 Recommendations for Future Research
57 References
60 Appendices A Through I
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Background and Problem Statement The Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide: A

Manual of Practice (MEPDG; AASHTO 2008) was introduced
The methodology commonly used to design pavements in 2008. It notes that preservation programs and strategies
in the United States was developed from pavement perfor- are policy decisions which are not considered directly in
mance data collected during the American Association of the distress predictions and that preservation treatments
State Highway Officials (AASHTO) road test conducted in applied to the surface of hot-mix asphalt (HMA) layers early
Ottawa, Illinois, from 1958 to 1960. [The pavement design in their life may have an impact on the performance of flex-
procedure is presented in reports that are alternately referred ible pavements and HMA overlays. It further notes that the
to as the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, the pavement designer needs to consider the impact of these pro-
AASHTO Design Guide, and the Guide. Here the term guide grams in establishing the local calibration coefficients or to
is used generally to refer to the AASHTO pavement design develop agency-specific values. These remarks suggest that
procedure and associated versions of its documentation prior the effects of pavement preservation are not fully considered
to the release of the new Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement in the MEPDG performance prediction models.
Design Guide (MEPDG) developed under NCHRP Project Preventive maintenancethe practice of keeping good
1-37A (ARA 2004; AASHTO 2008).] This methodology uses roads in good conditionis a key component of pavement
empirical performance models that were based on the limited preservation. Preventive maintenance encompasses a variety
range of site conditions at the road test, including the types of treatments whose application could have a positive effect on
of support materials, the types of applied loads, the environ- pavement performance, such as the following (from Transpor-
mental conditions, and the short duration of the data collec- tation Research Circular E-C078 2005):
tion effort. The experiment at the road test was not set up
to observe the long-term effects of maintenance actions, Preventing or Slowing Down Infiltration of Moisture and
although some routine/corrective maintenance was performed Incompressibles. Crack and joint sealant materials, mem-
on the test pavements (e.g., crack sealing and patching). Also, brane seals applied over a pavements entire surface, and cer-
because the original design models were based on the observed tain patches will reduce the amount of water that infiltrates
performance of roads that were exposed to nearly continual the pavement system. Sealing cracks and joints also keeps
loadings over a relatively short time, these models did not incompressibles from entering the pavement structure and
account for the effects of maintenance or environment on impeding the expansion/contraction of the pavement.
pavement performance. Providing Protection Against Aging and Oxidation of Bitu-
The draft design procedure was first published in 1962, and minous Surfaces. The application of a new thin surfac-
several enhancements were introduced in subsequent revi- ing seals a bituminous surface and protects the underlying
sions; all are incorporated in the AASHTO Guide for Design structural layer from some environmental effects. The pro-
of Pavement Structures (AASHTO 1993). In particular, the cess can be repeated several times after the surfacing ages
guide added content on the rehabilitation of pavements with and wears out, as long as the overall pavement remains
and without overlays and encouraged user agencies to build structurally sound and the environmental effects are not
a continuous and accurate performance database to increase too severe.
the overall accuracy and confidence level of performance Restoring Surface Integrity. Preventive maintenance treat-
predictions (AASHTO 1993). ments, such as slurry seals, chip seals, and partial-depth

Preventive
Good Maintenance
Treatments
Applied
Pavement Condition
No Maintenance
Treatment Applied
Initial Performance Period

Poor
Time
Source: Peshkin et al. 2004.
Figure 1. Illustration of the effect of preventive maintenance
treatments on pavement performance.
repairs, can correct non-severe, non-structural deterioration treatment timing, construction quality, environment, traffic
that is limited to the surface of a pavement (e.g., weathering volume, and other factors. Therefore, a substantial amount
and raveling, bleeding, loss of friction, roughness, and some of data is needed to adequately analyze the effect of preserva-
HMA rutting). tion on pavement performance.
Improving Surface Texture. Preventive maintenance treat- The metrics used for monitoring pavement performance
ments, such as chip seals, thin overlays, and diamond grind- may not appropriately reflect the short- or long-term effects
ing, improve the surface characteristics of the pavement by of preservation.
restoring the macrotexture of the pavement surface and
influencing pavement surface friction and noise. The MEPDG performance models were calibrated using
data from in-service pavement sections included in the Long-
These effects contribute to improved overall performance Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program. It is highly likely
(in comparison to the pavement without treatment) and a that these pavements were maintained over their lives, but the
delayed need for rehabilitation (i.e., the pavement with pres- percentage of the sections that included the application of
ervation will reach a rehabilitation threshold much later); preservation treatments, as well as the type and time of applica-
these effects should be reflected in the pavement performance tion, are not known. Most likely, a preservation treatment was
prediction models. Figure 1 illustrates the effect of successive applied to some sections but not to others. Also, it is more likely
application of preventive maintenance treatments on pave- that the MEPDG models incorporate the routine maintenance
ment performance. component of preservation but not necessarily the preventive
While the effects of preservation are easy to illustrate, their maintenance component. Ideally, pavement design and perfor-
benefits are not easily quantified, for the following reasons: mance models should consider the effects of preservation on
performance. A procedure for calibrating the MEPDG models
Preservation has not been widely practiced for a long time, to account for the effects of preservation on pavement perfor-
and there remain many questions about its effect on com- mance and design is needed.
monly used measures of pavement performance.
In general, preservation has not been practiced as part of
Research Objective
a documented program (in contrast with capital projects,
which more easily enter into an agencys formal records), The research was initially intended to develop procedures
making it difficult to distinguish between pavements that for incorporating pavement preservation treatments into the
have and have not received preservation treatments. MEPDG design analysis process that would become part of
In some agencies, the practice of preservation varies among the MEPDG Manual of Practice. However, it was determined
districts and is often influenced by fluctuations in funding in the early stages of the research that sufficient data were not
and nontechnical factors. As a result, sustained effects are available to support the development of such procedures. The
not adequately measurable. research objective was then modified to focus on identify-
The effects of preservation are highly variable and depend on ing and developing processes that would serve as a basis for
the existing pavement condition, treatment type, materials, developing these procedures.

Research Scope and Approach of these approaches. The research then focused on describing
and illustrating possible uses of the approaches.
To accomplish the research objective, the project docu-
mented the effects of preservation on performance by (1) con-
ducting a literature review and telephone interviews with state Organization of Report
highway agency (SHA) personnel and industry representatives This report is presented in seven chapters, including this
and (2) identifying procedures that consider such effects in the introductory chapter. Chapter 2 briefly describes the state of
design and analysis process. the practice with regard to pavement preservation. Chapter 3
The literature review covered recent or ongoing studies describes the MEPDG process, its implementation and use,
dealing with (1) pavement preservation practices for HMA the extent of its consideration of preservation, and the avail-
and Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements (or PCCPs), ability of data to support developing models for incorporation
in terms of treatment usage and performance and the effect on into the MEPDG analysis procedures. Chapter 4 describes an
pavement life and performance trends; (2) MEPDG evaluation approach for developing response models for considering the
and implementation activities (e.g., sensitivity testing, verifica- effects of preservation in the MEPDG procedures. Chapter 5
tion testing, local calibration, and other performance model describes an approach for calibrating MEPDG performance
refinements) and MEPDG use; and (3) pavement design appli- models to account for the effects of pavement preservation.
cations that consider preservation. Chapter 6 describes an approach that considers the changes
Telephone interviews were held with representatives of in material and pavement structural properties caused by
14 SHAs, selected on the basis of experience with pavement preservation and addressing those changes in MEPDG mod-
preservation and the MEPDG and on the possible availability of els to reflect the effects of preservation. Chapter 7 summa-
data on the effects of preservation on pavement performance. rizes the research findings and presents recommendations for
Also, telephone interviews were held with representatives of further research.
five industry organizations. Nine appendices for this report are available on the TRB
To better understand the extent to which the effects of pres- website. Appendix A is a bibliography that describes the doc-
ervation treatments were considered in the MEPDG per- uments that were reviewed. Appendices B and C describe
formance prediction models, the test sections used in the preservation strategies for HMA-surfaced and PCC-surfaced
development and calibration of these models (LTPP and non- pavements, respectively, their use in the MEPDG, and their
LTPP sections) were identified and their maintenance and expected effect on distress. Appendices D and E contain brief
rehabilitation (M&R) history was examined. syntheses on the topics of pavement preservation and the
The results of the literature review and interviews were MEPDG, respectively. Appendices F and G summarize the
used to further evaluate and define three possible approaches responses of SHA and industry group representatives, respec-
for considering the effects of preservation in the MEPDG tively. Appendix H provides a listing of the LTPP test sec-
procedures. These approaches consider developing pave- tions used in developing and calibrating the MEPDG models
ment preservation response models, calibrating the models and identifies those sections whose performance data were
for preservation, or modifying material properties to account influenced by applied preservation treatments. Appendix I
for the effects of preservation. The data required to fully develop examines the available SHA data and their suitability to sup-
these approaches were then identified, and their availability port the development of approaches. These appendices can
within SHAs was evaluated. It was concluded that sufficient be found on the report summary web page by searching for
data were not readily available to support the development NCHRP Report 810 at www.TRB.org.

CHAPTER 2
State of the Practice
This chapter summarizes the state of the practice of pave- and C, respectively. Two syntheses, one on pavement pres-
ment preservation and the MEPDG design analysis process ervation and the other on the MEPDG, are provided in
as gleaned from a literature review and interviews with SHA Appendices D and E, respectively; key aspects are presented
and industry personnel. The summary covers items of rele- in this chapter.
vance to the development of approaches for considering the
effects of preservation in the MEPDG procedures, includ-
ing (1) preservation programs and practices, (2) pavement SHA and Industry Group Interviews
and preservation treatment performance analysis tech- The literature review was supplemented with interviews
niques, and (3) preservation consideration in the MEPDG of SHAs and industry groups. The SHA interviews provided
procedures. information regarding pavement preservation policies and
practices, agency perspectives on the effects of preservation on
pavement performance, current pavement design procedures,
Literature Review
MEPDG implementation status and activities (past, current,
The literature review focused on (1) highway pavement and future), and procedures used to consider preservation in
preservation activities and their effects on pavement perfor- the pavement design/analysis process. The industry group
mance and (2) MEPDG performance prediction models and interviews provided information on the industrys involve-
their refinements and local calibrations. The review was lim- ment with pavement preservation and the MEPDG.
ited to studies undertaken in the previous 5 to 7 years and tar-
geted mostly domestic sources, including NCHRP and TRB,
SHA Interviews
AASHTO, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
National Highway Institute, selected state departments of SHAs active in developing pavement preservation programs
transportation (DOTs), national pavement research programs or evaluating or implementing the MEPDG were identified.
and centers (e.g., Innovative Pavement Research Foundation, These agencies were evaluated with consideration to (1) extent
Airfield Asphalt Pavement Technology Program, National of preservation practice and level of agency experience with
Center for Asphalt Technology [NCAT], and National Con- preservation; (2) extent of involvement in MEPDG evalua-
crete Pavement Technology Center), pavement preservation tion, implementation, and use (particularly as it relates to local
organizations (e.g., Foundation for Pavement Preservation calibration and the incorporation of preservation into the
and National Center for Pavement Preservation [NCPP]), and MEPDG); and (3) likely availability of the data needed to
industry associations (e.g., National Asphalt Pavement Asso- evaluate the effects of preservation on pavement performance.
ciation [NAPA], American Concrete Pavement Association Fourteen agencies (from Arizona, California, Indiana, Kansas,
[ACPA], International Slurry Surfacing Association [ISSA], Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina,
and Asphalt Emulsion Manufacturers Association [AEMA]). Ohio, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington State) were then
A bibliography of the identified documents is provided selected for interviews.
in Appendix A. Summaries of the effects of several HMA and Interview participants were identified through discussions
PCC preservation treatments are provided in Appendices B with SHA staff; they represented the areas of maintenance/

preservation, pavement design, pavement management, or preservation practices, (2) level of involvement with SHAs in
research. The interviews addressed the following topics: evaluating preservation treatment performance and developing
preservation and practices, and (3) familiarity and involvement
Background, nature, and status of the agencys pavement with the MEPDG. The questions and responses are provided in
preservation program. Appendix G; key findings from the interviews are discussed
Scope of the agencys preservation program. in this chapter.
Extent of the agencys tracking of the performance of pres-
ervation treatments.

Pavement Preservation Programs
Agencys current pavement design procedure (if not
andPractices
MEPDG).
Status of the agencys MEPDG implementation effort. This section describes SHA preservation programs and
Agencys desire for enabling the MEPDG analysis proce- practices; specifically, the types of treatments and their rela-
dure to consider the effects of preservation treatments tive levels of use as well as the conditions for their use.
on pavement performance. Cuelho et al. (2006) conducted a survey of 34 SHAs and
Availability of performance data (with and without preser- five Canadian provincial highway agencies (PHAs) to estab-
vation) and other data (design, construction/materials, traf- lish the frequency of using each of 16 preventive mainte-
fic, climate, etc.) that can be used in developing procedures nance treatments for flexible pavements. Participants were
for considering preservation in the MEPDG procedures. asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 how often they use each
treatment (1 being never and 5 being always); the mean
Interview questions and responses are provided in Appen- ratings and corresponding rankings are listed in Table 1. As
dix F; key findings from the interviews are discussed in this noted, the most frequently used treatments were crack seal-
chapter. ing, thin HMA overlay, chip seal, maintenance of drainage
features, and microsurfacing.
A survey of U.S. and Canadian highway agencies con-
Industry Group Interviews
ducted in 2009 (Peshkin et al. 2011a; Peshkin et al. 2011b)
Representatives from five industry groups (ACPA, NAPA, provided updated information on pavement preservation
AEMA, ISSA, and NCPP) were interviewed to determine their programs and practices for all facility types and traffic levels
organizations (1) familiarity and involvement with pavement (low, medium, and high) as defined by the agency.
Table 1. Frequency of use of preventive maintenance treatments for flexible

pavements (Cuelho et al. 2006).
Dont Never Heard Overall

Treatment Count Percent1 Mean St. Dev. Know of It Rank
Crack Seal 43 91.5 3.67 0.808 0 0 1
Fog Seal 43 91.5 1.77 0.718 0 0 11
Cape Seal 44 93.6 1.25 0.508 5 7 15
Chip Seal 44 93.6 3.20 1.286 0 0 3
Ultrathin Friction Coarse 43 91.5 1.92 0.784 2 3 9
Slurry Seal 44 93.6 1.74 0.621 1 0 12
Scrub Seal 43 91.5 1.24 0.435 1 9 16
Thin Overlay (with or without mill) 44 93.6 3.66 0.805 0 0 2
Microsurfacing 44 93.6 2.46 0.926 0 0 5
Hot In-Place Recycling 43 91.5 1.81 0.824 0 0 10
Cold In-Place Recycling 44 93.6 1.98 0.902 0 0 8
PCCP Diamond Grinding 44 93.6 2.38 1.011 2 0 6
PCCP Diamond Grooving 43 91.5 1.54 0.600 4 0 14
PCCP Undersealing 44 93.6 1.69 0.863 4 1 13
PCCP Dowel Retrofit 43 91.5 2.10 1.020 2 0 7
Maint. of Drainage Features 44 93.6 2.63 0.952 1 0 4
Note: 1 Out of 47 responses.

The survey (Peshkin et al. 2011a) provided information treatments are diamond grinding, partial-depth repair, and
about treatment usage by pavement type (asphalt-surfaced full-depth repair.
or concrete-surfaced pavements) and highway setting (urban
versus rural). The most extensively used treatments (67%
Pavement and Preservation
of responding agencies) for asphalt-surfaced pavements,
TreatmentPerformance
considering all traffic ranges and both urban and rural set-
tings, were crack filling, crack sealing, and drainage preser- Treatment performance is a major consideration in account-
vation, and the moderately used treatments (33% to 66% ing for the effects of future scheduled preservation in pavement
of respondents) were thin HMA overlays, with and without design. This section presents findings from SHA studies to
milling. For concrete-surfaced pavements, the most exten- assess treatment performance and its effects on pavement con-
sively used treatments were crack sealing, diamond grinding, dition over time and pavement life. Information is provided on
and full-depth patching, and the moderately used treatments the types of preservation that have been studied, the nature of
were joint resealing, partial-depth patching, dowel-bar retro- the sources for the studies (i.e., experimental or test sections,
fit, and drainage preservation. This survey also indicated that in-service pavement management system [PMS] sections), the
some treatments, such as microsurfacing, chip seals, ultrathin methods used to evaluate performance (i.e., performance of
whitetopping, and dowel-bar retrofit, were less commonly treatment versus treated pavement, performance measures
used on higher-trafficked roads due in part to expected dura- used), and the experiences in developing performance trends
bility issues. Another survey (Peshkin et al. 2011b) indicated or models that could be used in mechanistic-empirical pave-
less use of some treatments, such as slurry seals, microsurfac- ment design procedures.
ing, thin and ultrathin HMA overlays, joint resealing, diamond Cuelho et al. (2006) reported on several preservation perfor-
grinding, and diamond grooving, in more severe climates (e.g., mance studies conducted throughout North America between
deep freeze). 1989 and 2005. They described the applied treatments and
Considerations in selecting preservation treatments were their advantages/disadvantages and reported the expected
safety concerns (76% of respondents), treatment cost (74%), performance lives of each treatment. Although some of the
and durability/expected life of treatment (64%) (Peshkin et al. studies included monitoring of pavement performance (e.g.,
2011a). The primary asphalt-surfaced pavement deficiencies roughness, cracking, rutting, and raveling), performance was
addressed by preservation were light and moderate surface dis- generally reported in terms of treatment service life (i.e., how
tress (e.g., surface cracks, raveling/weathering, and bleeding) long a treatment lasts) or, in a few cases, the pavement life or
and friction loss. For concrete pavements, the primary perfor- the extension in pavement life as a result of the treatment).
mance issues addressed by preservation were smoothness/ride In several pavement performance studies undertaken since
quality, light surface distress, friction loss, and noise. 2005, condition data were collected and analyzed to assess
The interviews revealed that most agencies equate preserva- performance and estimate pavement life extension (a sum-
tion with preventive maintenance, but some agencies classify mary is provided in Appendix D). Many of these studies eval-
preservation as including a broader set of activities, ranging uated in-service pavement sections on which preservation
from preventive maintenance to major rehabilitation and even treatments were applied or included the design, construction,
reconstruction. In some cases, the definition of preservation and performance monitoring of test sections.
is most closely linked to allowable treatments from a funding More recent studies have focused on in-service sections and
perspective rather than a program approach. A few agencies less on experimental sections. Evaluations of in-service sec-
have an official preservation program, and one or more staff tions are ongoing or recently completed in California, Illinois,
are designated as preservation engineers. Michigan, Louisiana, Indiana, and New England. Other recent
The interviews also indicated that preservation treatments in-service pavements are LTPP surface maintenance (Morian
are applied to all types and classes of roads, usually guided et al. 2011), Oklahoma pavement retexturing experiments
by criteria that define the treatments that can be applied to a (Gransberg et al. 2010), Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) flexible
specific pavement type under specific conditions (e.g., traf- and rigid pavement preservation treatment test sections at
fic levels, existing pavement conditions). The use of preserva- the MnROAD test facility (MnDOT 2011), and the NCAT
tion treatments varies among agencies; some only use a few test site with 23 short sections of different flexible pavement
treatments, and others use many different treatments (various preservation treatments (NCAT 2013).
combinations of HMA mix types, HMA overlay thicknesses, The most common methods for assessing treatment per-
milling depths, and recycling options). The most commonly formance are treatment service life, pavement life extension,
used treatments for asphalt-surfaced pavements are crack and performance benefit area.
sealing, chip seals, microsurfacing, and thin HMA overlays. Treatment Service Life: Treatment service life refers to how
For concrete-surfaced pavements, the most commonly used long a treatment serves its function until a subsequent preser-

vation and rehabilitation (P&R) treatment will be needed to (Scenario 1B in Figure 2). Data may also be presented in the
address one or more issues (e.g., raveling, rutting, smoothness, form of (1) descriptive statistics, (2) frequency distribution
and friction) that have reached a specified condition threshold. plots, or (3) cumulative frequency distribution plots.
Treatment service life can be estimated from analysis of Pavement Life Extension: Pavement life extension is expressed
historical P&R events or performance data. When consid- in terms of the number of years of additional pavement life
ering historical P&R event data, the years in which pres- attributed to treatment application. The added life may be
ervation and other treatments were applied are identified, estimated based on structural or functional performance,
and the ages of the various applied treatments are com- as characterized by key surface distresses (e.g., cracking,
puted, statistically analyzed, and presented in the form of rutting, faulting, punchouts, raveling, and spalling), or as
(1) descriptive statistics (e.g., mean, standard deviation) of characterized by key pavement surface characteristics (e.g.,
age at time of subsequent P&R, (2) frequency distribution smoothness, friction, texture, and pavement-tire noise).
plots that show the number of sections as a function of age Because pavement life extension is related to the perfor-
(or traffic) that have failed (i.e., replaced with a P&R treat- mance of the pavement without a preservation treatment,
ment), and (3) cumulative frequency distribution plots (i.e., pre-treatment pavement condition is required for deter-
failure curves or, alternatively, survival curves) that show mining the life extension.
the percentages of sections as a function of age (or cumula- Pavement life extension can be estimated from analysis of
tive traffic) that have failed. historical performance data of a specific treatment. Both pre-
When considering historical performance of a specific treatment and post-treatment time-series (or traffic-series)
treatment, post-treatment time-series (or traffic-series) per- performance data (e.g., individual distresses, smoothness, over-
formance data (e.g., individual distresses, smoothness, overall condition ratings, composite condition indexes, surface
all condition ratings, composite condition indexes, friction, characteristics [e.g., friction, texture], and deflection proper-
texture) are collected and statistically analyzed. Data may ties) are collected in the form of (1) plots of performance
be presented in the form of plots of performance over time over time (or cumulative traffic) that show the time until the
(or cumulative traffic) that show the time until a subse- immediate pre-treatment condition level was reached or is
quent P&R treatment was applied (Scenario 1A in Figure 2) projected to be reached (Scenario 2A in Figure 2), (2) plots of
or the time until a specified condition threshold (consid- performance over time (or cumulative traffic) that show the
ered unacceptable) is reached or is projected to be reached time until the specified condition threshold level was reached
Pavement (2A) Pavement Life

Extension based on
Condition Existing Application of
immediate pre-treatment
Subsequent
Very Pavement Preservation Preservation or
condition level
Good Structure Treatment Rehab Treatment
Immediate Pre-Treatment Condition Level
Unacceptable Condition Threshold Level

(repair/rehab trigger)
(2B) Pavement Life
Extension based on
specified condition
threshold level
Very (1B) Treatment Life based on

Poor specified condition threshold level
(1A) Treatment Life based on subsequent

preservation or rehab treatment Time,
years
Adapted from Peshkin et al. 2011a, Sousa and Way 2009a, and Rajagopal 2010.
Figure 2. Preservation treatment life and pavement life extension.

or is projected to be reached (Scenario 2B in Figure 2), and varied among agencies. Treatment performance has generally
(3) descriptive statistics, frequency distribution plots, or cumu- been evaluated in terms of treatment life (based on experi-
lative distribution plots of pavement life extension. ence, time between applications, or time until surface con-
Performance Benefit Area: The benefit provided by a treat- dition has returned to the pre-treatment level) and not in
ment may be measured by the area under the pavement age terms of effect on pavement life. Performance models have
versus performance curve (based on structural or functional been developed for use in pavement programming; details
performance) contributed by the treatment (i.e., above that are provided in Appendix F.
provided by the untreated pavement). The performance ben-
efit area can only be obtained through an analysis of historical
Preservation and the MEPDG
performance data for both pre-treatment and post-treatment
time-series (or traffic-series) pavement performance data Consideration of preservation in the MEPDG has been
(e.g., individual distresses, smoothness, overall condition noted in only three of the reviewed reports. Banerjee et al.
ratings, composite condition indexes, surface characteristics (2010) used data from 13 LTPP Specific Pavement Studies 3
[e.g., friction, texture], and deflection properties) that are col- (SPS-3) test sections to develop local calibration factors for the
lected for a particular preservation treatment type. The data MEPDG HMA rutting model that account for the combined
are then statistically analyzed and presented in the form of effects of preservation treatment and climate. In the local
(1) plots of performance over time (or cumulative traffic) calibration of the MEPDG HMA performance models, Von
that show the area bounded by the performance curves of the Quintus and Moulthrop (2007) used data from 102 pavement
treated and untreated pavements and a specified condition sections to demonstrate the value of separate fatigue cracking
threshold level (Scenario 3 in Figure 3), and/or (2) descriptive model calibration factors for sections with and without pres-
statistics of the performance benefit areas. ervation treatments. California DOT (Caltrans) developed
The responses indicated that pavement performance is a tool to account for the effects of preservation in pavement
monitored by most of the interviewed states, although some design by (a) resetting distress and smoothness levels when a
states have had problems either in tracking the locations of treatment is scheduled and (b) adjusting pavement structure
preservation treatment projects or reliability of the collected moduli corresponding to scheduled preservation treatments
performance data. Experience in evaluating treatment per- (Ullidtz et al. 2010). Further details of these studies are pro-
formance data or developing treatment performance models vided in Appendix E.
Pavement
Condition Existing Application of
Very Pavement Preservation
Structure Treatment Performance
Good
Benefit Area
Immediate Pre-Treatment Condition Level
Unacceptable Condition Threshold Level

(repair/rehab trigger)
(3) Performance Benefit Area
based on area bounded by treated
and untreated pavement
condition curves and specified
condition threshold level
Very
Poor
Time,
years
Adapted from Peshkin et al. 2004.
Figure 3. Preservation treatment effectiveness as indicated by the performance

benefitarea.

Most of the interviewed SHAs did not consider pavement that year). The programs incremental-recursive function also
preservation in the design procedure. However, Minnesota allows changes to asphalt material properties (e.g., dynamic
noted that preservation treatments probably have been applied modulus) to account for the effect of preservation treatments
to all pavement sections used in the development of perfor- (e.g., a rejuvenator would soften the existing asphalt surface,
mance models for the R-value and Mn/Pave design procedures. and a seal coat would reduce the rate at which the existing
Some agencies suggested that preservation can be considered asphalt surface hardens).
in rehabilitation design by adjusting the structural coefficient Most SHAs reported issues or limitations with the data
values of the existing pavement layers in the AASHTO design needed for developing models that consider the effects of pres-
procedure. ervation in the design procedures. These limitations included
Californias CalME program allows consideration of the compatibility between the agency PMS data and the MEPDG
effects of preservation on pavement performance by resetting input data, pavement section location, availability of historical
certain distresses to zero at the year of treatment application performance data, and availability of untreated sections for
(e.g., a thin overlay applied at year 10 reduces rutting to zero at direct comparison with preservation-treated sections.

10
CHAPTER 3
Assessment of Consideration of Preservation

inMEPDG Models
LTPP Test Sections reflected in the performance data that were used. Appendix H
provides information on LTPP sections used in the develop-
Because of the age of the LTPP and other test sections used in ment and calibration of the MEPDG models, including the
the development and calibration of the MEPDG performance date of construction (or rehabilitation) and the date of inclu-
prediction models, it has been suggested that preservation sion in the LTPP program, the type of applied maintenance
treatments may have been applied to these sections such that treatment (if any), and if there was consideration of preserva-
the developed models already reflect the effects of preservation. tion treatments effects. Table 3 lists the number of LTPP (gen-
To determine whether preservation treatments were indeed eral pavement studies [GPS] and specific pavement studies
applied to these sections and if their effects were accounted for [SPS]) and other test sections used in the development and
in the performance data, the development of MEPDG predic- calibration of the various MEPDG performance prediction
tion models for (a) transverse thermal cracking, fatigue crack- models (ARA, Inc. 2004).
ing, rutting, and smoothness of both new/reconstructed flexible Table 4 lists the total number of LTPP sections used in
pavements and HMA overlays and (b) transverse slab cracking, developing/calibrating the models, the number of sections to
joint faulting, punchouts (continuously reinforced concrete which some form of preservation was applied during the time
[CRC] pavement), and smoothness for new/reconstructed rigid period considered in developing/calibrating the models, and
pavements, restored jointed plain concrete (JPC) pavements, the percentage of sections in which the effects of preservation
and JPC and CRC overlays was investigated. were considered in the data used in developing/calibrating
The various sections used in the development and calibra- each model. No information was available regarding the time
tion of flexible and rigid pavement performance prediction range for the data used to develop or calibrate the models for
models were identified along with the range of years in which thermal cracking and smoothness for new/reconstructed flex-
performance data were used in the modeling. Maintenance ible pavements and HMA overlays, transverse cracking and
history information for these sections was then extracted from joint faulting for restored JPC pavements and unbonded JPC
the LTPP and other databases and summarized to provide overlays, and punchouts for bonded PCC overlays over CRC
an overview of the types of maintenance treatments applied, pavements.
dates of application, and whether the treatments may have Table 4 shows that preservation treatments have been
affected the pavement performance trends and consequently applied to about 22% of the flexible pavement sections
the MEPDG models. Table 2 lists the LTPP experiments that (new/reconstructed and HMA overlays combined) used in
include sections of relevance to this evaluation. developing/calibrating the flexible pavement models. For
new/reconstructed rigid pavement models, about 9% of the
sections included preservation; no data were available for
MEPDG Consideration
restored PCC and PCC overlays.
ofPreservation
The most common types of preservation treatments that
This section describes the LTPP and other pavement test might have affected performance data of flexible pavements
sections that were used in developing and calibrating the var- were crack sealing, fog seals, slurry seals, and seal coats. For
ious MEPDG performance prediction models. It also identi- rigid pavements, joint resealing (including longitudinal joints
fies those sections that received a preservation treatment and in both JPC and CRC), crack sealing, partial-depth repair,
indicates whether the effects of preservation treatments are and full-depth repair may have affected performance data

11
Table 2. GPS and SPS experiments with possible data for MEPDG development.
Experiment ID Experiment Title

GENERAL PAVEMENT STUDIES (GPS)
GPS-1 Asphalt Concrete (AC) Pavement on Granular Base
GPS-2 AC Pavement on Bound Base
GPS-3 Jointed Plain Concrete (JPC) Pavement
GPS-4 Jointed Reinforced Concrete (JRC) Pavement
GPS-5 Continuously Reinforced Concrete (CRC) Pavement
GPS-6A Existing AC Overlay of AC Pavement (existing at the start of the program)
GPS-6B AC Overlay Using Conventional Asphalt of AC Pavement No Milling
GPS-6C AC Overlay Using Modified Asphalt of AC Pavement No Milling
GPS-6D AC Overlay on Previously Overlaid AC Pavement Using Conventional Asphalt
GPS-6S AC Overlay of Milled AC Pavement Using Conventional or Modified Asphalt
GPS-7A Existing AC Overlay on PCC Pavement
GPS-7B AC Overlay Using Conventional Asphalt on PCC Pavement
GPS-7C AC Overlay Using Modified Asphalt on PCC Pavement
GPS-7D AC Overlay on Previously Overlaid PCC Pavement Using Conventional Asphalt
GPS-7F AC Overlay Using Conventional or Modified Asphalt on Fractured PCC Pavement
GPS-7R Concrete Pavement Restoration Treatments with No Overlay
GPS-7S Second AC Overlay, Which Includes Milling or Geotextile Application, on PCC Pavement with
Previous AC Overlay
GPS-9 Unbonded PCC Overlay on PCC Pavement
SPECIFIC PAVEMENT STUDIES (SPS)
SPS-1 Strategic Study of Structural Factors for Flexible Pavements
SPS-2 Strategic Study of Structural Factors for Rigid Pavements
SPS-3 Preventive Maintenance Effectiveness of Flexible Pavements
SPS-4 Preventive Maintenance Effectiveness of Rigid Pavements
SPS-5 Rehabilitation of AC Pavements
SPS-6 Rehabilitation of JPC Pavements
SPS-7 Bonded PCC Overlays of Concrete Pavements
SPS-8 Study of Environmental Effects in the Absence of Heavy Loads
SPS-9P Validation and Refinements of Superpave Asphalt Specifications and Mix Design Process
SPS-9A Superpave Asphalt Binder Study
(a few instances of diamond grinding and grooving were also includes the evaluation of selected pavement design strategies
recorded in the LTPP database). using pavement response models (based on calculated stresses,
Review of the LTPP database revealed that the only recorded strains, and deflections) and distress transfer functions for
preservation treatments (and other maintenance and light estimating pavement distresses. The strategy selection stage
rehabilitation) were those applied to a pavement section after (Stage 3) occurs outside of the MEPDG and deals with consid-
it was included in the LTPP database. That is, preservation erations unrelated to thickness design, such as construction,
treatments that may have been applied to some GPS sections policy issues, and life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA).
before the start of LTPP were not recorded. Hence, the number Preservation can be addressed in the design/analysis pro-
of preservation-treated sections used in developing/calibrating cess either as part of the analysis stage (Stage 2) or the strategy
the different MEPDG models is likely larger than what is listed selection stage (Stage 3). In this latter case, LCCA will iden-
in Table 4. tify the cost and performance effects of pavement preserva-
tion treatments. This chapter describes three approaches for
considering preservation in the analysis stage. One approach
MEPDG Design Approach
requires the development of pavement preservation response
The design approach used in the MEPDG as illustrated in models and distress transfer functions. Another approach
Figure 4 (AASHTO 2008) includes three stages. The evaluation requires the calibration of MEPDG models using pavement
stage (Stage 1) includes the collection, evaluation, or estima- preservation performance data. The third approach accounts
tion of input data (e.g., foundation support, material charac- for the effects of preservation by adjusting pavement distress
terization, traffic, and climate). The analysis stage (Stage 2) and modifying material properties used as inputs in MEPDG

12
Table 3. LTPP test sections used in MEPDG model development and calibration
(ARA, Inc. 2004).
Number of LTPP Sections

Pavement Model Experiment Type
GPS SPS Total
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
Fatigue Cracking1 ModelNew/Reconstructed GPS-6B, SPS-1 79 16 95
Flexible Pavements
Fatigue Cracking1 ModelHMA Overlay over GPS-6B, SPS-5 13 33 46
Flexible Pavements
Fatigue Cracking1 ModelHMA Overlay over SPS-6 0 3 3
Fractured Slab Pavements
Fatigue Cracking1 ModelHMA Overlay over GPS-7B, SPS-6 4 3 7
JPC Pavements
Thermal Cracking ModelNew/Reconstructed GPS-1 22 0 22
Flexible Pavements2
Rutting ModelNew/Reconstructed Flexible GPS-1, GPS-2, 79 16 95
Pavements SPS-1
Rutting ModelHMA Overlay over Flexible GPS-6B, SPS-5 14 32 46
Pavements
Rutting ModelHMA Overlay over Fractured SPS-6 0 3 3
Slab Pavements
Rutting ModelHMA Overlay over JPC GPS-7B, SPS-6 4 3 7
Pavements
Smoothness ModelNew/Reconstructed Flexible GPS-1, GPS-2, N/A N/A N/A
Pavements and HMA Overlays GPS-6, GPS-7
RIGID PAVEMENTS
Punchout ModelNew/Reconstructed CRC3 GPS-5 43 0 43
Transverse Joint Faulting Model GPS-3, SPS-2 64 83 147
New/Reconstructed JPC4
Transverse Cracking ModelNew/Reconstructed GPS-3, SPS-2 63 84 147
JPC5
Transverse Joint Faulting and Cracking Models SPS-6 0 8 8
Restored JPC6
Transverse Joint Faulting and Cracking Models GPS-9 16 0 16
Unbonded JPC Overlays
Punchout ModelUnbonded CRC Overlays7 GPS-9 2 0 2
Punchout ModelBonded PCC Overlay over SPS-7 0 4 4
CRC
Smoothness ModelNew/Reconstructed JPC GPS-3 78 0 78
Smoothness ModelNew/Reconstructed CRC GPS-5 45 0 45
Notes: 1 Bottom-up alligator and top-down longitudinal cracking. 2 Also includes non-LTPP sections from the
MnROAD study. 3 Also includes 17 non-LTPP sections from Illinois (I-80 and I-94 in Cook County and U.S. 40 in
Fayette County). 4 Also includes 110 non-LTPP sections in nine states from the FHWA Rigid Pavement Performance
and Rehabilitation study (RIPPER). 5 Also includes 13 non-LTPP sections in seven states from the FHWA Rigid
Pavement Performance and Rehabilitation study. 6 Also includes 15 non-LTPP sections from the ACPA Diamond
Grinding Study and NCHRP Project 10-41 study. 7 Also includes six non-LTPP sections in four states from the
NCHRP Project 10-41 study. N/A = not available.
models. Availability of data to support the development of focused on flexible pavement preservation. Design, preserva-
these approaches is described in the following sections. tion, and pavement management practices and experiences of
the 14 interviewed SHAs indicated that eight states (Arizona,
Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas,
Evaluation of Data Availability
and Washington) may have the types of data required for
An assessment of the availability of the data required for implementing this approach; the data available from these
considering preservation in the MEPDG was made by (1) iden- states were evaluated. (Appendix I provides details.)
tifying the required data elements, (2) determining availability The consideration of preservation effects requires design
of the required data elements, and (3) assessing the appro- analysis of a baseline/untreated pavement structure and a
priateness of available data. Because pavement preservation is corresponding preservation-treated pavement structure using
more commonly used for flexible pavements, this assessment the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software. Therefore,

13
Table 4. Consideration of preservation in LTPP test sections.
Number of Test Sections Percent Test

Preservation Preservation Sections with
Effects Effects Not Preservation
Considered Considered Effects
in in Effects Considered in
MEPDG Performance Model Performance Performance Unknown Total Performance Data
Data Data
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
Fatigue Cracking1 ModelNew/ 20 63 12 95 21
Reconstructed Flexible Pavements
Fatigue Cracking1 ModelHMA 1 45 0 46 2
Overlays over Flexible Pavements
Overlays over Fractured Slab Pavements
Overlays over JPC Pavements
Thermal Cracking ModelNew/ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Reconstructed Flexible Pavements
Rutting ModelNew/Reconstructed 14 74 7 95 15
Flexible Pavements
Rutting ModelHMA Overlays over 21 25 0 46 46
Flexible Pavements
Fractured Slab Pavements
JPC Pavements
Smoothness ModelNew/ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Reconstructed Flexible Pavements and
HMA Overlays
RIGID PAVEMENTS
Punchout ModelNew/Reconstructed 10 31 2 43 23
CRC
Transverse Joint Faulting Model 10 122 15 147 7
New/Reconstructed JPC
Transverse Cracking Model 12 123 12 147 8
New/Reconstructed JPC
Transverse Joint Faulting and Cracking N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
ModelsRestored JPC
Transverse Joint Faulting and Cracking N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
ModelsUnbonded JPC Overlays
Punchout ModelUnbonded CRC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Overlays
Punchout ModelBonded PCC Overlay N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
over CRC
Smoothness ModelNew/ 7 68 3 78 9
Reconstructed JPC
Smoothness ModelNew/ 3 41 1 45 7
Reconstructed CRC
Notes: 1 Bottom-up alligator and top-down longitudinal cracking. N/A = not available.

14
STAGE 1 - EVALUATION
New Pavement Design Inputs for Design Rehabilitation Design and
and Analyses Analyses
Climate/Environment Analysis
Site Investigations Temperature and Moisture Pavement Evaluation
Borings and Field Distress Surveys;
New Materials Analysis Nondestructive Testing;
Testing; Soils Testing in
Hot Mix Asphalt Ride Quality Testing;
Laboratory; Drainage;
Portland Cement Concrete Borings & Cores; Materials
Volume Change; Frost
Cementitous Materials Testing
Heave
Unbound Granular Materials
Soils/Embankment Materials
Paving Materials Rehabilitation/Repair
Traffic Analysis Materials
Truck Classification and Volume;
Axle Load Distribution;
Design Criteria Forecasting Design Criteria
STAGE 2 - ANALYSIS
Select Trial Pavement Design

Strategies
Modify Design
Features or
Materials Reliability
Analysis
Pavement Response Model
NO Calculate Stresses, Strains, Deflections
Has Design Calculate Incremental Damage

Criteria
Been Meet? Distress Transfer Functions and
Pavement Distress Models
Roughness; Distortion; Load Non-Load

YES IRI Rutting Related Related
Faulting Cracking Cracking
STAGE 3 STRATEGY SELECTION
Engineering and Viable Design Alternative Life-Cycle Cost

Constructability Analysis Analysis
Policy Issues and

Select Decisions
Strategy
Note: IRI = International Roughness Index.
Figure 4. MEPDG conceptual analysis process (AASHTO 2008).
input data required for this analysis, such as design properties material properties data may be obtained from actual histori-
and analysis parameters, traffic and climate characteristics, cal materials test data. As-built records will provide pavement
structure properties, material layer properties, and foundation structure data, and actual historical materials test data or sam-
and bedrock properties, must be established. A complete list- pling and testing will provide data on existing HMA surface
ing of required inputs is available in several sources (AASHTO material properties. Existing pavement moisture and thermal
2008, the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software and profile data may be derived from instrumented test sections,
Software Help System, and FHWA 2010). Table 5 lists the data and data on immediate post-treatment distress/smoothness
elements required for the design analysis of untreated and will likely be available from pavement management data.
preservation-treated pavement structures. Availability of the Required Data: Because efforts to evalu-
Sources of Required Data Elements: Required data are likely to ate preservation treatment performance and to evaluate, cali-
be available from different sources. Data on pavement condi- brate, implement, or use the MEPDG would require the types
tion when a preservation treatment is applied may be obtained of data elements considered in this assessment, relevant states
from pavement management data or from the guidelines for efforts were identified. The availability of a pavement manage-
preservation treatment application, and preservation treatment ment program and system database, a construction/materials

15
Table 5. Data elements required for AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design analysis.
Data Category Data Element

Analysis Parameters Typical designs of untreated pavement structure.
Preservation-treated pavement structure.
Design life.
Design reliability (for individual distresses and smoothness).
Performance indicators (e.g., rutting, transverse cracking, bottom-up alligator
cracking, top-down longitudinal cracking, reflective cracking, and IRI).
Pavement/treatment failure thresholds (corresponding to the application of a
rehabilitation treatment or a follow-up preservation treatment).
Structure Properties Untreated design strategy (layer types, materials, and thicknesses).
Preservation-treated design strategy (layer types, materials, and thicknesses).
Surface shortwave absorptivity.
Preservation Treatment Treatment timing corresponding to either the optimal timing identified using
Application Parameters OPTime or to an agency-specified timing value.
Distress, smoothness, and/or overall condition levels of original pavement at
time of treatment application.
Treatment material properties.
Engineering and thermal properties (e.g., Poissons ratio, dynamic modulus,
tensile strength, creep compliance, thermal conductivity, heat capacity, surface
shortwave absorptivity, coefficient of thermal contraction).
Volumetric properties (e.g., air voids, effective asphalt content, voids filled with
asphalt, mix density, asphalt binder grade/viscosity.
Effect of treatment on existing pavement structure (e.g., removal depth of existing
HMA surface [milling], treatment application thickness, layer interface condition
[degree of bond between treatment and existing HMA surface]).
Effect of treatment (short- and long-term) on existing HMA surface layer material
properties.
Engineering and thermal properties (same as above).
Volumetric properties (same as above).
Effect of treatment (short- and long-term) on moisture and thermal profile of
existing pavement.
Drainage/infiltration potential, cross-slope and drainage path length, surface
shortwave absorptivity.
Performance Modeling Immediate adjustment of post-treatment performance levels.
Parameters Post-treatment distress/smoothness measurements.
Long-term adjustment of post-treatment distress level via rate of redevelopment of
distresses/smoothness.
Reflection cracking (of fatigue and thermal cracks in existing flexible
pavement)data for defining a and b model parameters (essentially treatment
thickness) and data for defining d model parameter, which governs the
acceleration (d > 1) or delay (d < 1) in the formation of reflective cracks.
Note: IRI = International Roughness Index.
database, and any type of MEPDG design/materials database for each of the key data elements. A score of 1 through 5 was
was then determined. A suitability rating was assigned to each assigned for each element, with a score of 1 denoting a lack of
state for each approach; the results were used to select five data to support the development of the proposed approach
states (Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, and and a score of 5 denoting good overall availability of useful
Texas) for a detailed investigation of data availability. An elec- data. (Details are provided in Appendix G.) The overall scores
tronic survey of these states was then conducted to identify the indicated that the development and validation of approaches
data that could be used to develop the proposed approaches; for incorporating preservation in the MEPDG process are not
the responses were compiled and summarized. (Details are currently feasible. As a result, the research was focused on pre-
provided in Appendix G.) paring detailed processes for three approaches and illustrat-
Appropriateness of Available Data: The information obtained ing processes for their implementation. These processes are
regarding the availability and reliability of data was evaluated described in the following chapters.

16
CHAPTER 4
Developing Response Models for

Considering the Effects of Preservation
in the MEPDG Procedures
In this approach, test sections of preservation treatments or Treatment timing: Varied treatment application timing
strategies are constructed and monitored, and the obtained data to consider the effects of existing pavement condition
are analyzed in order to develop pavement response models and on treatment performance (i.e., when to apply the first
distress transfer functions associated with those treatments or treatment and how often subsequent treatments are
strategies. The test sections consider a range of pavement and applied).
surface material types, a range of traffic loadings and climatic Site layout: Project length, section length, and replicate
conditions, and different treatment types and strategies, and sections.
include pavements that receive no treatments after initial con- Experiment duration: Depending on the type of treat-
struction (until rehabilitation) to serve as controls. ment (e.g., a few years for crack sealing or fog sealing or
several years for thin overlay or diamond grinding).
The experimental design could range from one test site
Process Description
representing a specific pavement design, climatic zone, and
Several steps are required to develop response models that traffic level to multiple test sites encompassing different
consider the effects of preservation on pavement performance. pavement designs subjected to different traffic levels and
climates. One or more similar or different preservation
1. Treatment and Strategy Selection: The various preservation treatments applied at similar or different times after con-
treatments or strategies and the related performance objec- struction (except for control sections that remain untreated)
tives are identified. Since the MEPDG evaluates pavement may be considered.
condition in terms of ride, rutting, cracking, and faulting, 3. Test Section Construction: A combination of existing pave-
preservation treatments that influence these parameters ments and new test sections that meet the requirements
are considered. Table 6 lists examples of suggested pres- of the experimental design are constructed according to
ervation treatments for addressing specific objectives and specific requirements.
the affected performance measures (Peshkin et al. 2004). 4. Performance Monitoring: Test sections (including control
2. Experimental Design Development: An experimental design sections) are monitored on at least an annual basis using
is developed that includes the range of relevant variables either manual or automated condition surveys (more fre-
(e.g., pavement type, treatment and strategy types, traffic, quent performance monitoring might be necessary for
environment, treatment timings). The experimental design some treatments). The performance evaluation of HMA
should take into consideration recently constructed pave- pavements should include block cracking, fatigue crack-
ments that have received no preservation treatments but ing, linear cracking, rutting, bleeding, raveling, weathering
on which preservation treatments will be applied at a later (oxidation), polished aggregate, potholes, and patching, and
time and also should consider the following key elements the evaluation of PCC pavements should include corner
(Peshkin et al. 2004): breaks, linear cracking, joint seal damage, joint spalling,
Site selection: Pavement type, pavement design, exist- joint faulting, pumping, blowups, and patching (Peshkin
ing pavement condition, pavement age, traffic level, and et al. 2004). Measurement of surface friction, surface tex-
climate condition. ture, and tire-pavement noise performance may be con-
Treatment types: Selected treatments to address different sidered because preservation treatments are frequently
pavement preservation objectives. applied to address these pavement surface characteristics.

17
Table 6. Preservation treatment and performance objectives.
Preventive Preservation Treatments Performance

Maintenance PCC Measure/
HMA Pavements
Objective Pavements Condition
SlS, MS, thin HMAOL, DG IRI
Improve Ride
UTBWC
Extend Pavement CrS, FS, ScS, ChS, SlS, MS, CrS, JRS, DG Cracking, patching, rutting, raveling,
Life thin HMAOL, UTBWC faulting, pumping, spalling, potholes
Reduce Moisture CrS, FS, ScS, ChS, SlS, MS, CrS, JRS Cracking, patching, rutting, raveling,
Infiltration thin HMAOL, UTBWC faulting, pumping, spalling, potholes
Notes: CrS = crack seal, FS = fog seal, SlS = slurry seal, ScS = scrub seal, ChS = chip seal,
MS = microsurfacing, HMAOL = HMA overlay, UTBWC = ultrathin bonded wearing course, JRS = joint
resealing, DG = diamond grinding, IRI = International Roughness Index.
5. Performance Models Development: Performance prediction collection effort. The design analysis requires a modified
models are developed for the various pavement preserva- Pavement ME Design software program that includes new
tion treatments or strategies using the data obtained from models to supplement the current MEPDG models and new
the preservation test sections to supplement the MEPDG programming code and input screens for defining the pos-
models. The models should consider the effects of climate, sible treatments or strategies and details (e.g., thicknesses
traffic loading, material properties, and existing pavement and properties of treatments and the criteria for their appli-
condition. The NCHRP Project 1-37A Final Report (ARA, cation). Implementing this approach requires the develop-
Inc. 2004) describes and illustrates the model forms and ment of a detailed experimental design, the identification
variables used to develop acceptable performance models. of locations for test sections (including untreated control
6. Model Calibration and Validation: In this final step, the sections), the application of preservation treatments, and the
developed performance models are calibrated and validated collection of performance monitoring data over several years.
using the procedures identified in the AASHTO Guide for Also, it requires the development of a database of relevant
the Local Calibration of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pave- information (e.g., preservation treatments or strategies, traf-
ment Design Guide (herein referred to as the Local Cali- fic conditions, climate conditions, pavement performance
bration Guide) (AASHTO 2010). The calibration process measures) and a significant data analysis and modeling effort
should recognize that preservation treatments can affect to develop performance prediction models. The approach can
the structural properties and thermal/moisture condi- also be used to develop models for surface defects (e.g., ravel-
tions of the existing pavement and the material properties ing and deformation distresses) and pavement surface char-
of the top pavement layer; these will affect the computed acteristics (e.g., friction and noise) that are not considered in
stresses and strains. Preservation treatment thickness (or the MEPDG.
removal depth, in the case of milling/grinding) from design Because of the requirement for long-term performance
or as-built records, thermal/moisture profile data from monitoring and data collection, this approach is likely to be
instrumented pavements, and pavement structure material implemented as part of a national research effort or a multi-
property data from non-destructive testing (NDT) may agency cooperative research program. However, it can also
be used to adjust layer thicknesses, temperatures, water be implemented under an agency-wide effort. An example
contents, or material properties to reflect treatment appli- illustrating the process of developing pavement preservation
cation. The calibration process will result in revised coef- response models is presented in the following.
ficients for either or both the load-response model and
distress transfer function associated with a particular per-
Example of Implementation Process
formance indicator.
The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) is
one of a few agencies that have constructed MEPDG-designed
Feasibility Assessment
pavements or pavements specifically intended for additional
Developing pavement preservation response models pro- performance model calibration. INDOT has completed over
vides a comprehensive framework for accounting for the 100 paving projects since 2009 using the MEPDG design anal
effects of preservation treatments or strategies on pavement ysis procedure (Nantung 2010). The projects included both
performance (both structural and functional) but requires flexible and rigid designs located on roads throughout the
an extensive experimental investigation and long-term data state ranging from Interstates to moderately trafficked U.S.

18
and state routes to low-volume state routes. Data from these Step 3: Test Site Identification
projects are used in a hypothetical example to illustrate the andConstruction
development of pavement preservation response models for
From the many flexible pavement projects that were designed
conventional and full-depth HMA pavements treated with a
and constructed in recent years using the MEPDG, several
single application of chip seals, microsurfacing, or thin HMA
projects with sufficient length to accommodate the planned
overlay. This follows the process described in this chapter and
20 test sections have been identified as candidates for Test
incorporates certain assumptions.
Sites 1 through 5; no projects were identified for Test Site 6.
However, a review of the design and construction/materials
Step 1: Preservation Treatment data for these projects revealed that candidate projects for Test
andPerformance Model Selection Site 1 lacked the materials/construction data needed for analy-
The flexible pavements considered in this example were sis and model building. Therefore, Test Site 1 was eliminated
designed according to the MEPDG procedures. Preservation from the experiment design, and the matrix was modified to
treatments, such as a single application of chip seals, micro- include only four test sites (Test Sites 2 through 5).
surfacing, or thin HMA overlay, are considered. Table 7 shows The four most appropriate projects were selected to serve
the key performance objectives for each treatment and the as Test Sites 2 through 5. These projects were constructed in
associated application criteria. Models for predicting rutting, 2010 and 2011. The design and construction/materials data
transverse thermal cracking, alligator cracking, longitudi- for these pavements were compiled. According to the sched-
nal cracking, International Roughness Index (IRI), raveling/ ule for preservation treatment application given in the exper-
weathering, and friction will be considered. imental matrix, these treatments will be applied between
2014 and 2019 (first treatment will be applied in 2014 as a
4-year treatment for pavements built in 2010, and last treat-
Step 2: Experimental Design Development ment will be applied in 2019 as an 8-year treatment for pave-
Considering the two distinct climates available in Indiana: ments built in 2011). Table 9 shows the revised experimental
wet, hard freeze, and spring thaw (northern half of state) and design matrix.
wet, freeze-thaw cycling (southern half of state), the matrix Test section limits were established within each site with
shown in Table 8 has been proposed to serve as the experi- consideration given to construction/materials data and other
mental design. It includes six test sites, designated Test Sites 1 relevant items.
through 6, each of which will include 20 test sections (two The preservation treatments listed in Table 9 for the differ-
replicates of each of the nine preservation sections and the ent test sections will be constructed between 2014 and 2019.
untreated control section). The experimental design also iden- Treatment design and construction/materials data (including
tifies the preservation treatments proposed for each site and weather conditions) will be collected, reviewed, and compiled
their time of application. for use in the performance model development.
Table 7. INDOT HMA pavement preventive maintenance treatments (INDOT 2011).
Existing Pavement Rutting, IRI, Friction

Treatment AADT1 Distress in. in./mi Treatment? Surface Aging
Crack Seal Any Low to moderately severe N/A N/A No N/A
surface cracks
Fog Seal <5,0002 Low-severity environmental N/A N/A No3 Reduces aging and
surface cracks oxidation, arrests minor
raveling
Seal Coat (i.e., <5,0002 Low-severity environmental <0.254 N/A4 Yes Arrests aging, oxidation,
Chip Seal) surface cracks and minor raveling
Microsurfacing Any Low-severity surface cracks Any <130 Yes Arrests aging, oxidation,
and minor raveling
UBWC Any Low to moderately severe <0.25 <140 Yes Arrests aging, oxidation,
surface cracks and moderate raveling
HMA Inlay Any Low to moderately severe Any <150 Yes Replaces aged, oxidized,
surface cracks or raveled surface
HMA Overlay Any Low to moderately severe Any <150 Yes Arrests aging, oxidation,
surface cracks and moderate raveling
1 2 3
Notes: For mainline pavement. Unless traffic can be adequately controlled. Treatment may reduce skid numbers.
4
Treatment does not address this. N/A = not applicable. AADT = average annual daily traffic.

Table 8. Proposed experimental design matrix.
Flexible Pavements
Conventional HMA Full-Depth HMA
Low-Volume State Moderate Volume Interstate and
Climate Zone Preservation Treatment Routes U.S. and State Routes Freeway Routes
1 (0) Untreated control Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
(Wet, Hard (1a) Chip seal @ Year 4 (chip seals excluded)
Freeze, and
Spring Thaw) (1b) Chip seal @ Year 5
(1c) Chip seal @ Year 6
(2a) Microsurface @ Year 4
(2b) Microsurface @ Year 5
(2c) Microsurface @ Year 6
(3a) Thin HMA OL @ Year 4
(3b) Thin HMA OL @ Year 5
(3c) Thin HMA OL @ Year 6
2 (0) Untreated control Site 4 Site 5 Site 6
(Wet, Freeze- (1a) Chip seal @ Year 4 (chip seals excluded)
Thaw Cycling)
(1b) Chip seal @ Year 6
Note: HMA OL = HMA overlay.
Table 9. Revised experimental design matrix.
Flexible Pavements
Conventional HMA Full-Depth HMA
Low-Volume State Moderate Volume U.S. Interstate and
Climate Zone Preservation Treatment Routes and State Routes Freeway Routes
1 Site Description: Site 1No project Site 2U.S. 24 Phase Site 3Airport
(Wet, Hard available 2, Fort Wayne 2011 Expressway @ I-465,
Freeze, and Indianapolis 2010
Spring Thaw) (0) Untreated control
(1a) Chip seal @ Year 4
2 Site Description: Site 4SR 66, Site 5SR 641, Terre Site 6No project
(Wet, Freeze- Evansville 2010 Haute 2010 available
Thaw Cycling) (0) Untreated control
(1a) Chip seal @ Year 4
Notes: HMA OL = HMA overlay. Shaded cells indicate no test sections (suitable projects not available).

20
Step 4: Performance Monitoring ment age, axle load repetitions, thermal conductivity, surface
andDatabase Development shortwave absorptivity, and average annual freezing index. The
friction models will consider variables such as aggregate type
A condition data collection protocol was developed to record and polish susceptibility, aggregate gradation, asphalt binder
annual measurements of rutting, transverse thermal crack- grade/viscosity, effective asphalt binder content, pavement age,
ing, alligator cracking, longitudinal cracking, IRI, raveling/ and axle load repetitions.
weathering, friction, and macrotexture (as a supplement to
friction). Also, a falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing
plan to evaluate pavement structural response before and after Step 6: Model Calibration and Validation
the application of preservation treatments was also developed. The procedures identified in the Local Calibration Guide
The DOT will monitor test site conditions and collect the (AASHTO 2010) will be used to calibrate and validate the
required data, according to the data collection protocol, for models developed for each performance parameter. The orig-
several years following the placement of the preservation inal pavement structure data, treatment application thickness
treatments. These data, together with the data collected data, and before-and-after deflection data from FWD testing
during construction, will be reviewed for completeness and will be used to modify appropriate parts of the models (e.g.,
accuracy and will be compiled into a database. layer thicknesses, material properties, moisture contents,
temperatures) to reflect the effects of preservation treatment
application. For example, the HMA layer rut depth model is
Step 5: Develop Performance Models
adjusted to reflect the post-treatment effect on HMA layer
As sufficient time-series performance data become available thickness, depth confinement factor, and mix layer tempera-
from the test sections, performance prediction models and dis- ture. Similarly, the alligator and longitudinal cracking model
tress transfer functions will be developed for both the untreated is adjusted to reflect the post-treatment effect on HMA layer
control pavements and the preservation-treated pavements. thickness and dynamic modulus. This process results in a
Also, raveling and friction models will be developed. The ravel unique set of calibration coefficients for each preservation
ing models will consider asphalt binder grade/viscosity and treatment (in addition to the calibration coefficients for the
content, aggregate type, air voids in the HMA mixture, pave- control pavement).

21
CHAPTER 5
Calibrating MEPDG Models

to Account forPreservation
This approach considers pavement preservation by calibrat- a unique set of calibration parameters (k, b, and C) for use in
ing the MEPDG local models. Calibration is a systematic pro- the MEPDG models to better reflect the performance of spe-
cess for eliminating any bias and minimizing the residual errors cific preservation-treated pavements. Figure 5 illustrates the
between observed or measured results from the real world calibration effect using smoothness as an example. The IRI
and predicted results from the model (AASHTO 2010). The values predicted by the MEPDG (default) model are mostly
approach assumes that the MEPDG distress prediction models greater than the measured IRI values (overprediction), and
do not account for the effects of pavement preservation and the amount of overprediction increases as IRI increases. Also,
that these effects can be considered by modifying the calibra- there is a wide amount of scatter (high variability/error) in the
tion coefficients. The modified calibration process lends itself linear trend line fitted through the predicted versus mea-
to models that directly calculate the magnitude of distress from sured data points. Calibrating the model using the data for
pavement response (e.g., rutting) and those that calculate the the preservation-treated sections will account for the effect
incremental damage index from pavement response and then of preservation more appropriately.
use a transfer function to convert damage to a distress type Tables 10 and 11 list the calibration parameters of the
(e.g., fatigue cracking). MEPDG flexible and rigid pavement transfer functions or
Preservation-based calibration requires a sufficient amount distress/smoothness models and their default values as given
of performance data for pavements subjected to a specific in the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software program.
preservation treatment or strategy (preferably on a variety of These parameters, typically considered in the local calibration
sites subjected to different levels of climate, traffic, etc.). These process, will be used in the preservation-based model calibra-
data are used to recalibrate the performance prediction mod- tion procedure.
els (e.g., roughness, rutting, cracking, and faulting) to account The preservation-based model calibration can be performed
for the effect of the treatment or strategy using the procedures using one of four approaches detailed in the Local Calibration
described in the AASHTO Local Calibration Guide (AASHTO Guide (AASHTO 2010):
2010). The performance data derived from either in-service
pavement sections or test sections specifically constructed and Full Sample: All sections (i.e., n data sets) are used in the
monitored are used in this calibration. calibration process; no sections remain for validation.
The calibration procedure considers the coefficients and Traditional Split Sample: A portion of the total number of
exponents of the MEPDG flexible and rigid pavement transfer sections (usually more than half) is used to calibrate the
functions or distress/smoothness models and adjusts one or models; the remainder is used to validate model accuracy.
more of these coefficients to result in better agreement between Jackknife testing: A rolling set of calibrations and validations
predicted and observed distress/smoothness (Kim et al. 2011). are performed using n-1 data sets.
Although preservation treatments may affect other surface Split-Sample Jackknife Testing: A combination of split-sample
condition parameters (e.g., raveling, bleeding, segregation, testing and jackknife testing is performed that uses an n/2
distortions) and performance indicators (e.g., friction, noise), jackknifing scheme.
this approach only addresses the effects of treatments on the
performance prediction models included in the MEPDG. Process Description
The preservation-based local calibration effort requires
developing input values for the selected pavement/test sec- The process for calibrating the MEPDG models to account
tions and performing multiple runs of the AASHTOWare for preservation effects, as summarized in the following, is
Pavement ME Design software. The process will then establish similar to the process for calibrating MEPDG models to local

22
Figure 5. Illustration of effect of model calibration on accuracy of performance prediction.
conditions described in the AASHTO Local Calibration Guide construction specifications, and traffic data collection
(AASHTO 2010). procedures/equipment. Different input levels are likely
to be selected for different input parameters.
1. Select Hierarchical Input Level for Each Input Parameter: 2. Develop Experimental Plan or Sampling Template: A
The level for each input parameter is selected consider- detailed, statistically sound experimental matrix is devel-
ing field and laboratory testing capabilities, material/ oped to represent the different conditions, materials, and
Table 10. Calibration parameters for flexible pavement transfer function

(AASHTO 2010).
Distress Eliminate Bias Reduce Standard Error

Total Rutting Unbound kr1 = 3.35412 kr2 = 1.5606
Materials1 and r1 = 1 kr3 = 0.4791
HMA Layers s1 = 1 r2 = 1
r3 = 1
Load-Related Bottom-Up kf1 = 0.007566 kf2 = 3.9492
Cracking Alligator C2 = 1 kf3 = 1.281
Cracking C1 = 1
Top-Down kf1 = 0.007566 kf2 = 3.9492
Longitudinal C2 = 3.5 kf3 = 1.281
Cracking C1 = 7
Semi-Rigid c1 = 1 C1 = 1
Pavements C2 = 1 C2 = 1
(CTB layer) C4 = 1,000
Non-Load-Related Transverse t3 = 1 t3 = 1
Cracking Thermal kt3 = 1.5 kt3 = 1.5
Cracking
Smoothness/IRI C4 = 0.015 (new/reconstructed HMA) C1 = 40 (new/reconstructed HMA)
C4 = 0.00825 (HMA overlay) C1 = 40.8 (HMA overlay)
C2 = 0.4 (new/reconstructed HMA)
C2 = 0.575 (HMA overlay)
C3 = 0.008 (new/reconstructed HMA)
C3 = 0.0014 (HMA overlay)
Notes: Unless otherwise noted, the calibration coefficients pertain to both new/reconstructed HMA pavements and
HMA overlays. CTB = cement-treated base. 1 Includes unbound materials for base, subbase, and subgrade layers.

23
Table 11. Calibration parameters for rigid pavement transfer function

(AASHTO 2010).
Distress Eliminate Bias Reduce Standard Error

JPC Transverse Joint Faulting C1 = 1.0184 C1 = 1.0184
JPC Slab Cracking C1 = 2 C2 = 1.22
C4 = 1 C5 = 1.98
CRC Punchouts Fatigue C1 = 2 C2 = 1.22
Punchouts C3 = 216.842 C4 = 33.1579
C5 = 0.58947
Crack Widths C6 = 1 C6 = 1
Smoothness/IRI JPC J4 = 25.24 J1 = 0.8203
CRC C1 = 3.15
C2 = 28.35
Note: Unless otherwise noted, the calibration coefficients pertain to both new/reconstructed JPC/CRC pavements
and JPC/CRC overlays.
practices. The experimental matrix would ideally include is required. An example of such an experimental matrix
key factors, such as design type (i.e., new/reconstructed, is shown in Table 12.
rehabilitation), pavement type/design (e.g., conventional 3. Estimate Sample Size for Specific Distress Prediction Models:
HMA pavement, HMA overlay on existing PCC pave The sample size or number of pavement sections needed
ment), preservation strategy (e.g., preservation with to verify/calibrate the coefficients needs to be determined.
one-time application of a specific treatment type, pres- Both the bias and precision of the prediction models are
ervation with multiple treatment applications, no pres- considered, and a level of significance (typically 90%) must
ervation), traffic level or facility type, and climate. The be selected to determine the required sample size. Gener-
availability of sufficient in-service or experimental test ally, some sections are used to calibrate all models, and rep-
sections (both treated with preservation and not treated) licate sections are used to provide an estimate of the pure
Table 12. Example experimental/sampling matrix for preservation-based

local calibration.
Interstate and Major Minor Arterial

Pavement Arterial Routes Routes
Type/Design Preservation Treatment/Strategy Climate 1 Climate 2 Climate 1 Climate 2
(0) Untreated control
(1a) Treatment A @ Year 3
New/Reconstructed (1b) Treatment A @ Year 4
Conventional HMA (2) Treatment B @ Years 3 and 6
(3) Treatment B @ Year 3 and
Treatment C @ Year 6
(1a) Treatment A @ Year 4
New/Reconstructed (1b) Treatment A @ Year 5
Deep-Strength HMA (2) Treatment B @ Years 4 and 8
(3) Treatment B @ Year 4 and
Treatment C @ Year 8
HMA Overlay on (1) Treatment A @ Year 4
Existing Flexible
Pavement (2) Treatment B @ Year 4
(3) Treatment C @ Year 4
HMA Overlay on (1) Treatment A @ Year 3
Existing Rigid
Pavement (2) Treatment C @ Year 3
(3) Treatment D @ Year 3

24
error. The suggested minimum numbers of sections for parameters. In the situations where recently constructed
analysis of each distress type over the entire experimental/ sections are included and no or limited performance data
sampling matrix are as follows (AASHTO 2010): are available, calibrations can be performed at a future time
Distortion (rutting, joint faulting): 20 sections. when the required data have become available.
Load-related cracking (bottom-up alligator and top- 4. Select Roadway Segments: In-service pavement or test sec-
down longitudinal cracking, transverse slab cracking): tions (e.g., LTPP sections) appropriate to fill the cells in
20 sections. the experimental matrix are identified. Although some
Non-loadrelated cracking (transverse thermal crack- consideration should have been given to performance
ing): 26 sections. data, sections that have at least three time-series distress/
Reflection cracking: 26 sections. smoothness data points (from condition surveys) covering
a 10-year period are generally required (AASHTO 2010).
A more refined estimate of the sample size requirements However, for preservation-treated sections, at least four
can be obtained using the following equations (AASHTO time-series points (two points prior to the preservation
2010): treatment and two points after) and at least a 5-year period
following the preservation treatment are desired.
2
Z 2 5. Extract and Evaluate Distress and Project Data: The data
n= Eq. 1 needed to conduct MEPDG design runs for the cells of
et
the experimental/sampling matrix (herein referred to as
et = Z 2 Se Eq. 2 analysis cells) are collected and examined. It is necessary to
ensure that the collected distress/smoothness data (likely
where: obtained from the agency PMS database) are consistent
with the formats used by the MEPDG. Discrepancies in
n = Minimum number of sections required for a
the data formats may be addressed by developing and
given distress/IRI prediction model calibration/
applying conversion equations or algorithms. Another
validation.
important consideration is ensuring that the pavement
Za/2 = 1.601 for a 90% confidence interval.
sections cover a range of data for a particular distress and
s = Performance indicator threshold/design crite-
smoothness. It is generally recommended that the aver-
ria (to be selected by the agency; typical values
age maximum distress/roughness level for the sections
include 0.4 in. for rutting, 20% for fatigue crack-
exceed 50% of the design criteria (AASHTO 2010). For
ing, 1,500 ft/mi for transverse thermal cracking,
example, for a rutting design threshold of 0.75 in., the
10% for slab cracking, 0.1 in. for joint faulting,
average maximum rut depth for the sections should be
and 130 in./mi for roughness).
at least 0.375 in. Gaps in data should be identified and
et = Tolerable bias at 90% reliability.
addressed.
Se = Standard error of estimate (reasonable values
6. Conduct Field and Forensic Investigations: The data needed
include 0.1 in. for rutting, 7% for alligator crack-
to fill the identified gaps are obtained. This may be done by
ing, 600 ft/mi for longitudinal cracking, 250 ft/mi
conducting field or laboratory investigations (pavement
for transverse thermal cracking, 7% for slab crack-
surveys and/or forensic testing of materials and pavement
ing, 0.05 in. for joint faulting, and 18 in./mi for
structure), reviewing construction practices and specifica-
roughness).
tions, or by other means.
The same test sections could be used for calibrating 7. Assess Bias: Distress/smoothness for each analysis cell
multiple models to keep the number of sections to a in the experimental matrix is predicted from MEPDG
minimum. Also, because IRI is a function of the other design runs using the MEPDG default calibration factors.
distresses, calibrating the IRI model using the same sec- (Details are provided in Appendix C.) The predicted val-
tions used for calibrating the model requiring the largest ues (at a 50% reliability level) for a set of cells represent-
sample size would be desirable. ing a particular treatment type/strategy are then plotted
The experimental matrix can be developed if an ade- and compared to the measured values, and the bias and
quate number of sections with the required types and standard error of the estimate for each particular distress/
ranges of performance data are available. Otherwise, other smoothness model are determined.
options must be considered, such as combining LTPP or Figure 6 illustrates examples of predicted versus mea-
other test sections with the available sections, limiting the sured rut depth for asphalt pavements with different mixes.
analysis only to those factors represented by the available The need for calibrating a specific model is determined
sections, or expanding the acceptable range for some input from null hypothesis statistical testing of a paired t-test

25
Figure 6. Example plot of predicted versus actual distress

(AASHTO 2010).
that determines if there is a significant difference between Model accuracy is estimated by means of the standard
sets of measured and predicted distress/smoothness and error of the estimate (Se), which is computed as the square
from an analysis of the intercept and slope estimates in root of the average squared error of prediction. The reason-
the measured versus predicted linear regression model. In ableness of Se can be compared with the Se values obtained
the example shown in Figure 6, the trend lines of the three from the national/global model calibration (Titus Glover
data sets are statistically analyzed to determine if they and Mallela 2009); these values are shown in Table 13.
are significantly biased in relation to the line of equality, Model bias (er) is determined through the following
which represents perfect prediction accuracy; calibration series of hypothesis testing (AASHTO 2010):
of the prediction model is required only if the trend line
is found to be statistically different. Hypothesis 1: There is no bias or systematic difference
Model prediction capability is assessed by perform- between the measured and predicted values of distress/
ing a linear regression of the measured (y) and predicted smoothness. A paired t-test is performed to test the fol-
(x) values (model form y i = bo + m(xi), where bo is the lowing null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses:
y-intercept and m is the slope) and computing the coef- H0: S(ymeasured - xpredicted) = 0, where ymeasured equals
ficient of determination (R2). In general, models with R2 the measured value, and xpredicted equals the predicted
values above 65% are considered to have good predic- value from the model.
tion capabilities, and those with values below 50% are HA: S(ymeasured - xpredicted) 0.
considered to have poor prediction capabilities. A poor Hypothesis 2: The linear regression model developed
correlation indicates the need for calibration. using measured and predicted distress/smoothness has
Table 13. Statistics for new asphalt concrete (AC) and JPC pavements performance
prediction models (Titus Glover and Mallela 2009).
Model Statistics
Coefficient of Standard Error of Number of Data
Pavement Type Performance Model Determination, R Estimate, S Points, N
New HMA Alligator cracking 0.275 5.01% 405
Transverse thermal Level 1*: 0.344
cracking Level 2*: 0.218
Level 3*: 0.057
Rutting 0.58 0.107 in. 334
IRI 0.56 18.9 in./mi 1,926
New JPC Pavement Transverse slab 0.85 4.52% 1,505
cracking
Transverse joint 0.58 0.033 in. 1,239
faulting
IRI 0.60 17.1 in./mi 163
Note: * Level of inputs used for calibration.

26
an intercept of zero. Statistics from the linear regres- that the overall standard error of the estimate (Se) for the
sion analysis are examined to test the following null model is lower than the national calibration coefficients
and alternative hypotheses: (0.057 in. versus 0.107 in.). The results of hypothesis test-
H0: bo = 0. ing for overall model bias presented in the table show that
HA: bo 0. each null hypothesis was rejected at the 10% significance
Hypothesis 3: The linear regression model developed level such that model recalibration is required to account
using measured and predicted distress/smoothness has for the effects of preservation or other factors.
a slope (m) of 1.0. Statistics from the linear regression Table 14 summarizes the results of similar testing per-
analysis are examined to test the following null and formed for each individual set of sections (untreated,
alternative hypotheses: preservation A-treated, and preservation B-treated).
H0: m = 1.0. Although some improvement was observed in the model
H0: m 1.0. prediction capability and Se, each of these models was also
shown to be locally biased (at least one of the three null
If any of these null hypotheses are rejected, then the hypotheses rejected) and requires recalibration.
specific distress/smoothness prediction model should be 8. Eliminate Bias of Distress and IRI Prediction Models: The
recalibrated. If the null hypotheses are accepted (indicat- cause of the bias, if it exists, is first determined through
ing no bias), the standard error of the estimate for the data careful evaluation of the bias statistics. The bias that may
set should be compared to the global calibration data set. exist for a given distress/smoothness model (er, Se, residual
Figure 7 and Table 14 provide an example for a rutting errors [ymeasured - xpredicted]) is then reduced or eliminated by
model using hypothetical data for several full-depth HMA running the Pavement ME Design software using adjusted
pavement/test sections, with and without preservation. calibration factors. The AASHTO Local Calibration Guide
Figure 7 compares the predicted (using the national cali- (AASHTO 2010) identifies the coefficients of the MEPDG
bration coefficients in the Pavement ME Design software) models that should be targeted for bias adjustment.
and measured values of total rutting for three sets of sec- The bias in the prediction mode is described in one
tions (untreated sections, sections treated with preserva- of three scenarios (AASHTO 2010): (1) high precision
tion type A, and sections treated with preservation type B). and high bias, (2) low precision and low bias, or (3) low
The figure shows that the overall (all sections combined) precision and high bias. Scenario 1 requires less effort to
rutting model prediction capability is poor (R2 = 0.29) but reduce the bias than Scenarios 2 and 3. Bias testing that
Untreated Pres-Treated A Pres-Treated B

0.400
H0: (ymeas xpred) = 0
(T-test @10% signicance level)
n = 197
0.350 Avg Pred Total Rut = 0.166 in.
Avg. Meas Total Rut = 0.098 in.
Bias = -0.068 in.
0.300 p-value = 0.000
Measured Total Rutting, in.
Reject H0 (p-value <0.1)
0.250 H0: bo = 0 and H0: m = 1.0

(Linear Regression)
R^2 = 0.29
Se = 0.057 y = 0.4322x + 0.0265
0.200 Sy = 0.068 R^2 = 0.2977
Se/Sy = 0.838
p-value (int) = 0.003
0.150 p-value (slope) = 0.000
0.100
0.050
0.000
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400
Predicted Total Rutting, in.
Figure 7. Hypothetical illustration of predicted versus measured total rut depth for full-depth
HMA pavements.

27
Table 14. Bias statistics for a hypothetical rutting model.
Untreated Preservation A- Preservation B-

Null Hypothesis Parameter Sections Treated Sections Treated Sections
Number 81 55 61
Avg. predicted 0.145 0.175 0.186
rutting, in.
Avg. measured 0.118 0.092 0.077
rutting, in.
Bias (er), in. -0.027 -0.082 -0.109
R2 0.37 0.50 0.40
Se 0.061 0.045 0.039
H0: (ymeasured xpredicted) = 0 T-test p-value 0.001 0.000 0.000
Accept/reject H0 Reject Reject Reject
H 0: b o = 0 Regression 0.002 0.974 0.934
p-value (intercept)
Accept/reject H0 Reject Accept Accept
H0: m = 1.0 Regression 0.000 0.000 0.000
p-value (slope)
Note: Hypothesis testing performed at 10% significance level.
focuses on traffic, climate, pre-treatment pavement con- are available in the program for HMA overlays and PCC
dition, and treatment material/mix characteristics should rehabilitation treatments.
provide a basis for adjusting the calibration coefficients. Different approaches have been used to adjust the
Tables 15 and 16 list the model coefficients that can be model coefficients and improve prediction accuracy and
adjusted to reduce bias. Figures 8 and 9 show the Pave- reduce prediction bias. One frequently used approach
ment ME Design program menu screens where the model involves performing numerous Pavement ME Design runs
calibration adjustments can be made for new flexible and using a large factorial of values for key coefficients (e.g.,
new rigid pavements, respectively; similar menu screens br2 and br3 for rutting, bf 2 and bf 3 for fatigue cracking) and
Table 15. Summary of rutting model bias statistics for untreated and
preservation-treated sections following bias elimination/reduction.
Untreated Preservation A- Preservation B-

Null Hypothesis Parameter Sections Treated Sections Treated Sections
Number 81 55 61
Avg. predicted 0.131 0.112 0.080
rutting, in.
Avg. measured 0.118 0.092 0.077
rutting, in.
Bias (er), in. -0.013 -0.019 -0.003
R2 0.79 0.93 0.89
Se 0.034 0.017 0.017
Accept/reject H0 Reject Reject Accept
H 0: b o = 0 Regression 0.501 0.210 0.531
p-value (intercept)
Accept/reject H0 Accept Accept Accept
H0: m = 1.0 Regression 0.000 0.000 0.000
p-value (slope)

28
Table 16. Experimental/sampling matrix for Michigan preservation-based

local calibration.
Other Principal Arterial and

Interstate and Other Freeway Minor Arterial Routes
Routes (NFC-1 and NFC-2) (NFC-3 and NFC-4)
Pavement Preservation Climate Zone 1 Climate Zone 2 Climate Zone 1 Climate Zone 2
Type/Design Treatment/Strategy (Severe) (Moderate) (Severe) (Moderate)
New/Reconstructed (0) Untreated control 2 2 2 2
Flexible Pavement (1) Double 2 2 2 2
or HMA-Overlaid microsurfacing
Flexible Pavement
(2) Thin HMA 2 2 2 2
overlay (1.52.0 in.)
then using Microsoft Excel Solver to determine the opti- ibration coefficients (bs1, br1, br2, br3) were modified to
mal values for all coefficients that give the smallest sum of reduce the difference between measured and predicted
squared error (SSE) between the predicted and measured rutting values; the resulting predicted versus measured
distress/smoothness. Another approach involves optimiz- plots are shown in Figure 10, and the corresponding bias
ing all model coefficients simultaneously using the genetic statistics are listed in Table 15. Hypothesis testing still
algorithm (GA) optimization technique within MATLAB indicates an unacceptable level of bias for each group, but
(Kim et al. 2011). the prediction capability and accuracy of each has been
In the hypothetical example presented earlier, the greatly increased, and the bias has been greatly decreased.
untreated pavement group exhibits low precision and 9. Assess the Standard Error of the Estimate: The standard
low bias, and the two preservation-treated groups exhibit error of the estimate for each recalibrated model and each
high precision and high bias. After a detailed evaluation analysis cell is compared with reasonable values of the
of the effects of different factors on bias, the rutting cal- standard error of the estimate provided in the MEPDG
Figure 8. Distress model calibration settingsnew flexible pavements.

29
Figure 9. Distress model calibration settingsnew rigid pavements.
Note: Pres-treated = preservation-treated.
Figure 10. Comparison of predicted and measured total rut depth for full-depth
HMA pavements following bias elimination/reduction.

30
Manual of Practice (AASHTO 2008); these values are listed reduced due to large measurement error, then proceed
in the following. with Item 11.
11. Interpretation of Results, Deciding on Adequacy of Calibra-
HMA-Surfaced Pavements tion Parameters: The standard error of the estimate for
Bottom-Up Alligator Cracking: 7% of total lane area. each distress/smoothness prediction model is evaluated
Top-Down Longitudinal Cracking (confined to to determine the effect on the resulting designs at dif-
wheel paths): 600 ft/mi. ferent reliability levels. This is done by determining the
Reflective Cracking (confined to wheel paths, and expected design lives (for different reliability levels) for
combined with alligator and longitudinal cracking typical site features and pavement structures or rehabili-
in wheel paths): 600 ft/mi. tation strategies; results are checked for reasonableness.
Rut Depth: 0.10 in. Attempts to reduce the standard error of the estimate for
Transverse Thermal Cracking: 250 ft/mi. specific models should take into consideration adjusting
PCC-Surfaced Pavements the calibration factors or possibly modifying the failure
Transverse Joint Faulting in JPC (mean): 0.05 in. criteria or trigger values for these models.
Transverse Slab Cracking in JPC (bottom-up and
top-down): 7% cracked slabs.
Punchouts in CRC: 4 punchouts/mi.
Model calibration to account for preservation resembles
Null hypothesis statistical testing for the experimental/ the concept of calibrating the MEPDG performance models
sampling matrix will result in one of three possible out- to account for local conditions. The design analysis would
comes. These outcomes and recommended courses of use the Pavement ME Design software program and calibra-
action are: tion factors for the various performance prediction models
(MEPDG models only) to reflect the effects of preservation.
Errors are not significantly different: The calibrated Implementing this approach requires a significant level of
factors can be used (no attempts to reduce standard effort to identify pavement test sections that cover a range of
error are required). pavement types, preservation treatments/strategies, and traf-
Errors are significantly different, but the errors of fic and climatic conditions and to gather relevant performance
the calibrated factors are smaller than those of the and other data. The calibration process requires statistical
MEPDG-calibrated factors: the locally calibrated fac- analyses of prediction model bias and error and identifying
tors can be used (no attempts to reduce standard error new calibration factors through iterative runs of the Pavement
are required). ME Design software or other means.
Errors are significantly different, but the errors of the The SHA interviews suggested that several agencies have
calibrated factors are greater than those of the MEPDG- the components needed for implementing this approach. The
calibrated factors: the model should be recalibrated to vast majority deal with new/reconstructed HMA and JPC,
lower the standard error (unless a higher standard error as well as HMA overlays of existing flexible and rigid pave-
is considered acceptable). ments, and use three or more preservation treatment types
for flexible pavements and at least two treatment types for
10. Reduce Standard Error of the Estimate: A high standard rigid pavements. Some of the LTPP or PMS sections in these
error can be reduced by (a) computing the standard error agencies could serve as calibration sections for local condi-
within each cell of the experimental/sampling matrix and tions but not for a variety of climate and traffic conditions.
determining if the local standard error term is depen- This approach requires no modifications to the Pavement ME
dent on any of the matrix factors (such as preservation Design software and entails no added complexity in the use of
strategy), and (b) adjusting the calibration values of the the program. It simply uses the preservation-based calibration
distress transfer functions to reduce the standard error coefficients in the design analysis computations.
of the recalibration data set considering the coefficients Because of the requirement for extensive data covering
of the MEPDG models identified in the AASHTO Local the long-term performance of a variety of preservation
Calibration Guide. The values for the coefficients of the treatments subjected to different levels of traffic and cli-
model are then improved by evaluating the goodness of mate, this approach is also likely to be implemented as part
fit using either an analytical approach (for models that of a national research effort or a multi-agency cooperative
suggest a linear relationship) or a numerical optimiza- research program. An example illustrating the process for
tion approach (for models that suggest a nonlinear rela- calibrating MEPDG models for preservation is presented in
tionship). If the standard error cannot be significantly the following.

31
Example of Implementation Process In developing the experimental/sampling matrix, the fol-

lowing types of traffic, climate, and pavement were considered:
The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)
maintains a database covering many years of preservation Climatic Zone
data for hundreds of pavement sections located through- Moderate: Hot summers and cold winters (southern and
out the state on roads with different functional classes. For central parts of the Lower Peninsula).
the most part, the underlying pavements were constructed Severe: Warm, but shorter summers and longer, cold to
between 1985 and 2002 as part of major rehabilitation, resur- very cold winters (northern part of Lower Peninsula and
facing, or reconstruction projects. The preservation treat- entire Upper Peninsula).
ments were applied between 1992 and 2008. (In some cases, Traffic
two or three treatments have been applied during that period.) Moderate to High: Interstates and other freeways (National
Some data from this database, together with other data derived Functional Classification [NFC] Categories 1 and 2).
from agency specifications, manuals, and reports or otherwise Low: Other principal arterials and minor arterials (NFC
estimated/assumed, are used in a hypothetical example to illus- Categories 3 and 4).
trate the calibration of MEPDG models to account for the Pavement Type
effect of preservation. Untreated sections used in this exam- New/Reconstructed Flexible Pavements: HMA on aggre-
ple were constructed between 1985 and 2005. The example gate base and subbase.
follows the process described in this chapter and incorporates HMA-Overlaid Flexible Pavements: Structural HMA
certain assumptions. overlays of existing flexible pavements.
Detailed pavement cross-section data were not readily avail-

Step 1: Select Hierarchical Input Level able for many of the sections; only information on the basic
for Each Input Parameter pavement type (i.e., flexible, composite, or rigid) was available.
New/reconstructed flexible pavements and HMA-overlaid
Because the majority of the analyzed sections were more flexible pavements were combined into one category.
than 10 years old, and no detailed mix design or materi- Considering the recommended minimum numbers of sec-
als testing data were available for these projects, Level 3 tions of 20 for rutting and the availability of sections with
materials inputs were used for the Pavement ME Design adequate performance data, a goal of at least two pavement
runs. Also, because detailed information regarding the sections for each cell (i.e., combination of traffic, climate, and
traffic used in designing these pavements was not available, preservation treatment/strategy) was established for a total of
the available basic traffic data (e.g., average daily traffic 24 sections, as shown in Table 16.
[ADT], percent trucks) were used in combination with the
national/default values (i.e., a combination of Levels 1 and 3) Step 3: Estimate Sample Size for Specific
for the other traffic parameters. Climate data were clas Distress Prediction Models
sified as Level 1 as they were available from the nearest of
19 weather stations. According to Equation 1, the number of sections required
for analysis for a 90% level of significance (Za/2 = 1.601), a
0.5-in. rut depth threshold (s, the assumed threshold value
Step 2: Develop Local Experimental Plan for this example), and a 0.1-in. rut depth standard error of
or Sampling Template the estimate (Se) is 25. This number is very close to the goal
of 24 presented in Table 16; therefore, attempts were made to
Performance analysis was only feasible for preservation locate these sections.
treatments placed on HMA-surfaced pavements (i.e., new/
reconstructed flexible pavements, HMA-overlaid flexible
pavements, and HMA-overlaid rigid pavements) as only a few Step 4: Select Roadway Segments
preservation treatments were placed on PCC-surfaced pave- Table 17 shows the pavement sections identified for cali-
ments to provide sufficient performance data. This example brating the rutting model. All of these sections had a major
considers two treatment types for HMA-surfaced pavements: structural improvement performed between 1986 and 1999,
double microsurfacing and thin HMA overlay. The preserva- consisting of either a conventional overlay (structural HMA
tion treatments were applied to pavements that were neither overlay on existing flexible pavement) or a crush/shape-and-
severely distressed nor severely distorted in terms of cross- overlay (pulverization, mixing, and replacing of existing HMA
section; over 200 sections/projects of each were available for layers followed by structural HMA overlay). Other improve-
consideration. ment types included mill-and-HMA overlay, rubblize-and-

32
Table 17. Experimental/sampling matrix.
Interstate and Other Freeway Routes Other Principal Arterial and Minor Arterial
(NFC-1 and NFC-2) Routes (NFC-3 and NFC-4)
Preservation
Pavement Treatment/ Climate Zone 1 Climate Zone 2 Climate Zone 1 Climate Zone 2
Type/Design Strategy (Severe) (Moderate) (Severe) (Moderate)
New/Reconstructed (0) Untreated U-2: U.S. 41 Baraga U-9: U.S. 131 U-4: M-69 Dickenson U-11: M-90 Lapeer
Flexible Pavement control Co. Mecosta Co. Co. Co.
or HMA-Overlaid U-5: U.S. 10 Mason U-10: M-46 U-8: M-66 Missaukee U-12: M-50 Lenawee
Flexible Pavement Co. Montcalm Co. Co. Co.
(1) Double DM-1: I-75 Crawford DM-5: I-196 Van DM-3: M-183 Delta DM-7: M-50 Monroe
microsurfacing Co. Buren Co. Co. Co.
DM-2: I-75 Crawford DM-6: U.S. 12 St. DM-4: M-55 Ogemaw DM-8: M-40 Van
Co. Joseph Co. Co. Buren Co.
(2) Thin HMA TO-1: M-72 Oscoda TO-5: M-46 TO-3: U.S. 41 TO-7: M-57 Kent Co.
overlay (1.52.0 in.) Co. Montcalm Co. Keweenaw Co. TO-8: M-52 Ingham
TO-2: U.S. 41 TO-6: U.S. 131 TO-4: M-113 Grand Co.
Houghton Co. Mecosta Co. Traverse Co.
Notes: Climate Zone 1 is represented by the Upper Peninsula and the northern half of the Lower Peninsula and consists of MDOT Regions 1
and 2. Climate Zone 2 is represented by the southern half of the Lower Peninsula and consists of MDOT Regions 3 through 7. DM# = double
microsurfacing section ID; TO# = thin HMA overlay section ID; U# = untreated section ID.
HMA overlay, and reconstruction with conventional HMA mated from data in related reports (Buch et al. 2008, Baladi
pavement. et al. 2009, Von Quintus and Perera 2011) or the LTPP data-
A preservation treatment was later placed on the improved base (DataPave). The national/default values contained in
pavement sometime between 1999 and 2007. Rutting data the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software were used
were available for several years before and after preservation for the remaining materials and traffic input data.
treatment application and were considered sufficient for the
calibration.
Step 6: Conduct Field and
ForensicInvestigations
Step 5: Extract and Evaluate Distress
No supplemental testing was required or performed.
and Project Data
Rutting and other pavement performance data for the
Step 7: Assess Local Bias (Verification of
selected sections were obtained and reviewed. The data for
Global Calibration Values to Preservation)
total rutting in the pavement structure were obtained from
automated surveys performed biennially on the states trunk- The performance of the treated pavement structure was
line roads in accordance with the Distress Identification Man- computed for each section using the Pavement ME Design
ual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program (Miller software. The computed values of total rutting (at 50% reli-
and Bellinger 2003). Transverse profiles were measured con- ability) and the measured values for similar sections (i.e.,
tinuously over the length of testing, and average rut depths untreated, double microsurfacing, and thin HMA overlay sec-
for the left-wheel path, right-wheel path, and both-wheel tions) were then plotted for comparison. Figure 11 shows the
paths were computed for 0.1-mi-long segments. plots for the untreated, double microsurfacing, and thin HMA
The total rutting for most of the untreated sections exceeded overlay sections. The figure also shows a linear trend line fit-
0.25 in. (50% of the 0.5-in. threshold criterion). For about half ted through all of the predicted versus measured data points
of the preservation-treated sections (i.e., double microsurfacing (data for all three sets of sections) and lists the relevant sta-
and thin HMA overlay sections), total rutting was about 0.25-in.; tistics for a combined/overall rutting model. These statistics
the remaining sections had total rutting of at least 0.15 in. indicate very poor model prediction (R2 = 0.03) and that each
Available traffic (average annual daily traffic [AADT], per- null hypothesis regarding model bias was rejected at the 10%
cent commercial trucks), pavement cross-section, and sub- significance level. Thus, model recalibration was necessary.
grade (soil type) information for the various sections was Table 18 summarizes the results of similar testing for indi-
compiled and reviewed. Some materials data (e.g., asphalt vidual sets of sections in which the predicted rutting was
binder grade) were available, but other materials inputs (e.g., considerably greater than actual rutting (>0.5 in. versus
HMA mix volumetrics and dynamic modulus, aggregate <0.25 in.), and model prediction capabilities were very poor
base, subbase, and subgrade soil resilient moduli) were esti- (R2 0.11) such that recalibration was required.

33
Untreated Double Microsurfacing-Treated Thin HMA Overlay-Treated
1.00
H0 : (ymeas xpred ) = 0 H0 : bo = 0 and H0 : m = 1.0
0.90 (T-test @10% significance level) (Linear Regression)
n = 97 R^2 = 0.03
0.80 Avg Pred Total Rut = 0.582 in. Se = 0.111
Avg. Meas Total Rut = 0.177 in. Sy = 0.113
0.70 Bias = -0.405 in. Se/Sy = 0.982

p-value = 0.000 p-value (int) = 0.000
0.60 Reject H0 (p-value <0.1) p-value (slope) = 0.083
0.50
0.40
0.30
y = -0.1326x + 0.2538
0.20 R^2 = 0.0312
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Figure 11. Predicted versus measured rutting.
Step 8: Eliminate Local Bias of Distress the use of different materials (e.g., rubblize-and-HMA overlay,
and IRI Prediction Models reconstruction with HMA), were observed. These and other
data that were found to be in error due to misalignment in the
Because the data presented in Figure 12 and Table 19 indicate section limits were removed from the analysis.
high bias and low precision for each set of pavement sections, To conduct the calibration, an optimization routine was
the data were reviewed to determine if certain factors (e.g., developed in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The routine
traffic, climate, pavement cross-section, or improvement year) included the MEPDG HMA rutting model and the various
caused these levels of bias and error. No specific factors were inputs required to calculate HMA rutting. For expediency,
identified, but some data inconsistencies, possibly because of it was assumed that HMA rutting is 25% of the total rutting
Table 18. Summary of rutting model bias statistics.
Untreated Double Thin HMA

Sections Microsurface- OverlayTreated
Null Hypothesis Parameter Treated Sections Sections
Number 47 26 24
Avg. predicted 0.546 0.566 0.668
rutting, in.
Avg. measured 0.221 0.148 0.112
rutting, in.
Bias (er), in. -0.325 -0.418 -0.548
R2 0.00 0.11 0.01
Se 0.133 0.076 0.057
H 0: b o = 0 Regression 0.003 0.000 0.273
p-value (intercept)
H0: m = 1.0 Regression 0.868 0.100 0.581
p-value (slope)

34
Untreated Double Microsurfacing-Treated Thin HMA Overlay-Treated
1.00
H0 : (ymeas xpred ) = 0 H0 : bo = 0 and H0 : m = 1.0
0.90 (T-test @10% significance level) (Linear Regression)
n = 93 R^2 = 0.31
0.80 Avg Pred Total Rut = 0.142 in. Se = 0.072
Avg. Meas Total Rut = 0.144 in. Sy = 0.087
0.70 Bias = 0.002 in. Se/Sy = 0.828

p-value = 0.791 p-value (int) = 0.528 y = 0.9173x + 0.0137
R^2 = 0.3099
0.60 Accept H0 (p-value >0.1) p-value (slope) = 0.000
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Figure 12. Modified predicted versus measured rutting.
(i.e., predicted total rutting was computed as four times the each group, the prediction capability and accuracy of each have
predicted HMA rutting). The Microsoft Excel Solver function been greatly increased, and the bias has been greatly reduced.
was used to determine the optimal values of br1, br2, and br3
that give the smallest SSE between the predicted and measured
Step 9: Assess the Standard Error
values of total rutting. The resulting plots of predicted versus
of the Estimate
measured total rutting are shown in Figure 12, and the cor-
responding bias statistics are provided in Table 19. Although As Table 19 indicates, the S e value for the double-
hypothesis testing indicated an unacceptable level of bias for microsurfacing and thin HMA overlay sections was lower
Table 19. Modified summary of rutting model bias statistics.
Untreated Double Thin HMA

Sections Microsurfacing- OverlayTreated
Null Hypothesis Parameter Treated Sections Sections
Number 441,3 252,3 243
Avg. predicted 0.182 0.105 0.107
rutting, in.
Avg. measured 0.184 0.107 0.108
rutting, in.
Bias (er), in. 0.002 0.002 0.001
R2 0.15 0.14 0.09
Se 0.096 0.042 0.045
H 0: b o = 0 Regression 0.549 0.436 0.758
p-value (intercept)
H0: m = 1.0 Regression 0.009 0.071 0.158
p-value (slope)
1
Notes: Hypothesis testing performed at 10% significance level. Sample size from Step 7 reduced by three due to
2 3
removal of data outliers. Sample size from Step 7 reduced by one due to removal of data outlier. Adjustments
made to a few of the measured rutting values in Step 7 to correct for misalignment in section limits.

35
than the reasonable value reported for MEPDG rutting Step 11: Interpretation of Results, Deciding
model (0.076 in. and 0.057 in., versus 0.10 in.), and Se for the on Adequacy of Calibration Parameters
untreated sections was higher (0.133 in. versus 0.10 in.). As
Table 19 shows, calibration of the rutting model for each set of Table 19 suggests some issues with the calibrated coef-
sections resulted in lower Se values than the reasonable value ficients for the double-microsurfacingtreated sections,
reported in the MEPDG rutting model. The errors of the including the evident statistical bias with respect to the inter-
calibrated coefficients appear to be statistically significantly cept value for the predicted versus measured relationship
lower than those of the nationally calibrated coefficients. (i.e., the intercept is not zero) and the poor predictive capa-
bility of the calibrated models (R2 < 50%). Also, an acceptable
model could not be developed for the microsurfacing-treated
Step 10: Reduce Standard Error and the thin HMA overlaytreated sections because of the
of the Estimate
limited range of measured data. (Only about half of the sec-
Because the Se values were lower than the reasonable values tions exhibited total rutting values at or near the 0.25-in.
reported in the MEPDG rutting model, no further reductions criterion.)
were necessary.

36
CHAPTER 6
Using Modified Material and Pavement

Structural Properties in MEPDG Models
to Account for Preservation
The application of preservation treatments could result in treatment that is applied to reduce rutting (to zero), a reduc-
changes in pavement material properties (e.g., modulus), pave- tion of rutting by 0.25 in. is factored into the base model.
ment structural properties (e.g., thickness, moisture content), Thus any rutting that occurs after treatment application is
moisture and thermal profiles in the pavement system, and modeled as base model rut depth minus 0.25 in. If a sec-
the level and rate of distress and roughness development over ond treatment is applied, then the rutting that takes place
time. These changes will influence pavement performance and after the second treatment is modeled as base model rut
life. Therefore, by identifying the MEPDG inputs or model- depth minus 0.25 in. minus 0.25 in.
ing components that are affected by the treatment application, A dynamic faulting model can be created and used in a
quantifying the changes attributed to treatment application, manner similar to rutting.
and using the adjusted values of these items in the MEPDG No adjustments to the overlay smoothness models are
design analysis process, the effect of preservation treatment on needed. The initial IRI in these models will be the value
pavement performance and life will be accounted for. immediately upon preservation treatment application (as
specified by the user). The other terms in the models (crack-
ing and rutting) will be derived from their respective models.
Process Description
The application of a preservation treatment can result in The treatment application can have either an immediate or
changes in distress/roughness, material properties, structure long-term effect on the properties of the surface layer material
cross-sections, and moisture and thermal profiles. Also, some of the pavement. For example, applying a fog seal or rejuvena-
preservation treatments can alter the distress/roughness level tor to an HMA pavement or performing a surface recycle will
immediately upon application (e.g., the application of a thin immediately soften the HMA surface and lead to a reduced
HMA overlay would eliminate cracking, reduce the depth of modulus value and influence flexibility and resistance to load
rutting, and decrease IRI) and the rate and level of distress/ and environment initially and over time. To properly account
roughness redevelopment. Therefore, it will be necessary to for the effects of the changes in material properties on perfor-
define the adjustment that should be made to each MEPDG mance, these changes must be quantified.
performance parameter, recognizing the following: Some preservation treatments may not have an immedi-
ate effect on the properties of the surface layer material but
The empirical reflection cracking model may be used to may influence the long-term properties of that material. For
predict the percentage of cracks (fatigue and thermal) or example, placing a surface treatment on an HMA pavement
joints that propagate through the preservation treatment protects the HMA surface layer from ultraviolet (UV) expo-
over time. This model uses a sigmoidal function with a and sure, thus reducing the rate at which the binder in the sur-
b fitting parameters that are a function of overlay (in this face layer hardens with time (i.e., protects against aging). The
case, treatment) thickness, as well as c and d user-defined aging model in the MEPDG includes both a surface aging
cracking progression parameters. model and a viscosity-depth model for predicting binder vis-
A dynamic rutting model that uses the base rutting model cosity at any time and any depth in the pavement structure.
and a subtraction term that represents the change in rut- A preservation treatment can also result in a change in the
ting due to the application of a preservation treatment may pavement structure cross-section. The thickness of the pave-
be used. As illustrated in Figure 13, for every preservation ment surface layer may be reduced, as in the case of milling

37
Rut Base Model

Depth, in. Rut = f(N)
Rut Threshold = 0.25 in.

Treatment 1 Treatment 2
Immediate Immediate
Adjustment Adjustment
= 0.25 in. = 0.25 in.
Dynamic Model Dynamic Model

Rut = f(N) 0.25 in. Rut = f(N) 0.25 in. 0.25 in.
Load Cycles (N)
Figure 13. Concept of adjusting rutting model to account for preservation

treatment effects.
of HMA or diamond grinding of PCC, or increased, as in the ing use scenario are identified, together with the specific
case of applying a surface treatment or thin HMA overlay. preservation treatment that will be considered for applica-
Although some treatments with large thicknesses are applied tion at some time following construction.
and treatments that are placed repeatedly over time could 2. Identify Preservation Treatment Timing: The timing for the
increase structural capacity, pavement preservation treatments preservation treatment application is identified based on
are generally considered to have no effect on structural capac- specific schedule or thresholds for performance indicators
ity. To model material characteristics and moisture and tem- (e.g., the amount of transverse cracking or rutting).
perature regimes in the pavement structure, it is necessary to 3. Identify Baseline Material Properties of Pavement Structure
define the thickness and mechanistic properties associated and Treatment: Key material properties of the base pave
with each preservation treatment. ment structure and the preservation treatment (such as engi-
The preservation treatment can also influence the moisture neering and thermal properties [e.g., dynamic modulus,
and thermal profiles of the pavement system over time, as creep compliance, coefficient of thermal contraction] and
modeled by the Enhanced Integrated Climate Model (EICM). volumetric properties [e.g., air voids, mix density, effective
Treatments that seal or waterproof a pavement may reduce asphalt content]) are identified. Tables 22 through 24 list
the infiltration of surface water into the structure and foun- the specific preservation treatment material inputs.
dation, thereby reducing the moisture content and increasing Several preservation treatments reduce or delay the infil-
the resilient modulus of the underlying unbound materials. tration of moisture through existing surface cracks and
Similarly, thick treatments may influence the thermal char- joints and may therefore increase the resilient modulus of
acteristics throughout the pavement. To capture these effects, the unbound and subgrade layers. However, this increase
certain treated pavement structure inputs, such as the infiltra- in stiffness will diminish over time. The resilient modulus for
tion potential of the pavement (surface layer[s] and treated the unbound and subgrade layers may be determined from
base layer[s]), the cross-slope and drainage path length of the NDT (e.g., FWD backcalculation) or correlations with other
treated pavement surface, and the surface shortwave absorp- tests (e.g., California bearing ratio [CBR] and R-value), or
tivity of the treatment, would need to be redefined. using values (AASHTO 2008).
Tables 20 and 21 list the likely effects of different preser- 4. Quantify Treatment Effect on Pavement Thickness: The effect
vation treatments on performance indicators for HMA- and of the preservation treatment on the existing pavement
PCC-surfaced pavements, respectively. structure is quantified in terms of reduced or added struc-
The process for determining the changes in material proper- ture thickness. For example, chip seals, microsurfacing,
ties resulting from the application of preservation treatments and overlays will add a layer to the pavement structure, but
and their effect on pavement performance is summarized as milling and diamond grinding will reduce the surface layer
follows. thickness.
5. Identify Treatment Effect on Existing Layer Material Prop-
1. Identify the Basic Pavement Structure and the Preservation erties and on Moisture and Thermal Properties of Pavement
Treatment Type: The original/base design and correspond- Structure: Short- and long-term effects of the preservation

38
Table 20. Possible effects of preservation treatments on performance indicators

of HMA-surfaced pavements.
Performance Indicator
Total Fatigue Fatigue

Rutting Transverse Cracking Cracking Reflection
(HMA and Thermal (Bottom-up (Top-Down Cracking Smoothness
Treatment unbound) Cracking Alligator) Longitudinal) (in overlays) (IRI)
Crack Filling/Sealing (+)/+ (+)/+
Fog Seal/Rejuvenator Seal
Sand/Scrub Seal
Slurry Seal (+) (+)
Microsurfacing + (+) (+) +
Chip Seals (+) (+) (+) (+)
Thin HMA Overlays (+) (+) (+) +
Ultrathin HMA Overlays (+) (+) (+) (+)
Ultrathin Bonded Wearing Course (+) (+) (+) (+)
Hot In-Place Recycling + + + + + +
Cold In-Place Recycling + + + + + +
Ultrathin Concrete Overlay + + + + + +
Notes: + or = significant or long-term positive or negative impact; (+) or () = moderate or short-term positive or
negative impact; = slight positive impact; = slight negative impact; blank cells designate no effect.
Table 21. Possible effects of preservation treatments on performance indicators

of PCC-surfaced pavements.
Performance Indicator
JPC Pavement CRC Pavement
Crack/ Load Trans- Crack/ Crack Load
Joint Transfer verse Joint Spacing/ Transfer Smoothness
Treatment Faulting Efficiency Cracking Spalling Width Efficiency Punchouts (IRI)
Crack Sealing/
+
Joint Resealing
Diamond Grinding + +
Diamond Grooving
Partial-Depth Repair +
Full-Depth Repair + + + + + + +
Load Transfer
+ + (+)
Restoration
Cross-Stitching + + (+)
Thin HMA Overlay (+) +
Ultrathin Bonded
(+) (+)
Wearing Course
Notes: + or = significant or long-term positive or negative impact; (+) or () = moderate or short-term positive or
negative impact; = slight positive impact; = slight negative impact; blank cells designate no effect.
Table 22. Summary of asphalt binder material inputs (AASHTO 2008,

Pierce et al. 2010).
Input Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Superpave Performance AASHTO T 49 Same as Level 1 Superpave performance
Grade Binder grade
Penetration/Viscosity AASHTO T 49, T 53, T202, Same as Level 1 Penetration/viscosity grade
Grade Binder T 201, T 228, and TP 85

39
Table 23. Summary of HMA material inputs (AASHTO 2008, Pierce et al. 2010).

Unit Weight AASHTO T 166 Not applicable Typical value
(default = 150 lb/ft3)
Effective Binder AASHTO T 308 Not applicable Typical value
Content (default = 11.6%)
Air Voids AASHTO T 166 Not applicable Typical value
(default = 7%)
Poissons Ratio Not applicable Reference temperature Typical value
(default = 0.35)
Dynamic Modulus AASHTO TP 62 Binder properties and Same as Level 2
aggregate gradation
Indirect Tensile AASHTO T 322 Same as Level 1 Calculated internally
Strength
Creep Compliance AASHTO T 322 at -4, 14, AASHTO T 322 at 14 F Calculated internally
and 32 F
Thermal Conductivity Not applicable Not applicable Typical value
(default = 0.67 BTU/ft-hr- F)
Heat Capacity Not applicable Not applicable Typical value
(default = 0.23 BTU/lb- F)
Thermal Contraction Not applicable Mix and aggregate Calculated internally
treatment on the existing surface layer material proper- on the performance of the existing pavement is determined
ties (i.e., changes in engineering or thermal properties, (e.g., reducing rutting to zero or IRI value to a certain level).
or volumetric properties of the HMA surface layer), on 7. Establish MEPDG Reflection Cracking Model Coefficient
the moisture and thermal profiles of the pavement struc- and Dynamic Models for Rutting/Faulting: The MEPDG
ture (e.g., drainage/infiltration potential, cross-slope, and reflection cracking model coefficient d, which governs
drainage path length) are identified. However, the MEPDG the acceleration (d > 1) or delay (d < 1) in the forma-
considers only the effects of shoulder type, edge drains, tion of reflective cracks (from fatigue and transverse
and drainage layers (AASHTO 2008); it allows changes to cracks in existing HMA pavement) in the preservation
the layer moduli of the unbound and subgrade layers and treatment, is determined. Also, a rut depth (or faulting
the surface shortwave absorptivity but not to the infiltra- for PCC pavement) model is proposed that modifies
tion rate. These effects should be defined and considered. the MEPDG base model to account for the immediate
6. Identify Immediate Treatment Effect on Performance of change in rut depth (or faulting) by including an adjust-
Pavement Structure: The immediate effect of the treatment ment term.
Table 24. Summary of PCC material inputs (AASHTO 2008, Pierce et al. 2010).

Unit Weight AASHTO T 121 Not applicable Typical value
(default = 150 lb/ft3)
Poissons Ratio ASTM C469 Not applicable Typical value
(default = 0.20)
Coefficient of Thermal AASHTO TP 60 Not applicable Typical value
Expansion (default = 5.5 x 10-6 in./in./F)
Thermal Conductivity ASTM E1952 Not applicable Typical value
(default = 1.25 BTU/ft-hr-F)
Heat Capacity ASTM D2766 Not applicable Typical value
(default = 0.28 BTU/lb-F)
PCC Set Temperature Not applicable Not applicable Internally calculated or user-defined
Ultimate Shrinkage Not applicable Not applicable Internally calculated or user-defined
Reversible Shrinkage Not applicable Not applicable User-defined
PCC Strength AASHTO T 97, AASHTO T 22 User-defined
ASTM C469

40
"Base" Model
Total Rut Depth (in.)

Threshold = 0.25 in.
"Dynamic"
Model
= 0.25 in. = 0.25 in.
Pavement Age (years)
Figure 14. Concept of dynamic rut depth model.
The empirical reflection cracking model can be used to ervation treatment application. Figure 14 illustrates two
predict the percentage of cracks (fatigue and thermal) or preservation treatment applications, each of which reduces
joints that propagate through the preservation treatment the rut depth to zero when the threshold value of 0.25 in. is
over time. The MEPDG user-defined cracking progression reached. The dynamic rut depth model applies an imme-
parameters c and d can be adjusted to account for delay- diate adjustment of 0.25 in., after which rut depth pro-
ing or accelerating the progression of reflection cracking. gresses as defined by the base model.
The MEPDG Manual of Practice (AASHTO 2008) provides A dynamic faulting model can be developed in a manner
recommended values for c and d, but other values param- similar to that described for the rut depth. The concept is
eters should be determined from calibration. Because the illustrated in Figure 15.
d parameter depends on overlay thickness and does not No adjustments to the overlay smoothness models are
easily distinguish between fatigue and reflection cracking required. The initial IRI in these models will be the value
in the overlay, reliability of the reflection cracking model specified as an immediate adjustment corresponding to the
is set at 50% and cannot be changed by the user. preservation treatment. Table 25 lists the effects of various
A dynamic rut depth model that uses the MEPDG base preservation treatments on IRI as reported in the literature.
rut depth model and a subtraction term can be developed 8. Perform Pavement ME Design Analysis: The base design
to consider the immediate rut depth change due to pres- is analyzed using design inputs for traffic, climate, and
"Base" Model
Mean Joint Faulting (in.)
"Dynamic"
Model
Threshold = 0.12 in.
= 0.12 in. = 0.12 in.
Figure 15. Concept of dynamic faulting model.

41
Table 25. Reported effects of preservation treatments on IRI.
Before Treatment After Treatment Percent

Treatment Type IRI, in./mi1 IRI, in./mi1 Improvement Reference
Diamond Grinding 130 57 56 Battaglia 2010
256 168 35 Pierce and Muench 2009
Hot In-Place 109 78 29 Browning 1999
Recycling
Microsurfacing 92 77 15 Ji et al. 2011
(2) (2)
Milling 6 West et al. 2011
(2) (2)
Thin HMA Overlay 18 to 36 Labi et al. 2005
Ultrathin HMA 162 99 39 Hanson 2001
Overlay 154 89 42 Corley-Lay and Mastin 2007
Notes: 1 Values shown are based on the average IRI of individual projects reported in the reference publications.
Actual IRI improvement may vary and depends on the IRI value prior to treatment application and agency design
and construction practices. 2 Values were not provided.
materials properties, a specific design life, reliability lev- distress/roughness values for a base design and a correspond-
els for the individual performance indicators, and perfor- ing preservation-treated design, and then merges the two sets
mance indicator threshold values for rehabilitation. Either of predictions. This approach addresses only the cracking, rut-
the MEPDG performance prediction models or locally ting, faulting, and smoothness models included in the MEPDG.
calibrated models can be used. The level of effort required to implement this approach is fairly
9. Perform Pavement ME Design Analysis for Preservation- significant. Although some of the required inputs (e.g., typical
Treated Design: A design analysis similar to that performed treatment types and applications, distress/roughness threshold
for the base design is performed for the preservation-treated levels for preservation and rehabilitation treatments) can be
design using the same base design parameters to consider easily obtained, other inputs must be obtained through col-
the effects of the preservation treatment. The output from lection and analysis of actual data. Examples of these inputs
the base design (i.e., predicted distress and roughness levels) include the rate of redevelopment of distress/roughness, the
covering the period from original construction to the time change in the HMA surface layer dynamic modulus, and the
when the first performance indicator threshold is reached change in pavement layer drainage and moisture characteris-
is combined with the output from the preservation-treated tics following preservation. A major drawback to this approach
design to produce the output for the specified design life. is the complexity of accurately defining the changes in prop-
The effects of the treatment can then be evaluated in terms erties resulting from the application of different preservation
of (a) the immediate change in distress/roughness and their treatments at different times during the life of the pavement.
redevelopment, (b) the immediate or long-term change in This approach requires no modifications to the Pavement
the mechanistic properties of the pavement surface layer, ME Design software and entails no added complexity in the
(c) the immediate change in the pavement structural cross- use of the program. It simply involves design analysis compu-
section, and (d) the change in the moisture or thermal tations for the original/base design, then performs the design
properties of the pavement surface layer and their effect analysis computations, repeats the process for the preservation-
on moisture or temperature profiles throughout the pave- treated design, and merges the two sets of design outputs.
ment structure.
Examples of Implementation Process
Table 26 lists the data elements required for the design analysis
of the baseline/untreated and preservation-treated alternatives. Two hypothetical examples are presented to illustrate how
modifying material properties could be used to account for
preservation effects on performance. In one example, micro
surfacing is applied to an existing HMA-surfaced pavement,
Modifying material properties involves defining the types and in another example, diamond grinding is performed on
of effects of the application of a preservation treatment on a an existing PCC-surfaced pavement. When possible, actual
pavement (e.g., immediate and long-term changes in distress/ inputs have been included and all assumptions have been
roughness levels, material properties of the surface layer of the clearly stated. These examples use inputs obtained from the
pavement, pavement structure cross-section, and moisture and Colorado DOT (CDOT) Pavement Design Manual (CDOT
thermal profiles of the pavement system). The design analysis 2013) and Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Con-
uses the Pavement ME Design software to develop predicted struction (CDOT 2011). In these examples, default refers

42
Table 26. Data elements required for AASHTOWare Pavement ME

Design analysis.

Analysis Parameters Untreated design strategytypical pavement design
Preservation-treated design strategysame typical pavement design, except with a
specific preservation treatment included
Design life
Performance Criteria HMA performance indicatorsrut depth, reflection cracking, and IRI
and Reliability PCC performance indicatorsfaulting and IRI
Design reliability (for individual distresses and smoothness)
Structure Properties Untreated design strategylayer types, materials, and thicknesses
Preservation-treated design strategysame as untreated
Surface shortwave absorptivity
Preservation Treatment timing
Treatment Application Distress, smoothness, and/or overall condition levels of original pavement at time of
Parameters treatment application
Existing HMA layer material properties
Treatment effect on existing pavement structure
Removal depth of existing HMA surface (milling)
Treatment application thickness
Treatment effect (short- and long-term) on existing HMA surface layer material
properties
Dynamic modulus
Treatment impact (short- and long-term) on moisture and thermal profile of existing
pavement
Surface shortwave absorptivity
Unbound layer modulus
Performance Immediate adjustment of post-treatment performance levels
Modeling Parameters Post-treatment distress/smoothness measurements
Long-term adjustment of post-treatment distress level via rate of redevelopment of
distresses/smoothness
Reflection cracking (for HMA-surfaced treatments)
Faulting (for PCC-surfaced treatments)
to the default values provided in the Pavement ME Design Operational speed: 50 mi/hr
software. Axle distribution: Default
Axle configuration: Default
Lateral wander: Default
Example 1: HMA Pavement Preservation
Wheelbase: Default
Step 1: Identify Baseline Pavement Design Closest weather station: Cortez, CO
and Preservation Treatments
Table 27 lists the CDOT-recommended preservation treat-
The specifics of the baseline pavement design are: ments for HMA-surfaced pavements (CDOT 2013).
Pavement type: Conventional flexible pavement
Design period: 20 years Step 2: Identify Preservation Treatment Timing
Functional class: Principal arterial It is assumed that microsurfacing will be applied 10 years
Traffic: after original construction.
Truck traffic classification (TTC): Predominantly single-
trailer trucks (TTC 1)
Two-way average annual daily truck traffic (AADTT): Step 3: Identify Baseline and Preservation
450 (assumed) Treatment Material Properties
Number of lanes in the design direction: two The following material properties for the baseline pavement
Percent trucks in design direction: 50 are based on CDOTs Standard Specifications for Road and
Percent trucks in design lane: 95 Bridge Construction and Pavement Design Manual:
Vehicle class distribution and growth: Default
Monthly adjustment: Default HMA: Grading SX (CDOT designation)
Axles per truck: Default Mixture volumetrics

43
Table 27. Recommended preservation treatments for HMA-surfaced

pavements (CDOT 2013).
Distress Types Typical

Treatment Addressed Thickness Comments
Crack Sealing High-severity linear cracks Not applicable
Patching Medium- to high-severity alligator Varies depending on
cracking depth of distress
Chip Seal Cracking, surface aging Varies depending on Estimated performance
aggregate size and life is 8 to 10 years.
number of applications
Thin Overlay or Surface friction, hydroplaning, 0.4 to 0.5 in. Estimated performance
Microsurfacing raveling, low-severity cracking, life is 4 to 7 years.
bleeding
Leveling Course or Rutting Varies depending on rut
Milling depth
Cold In-Place Recycling Not specified 2 to 4 in. Estimated performance
(w/HMA overlay) life is 6 to 21 years.
Hot In-Place Recycling Rutting, wearing, raveling, non- <2 in. Estimated performance
(w/HMA overlay) structural surface cracking, aging, life is 6 to 23 years.
poor frictional characteristics
77 Unit weight: 150 lb/ft3 (default) Subgrade: A-2-6

77 Effective binder content: 10% Poissons ratio: 0.40
77 Air voids: 4% Coefficient of lateral earth pressure: 0.50 (default)
77 Poissons ratio: 0.35 (default) Resilient modulus: 16,000 lb/in.2 (default)
Mechanical properties Gradation: Default
77 Dynamic modulus: Level 3 Liquid limit: 15
77 Gradation: 100% passing in., 95% passing 8 in., Plasticity index: 5
65% passing No. 4, and 6% passing No. 200
77 Reference temperature: 70F Because the MEPDG and the Pavement ME Design software
77 Asphalt binder type: PG 64-28 do not provide material inputs (e.g., dynamic modulus, indirect
77 Indirect tensile strength: 464.65 lb/in.2 (internally tensile strength [IDT], heat capacity) for microsurfacing, the
calculated) microsurfacing material properties were assumed to be similar
77 Creep compliance: Level 3 to those for HMA layers. Also, because microsurfacing could
Thermal properties reduce the potential for moisture intrusion through any exist-
77 Thermal conductivity: 0.67 BTU/hr-ft-F (default) ing cracks, an increase of 5% was assumed for the resilient mod-
77 Heat capacity: 0.23 BTU/lb-F (default) ulus of the base course and subgrade. (Actual changes would
77 Thermal contraction: 1.185 105 (internally calcu- need to be quantified from in-service and laboratory testing.)
lated)
Surface shortwave absorptivity: 0.85 (default)
Step 4: Quantify Effect of Treatment Application
Endurance limit: Not applied (not recommended until
on Pavement Thickness
calibrated)
Layer interface: Full friction Although the typical thickness of microsurfacing is 0.40 to
Unbound base: Class 6 0.50 in., the minimum thickness of an overlay that can be con-
Aggregate type: Crushed stone sidered in the Pavement ME Design software is 1 in. Therefore,
Poissons ratio: 0.40 the microsurfacing thickness was assumed to be 1 in.
Coefficient of lateral earth pressure: 0.5 (default)
Resilient modulus: 38,721 lb/in.2 (CDOT median value)
Step 5: Identify Effect of Treatment Application
Gradation (median of specification range): 100% pass-
on Existing Layer Material Properties
ing in., 47.5% passing No. 4, 40% passing No. 8, and
7.5% passing No. 200 Microsurfacing will be analyzed as an additional thickness
Liquid limit: 10 of HMA; no modification to the existing asphalt concrete
Plasticity index: 2 (AC) material properties will be required.

44
Table 28. Baseline design inputs.

Analysis Parameters Design strategyconventional flexible pavement
Design life20 years
Performance Criteria and New flexible pavement performance indicators and reliability (assumed values)
Reliability Condition Limit Reliability
Initial IRI 60 in./mi
Terminal IRI 170 in./mi 90
Top-down cracking 2,000 ft/mi 90
Bottom-up cracking 25% 90
Thermal cracking 1,000 ft/mi 90
Total rut depth 0.75 in. 90
HMA rut depth 0.25 in. 90
Pavement Layers Layer types
o HMA (CDOT grading SX)
o Unbound base (CDOT Class 6)
o Subgrade (A-2-6)
Step 6: Identify Immediate Effect of Treatment 0.25 in. by the end of the 20-year design period), at which
Application on Existing Condition time a preservation treatment may be applied to reduce
future rutting.
It is assumed that the application of the microsurfacing
will reduce the rut depth to zero and IRI to 90 in./mi.
Step 9: Develop a Preservation-Treated Design
Step 7: Determine Dynamic Model The MEPDG and the Pavement ME Design software can
be used to estimate the change in the performance or pave-
The dynamic model will assume reductions of the rut depth
ment life due to the application of a preservation treatment
to zero (see Figure 14) and the IRI to 90 in./mi with the appli-
(Figure 20) or determine the required baseline design thick-
cation of the microsurfacing layer.
ness if a preservation treatment is applied. Such analysis
would consider pre- and post-treatment application periods
Step 8: Develop a Baseline Design
(i.e., 0 to 10 years and 10 to 20 years).
The material inputs defined for the project (see Table 28) The analysis was made in two steps: one for a new conven-
were entered into the Pavement ME Design program. The tional HMA pavement with a 10-year performance period
analysis determined that a 15-in.-thick pavement (7-in. HMA and another for a 1-in. microsurfacing (assumed to be a 1-in.
grading SX [PG 58-28] plus 8-in. Class 6 aggregate base) will HMA overlay) of the existing HMA pavement. The condition
meet all of the performance criteria (HMA layer thickness of the pavement prior to application of the overlay would
rounded up to the nearest 0.5 in.). be taken as predicted performance of the pavement after
The results of this analysis are listed in Table 29, and plots 10 years.
for IRI, rut depth, thermal cracking, and fatigue cracking Except for an assumed 5% increase in base and subgrade
(corresponding to 90% reliability) over time are shown in moduli, all HMA layer properties, unbound base thick-
Figures 16 through 19, respectively. As seen in these fig- nesses and properties, and subgrade layer properties were
ures, the critical distress for the baseline design is HMA unchanged from the baseline design. Traffic volumes were
rutting (i.e., HMA rut depth reaches the threshold value of adjusted to replicate the baseline design by using the same
Table 29. Baseline design predictions.
Distress Predicted Achieved

Distress Criteria Distress Reliability
Terminal IRI, in./mi 170 138 99
Rut Depth Total, in. 0.75 0.53 100
Rut Depth HMA, in. 0.25 0.25 90
Bottom-Up Cracking, % 25 0.07 100
Top-Down Cracking, ft/mi 2,000 1,284 98
Transverse Thermal Cracking, ft/mi 1,000 27 100

45
200
Threshold value
150
IRI (in./mi)
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 16. Predicted IRI (90% reliability) for baseline design.
1.00
Threshold value
0.75
Rut Depth (in.)
Total rut depth
0.50
Threshold value (HMA) = 0.25 in.

0.25
HMA rut depth
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 17. Predicted total rut depth (90% reliability)

forbaseline design.
1200
Threshold value
Thermal Cracking (ft/mi)
900
600
300
0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 18. Predicted transverse thermal cracking

(90% reliability) for baseline design.

46
100 3000
Top-down Cracking (ft/mi)

75 2250
Bottom-up Cracking (%)

Threshold value (top-down)
50 1500
Threshold value (bottom-up)

25 750
Top-down
Bottom-up
0 0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 19. Predicted fatigue cracking (90% reliability)

for baseline design.
traffic characteristics for the first period (Years 0 through down cracking) versus age are shown in Figures 21 through 24,
10) and projected traffic volumes for the second period respectively.
(Years 11 through 20). In this manner, the baseline and Figure 21 shows that, although an increase in IRI is pre-
preservation-treated designs experience the same traffic dicted following the application of the treatment in Year 10,
loadings. Table 30 lists the inputs for the preservation-treated the predicted IRI remains below the threshold level over the
design. 20-year design life. Figure 22 illustrates the predicted total rut
For these inputs, a 12-in.-thick pavement section is required depth at 90% reliability for the pavement (before and after
to meet all performance criteria, consisting of 4-in. HMA grad- preservation). The analysis assumes that the application of
ing SX (PG 58-28) and 8-in. Class 6 aggregate base; a 1-in.-thick the 1-in. microsurfacing layer reduced the total rut depth (i.e.,
overlay (microsurfacing) will be applied after 10 years. The pre- 0.50 in.) in Year 10 to zero. Figures 23 and 24 illustrate the
dicted performance at 10 and 20 years is shown in Table 31. predicted transverse thermal cracking and total cracking (at
Plots for IRI, rut depth, thermal cracking, and total cracking 90% reliability), respectively. The level of predicted cracking
(which includes reflective cracking and new bottom-up, top- for the preservation-treated pavement is very low.
Extend
Pavement
Life
Threshold for service life
Predicted Distress or IRI
Baseline Design
Preservation-
Treated Design
Age
Figure 20. Illustration of the effect of preservation treatment

application on pavement life.

47
Table 30. Preservation-treated design inputs.

Analysis Parameters New constructionconventional flexible pavement
Design life10 years
HMA overlay (microsurfacing) of conventional flexible pavement
Design life10 years
Performance Criteria and New flexible pavement performance indicators and reliability (assumed values)
Reliability Condition Limit Reliability
HMA overlay (microsurfacing) of existing AC pavement performance indicators

and reliability (assumed values)
Condition Limit Reliability
Pavement Layers Layer typesnew construction
HMA (CDOT grading SX)
Unbound base (CDOT Class 6)
Subgrade (A-2-6)
Layer typesHMA overlay (microsurfacing)
1-in. HMA overlay (microsurfacing) (CDOT grading SX)
New construction pavement section
Summary There are a number of issues that require further

consideration:
Analysis was conducted to estimate the effects of applying
a microsurfacing (modeled as a 1-in. HMA overlay) in Year The material properties and aging effects of the micro
10 of a 20-year design. The baseline design resulted in a pave- surfacing were assumed to be the same as those of an HMA
ment section consisting of 7 in. of HMA over 8 in. of aggre- layer. To better evaluate the effects of microsurfacing treat-
gate base. The preservation-treated design was evaluated at ment (or other treatment application), the treatment
10 years (both prior to and after the application of micro- material properties, the potential changes to the existing
surfacing). The evaluation resulted in a pavement structure layer(s), and aging effects need to be quantified.
consisting of a 4-in. HMA layer on an 8-in aggregate base Although the same cumulative number of trucks was
(with the 1-in. microsurfacing placed at Year 10). assumed before and after the preservation application,
Table 31. Summary of distress prediction.
At 10 Years (prior to At 20 Years (10 years after

overlay/microsurfacing) overlay/microsurfacing)
Distress Predicted Achieved Predicted Achieved
Distress Criteria Distress Reliability Distress Reliability
Terminal IRI, in./mi 170 115 100 164 93
Total Rut Depth, in. 0.75 0.50 100 0.40 100
HMA Rut Depth, in. 0.25 0.18 100 0.06 100
Bottom-Up Cracking, % 25 0.16 100 1.45 100
Top-Down Cracking, ft/mi 2,000 1,635 94 1,394 97
Transverse Thermal Cracking, ft/mi 1,000 27 100 27 100

48
200
Threshold value = 170 in./mi
150 Preservation-
Treated Design
IRI (in./mi)
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 21. Predicted IRI.
1.00
Threshold value = 0.75 in.

0.75
Rut Depth (in.)
0.50
0.25
Preservation-
Treated Design
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 22. Predicted rut depth.
1200
Thermal Cracking (ft/mi)
900
600
300
Preservation-
Treated Design
0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 23. Predicted transverse thermal cracking.

49
100
80
Total Cracking (%)

60
40
20
Preservation-
Treated Design
0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 24. Predicted total cracking.
conducting the analysis in two separate periods may not Functional classprincipal arterial
fully quantify the effects of repeated load applications and Traffic:
aging/climatic effects. TTC, predominantly single-trailer trucks (TTC 1)
Increasing the resilient modulus of the unbound and sub- Two-way AADTT: 3,000 (assumed)
grade layers to account for the reduction in moisture infil- Number of lanes in the design direction: two
tration may not lead to appropriate consideration of the Percent trucks in design direction: 50
effect of a preservation treatment application. Although Percent trucks in design lane: 95
sealing of surface cracks and joints will minimize moisture Vehicle class distribution and growth: default
infiltration, the effect of crack sealing on unbound and Monthly adjustment: Default
subgrade layer characteristics has not been established or Axles per truck: Default
considered in the EICM. Operational speed: 60 mi/hr
Axle distribution: Default
To illustrate the potential effects of the microsurfacing treat- Axle configuration: Default
ment on the fatigue characteristics of the existing asphalt layer, Lateral wander: Default
analysis was conducted considering a softening or rejuvenat- Wheelbase: Default
ing effect of the treatment on the top portion of the exist- Closest weather station: Denver, CO
ing asphalt layer. Within the MEPDG, increasing the effective
asphalt content by volume (Vbe) and lowering the percent Table 32 lists the recommended CDOT preservation treat-
air voids in the asphalt mixture (Va) will reduce the amount ments for JPC-surfaced pavements.
of predicted fatigue cracking but will increase rutting in the
asphalt layer (ARA, Inc. 2004). Step 2: Identify Preservation Treatment Timing
For this analysis, 10% and 25% higher Vbe values (and cor-
responding 10% and 25% lower Va values) were assumed for Diamond grinding treatment will be applied 20 years after
the existing asphalt layer. These changes resulted in very slight original construction.
changes in the predicted distresses.
Step 3: Identify Baseline and Preservation
Example 2: PCC Pavement Preservation Treatment Material Properties
Step 1: Identify Baseline Pavement Design The material properties and other parameters for the base-
and Preservation Treatments line pavement are based on the CDOTs Standard Specifications
for Road and Bridge Construction and Pavement Design Manual:
The specifics of the baseline pavement design are as follows:
PCC
Pavement type: JPC pavement Unit weight: 150 lb/ft3 (default)
Design period: 30 years Poissons ratio: 0.20 (default)

50
Table 32. Recommended preservation treatments for JPC pavements

(CDOT 2013).
Typical
Treatment Type Distress Types Addressed Thickness Comments
Joint/Crack Cracking, joint seal damage Not applicable 1 to 4 years (typical)
Resealing
Diamond Grooving Macrotexture Not applicable
Diamond Grinding Faulting, roughness, macrotexture, 0.25 in. IRI,
pavement/tire noise, curling and ADT, veh/day in./mi
warping, cross-slope <3,000 90
3,000 to 10,000 76
>10,000 63
Partial-Depth Repair Localized surface distress Not applicable
Full-Depth Repair Severe spalling, joint/crack Not applicable
deterioration, full-depth cracks that
divide a panel into two or more parts
Cross-Stitching Poor load transfer at longitudinal Not applicable
joints
Slab Stabilization Loss of support, faulting, corner Not applicable
breaks, settled slabs
Dowel-Bar Retrofit Poor load transfer at transverse joints Not applicable
Thermal properties Coefficient of lateral earth pressure: 0.5 (default)

77 Coefficient of thermal expansion: 5.5 in./in./F 106 Resilient modulus: 38,721 lb/in.2 (CDOT average value)
(default) Gradation (median of specification range): 100% pass-
77 Thermal conductivity: 1.25 BTU/hr-ft-F (default) ing in., 47.5% passing No. 4, 40% passing No. 8, and
77 Heat capacity: 0.28 BTU/lb-F (default) 7.5% passing No. 200
Mix Liquid limit: 10
77 Cement type: Type I Plasticity index: 2
77 Cementitious material content: 500 lbs/yd3 Subgrade: A-2-6
77 Water-to-cement ratio: 0.42 Poissons ratio: 0.40
77 Aggregate type: Limestone Coefficient of lateral earth pressure: 0.50 (default)
77 PCC zero-stress temperature: Calculated Resilient modulus: 16,000 lb/in.2 (default)
77 Ultimate shrinkage: Calculated Gradation: Default
77 Reversible shrinkage: 50% (default) Liquid limit: 15
77 Time to develop 50% of ultimate shrinkage: 35 days Plasticity index: 5
(default)
77 Curing method: Curing compound
Step 4: Quantify Impact of Treatment Application
Modulus of rupture: 650 lb/in.2 on Pavement Thickness
Surface shortwave absorptivity: 0.85
Joint spacing: 15 ft The diamond grinding application is assumed to reduce
Sealant type: Liquid sealant the thickness of the existing PCC by 0.25 in.
Doweled joints: No dowels
Widened slab: No Step 5: Identify Impact of Treatment Application
Tied shoulders: No on Existing Layer Material Properties
Erodibility index: Fairly erodible Diamond grinding is assumed to have no effect on the
PCC-base contact friction: Full friction with friction loss existing pavement layer material properties.
at 240 months
Permanent curl/warp effective temperature difference:
Step 6: Identify Immediate Impact of Treatment
-10F
Application on Existing Condition
Unbound base: Class 6
Aggregate type: Crushed stone It is assumed that diamond grinding will reduce faulting to
Poissons ratio: 0.40 zero and IRI to 90 in./mi.

51
Table 33. Baseline design inputs.

Analysis Parameters Design strategyjointed plain concrete pavement
Design life30 years
Performance Criteria New concrete pavement performance indicators and reliability (assumed values)
and Reliability
Condition Limit Reliability
JPC pavement transverse
15% 90
cracking
Mean joint faulting 0.12 in. 90
Pavement Layers Layer types
PCC
Unbound base (CDOT Class 6)
Subgrade (A-2-6)
Table 34. Summary of baseline design condition prediction.
Distress Distress Criteria Predicted Distress Achieved Reliability

Terminal IRI, in./mi 170 149 97
Mean Joint Faulting, in. 0.12 0.12 90
Transverse Cracking, % slabs 15 4.4 100
Step 7: Determine Dynamic Model The analysis determined that a 16-in.-thick pavement
(10-in. PCC on 6-in. Class 6 aggregate base) will meet all of
The dynamic model will incorporate resetting the faulting
the performance criteria. The results of this analysis are listed
to zero (see Figure 15) and the IRI to 90 in./mi upon diamond
in Table 34, and the predicted IRI, faulting, and panel crack
grinding application.
predictions are shown in Figures 25 through 27, respectively
(at a 90% reliability level).
Step 8: Develop a Baseline Design
In this example, the level of faulting controls the recom-
The material inputs listed in Table 33 were entered into the mended pavement design. IRI is predicted to reach a maximum
Pavement ME Design software program. value of 149 in./mi, the mean joint faulting is at the threshold
200
Threshold value
150
IRI (in./mi)
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 25. Predicted IRI for baseline design.

52
0.20
0.15

Threshold value
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 26. Predicted joint faulting for baseline design.
value of 0.12 in., and transverse slab cracking is estimated to and the predicted IRI, faulting, and panel cracking are shown
reach approximately 4% (all at 90% reliability). in Figures 28 through 30, respectively. Figure 28 shows that
the predicted IRI remains below the threshold level over the
30-year design life, and Figures 29 and 30 show that mean
Step 9: Develop a Preservation-Treated Design joint faulting and transverse cracking stay below the respec-
No changes to the material inputs were assumed. The analy tive threshold levels before and after diamond grinding over
sis considered pre- and post-preservation periods (i.e., 0 to the 30-year period.
20 years and 20 to 30 years). For this example, the PCC thick-
ness was reduced by 0.25 in. for the 20- to 30-year period, and
Summary
the initial IRI was reduced to 90 in./mi.
The analysis showed that a 15-in.-thick pavement (9-in. Analysis was conducted to estimate the effects of apply-
PCC on 6-in. Class 6 aggregate base) will meet all of the per- ing a diamond grinding treatment (modeled as a reduction
formance criteria if diamond ground after 20 years. The pre- in thickness and resetting IRI to 90 in./mi) in Year 20 of a
dicted performance at 20 and 30 years is listed in Table 35, 30-year design. The baseline design resulted in a pavement
20
Transverse Cracking (% slabs)
Threshold value
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 27. Predicted slab cracking for baseline design.

53
Table 35. Summary of distress prediction.
At 20 Years (prior to At 30 Years (10 years after

grinding) grinding)
Distress Predicted Achieved Predicted Achieved
Distress Criteria Distress Reliability Distress Reliability
Terminal IRI, in./mi 170 140 98 163 93
Mean Joint Faulting, in. 0.12 0.11 94 0.09 99
Transverse Cracking, % slabs 15 4.49 100 4.39 100
200
150 Preservation-
Treated Design
IRI (in./mi)
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 28. Predicted IRI.
0.20
0.15
Threshold value = 0.12 in.
0.10
Preservation-
0.05
Treated Design
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 29. Predicted joint faulting.

54
20
Transverse Cracking (% slabs)

Threshold value = 15 percent
15
10
Preservation-
Treated Design
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 30. Predicted transverse cracking.
section consisting of 10 in. of PCC over 6 in. of crushed grinding occurring at Year 20. Although the same cumulative
stone base. The preservation-treated design was evaluated number of trucks was assumed before and after the preser-
at 20 years (prior to grinding) and 10 years thereafter. The vation application, conducting the analysis in two separate
evaluation resulted in a pavement structure consisting of a periods may not fully quantify the effects of repeated load
9-in. PCC layer on a 6-in. aggregate base, with the diamond applications.

55
CHAPTER 7
Summary and Recommendations for Research
Summary Many studies on pavement preservation performance have

been conducted over the past 20 years. Early studies generally
This research was initially intended to develop procedures focused on subjective, experience-based estimates of per-
for incorporating pavement preservation treatments into the formance or on historical records (treatment application
MEPDG design analysis process. However, in reviewing the frequency) as a basis for estimating performance. More recent
data available from several SHAs, it was determined that suf- studies have focused on objective measures of performance
ficient data were not available to achieve this objective. The involving the collection and analysis of time-series performance
project objective was modified to focus on identifying and data from in-service pavement sections or experimental test
describing processes for developing such procedures. sections.
The research included a review of information relevant to Treatment performance can be assessed in terms of treat-
pavement preservation and pavement design (primarily as ment service life, pavement life extension, and performance
related to the MEPDG) and interviews with representatives of benefit area. Historical data on how the structural and perfor-
selected SHAs and pavement industry groups to assess pave- mance indicators are influenced by preservation are needed
ment preservation and pavement design practices and avail- for considering preservation in the design process.
ability of data to support the development of procedures for SHAs have evaluated preservation treatment performance,
incorporating preservation into the MEPDG. Also, the LTPP although there were some issues with tracking the locations
and other test sections used in the development and calibration of preservation treatment projects in the databases and the
of the MEPDG performance prediction models were identified reliability of the collected data. However, some agencies estab-
and examined to determine if any preservation treatments were lished performance models that often focused on just one
applied to those sections and thus already accounted for in these performance parameter (e.g., IRI). Specific types of data in
models. Based on this work, three approaches that would allow adequate amounts and format are needed to support consid-
the consideration of preservation in the MEPDG design and eration in the design process.
analysis procedures were identified and illustrated by examples.
MEPDG Evaluation, Implementation,
Pavement Preservation State of the Practice and Use
Although there is growing use of pavement preservation Many SHAs have been or are currently engaged in the
by state highway agencies, there is a lesser tendency to apply evaluation, implementation, and use of the MEPDG process.
these treatments to high-volume roads and in severe climates. At least three studies have addressed the design of pavements
The most commonly used preservation treatment types for considering the effects of preservation. In one of these studies,
HMA-surfaced pavements are crack sealing/filling, micro- the developed ME-based flexible pavement design program
surfacing, thin HMA overlay, and drainage maintenance. For (CalME) allows a user to schedule one or more predefined
PCC pavements, diamond grinding, partial- and full-depth M&R or preservation treatments as part of the design, and
repair, joint resealing, load transfer retrofit, and drainage accounts for their effects on material and pavement structure
maintenance are commonly used. These treatments, and mechanical properties.
variants thereof, are appropriate candidates for incorporat- The investigation of the LTPP pavement sections used in
ing into the MEPDG design. developing and calibrating the MEPDG models indicated

56
some degree of influence on the models by preservation quantify both initial and long-term effects of preservation
treatments. However, incorporating preservation directly treatments on performance makes their inclusion in pave-
into the MEPDG will remain a difficult task because of the ment design and analysis procedures difficult.
lack of specific information on the effects of preservation.
Recommendations for
Approaches for Incorporating Future Research
Preservationinto the MEPDG
The information and findings from this study advance the
Three approaches for considering preservation in the design goal of considering the effects of preservation in the pave-
and analysis procedures were identified. Each approach has ment design process. However, further research is needed to
distinct advantages and disadvantages influencing its poten- fully develop and validate one or more of the approaches pre-
tial for implementation and use. One approach accounts for sented in this report, including the following:
all aspects of structural and functional performance. Another
approach builds off the calibration/validation process outlined MEPDG Performance Model Calibrations for Preservation.
in the AASHTO Local Calibration Guide (AASHTO 2010) but There is a need to perform calibrations of the MEPDG
requires a substantive set of preservation-treated test sections models using data from the SPS-3 and SPS-4 test sections
and the collection of time-series performance data to support and other test sections and to develop calibration factors
development of calibrated models. A third approach considers for the various flexible and rigid pavement preservation
the changes in pavement materials and structure properties treatments.
resulting from treatment application but involves a high level LTPP Pavement Materials and Structure Properties. There is
of complexity to accurately define the immediate and long- a need to evaluate in situ and laboratory testing data for the
term changes resulting from a treatment application. various SPS-3 and SPS-4 test sections to determine effects
Several SHAs indicated a lack of the data needed to fully of preservation treatments on surface permeability, asphalt
develop and validate the alternative approaches. A few states aging with depth, and structural response.
have several years of network-level preservation treatment per- Evaluate the Pavement ME Design Software Ability to Incor-
formance data, but there are various issues with the data (e.g., porate Preservation in the Design. Research is needed to
inaccurate; hard-to-access location, cross-section, and history develop procedures for incorporating the effects of preser-
information; incompatibilities with MEPDG parameters) that vation in the models contained in the Pavement ME Design
would make their use questionable. A few states have good but software.
limited project-level data available in terms of the quantity of Evaluate the Effects of Preservation on Material Properties.
pavement sections or the time-series performance. Actual data on the effects of preservation treatments on
Preservation treatments have not typically been consid- HMA surface layer material properties and the moisture
ered in the pavement design process because of the insignifi- and thermal profile of the existing pavement are limited.
cant contributions to pavement structural capacity and the Further research is needed to provide direct inputs for use
inability to quantify their effects. The inability to accurately into the MEPDG procedures.

57
References
AASHTO. 1993. Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. AASHTO, Corley-Lay, J. and J.N. Mastin. 2007. Ultrathin Bonded Wearing Course
Washington, D.C. as Pavement Preservation Treatment for Jointed Concrete Pave-
AASHTO. 2008. Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide: A Manual ments. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta-
of Practice. Interim Edition. Publication Code MEPDG-1. AASHTO, tion Research Board, No. 2005. Transportation Research Board of the
Washington, D.C. National Academies, Washington, D.C.
AASHTO. 2010. Guide for the Local Calibration of the Mechanistic- Crawford, G. 2009. National Update of MEPDG Activities. Presented
Empirical Pavement Design Guide. AASHTO, Washington, D.C. at the 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
ARA, Inc. 2004. Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and Reha- Washington D.C.
bilitated Pavement Structures. Final report, NCHRP Project 1-37A. Cuelho, E., R. Mokwa, and M. Akin. 2006. Preventive Maintenance
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washing- Treatments of Flexible Pavements: A Synthesis of Highway Practice.
ton, D.C. Online at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/ Report No. FHWA/MT-06-009/8117-26. Montana Department of
mepdg/home.htm. Transportation, Helena, MT.
Baladi, G., T. Dawson, and C. Sessions. 2009. Pavement Subgrade MR FHWA. 2010. Local Calibration of the MEPDG Using Pavement
Design Values for Michigans Seasonal Changes. Report No RC-1531. Management Systems. Volume I. Report No. FHWA-HIF-11-026.
Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI. Online at FHWA, Washington, D.C. Online at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9622_11045_24249- pavement/pub_details.cfm?id=722.
221730,00.html. Gransberg, D. 2010. NCHRP Synthesis 411: Microsurfacing. Transpor-
Banerjee, A., J.A. Prozzi, and J.P. Aguiar-Moya. 2010. Calibrating the tation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
MEPDG Permanent Deformation Model for Different Mainte- D.C. Online at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_
nance and Rehabilitation Strategies. Paper 10-2355. Compendium id=14464.
of Papers CD-ROM. 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Gransberg, D., M. Zaman, C. Riemer, D. Pittenger, and B. Aktas. 2010.
Research Board, Washington, D.C. Quantifying the Costs and Benefits of Pavement Retexturing as a Pave-
Battaglia, I.K. 2010. Dowel Bar Retrofit Performance in Wisconsin. ment Preservation Tool. Report No. OTCREOS7.1-16-F. Oklahoma
Report No. WI-02-10. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Transportation Center, Midwest City, OK.
Madison, WI. Hajj, E.Y., L. Loria, and P.E. Sebaaly. 2010. Performance Evalua-
Broughton, B. and S.-J. Lee. 2012. Microsurfacing in Texas. Report tion of Asphalt Pavement Preservation Activities. Transportation
No. FHWA/TX-12/0-6668-1. Texas Department of Transporta- Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
tion, Austin, TX. No. 2150. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Browning, G. 1999. Evaluation of Hot In-Place Recycling. Report Washington, D.C.
No. FHWA/MS-DOT-RD-99-102. Mississippi Department of Trans- Hall, K.D., S.X. Xiao, and K.C.P. Wang. 2011. Calibration of the MEPDG
portation, Jackson, MS. for Flexible Pavement Design in Arkansas. Paper 11-3562. Compen-
Buch, N., K. Chatti, S.W. Haider, and A. Manik. 2008. Evaluation of the dium of Papers DVD. 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation
1-37A Design Process for New and Rehabilitated JPCP and HMA Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Pavements. Report No. RC-1516. Michigan Department of Trans- Hanson, D.I. 2001. Construction and Performance of an Ultra-
portation, Lansing, MI. thin Bonded Hot-Mix Asphalt Wearing Course. Transportation
Chou, E., D. Datta, and H. Pulugurta. 2008. Effectiveness of Thin Hot Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
Mix Asphalt Overlay on Pavement Ride and Condition Performance. No. 1749. TRB, National Research Council, National Academy Press,
Report No. FHWA/OH-2008/4. Ohio Department of Transporta- Washington, D.C.
tion, Columbus, OH. INDOT. 2011. Indiana Design Manual. Part III, Chapter 52, MEPDG
CDOT. 2011. Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Pavement and Underdrain Design Elements. INDOT, Indiana
Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, CO. polis, IN.
CDOT. 2013. Pavement Design Manual. Colorado Department of Trans- Irfan, M., M.B. Khurshid, and S. Labi. 2009. Service Life of Thin HMA
portation, Denver, CO. Overlay Using Different Performance Indicators. Compendium of

58
Papers CD. 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Peshkin, D.G., T.E. Hoerner, and K.A. Zimmerman. 2004. NCHRP
Board, Washington, D.C. Report 523: Optimal Timing of Pavement Preventive Maintenance
Ji, Y., T. Nantung, D. Harris, and B. Tompkins. 2011. Evaluation for Treatment Applications. Transportation Research Board of the
Microsurfacing as Pavement Preservation Treatment: A Case Study. National Academies, Washington, D.C. Online at www.trb.org/Main/
Paper No. 11-2006. Compendium of Papers DVD. Transportation Blurbs/155142.aspx.
Research Board 90th Annual Meeting. Transportation Research Peshkin, D., K.L. Smith, A. Wolters, J. Krstulovich, J. Moulthrop, and
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. C. Alvarado. 2011a. SHRP 2 Report S2-R26-RR-1: Preservation
Kim, Y.R., F.M. Jadoun, T. Hou, and N. Muthadi. 2011. Local Calibra- Approaches for High-Traffic-Volume Roadways. Transportation
tion of the MEPDG for Flexible Pavement Design. Report No. FHWA\ Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Online
NC\2007-07. North Carolina Department of Transportation, at www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/165280.aspx.
Raleigh, NC. Peshkin, D., K.L. Smith, A. Wolters, J. Krstulovich, J. Moulthrop, and
Labi, S., G. Lamptey, S. Konduri, K.C. Sinha. 2005. Part 1: Pavement C. Alvarado. 2011b. SHRP 2 Report S2-R26-RR-2:Guidelines for
Management: Analysis of Long-Term Effectiveness of Thin Hot- the Preservation of the High-Traffic-Volume Roadways. Transporta-
Mix Asphaltic Concrete Overlay Treatments. Transportation tion Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Online at http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/164965.aspx.
No. 1940. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Pierce, L.M., T. Freeman, K. Galal, M. Gardner, and K. Zimmerman.
Washington, D.C. 2010. Local Calibration of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design
Labi, S., K.S. Hwee, G. Lamptey, and C. Nunoo. 2006. Long-Term Ben- Guide (MEPDG) Using Pavement Management Systems. Report
efits of Microsurfacing Applications in IndianaMethodology and No. FHWA-HIF-11-026. Federal Highway Administration, Wash-
Case Study. Compendium of Papers CD. 85th Annual Meeting of ington, D.C.
the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Pierce, L.M. and G. McGovern. 2014. NCHRP Synthesis 457: Imple-
Liu, L., V. Manepalli, D. Gedafa, and M. Hossain. 2010a. Cost Effective- mentation of the AASHTO Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design
ness of Ultrathin Bonded Bituminous Surface and Modified Slurry Guide (MEPDG) and Software. Transportation Research Board of
Seal. Compendium of Papers, First International Conference on the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
Pavement Preservation, Newport Beach, CA. Pierce, L.M. and S.T. Muench. 2009. Evaluation of Dowel Bar Retro
Liu, L., M. Hossain, and R. Miller. 2010b. Costs and Benefits of Thin fit for Long-Term Pavement Life in Washington State. Report
Surface Treatments on Bituminous Pavements in Kansas. Com- No. WA-RD 727.1. Washington State Department of Transporta-
pendium of Papers CD. 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation tion, Olympia, WA.
Research Board, Washington, D.C. Pittenger, D., D. Gransberg, M. Zaman, and C. Riemer. 2011. Life-Cycle
Liu, L., M. Hossain, and R. Miller. 2010c. Life of Chip Seal on Kansas Cost-Based Pavement Preservation Treatment Design. Compen-
Highways. Compendium of Papers, First International Conference dium of Papers DVD. 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation
on Pavement Preservation, Newport Beach, CA. Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Miller, J.S. and W.Y. Bellinger. 2003. Distress Identification Manual for Rajagopal, A. 2010. Effectiveness of Chip Sealing and Microsurfacing on
the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program (Fourth Revised Pavement Serviceability and Life. Report No. FHWA-OH-2010/8.
Edition). FHWA-RD-03-031. Federal Highway Administration, Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus, OH.
McLean, VA. Online at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ Ram, P. and D. Peshkin. 2013. Cost Effectiveness of the MDOT Preventive
research/infrastructure/pavements/ltpp/reports/03031/. Maintenance Program. Report No. RC-1579. Michigan Department
MnDOT. 2011. MnROAD: Safer, Smarter, Sustainable Pavements of Transportation, Lansing, MI. Online at http://www.trb.org/main/
Through Innovative Research. Brochure online at http://www.dot. blurbs/168999.aspx.
state.mn.us/mnroad/New2011Brochure.pdf. Romero, P. and D.I. Anderson. 2005. Life Cycle of Pavement Pres-
Morian, D., G. Wang, D. Frith, and J. Reiter. 2011. Analysis of Completed ervation Seal Coats. Report No. UT-04.07. Utah Department of
Monitoring Data for the SPS-3 Experiment. Compendium of Papers Transportation, Salt Lake City, UT.
DVD. 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Shuler, S. 2010. Evaluation of the Performance, Cost-Effectiveness,
Washington, D.C. and Timing of Various Pavement Preservation Treatments. Report
Nantung, T. 2010. Research Pays Off: Implementing the Mechanistic- No. CDOT-2010-3. Colorado Department of Transportation,
Empirical Pavement Design Guide for Cost Savings in Indiana. Denver, CO. Online at http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/
TR News, No. 271. Transportation Research Board of the National research/pdfs/2010/preventivemaintenance.pdf/view.
Academies, Washington, D.C. Sousa, J.B. and G. Way. 2009a. Considerations for Estimating Pavement
NCAT. 2013. NCAT Pavement Preservation Effectiveness Study Will Treatment Lives and Pavement Life Extensions on Flexible Pave-
Help Agencies Make Cost-Effective Maintenance Decisions. ments, Volume 1. California State University at Chico. Online at
Asphalt Technology E-News. Spring Edition, Volume 25, Number 1. www.csuchico.edu/cp2c/library/life_extension_information.shtml.
NCAT, Auburn, AL. Online at http://www.eng.auburn.edu/ Sousa, J.B. and G. Way. 2009b. Models for Estimating Treatment Lives,
research/centers/ncat/info-pubs/newsletters/spring-2013/pavement- Pavement Life Extension, and Cost Effectiveness of Treatments
preservation-effectiveness-study.html. on Flexible Pavements, Volume 2. California State University at
Ong, G.P., T. Nantung, and K.C. Sinha. 2010. Indiana Pavement Pres- Chico. Online at www.csuchico.edu/cp2c/library/life_extension_
ervation Program. Report No. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2010/14. Indiana information.shtml.
Department of Transportation, West Lafayette, IN. Sousa, J.B. and G. Way. 2011. Treatment Performance Capacity
Peshkin, D.G. and T.E. Hoerner. 2005. Pavement Preservation: Prac- Concept Validation. Proceedings, 30th Southern African Transport
tices, Research Plans, and Initiatives. NCHRP Project 20-07(184) Conference, Pretoria, South Africa.
Final Report. Available at http://maintenance.transportation.org/ Titus Glover, L. and J. Mallela. 2009. Guidelines for Implementing
Documents/Final%20Report%2020-07%20Task%20184.pdf. NCHRP 1-37A M-E Design Procedures in Ohio: Volume 4MEPDG

59
Models Validation and Recalibration. Report No. FHWA/OH- Models for MontanaVolume I Executive Research Summary.
2009/9D. Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus, OH. Report No. FHWA/MT-07-008/8158-1. Montana Department of
Transportation Research Circular E-C078: Roadway Pavement Preservation Transportation, Helena, MT. Online at http://trid.trb.org/view.
2005. Papers from the First National Conference on Pavement Preser- aspx?id=836590.
vation held October 31November 1, 2005 in Kansas City, Missouri. Von Quintus, H.L. and R. Perera. 2011. Extending the Life of Asphalt Pave-
Ullidtz, P., J.T. Harvey, B.W. Tsai, and C.L. Monismith. 2006a. Cali- ments. Report No. RC-1551. Michigan Department of Transportation,
bration of Incremental-Recursive Flexible Damage Models in Lansing, MI. Online at http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-
CalME Using HVS Experiments. Report No. UCPRC-RR-2005-06. 151-24256-265581F,00.html.
California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA. Online West, R., J. Michael, R. Turochy, and S. Maghsoodloo. 2011. Use of Data
at http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/research/publications/publication- from Specific Pavement Studies Experiment 5 in the Long-Term
detail/?pub_id=1189. Pavement Performance Program to Compare Virgin and Recycled
Ullidtz, P., J.T. Harvey, B.W. Tsai, and C.L. Monismith. 2006b. Cali- Asphalt Pavements. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
bration of CalME models using WesTrack Performance Data. Transportation Research Board, No. 2208. Transportation Research
Report No. UCPRC-RR-2006-14. California Department of Trans- Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
portation, Sacramento, CA. Online at http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/ Wu, R., J.M. Signore, and J.T. Harvey. 2010. Summary of SPTC Pooled-
research/publications/publication-detail/?pub_id=1190. Fund Study for Sharing and Evaluation of CalME Flexible Pavement
Ullidtz, P., J. Harvey, I. Basheer, D. Jones, R. Wu, J. Lea, and Q. Lu. 2010. Design Software. Report WA-RD 764.1. Washington State Depart-
CalME: A New Mechanistic-Empirical Design Program for Flex- ment of Transportation, Olympia, WA.
ible Pavement Rehabilitation. Paper 10-1938. Compendium of Wu, Z., J.L. Groeger, A.L. Simpson, R.G. Hicks. 2010. Performance
Papers DVD. 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Evaluation of Various Rehabilitation and Preservation Treatments.
Board, Washington, D.C. Report No. FHWA-HIF-10-020. Federal Highway Administration,
Von Quintus, H.L. and J.S. Moulthrop. 2007. Mechanistic-Empirical Washington D.C. Online at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/
Pavement Design Guide Flexible Pavement Performance Prediction preservation/pubs/perfeval/chap00.cfm.

60
Appendices A Through I
Appendices A through I are not published herein; they are available on the report summary
web page, which can be found by searching for NCHRP Report 810 at www.TRB.org.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACINA Airports Council InternationalNorth America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

ADDRESSSERVICEREQUESTED
Washington, DC 20001
500 Fifth Street, NW
TRANSPORTATIONRESEARCHBOARD
NON-PROFIT ORG.
ISBN 978-0-309-30882-3
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
U.S. POSTAGE
90000
PAID
9 780309 308823

22108

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

22108

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

22108

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/22108 SHARE

Consideration of Preservation in Pavement Design and

68 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientic reports

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP REPORT 810

Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRPREPORT 810

Published reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

Transportation Research Board

and can be ordered through the Internet at:

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress,

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 810

NCHRP PROJECT 01-48 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

This report presents information on the effects of preservation on pavement performance

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Background and Problem Statement The Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide: A

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Initial Performance Period

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

State of the Practice

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Table 1. Frequency of use of preventive maintenance treatments for flexible

Dont Never Heard Overall

Note: 1 Out of 47 responses.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pavement (2A) Pavement Life

Immediate Pre-Treatment Condition Level

Unacceptable Condition Threshold Level

Very (1B) Treatment Life based on

(1A) Treatment Life based on subsequent

Figure 2. Preservation treatment life and pavement life extension.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Immediate Pre-Treatment Condition Level

Unacceptable Condition Threshold Level

Figure 3. Preservation treatment effectiveness as indicated by the performance

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Assessment of Consideration of Preservation

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Experiment ID Experiment Title

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Number of LTPP Sections

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Table 4. Consideration of preservation in LTPP test sections.