A 250625

Ert %V"
I
AD-A250 625
4-ý
R-
92-13821
k..~ i..4
SJI8CLAIMEI[ NO)TICE
THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST

QUALITY AVAILABLE. THE COPY
FURNISHED TO DTIC CONTAINED
A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF
PAGES WHICH DO NOT
REPRODUCE LEGIBLY.
THIS
PAGE
IS
MISSING
IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
Development
of
Predictive Equations Based
on
Pavement Condition Index Data
by
Christopher V. 0. Floro
A report submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Civil Engineering
University of Washington
March 1992 ,
S,i , i i J I II, L A
h..I ,i I.I I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT mii
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF APPENDICES x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT xi
LEGEND xii
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background 1
1.2 The Problem 3
1.3 Synopsis 5
1.4 Report Overview 5
CHAPTER TWO METHODOLOGY AND PCI APPLICATIONS

2.1 Research Methodology 7
2.1.1 Summary of PCI Procedures 8
2.2 Pavement Distresses and PCI Evaluations 10
2.3 Modeling Objectives 12
2.4 PCI vs AGE Curves 13
2.5 The Pavement Condition Index Rating Scale 15
CHAPTER THREE DATA REVIEW AND ANALYSIS

3.1 Introduction 18
3.2 Review of 1988 Data and Conclusions 20
3.3 Data Interpretation of 1991 Surveys 21
3.4 Pavements Comparisons for 1st and 2ndSurveys 22
3.5 Data Review 23
3.5.1 Flexible Pavements 23
3.5.2 AC Overlays 33
3.5.3 Bituminous Surface Treatments 35
3.5.4 Surface Maintenance Applications and Techniques 37
3.5.5 Portland Cement Concrete Pavements 39
]i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

4.1 Analysis Introduction 40
4.2 Regression Modeling 40
4.2.1 Regression Models 41
4.2.2 Regression Assumptions 43
4.2.3 Regression Equations Development 43
4.3 Regression Analysis and Results 44
4.3.1 Flexible Pavements 45
4.3.1.1 Regression Models 45
4.3.1.2 Survival Statistics 55
4.3.2 AC Overlays 60
4.3.2.1 Regression Models 60
4.3.2.2 Survival Statistics 60
4.3.3 Bituminous Surface Treatment 64
4.3.4 Miscellaneous Surface Treatments 70
4.3.5 Portland Cement Concrete Pavements 74
4.4 Discussion 78
4.4.1 Deterioration Rate Comparisons 78
4.4.2 Surface Maintenance Techniques 78
4.4.3 Exponential vs. Polynomial Modeling 79
4.4.4 PCI Acceptable Limits 79
CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary 80
5.2 Conclusions 81
5.3 Recommendations 82
1 ii
University of Washington
Abstract
"Development of
Predictive Equations Based on
Pavement Condition Index Data"
by
Christopher V. 0. Floro
Committee Chairman: Professor J. P. Mahoney

Department of Civil Engineering
This research project evaluated runway pavement condition survey information in order to
develop models or equations capable of predicting future pavement performance and
projected life expectancy. The data was obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). A previous
research report analyzed the first set of Pavement Condition Index (PCI) data obtained from
runway pavements in the tri-state area of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. The analysis
performed in this report included only runways with a second set of PCI survey data. The
two primary surface categories evaluated were flexible and rigid pavements. The former
includes asphalt concrete (AC) original surface courses, AC overlays, bituminous surface
treatments (BST's), and slurry seal maintenance applications. The latter consisted only of
portland cement concrete pavements. Statistical analysis in the form of regression
modeling was applied to the available data and various models/equations and graphic
representations developed to predict pavement performance and projected life. The models
and graphs were developed using the software packages MINITAB and Microsoft Cricket
Graph, respectively.
11i
i . m.• • • • • • i , m mmmm m mlm

The models and graphs, pavement
life projections, and consolidated
data base, will be
additional tools or assets available to enable airport planners and managers to manage,
budget, and plan more effectively
for pavement rehabilitation,
replacement, maintenance,
and design modifications as
needed.
ii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE PAGE
3-la Flexible pavements with associated PCI survey results and 25

corresponding AGE (Pavement sections 2 - 3 inches AC on
6 - 8 inches of base).
3-lb Flexible pavements with associated PCI survey results and 26
corresponding AGE (Pavement sections 2 - 3 inches AC on
greater than 8 inches of base).
3-1c Flexible pavements with associated PCI survey results and 27
corresponding AGE (Pavement sections with greater than 3
inches AC on any base or subbase).
3-ld Flexible pavements with associated PCI survey results and 27
corresponding AGE for runways constructed during World
War Two (WWII).
3-ie Flexible pavement life for pavements constructed after WWUI. 29

3-If Flexible pavement life for pavements constructed during WWfl. 31
3-2 Flexible pavement AC overlays with associated PCI results and 34
corresponding AGE.
3-3a Bituminous surface treatments with PCI results and corresponding 36
AGE.
3-3b Bituminous surface treatments LIFE data. 36
3-4 Slurry seal surface maintenance applications with PCI results and 38
corresponding AGE.
3-5 Portland cement concrete pavement PCI results and corresponding 40

AGE.
v
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
TABLE TITLE PAGE
4- la Regression equations for flexible pavement structural sections 46

consisting of 2 -3 inches AC on 6 - 8 inches of base.
4-lb Regression equations for flexible pavement structural sections 49

consisting of 2 -3 inches AC on greater than 8 inches of base.
4- Ic Regression equations for flexible pavement structural sections 52
consisting of greater than 3 inches AC on any base/subbase.
4-id Regression equations for flexible pavements less than 3 inches 55

AC on 6 - 8 inches of base/subbase built during WWII.
4-le Pavement LIFE characteristics for pavements constructed after 57
WWHI with categories for greater than and less than 3 inches AC.
4-If Pavement LIFE characteristics for pavements constructed after 58
WWII with varying AC thicknesses - Weisenberger [I].
4-Ig Pavement LIFE characteristics for pavements constructed during 59

WWII with categories for greater than and less than 3 inches AC.
4-2a Pavement LIFE characteristics for AC overlays 2 to 4 inches. 60
4-2b Regression equations for flexible pavement structural sections with 61
AC overlays ranging from 3/4 to 3 inches on any base.
4-3a Regression equations for flexible pavement structural sections with 65

bituminous surface treatments on any baselsubbase.
4-3b Pavement LIFE characteristics for pavements with bituminous 68
surface treatments.
vi
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
TABLE TITLE PAGE
4-3c Pavement LIFE characteristics for bituminous surface treatments 69

with BST and DBST categories.
4-4a Pavement LIFE characteristics for slurry seal pavements. 70
4-4b Regression equations for flexible pavement structural sections with 71
slurry seal surface applications.
4-5 Regression equations for portland cement concrete pavements. 75
vii
j
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TME PAGE
1-1 Pavement Life Cycle typical performance curve compared to 6

maintenance/replacement costs.
2-1 Example model of PCI vs AGE for ,riy pavement showing 14

straight line and curvilinear representations.
2-2 Example model of PCI vs AGE for a flexible pavement with 16
constant AC and varying base composition.
2-3 Airport Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and Rating Scale 17
4-la Washington PCI vs AGE for 2 - 3 inches AC on 6 - 8 inches base 47

showing plots without high influence points (H11s).
4- lb Oregon PCI vs AGE for 2 - 3 inches AC on 6 - 8 inches base. 47
4-Ic Combined PCI vs AGE all pavements 2 - 3 inches AC on 6 - 8 48

inches base.
4-2a Washington PCI vs AGE for 2 - 3 inches AC on greater than 8 50

inches base showing plots with and without HIP's.
4-2b Oregon PCI vs AGE for 2 - 3 inches AC on greater than 8 inches 50

base.
4-2c Combined PCI vs AGE all pavements 2 - 3 inches AC on greater 51

than 8 inches base.
4-3a Washington PCI vs AGE for greater than 3 inches AC on any 53

base.
4-3b Oregon PCI vs AGE for greater than 3 inches AC on any base. 53
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
(continued)
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
4-3c Combined PC] vs AGE for all pavements greater than 3 inches 54
AC on any base.
4-4 WWII PCI vs AGE for Washington pavements with less than 3 56
inches AC on 6 - 8 inches base.
4-5a AC overlays PCI vs AGE for Washington pavements. 62

4-5b AC overlays PCI vs AGE for Oregon pavements. 62
4-5c Combined PCI vs AGE for all pavements with AC overlays. 63
4-6a Bituminous surface treatment PCI vs AGE for Washington 66
pavements.
4-6b Bituminous surface treatment PCI vs AGE for Oregon pavements. 66
4-6c Combined PCI vs AGE for all pavements with BST 67
4-7a Slurry seal surface treatment PCI vs AGE for Washington 72
pavements.
4-7b Slurry seal surface treatment PCI vs AGE for Oregon pavements. 72
4-7c Combined PCI vs AGE for all pavements with slurry seal 73
surface treatment.
4-8a Portland cement concrete PCI vs AGE for Washington 76
pavements.
4-8b Portland cement concrete PCI vs AGE for Oregon pavements. 76
4-8c Combined PCI vs AGE for all pavements with PCC. 77
ix
** ******** ** **** ** ***
LIST OF APPENDICES
** ******** ***** *** *******
APPENDIX TITLE
A Washington State General Aviation Pavement Condition Survey

Data - Includes PCI survey for Othello Municipal Airport.
B Oregon State General Aviation Pavement Condition Survey Data -
Includes PCI survey data for Tillamook Airport.

C Advisory Circular 150/5380-6, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration, "Guidelines and Procedures for
Maintenance of Airport Pavements."
D MINITAB Software calculations and models derived for pavement
categories.
E Idaho State General Aviation Pavement Condition Survey Data -
1986 Data Only.
x
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Professor I. P. Mahoney. His patience,
guidance, enthusiasm, and never-ending encouragement were critical to the completion of
this research project. His tutelage and empathy for a novice to the pavement field proved
invaluable at various stages throughout this project.
Special tl-anks to Mr. Frederick Mills of WSDOT and Mr. Wade Bryant of the FAA for
providing the data necessary to accomplish the analysis needed. Mr. Mills also provided a
great opportunity to conduct an on-site PCI survey which lent valuable experience to
evaluating the data acquired.
My family's patience, and especially my wife Barbara's understanding during the final
weeks of preparation of this report, made a world of difference in completing this major
requirement for the Master's degree. Thank you Barbara, Andrew, Ian, and Stephen.
xi
ABBREVIATION
LEGEND
AC - ASPHALT CONCRETE
B - BASE
BS - BITUMINOUS SURFACE
BSB - BITUMINOUS STABILIZED BASE
BST - BITUMINOUS SURFACE TREATMENT
CS - CHIP SEAL
CB - CINDER BASE
DBST - DOUBLE BITUMINOUS SURFACE TREATMENT
E - EMULSION
FS - FOG SEAL
NWF - NON-WOVEN FABRIC
OL - OVERLAY
PFC - POROUS FRICTION COURSE
PRG - PIT RUN GRAVEL
PRB - PIT RUN BASE

PRSB - PIT RUN SUBBASE
SANDS - SAND SEAL

SB -SUBBASE
SC - SEAL COAT
SS - SLURRY SEAL
TBST - TRIPLE BITUMINOUS SURFACE TREATMENT
xii
CHAPTER ONE
IRODUCTON
1.1 BACKGROUND
Many of our nation's airport managers have, in recent years, begun to realize the
importance of an effective pavement management system. An effective and useful system
permits managers to anticipate future maintenance and rehabilitation needs by utilizing
whatever tools there are available to ensure that the selection of maintenance and
I rehabilitation strategies provide cost effective solutions to eliminate existing problems. A
Spavement management system not only evaluates the present condition of a pavement but
predicts its future condition through the use of a pavement condition indicator. Pavement
systems have evolved ove, iie past two decades, having grown from databases geared
towards compiling the amount, type, and condition of pavement within the pavement
network to more sophisticated systems that can select future cost effective rehabilitation
treatments.
A basic component of any pavement management system is the ability to track a pavement's
deterioration and determine the cause of the deterioration. This requires an evaluation
process that is objective, systematic and repeatable. A pavement condition rating system
that is based on the quantity, severity, and type of distress is a rating of the surface
condition of a pavement performance with implications of structural performance [1].
Condition rating data collected periodically will track the performance of a pavement.
Most airports presently utilize the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating system
developed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to assess current pavement
conditions [1,31. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) established Advisory
Circular (AC) 150/5380-6 "Guidelines and Procedures for Maintenance of Airport
Pavements" in 1982 [3]. This document outlined the detailed procedures for performing
the PCI survey as previously developed by the COE. In short, individual pavement
distress types are identified in asphalt and concrete pavements and rated according to
severity levels and quantities. The rating is numerical with a range of 0 to 100 which
provides a reasonably objective and repeatable indication of the average pavement
condition.
The FAA states the following three primary objectives of rating a pavement based on the
PCI method:
(1) Determine present condition of the pavement in terms of the apparent

structural integrity and operational surface condition.
(2) Provide the FAA with a common index for comparing the condition and
performance of pavements at all airports and also provide a rational basis for
justification of pavement rehabilitation projects.
(3) Provide feedback on pavement performance for validation and

improvement of current pavement design, evaluation, and maintenance
procedures.
Pavement condition surveys can evaluate normal distresses in a pavement structure

resulting from surface weathering, fatigue effects, poor drainage, and differential settlement
or movement in the subbase over a period of time. PCI surveys evaluate flexible
2
pavements based on sixteen different types of pavement distress, and rigid pavements
based on fifteen types of distress. Chapter 2 will discuss pavement distress in some detail.
1.2 THE PROBLEM
Although PCI surveys are relatively simple, they can be somewhat time consuming
depending on the size of the airport, and the amount of air traffic serviced during any given
operational day. The problem, however, is not the time associated with conducting the
surveys, but the effective and proper use of the data obtained from these surveys. Once the
data is collected, it would appear that airports, primarily general aviation airfields may not
be privy to the data collected, or how best to utilize the data if it has been made available.
As stated previously the PCI is a number which represents the average condition of the
pavement. This number establishes a range for a pavement from "very poor" to
"excellent". These numbers, however, can be put to greater use to evaluate progressive
deterioration of pavements, and further provide a better insight to actual pavement life
expectancies compared to original 20-year projections.
The lack of adequate pavement performance models or equations which are needed to
predict pavement performance for a variety of uses is the inherent problem regarding the
data collected from the surveys previously mentioned. In 1988 a research project
conducted by LT Kim Weisenberger, Civil Engineer Corps, U.S. Navy, evaluated
statistical data on pavement condition indices of various general aviation runways
throughout the northwest tr-state area of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho [1].
After compiling a database, Weisenberger [1] developed pavement performance models,

through the use of regression equations, and survival statistics based on a comparison of
3
pavement features with similar characteristics. The information generated by the research
project was only the beginning in terms of PCI data compilation for the northwest's mostly
general aviation airports. Although much was accomplished with the information obtained
for the research, the conclusion was that much more was needed to strengthen and verify
the modeling methodology used.
The regression equations used were intended to assist the FAA and airport managers in
determining which northwest airport pavements were in greatest need of maintenance or
rehabilitation. These equations could also be of use in the following areas:
a) pavement life estimates

b) relative measures of rehabilitation effectiveness
c) life-cycle costing
d) general design decisions or modifications based on effectiveness
e) planning decisions
f) budget programming
This paper will attempt to take Weisenberger's [11 research a step further due to
accomplishment of additional PCI surveys conducted by the Washington Department of

Transportation (WSDOT) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in
conjunction with the FAA. The same modeling techniques will be used to confirm, as
stated previously, the validity of the regression equations and methodology used.
Runway pavements for the state of Idaho will not be addressed as a second set of PCI
surveys have not been accomplished to provide updated data on their general aviation
airports. These runways are included for age comparisons only in Chapter Three, and
preliminary PCI information, pavement structural features, and rehabilitation history are
4
also attached as Appendix E for further reference. In addition, as in the research project
accomplished by Weisenberger [1], only runway pavement conditions will be evaluated.
1.3 SYNOPSIS
This paper will attempt to assess deterioration rates of the airfields common to the research
conducted by Weisenberger [I] and that accomplished by this author, after reviewing the
initial research and assessing the data collected for comparison by this author. As
evidenced by the Pavement Life Cycle curve in Figure 1-1, it is evident that once a
pavement has reached 75% of its life expectancy, costs for renovation can increase as much
as five-fold. It is the intent of this paper to (1) provide guideline reference

models/equations and their corresponding graphic representation that will be useful to an
airport manager and their pavement management system, (2) establish that if data collected
from the accomplishment of PCI surveys is utilized in the proper fashion, costs for
pavement rehabilitation and projected maintenance may be kept to a minimum, and (3)
provide a consolidated report of the pertinent and current data to the FAA and all interested
parties.
1.4 REPORT OVERVIEW
The objectives stated above will be addressed in a structured manner with Chapter Two
highlighting the research methodology adopted for the report analysis and PCI procedures
and applications. Chapter Three presents the data categories to be analyzed, a review of the
Weisenberger [1] report data, and interpretation of the data used in this report. Analyses
and data evaluation, equations development and pavement life calculations, are detailed in
Chapter Four. Finally, a report summary including various conclusions and general
5
recommendations will be presented as Chapter Five. A list of references and report
appendices follow the closing chapter.
PAVEMENT LIFE CYCLE

EXCELLENT -
GOOD- IN QUALITY
Ile $ 1.00 FOR
FAIR - RENOVATION HERE

75% OF LIFE
POOR 40% DROP

IN QUALITY WILL COST
VR P4.00 TO $5.00
VERY POORHEE
LIFE
FAILED
TIME
Figure 1-1 Pavement Life Cycle Typical Performance Curve

Compared To Maintenance/Replacement Costs [4]
6
CHAPTER TWO
METHODOLOGY AND PCI APPLICATNS
2.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Chapter One stated the primary intent of this report was to develop equations or models that
would represent a pavement's behavior and therefore be an asset to an airport manager or
planner in the decision making process with respect to their pavement management system.
The models provide numerical output that can be used by a planner or manager for future
planning and programming.
Since this report consolidates and compiles data from general aviation airports in the tri-
state area, correlations among the different types of repairs used, the life of original
pavement sections, and in turn the life of various correction methods will be examined.
The rate of deterioration between an established point of time "zero" and the first PCI
surveys will be compared against deterioration between the first and second points, and the
overall deterioration from time "zero" to the second survey points for those runways with
three points for evaluation.
Various surface treatment applications and the time elapsed between successive applications
will be discussed, and in addition, the age of various pavements based on the application of
a surface treatment to an original section of pavemenL
The subject matter was evaluated primarily based on the following two objectives:
7
a) Establish PCI vs AGE curves for all pavements common to the first and second
surveys for different thicknesses of flexible and portland cement concrete
pavements. The flexible pavements include various thicknesses of AC pavements,
AC overlays, bituminous surface treatments, and slurry seal surface maintenance
treatments. Applications such as fog seals, chip seals, and emulsions were not
common to first and second surveys.
b) Evaluate AGE data for the pavement features being studied. Essentially, an
estimation of the projected life expectancy based on past performance of similar
pavements will be evaluated.
2.1.1 SUMMARY OF PCI PROCEDURES
Condition Survey Procedure
The procedure is limited to flexible pavements (pavements with conventional bituminous
concrete surfaces) and jointed rigid pavements (jointed non-reinforced concrete pavements
with joint spacing not exceeding 25 feet).
a. Determine present condition of the pavement in terms of apparent structural

integrity and operational safe condition.
b. Provide the FAA with a common index for comparing the condition and
performance of pavements at all airports and also provide a rational basis for justification of
pavement rehabilitation projects.
8
c. Provide feedback on pavement performance for validation and improvement of
current design, evaluation, and maintenance procedures.
The airport pavement condition survey and the determination of the PCI are the primary
means of obtaining and recording vital airport pavement performance data. The condition
survey for both rigid and flexible pavement facilities consists primarily of a visual
inspection of the pavement surfaces for signs of pavement distress resulting from the
influences of aircraft traffic and environment.
Basic Airport Information
Basic airport data is incorporated into the condition survey report.
a. Design/construction/maintenance history.
b. Traffic history - carriers, commuters, cargo, military aircraft traffic records
including aircraft type, typical gross loads, and frequency..
c. Climatological data - ranges and precipitation.
d. Airport layout - plans and cross section of major components, including
subsurface drainage systems.
e. Frost action - record of pavement behavior during freezing periods and
subsequent thaws.
f. Photographs.
g. Pavement condition survey reports.
Outline of Basic Condition Rating Procedure.
1. Divide pavements into "features" (increments) - overall airport

pavements must be divided into features based on the pavements' design, construction
history, and traffic area. A designated pavement feature therefore has consistent structural
thickness and materials, was constructed at the same time, and is located on one airport
facility, i.e. runway, taxiway, etc.
2. Divide pavement feature into sample units - # of slabs or # square feet.
i.• m l ml muHlr u m~ n w ,,• m. --

3. Inspect sample units - determine distress types and severity levels and
measure density.
4. Determine deduct values - these are obtained from appropriate curves.
5. Compute total deduct values (TDV) - sum all deduct values for each
distress condition observed.
6. Adjust total deduct value - a corrected deduct value (CDV) is determined
using procedures in the appropriate section for jointed rigid or flexible pavements..
7. Compute pavement condition index - PCI = 100 - CDV for each sample
unit inspected.
8. Compute PCI of entire feature - average PCI's of sample units.
The procedure for conducting PCI surveys as stated in Advisory Circular 150/5380-6 has a
confidence level of 95 %, however recently the confidence level was reduced to 92% to
allow for a smaller inspection area. The confidence level indicates the probability that an
obtained value computed from the random sampling survey technique will fall within a
10% range (_ 5%) of representing the entire pavement feature being surveyed. The range
is now 16 % (.8%).
2.2 PAVEMENT DISTRESSES AND PCI EVALUATIONS
The deterioration of a pavement, runway or highway, is most often readily apparent by
external signs or indicators which can be associated with the probable causes of the failure
or imperfection. The discussions of problems related to pavement distresses are generally
related to the pavement type; concrete or bituminous/flexible [4]. However, while each has
its own particular characteristics, the various pavement distress manifestations for
bituminous and concrete pavements generally fall into one of the following broad categories
[4]:
10
a) Cracking - often a result of stresses caused by contraction or warping of the
pavement in concrete pavements. Overloading, loss of subgrade support,
inadequate or improperly cut joints are also possible causes. In bituminous
pavements causes are mostly attributed to deflection of the surface over an unstable
foundation, shrinkage of the surface, poorly constructed lane joints, or reflection
cracking.
b) Distortion - a change in the pavement surface from its criginal position and
results from foundation settlement, expansive soils, frost susceptible soils, or loss
of fines through inadequate drainage systems. In bituminous pavements
insufficient compaction of pavement courses, unstable bituminous mix, and poor
bonding between surface and underlying layers also lead to distortion.
c) Disintegration - improper curing and finishing, unsuitable aggregates, and

improper mixing of concrete lead to the breaking up of pavements into small, loose
particles. Insufficient compaction of the surface, insufficient asphalt in the mix, or
overheating of the mix leads to disintegration in a bituminous pavement.
d) Skid resistance - surface texture reduction and contaminant build-up such as

rubber deposit accumulation over a period of time will reduce a pavement's skid
resistance. In bituminous pavements, too much asphalt in the mix or too heavy
a prime coat will reduce skid resistance.
During the PCI survey procedure, as alluded to previously, sample units are inspected and
a determination of the distress types and severity levels is made. Standard distress types
can be checked from a listing on the inspection sheet and their severity and density noted.
11
Severity levels are then assigned "deduct values", totaled, adjusted, and an overall PCI
rating obtained by deducting the value for the sample from 100%. See Appendix C pages
C-14 and C-17 for the standard forms used in conducting the survey.
2.3 MODELING OBJECTIVES
The correlation and regression modeling equation calculations were accomplished using the
statistical software program MINITAB [3], and graphically presented using the Microsoft
Cricket Graph software package. Correlation is a means of measuring the association
between two variables, whereas regression goes a step further by establishing an equation
which determines one of the variables based on knowing the second. The variables are
classified as independent and dependent. In the case of this report the independent variable
is AGE, and the dependent variable is the corresponding PCI value.
An equation or curve will therefore show the relationship between these two variables over
a period of time. There are several important criteria needed in developing reliable
pavement models, with each respective criterion capable of significantly altering the model
obtained during the evaluation or investigation. The primary criteria are [1,2]:
a) A reliable data base.
b) Include any variable that will significantly affect pavement performance.

c) A usable and functional form of the model.
d) An accurate model which meets statistical requirements.
Modeling attempts to depict the past performance of a particular element based on input
data. The data used during the cc, rse of this report is simple, however, the PCI values
12
recorded are based on a pavement's overall condition which incorporates most of the
variables associated with a pavement's deterioration including, construction method,

materials, construction date, environment, traffic frequency and loading. The models
attempted and presented are considered the most applicable based on the constraints, and
the above elements apply with the exception of a "variable that will significantly affect the
pavement's performance."
2.4 PCI vs. AGE CURVES

As stated earlier in this chapter, the first objective is to develop PCI vs AGE curves for
different thicknesses of flexible and rigid pavements. There are varying representations of
curve fitting for data being evaluated ranging from a straight line fit to logarithmic curve fit
of tne data. The straight line fit is represented by an equation that reads as follows :
PCI(%) = B0 - B 1 (AGE). As in the case of any straight line equation, B0 is the intercept
on the PCI (y) axis and B 1 the slope of the line plotted. Based on the fact that a curve best
represents the deterioration of a pavement however, other equations involving exponential
relationships between the PCI rating and AGE, or polynomial relationships with additional
constants and AGE raised to increasing powers best depict the deterioration of a pavement.
These equations will be discussed in further detail in Chapter Four.
The following example depicts a typical graph and model that is indicative of the primary
objective of this report:
(a) Assume the points indicated in Figure 2-1 represent any pavement section.
Two of the possible curves that can be developed to "fit" the four available data points are
shown. The initial data point is considered to be PCI = 100, and AGE = 0. This is the
assumed value throughout this report for the original pavement construction time frame or
where a new surface treatment is applied. The remaining data points are (5,85), (10, 65),
13
and (15, 30). It is apparent that the curve more readily depicts the rate of deterioration of a
pavement versus the straight line depiction. If, for example, failure is considered to have
occurred at a PCI of 10%, then the age at failure is 21 years for the straight line fit and 17
years for the curvilinear fit.
Typical PCI vs. AGE Plot
1001
y = 100.00 - 3.1667x + O.1000xA2 - 1.3333e-2xA3
K"RA2 =1.000
80y
= PCI (%)
x = AGE (years)
60O
PCI
(%)
40 y = 104.50 - 4.6000x
RA2 = 0.962
20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
AGE (years)
Figure 2-1 Example model of PCI vs AGE for any pavement showing
straight line and curvilinear representations.
14
The R2 values indicated on the preceding graph will be addressed in Chapter Four.
The second objective of the report is to look at the correlation between pavement structures
and estimated LIFE. The time elapsed between original construction of a pavement and a
corrective or maintenance application defines the LIFE of that pavement. Regression
modeling results can be compared with simple LIFE calculations to determine if a
developed model compares favorably or not with results from these calculations. Standard
deviation computations will also be used when evaluating pavement LIFE data.
Figure 2-2 depicts typical straight-line performance plots of an AC surface course of two
inches asphalt concrete on varying base thicknesses. The correlation of increased base
thickness to increased pavement life [1] is apparent from the actual plots shown. An
assumption of similar construction materials and processes must also be made when
evaluating data results and graphic depictions such as these.
2.5 THE PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING SCALE
The PCI rating scale indicates the respective levels of pavement rated conditions. As
shown in Figure 2-3, however, failure of any particular pavement does not occur until a
10% PCI rating has been achieved. Although it was stated previously that 55% is the
recommended rehabilitation or replacement point, in fact a pavement is not considered in
very poor condition until between 10 and 25%. There is obviously a significant grey area
of rating unacceptability which needs to be better defined.
If the scale depicted an established point where the runway pavement was determined to be
not usable, then interpretation and subjectivity would become lesser factors in the use of the
15
the scale. Highways are evaluated using a similar rating method with their scale known as
the Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) scale, but there is an implied PCR value of
unacceptability at a PCR of 40% [1,8]. This rating is somewhat equal to the PCI 55%
rating based on the methods of rating pavements. Figure 2-3 is shown on the following
page.
PCI vs. AGE - Structural Comnarisons
100o
80
60 2" AC on 6"Base & 6"Subbase

PCI
(%)
40
20
2"AC on 6"Base 2"AC 8Base
0 -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
AGE (years)
Figure 2-2. Example model of PCI vs AGE for a flexible pavement

with constant AC and varying base composition. The
equation is PCI = B0 - B 1 (AGE).
16
PCI RATI NG
EXCELLENT
VERY GOOD
70
GOOD
55
FAIR
10
17
-FAILED
CHAPTER THREE
DATA REVIEW AND INTZEPRETATION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter will present the different categories of data evaluated and an explanation for
the particular categories chosen. Substantial information from the report completed by
Weisenberger [1] in 1988 was reviewed in addition to current data from the FAA and
WSDOT. The information reviewed was incorporated into a database and is attached as
Appendices A, B, and E. In addition, actual pavement condition surveys for Othello
Municipal, WA and Tillamook Airport, OR are included as example surveys in Appendices
A, and B, respectively. As in the case of the first PCI analysis report, written descriptions
of airport pavement histories were sometimes sketchy to non-existent. All descriptions
were read in detail, however, as evidenced from the data there are still many unknown
(UNK) pieces of information for many general aviation airports in the region.
Terminology was sometimes inconsistent particularly when the use of bituminous surface
treatments (BST's) were discussed. At times one could infer that the inspector or author of
the particular survey was referring to a seal coat application versus a BST.
During the first analysis 142 general aviation (GA) airports with 240 different runways
were evaluated. The analysis included airports in Washington (64), Oregon (56), and
Idaho (22). This report addresses 120 GA airports with 202 runways from Washington
and Oregon. Data from Idaho was included for age comparison and reference only. Of the
202 runways, only 78 had a second PCI survey conducted with a reduction in the PCI
rating. Other second survey data points were available but not used. Twenty-three points
18
were higher and in a few cases the same as the first survey three or four years prior. In
most cases where there was an increase in PCI rating there was a maintenance application
or overlay. In other cases the increased rating is attributable to the individual survey, as no
record of a surface treatment between surveys was documented. Other second survey PCI
ratings were the same as the first with no deterioration in a three or four year period. The
78 runways therefore provided 156 data points for evaluation, in addition to an assumed
PCI = 100 for each data category.
As noted in Chapter Two, PCI ratings are based on pavement distress, however, this
analysis will not attempt to tie particular distresses to individual PCI rating results.
Appendix C includes examples of various distresses found in runways.
Pavement condition surveys address all facets of an airport's pavement system; runways,
taxiways, and parking aprons. This study evaluates PCI values associated only with
runways at the GA airports in question. As shown in the surveys for Othello and
Tillamook airports, each survey includes the following information:
a) original construction dates

b) maintenance history
c) airport layout
d) sample locations and areas
e) types of pavement distress
f) maintenance recommendations
g) climate data
h) trend conditions
i) feature summaries
It is worthy to note that since PCI surveys are conducted by individuals it is to understand
that a certain amount of subjectivity accompanies each inspection despite the training of all
inspectors by the same FAA office. Since there is no "subjectivity" factor that can be
19
applied to the data, readings were accepted at face value and treated as collected, with the
exception of points that were simply omitted from the analysis due to no deterioration or an
increase in the ratings. These points were discussed earlier. The FAA in fact has reviewed
the data and deemed the surveys to be of good quality with no need for adjustments. Other
data points omitted from the analysis included those with unknown conditions which
placed what information there was on the particular runway or airport in doubt.
3.2 REVIEW OF 1988 DATA
As is the case in this analysis, Weisenberger [1] experienced difficulty with interpreting
data during the first PCI study. There were inconsistencies in the data and terminology
which still exist. Pavement histories were sketchy and often non-existent all of which
created several problems in establishing a credible database.
Similar pavement categories were chosen for this study for easy comparison with those
established in the first study. The areas of notable differences occur in the BST's and
surface maintenance applications, as the number of data points obtained from second
surveys did not warrant a general breakdown of single, double, and triple bituminous
surface treatments and only enabled the investigation of slurry seal applications.
Using selected data, Weisenberger (1] was able to generate regression equations and
survival statistics. The performance models provided an approximation of how various

pavements and maintenance techniques performed. The models were not intended to be
used as strict guidelines in assessing an individual pavement, but as an additional tool in
evaluating alternatives.
20
The assembly and compilation of the data indicated that numerous pavements were in need
of repair and replacement, even prior to development of the regression models. The report
provided a consolidated database of the tri-state area general aviation pavement conditions
and presented a good approximation of projected pavement performance and life. A

comparison of regression modeling results vill be addressed in Chapter Four.
3.3 DATA INTERPRETATION OF 1991 SURVEYS
Some basic and straight forward assumptions were made at the outset when this project
was undertaken. All pavements were considered to have a PCI of 100% at original
construction or whenever a new surface application was introduced. This assumption can
be somewhat tainted by the fact that the construction process could have been faulty or
construction materials substandard and therefore nullify the "perfection at the outset"
scenario. However, a pavement was considered "satisfactory", PCI = 55% according to
the rating scale in Figure 2-3, until the time it received a surface treatment. This elapsed
time between construction/surface application and a subsequent maintenance or
rehabilitation procedure is considered the life of the pavement. In the case of Tillamook
Airport, runway RI was originally constructed in 1943 with a 2-inch AC surface course.
In 1983 a 1.5-inch AC overlay was applied to the runway. This overlay received a PCI
rating of 92% in 1987. The LIFE of the pavement was therefore 40 years and the AGE at
the survey, 4 years. Other conclusions that can be drawn from the preceding information
are:
a) The 1.5" AC overlay is losing 2 % PCI points per year.
b) If one follows the rule of thumb that pavements should be repaired at about a
PCI = 55% [4], then the rate of PCI loss during the life of the original surface 2-
inch AC is about 1.1% PCI points per year, half the rate of the repair treatment.
This assumption of replacement at 55% can be both practical and erroneous since
21
no record of the PCI rating at rehabilitation of individual pavements is available. At
the present rate the AC overlay is predicted to last approximately 22.5 years. The
difference in the rates of deterioration can be attributable to a number of factors
including construction process or materials, as addressed above.
3.4 PAVEMENT COMPARISONS FOR 1st AND 2nd SURVEYS
As stated previously, the primary objective for this analysis was to look at pavements with
two sets of PCI points, actually three counting PCI = 100 at AGE = 0. These individual
points would then be grouped into an overall common category and an attempt made to
develop a representative model for the data set. Several pavements received surface
treatments between surveys and therefore had higher values of PCI compared to their initial
rating. Others received higher ratings, but there was no record of a surface treatment
applied and therefore the increased rating was attributable to the individual conducting the
rating or the lack of proper documentation for the respective pavement. In addition, six
pavements were discovered to have the same PCI rating for both surveys; four with a 4-
year difference in rating period and two with a 3-year difference in rating period. All of the
above mentioned runways were excluded from the overall analysis since the results were
not indicative of normal pavement performance.
Further attention was given to the average loss per year for individual pavements between
the following points:
a) AGE = 0 and the initial PCl rating
b) PCI rating No. 1 and PCI rating No. 2

c) AGE = 0 and PCI rating No. 2 (overall loss)
This was done in an effort to try and determine the best representative loss rating and
thereby assist in detemnination of LIFE calculations.
22
_ • aammmmm •ml immmm MM NM

WWýl I I I I
I
3.5 DATA REVIEW
The categories used in the analysis of the data obtained was grouped into five different
pavement characteristics, with one the characteristics subdivided in four further groupings.
Eight categories of pavements were therefore evaluated and are presented as Tables 3-1
through 3-5. Prior to discussing each of the categories and presentation of the data the
following notes are provided:
a) The AGE associated with each PCI rating is the time elapsed between the last
surface treatment, whether original or maintenance treated, and the listed PCI
survey rating.
b) In tables where only AGE values are given and no "asterisk" accompanies the
runway, there were no second survey PCI values available for the runway and as
such, a PCI evaluation was not conducted for the runway.
c) The tables indicated in b) are for estimation of that particular pavement feature's
overall LIFE.
The five pavement characteristics designated for individual groupings are flexible
pavements, AC overlays, bituminous surface treatments, surface maintenance techniques
(slurry seals only), and portland cement concrete.
3.5.1 Flexible Pavements - Flexible pavements are normally constructed with a

surface course of asphalt concrete, a base course, and depending on design criteria, a
subbase course. The base course will normally be composed of a high quality aggregate
which can be treated or untreated, crushed or uncrushed, or any combination thereof. If
required the subbase would normally be of a lesser quality aggregate than the base. The
subdivided categories for flexible pavements are:
23
a) Two to three inches of AC on six to eight inches of base (Table 3-1a). This
category included 12 runways providing 24 data points. Eight runways were from
Washington and four from Oregon. The base could be a combination of base and
subbase but had to be eight inches or less.
b) Two to three inches of AC on greater than eight inches of base (Table 3-1b).
Nine runways with 18 data points were evaluated, with seven from Washington
and two from Oregon. The base-subbase composition was irrelevant.
c) Greater than three inches of AC on any base or subbase (Table 3-1c). Five
runways with 10 data points were evaluated, with three Washington and two
Oregon runways.
d) World War Two constructed AC runways (Table 3-1d). Five runways

generated 10 data points to be evaluated and all runways were from Washington.
24
TABLE 3-la Flexible pavements with associated PCI survey results and the corresponding AGE for the
respective survey (Pavement structural sections consist of 2 - 3 inches AC on
6 - 8 inches of base).
No. AIRPORT & LOCATION PCI AGE PCI AGE

(%) (years) (%) (years)
1. BOWERS FIELD, ELLENSBURG, WA (RI) 67 10 64 13

2. BREMERTON, WA (R5) 82 13 80 17
3. ELMA MUNICIPAL AP, WA 88 12 83 15
4. EVERGREEN FIELD, WA (R1) 55 20 51 24
5. EVERGREEN FIELD (R2) 86 16 77 20
6. MOSES LAKE, WA (R2) 29 14 18 18
7. PACKWOOD, WA 94 3 90 6
8. PORT OF ILWACO, WA 71 15 49 18
9. ASHLAND, OR (R2) 92 2 88 6
10. PACIFIC CITY-STATE, OR 79 37 75 41
11. SEASIDE STATE, OR 88 23 83 27
12. TRI-CITY STATE, OR 88 4 77 8
Notes: Where a runway designation is not listed there is only one runway presently at the airport.
All "AGE" listings associated with a PCI value are the ages of the pavement fea'ure when
the PCI survey was conducted.
25
TABLE 3-lb Flexible pavements with associated PCI survey results and the corresponding AGE for the
respective survey (Pavement structural sections consist of 2 - 3 inches AC on greater than
8 inches of base).

I. ANACORTES, WA (R2) 95 13 90 16
2. ANACORTES (R3) 100 13 92 16
3. AUBURN, WA (R2) 90 19 87 23
4. EPHRATA, WA (R2B) 89 4 84 8
5. KELSO-LONGVIEW, WA 90 4 82 8
6. OLYMPIA, WA (R2) 89 8 85 11
7. PULLMAN, WA (R2) 70 18 48 21
8. HOOD RIVER, OR (R1) 96 1 92 5
9. HOOD RIVER (R2) 95 1 90 5
Notes: Where a runway designation is not listed there is only one runway presently at the airport, or
one runway feature of the main runway that was evaluated at the time of the survey.
In certain cases, for example, R2 indicates a separate second runway, however, in others such
as Pullman R2, the PCI values are for a specific section of the main runway. Appendices A &
B list the differences and show the composition of the pavements for different runways.
26
TABLE 3-Ic Flexible pavements with associated PCI survey results and the corresponding AGE for the
respective survey (Pavement structural sections consist of greater than 3 inches AC on
any base or subbase).

1. BREMERTON, WA (R2) 83 13 75 17
2. BREMERTON (R3) 86 13 80 17
3. PULLMAN, WA (R3) 81 18 68 21
4. CHRISTMAS VALLEY, OR 90 2 86 6
5. ILLINOIS VALLEY, OR (R2) 93 27 91 31
Note: Pullman R3 is not a separate third runway.
TABLE 3-ld Flexible pavements with associated PCI survey results and the corresponding AGE for
runways constructed during World War Two (No repair or rehabilitation treatment
applied).

I. BOWERMAN FIELD, WA (R1) 77 43 59 46

2. BOWERS FIELD, WA (R4) 54 44 52 47
3. DEER PARK, WA (R3) 47 43 39 46
4. OLYMPIA, WA (RI) 55 46 45 49
5. WINLOCK-TOLEDO, WA 49 43 42 46
Note: Where a runway designation is not listed there is only one runway presently at the airport, or
one pavement feature of the main runway that was evaluated at the time of the survey.
27
Pavement life for runways with flexible pavements constructed during World War Two
(WWII), and those constructed after WWII, was examined and data indicated in the
following tables. The WWII period is considered between 1942 and 1945.
a) Post World War Two pavement LIFE (Table 3-le). The table is separated into
two categories for runways with less than three inches of AC, and those greater
than three inches AC Thirty one runways are listed with only seven of the runways
examined in the PCI analysis.
b) WWII pavement LIFE runway evaluations (Table 3-11). These comprised 42

runways with 12 of the runways examined in the PCI analysis. They are separated
as in the Post-WWII section. As indicated, several airports were in excess of 40
years old before a surface treatment was applied.
For those runways with a corresponding PCI analysis, the Corrective Measure column
indicates the category that includes the particular runway for overall analysis. In addition,
Appendix D illustrates individual regression modeling for runways being analyzed. The
Corrective Measure stated defined the "LIFE" of the respective pavements, and the AC
surface course was the original surface course applied to the runway.
28
TABLE 3-le Flexible pavement life for pavements constructed after World War II
Pavements with less than 3 inches of original AC surface course
No. AIRPORT & LOCATION AC AGE CORRECTIVE YEAR

(in) (years) MEASURE
1. HARVEY FIELD, WA 2 12 SEAL COAT 1982

2. PANGBORN FIELD, WA (Ri) 2 37 CHIP SEAL 1974
3. PEARSON AIRPARK, WA (R1)* 1.5 9 CHIP SEAL 1975
4. PEARSON AIRPARK (R2)* 1.5 9 CHIP SEAL 1975
5. PIERCE COUNTY, WA 1.5 30 REBUILT 1988
6. PROSSER, WA 2 4 CHIP SEAL 1981
7. PULLMAN-MOSCOW, WA (R1)* 2 24 2" AC OVERLAY 1972
8. SEKIU, WA (Ri) 2 15 CHIP/SAND SEAL 1987
9. SEKIU (R2) 2 8 CHIP/SAND SEAL 1987
10. ALBANY MUNICIPAL, OR 2 27 2"AC OVERLAY 1986
11. BANDON STATE, OR 2.5 6 CHIP SEAL 1972
12. CHILOQUIN, OR 1.25 7 SEAL COAT 1968
13. FLORENCE MUNICIPAL, OR 1.5 17 2"AC OVERLAY 1985
14. GOLD BEACH, OR 1 19 REBUILT 1983
15. HERMISTON, OR 1.5 18 2"AC OVERLAY 1977
16. ROSEBURG, OR* 2 35 SLURRY SEAL 1986
17. TRI-CITY, OR* 1.5 13 CHIP SEAL 1983
18. CALDWELL, ID (R1) 2 11 SL./FOG SEAL 1986
19 CALDWELL (R2) 2 11 SL./FOG SEAL 1986
20. CRAIGMONT, ID 1 8 CHIP/FOG SEAL 1983
21. GOODING MUNICIPAL, ID 2 7 SLURRY SEAL 1985
22. NAMPA MUNICIPAL, ID 2 9 SL./FOG SEAL 1985
23. SODA SPRINGS, ID 2.5 14 SLURRY SEAL 1983
Note: "AGE" in Tables 3-le and 3-If is the difference between original construction and the year of
the corrective measure. See Appendices A, B & E for complete tabular listings.
29
TABLE 3-le Flexible pavement life for pavements constructed after World War I1
(cont'd)
Pavements with 3 inches or greater of original AC surface course

1. PANGBORN FIELD (R2) 3 37 CHIP SEAL 1974

2. PULLMAN-MOSCOW (R2)* 3 17 GROOVED 1985
3. PULLMAN-MOSCOW (R3)* 4 17 GROOVED 1985
4. SUNNYSIDE, WA 3 10 SLURRY SEAL 1985
5. AURORA STATE, OR 3 3 2"AC OVERLAY 1978
6. ROBERTS FIELD, OR (R 1) 4 6 POR. FRIC. CRS. 1981
7. GRANGEVILLE, ID (R1) 3 18 2" AC OVERLAY 1983
8. McCALL MUNICIPAL, ID 3 11 SLURRY SEAL 1985
Idaho runways are included here for comparison with Washington and Oregon state
airports with respect to AGE. The former are not included in PCI data comparison or
evaluation as there has been no second set of PCI surveys conducted for Idaho airports
as of this writing.
* Indicates airports with a second set of PCI surveys which are included in the data
analysis and evaluation of this report. Refer to Tables 3-1a through 3-4 and Appendices
A, B, and E for PCI and pavement structural section information.
30
TABLE 3-If Flexible pavement life for pavements constructed during World War II.

1. BREMERTON NATIONAL, WA (R1)* 2.5 32 3"AC OL 1974

2. EPHRATA, WA (R2)* 2.5 27 SLURRY SEAL 1970
3. KENNEWICK VISTA, WA 2 34 CHIP SEAL 1976
4. OLYMPIA, WA (R3)* 2.5 38 3"AC OL 1980
5. RICHLAND, WA (R1) 2 36 2"AC OL 1979
6. RICHLAND (R2) 2 36 2"AC OL 1979
7. SANDERSON FIELD, WA* 2 37 SLURRY SEAL 1979
8. WILLIAM R. FAIRCHILD, WA (R1) 2 37 2"AC OL 1979
9. WILLIAM R. FAIRCHILD (R2) 2 37 2"AC OL 1979
10. WILLIAM R. FAIRCHILD (R3) 2 36 2"AC OL 1978
11. BAKER MUNICIPAL, OR (R1) 2.5 21 SEAL COAT 1963
12. BAKER MUNICIPAL (R2) 2.5 21 SEAL COAT 1963
13. BOARDMAN, OR 2 37 1.5" AC OL 1980
14. BURNS MUNICIPAL, OR (RI) 2 36 CHIP SEAL 1978
15. BURNS (R2) 2 36 CHIP SEAL 1978
16. CORVALLIS, OR 2.5 42 3" AC OL 1984
17. LA GRANDE, OR (R2) 2 32 4"AC OL 1974
18. LAKE COUNTY, OR* 2 42 SLURRY SEAL 1985
19. MADRAS COUNTY, OR 2 34 2" AC OL 1977
20. McMINNVILLE MUNICIPAL, OR (R2) 2 37 SLURRY SEAL 1980
21. NORTH BEND MUNICIPAL, OR (R2) 2.5 34 2" AC OL 1977
22. NORTH BEND (R2A) 2.25 34 2" AC OL 1977
23. PENDELTON, MUNICIPAL, OR (R2) 2 32 PFC/7"AC OL 1974
24. PENDELTON (R3) 2 36 3" AC OL 1978
25. PENDELTON (R4) 2 36 5.5" AC OL 1978
26 PENDELTON (RS) 2 36 10"AC OL 1978
27. PORT OF ASTORIA, OR (R2)* 2.5 36 3/4" AC OL 1980
31
TABLE 3-if Flexible pavement life for pavements constructed during World War H.
(cont'd)

28. SCAPPOOSE INDUSTRIAL, OR 2 43 SLURRY SEAL 1986

29. NEWPORT MUNICIPAL, OR (R1) 2 40 3" AC OL 1984
30. NEWPORT (R.2) 2 40 SLURRY SEAL 1984
31. THE DALLES MUNICIPAL, OR (R1) 2.25 22 SLURRYSEAL 1965
32. TILLAMOOK, OR (R1) 2 40 1.5" AC OL 1983
33. TILLAMOOK (R2) 2 40 CHIP SEAL 1983
Pavements with 3 inches or gmater of original AC surface course

1. ARLINGTON MUNICIPAL, WA (R2)* 3 34 2"AC OL 1976

2. BREMERTON NATIONAL (R2)* 3 32 5"AC OL 1974
3. BREMERTON NATIONAL (R3)* 5 41 CRACK SEAL 1983
4. BREMERTON NATIONAL (R4)* 3 32 2"AC OL 1974
5. EPHRATA (RIA)* 3 27 SLURRY SEAL 1970
6. OMAK, WA* 4.5 31 2.5" AC OL 1974
7. NORTH BEND, OR (R1) 3 34 2" AC OL 1977
8. NORTH BEND (R3) 3 9 CHIP SEAL 1952
9. PENDELTON (R1) 3 32 PFC/7" AC OL 1974
* Indicates airports with a second set of PCI surveys which are included in the data
analysis and evaluation of this report. Refer to Tables 3-2 through 3-4 and Appendices
A, B, and E for PCI and pavement structunl section information.
32
3.5.2 AC Overlays - AC overlays considered for this category of the analysis
ranged from 3/4 inch to 3 inches, with the majority of the runways receiving a 2 inch
overlay as a rehabilitation measure. Eighteen runways were evaluated (36 points) with
only six receiving less than a 2 inch overlay. Twelve of the 18 runways were Washington,
and the remaining six are Oregon runways. Of the corrective measures analyzed for this
study, AC overlays were easily the most commonly used. Table 3-2 lists the PCI ratings at
the corresponding pavement AGE and AC overlay thickness.
Asphalt concrete overlays are used as a means of rehabilitating existing pavements [1,5].
They restore the existing pavement's surface characteristics and improve its structural
integrity. The thickness of an AC overlay is determined by the intended use and can vary
from approximately I inch, and sometimes less*, to several inches [5]. The most common
thickness used is normally 2 inches. The AC overlays were examined as a single pavement
feature with all thicknesses grouped together.
* The Port of Astoria's runways RI and RIA each have 3/4-inch AC overlay surface
courses.
33
TABLE 3-2 Flexible pavement AC overlays with associated PCI results and corresponding AGE
No. AIRPORT & LOCATION OL PCI AGE PCI AGE

(in) (%) (years) (%) (years)
1. ANACORTES, WA (R1) 2 96 13 91 16
2. ARLINGTON, WA (R2) 2 89 10 84 13
3. BREMERTON, WA (R4) 2 88 13 83 17
4. CREST, WA 2 97 1 90 5
5. MOSES LAKE, WA (R1) 2 89 3 81 7
6. OLYMPIA, WA (R3) 3 86 8 84 11
7. OMAK, WA 2.5 68 12 65 15
8. OTHELLO, WA 2 79 11 74 15
9. PORT OF WILLIPA HARBOR, WA (R1) 1 72 10 58 13
10. PORT OF WILLIPA HARBOR (R2) 1.25 68 10 59 13
11. PULLMAN-MOSCOW REGIONAL, WA (R1) 2 75 14 70 17
12. WILBUR, WA 2 92 1 83 4
13. ASHLAND, OR (R 1) 2 91 1 89 5
14. ILLINOIS VALLEY, OR (R1) 2 87 10 83 14
15. PINEHURST, OR 1 83 2 76 6
16. PORT OF ASTORIA, OR (R1) 3/4 87 7 79 11
17. PORT OF ASTORIA (R IA) 3/4 77 7 68 11
18. TILLAMOOK, OR (RI) 1.5 92 4 89 8
Note: Where a runway designation is not listed there is only one runway presently at the airport.
"AGE" is the difference between the year of original construction of the overlay and the year
the PCI survey was conducted. Refer to Appendices A and B for PCI survey dates.
34
3.5.3 Bituminous Surface Treatments (BST) - Bituminous surface treatments are
different from asphalt concrete in that they do very little to enhance a pavement's ability to
support loads [6]. The surface treatment is normally less than 1 inch in thickness and
consists of a thin layer of bituminous binder containing surface course aggregate [5]. This
layer is normally placed on an aggregate base. These applications are most often used as a
wearing and waterproofing surface course [1]. BSTs are usually applied for maintenance
purposes which includes use as a seal coat on previously treated surfaces. This particular
difference caused some problems in the case of the first report because of the use of
terminology in the PCI surveys, i.e. seal coat versus BST.

Nine runways were analyzed with no distinction regarding whether the surface
course was a single bituminous layer, double, or triple treatment. It should be noted that a
DBST does not always mean two single BST layers, and similarly a TBST does not mean
necessarily that three single BST layers are present. The difference relates to multiple
equivalent layers as opposed gradually increasing aggregate size layers. Table 3-3a lists
PCI and AGE results for the 9 runways, 18 points, and Table 3-3b provides LIFE data for
those pavements which received surface treatments prior to the two PCI surveys. Only one
of the runways was from Oregon.
35
TABLE 3-3a Bituminous surface treatments with associated PCI results and corresponding AGE.
("AGE" indicated is time elapsed between last surface treatment and survey.)
(See Appendices A and B for years of survey for the respective runways.)
No. AIRPORT & LOCATION BST PCI AGE PCI AGE

COMP. (%) (years) (%) (years)
1. CONCRETE MUNICIPAL, WA DBST 61 12 34 15

2. DAVENPORT, WA TBST 82 2 60 5
3. OCEAN SHORES, WA DBST 98 1 95 4
4. ODESSA, WA (RI) DBST 79 2 46 6
5. ODESSA (RIA) TBST 58 2 50 6
6. SEQUIM VALLEY, WA DBST 52 3 42 6
7. STORM FIELD, WA TBST 73 1 68 4
8. WOODLAND STATE, WA TBST 91 3 88 7
9. NEWHALAM BAY, OR TBST 80 8 77 12
Note: BST's include both original construction and maintenance ("seal coats")
TABLE 3-3b Bituminous surface treatments LIFE data.
No. AIRPORT & LOCATION BST SURFACE BASE AGE

COMP. COURSE (inches) (years)
1. CONCRETE MUNICIPAL, WA DBST DBST (OS) 6 NR

2. DAVENPORT, WA TBST BST-DBST 8 11
3. OCEAN SHORES, WA DBST DBST (OS) 8 NR
4. ODESSA, WA (RI) DBST DBST 6 15*
5. ODESSA (RIA) TBST DBST-BST 3 15
6. SEQUIM VALLEY, WA DBST DBST (OS) 12 NR
7. STORM FHELD, WA TBST BST-DBST 8 17
8. WOODLAND STATE, WA TBST TBST (OS) ? NR
9. NEWHALAM BAY, OR TBST BST-DBST 6 14
OS - original surface NR - no repair/rehab * - reconstructed
36
3.5.4 Surface Maintenance Applications & Techniques The only surface
maintenance technique evaluated in this study, was the category of slurry seals, as this
treatment was the only one present in runways with two sets of PCI surveys. Surface
maintenance applications are normally sprayed asphalt treatments and are a repair measure
rather than a structural enhancement method. Waterproofing and improvement of skid
resistance are two of the primary uses of these applications [1]. The first analysis had six
groupings of surface seal applications, but as noted above only slurry seal maintenance will
be addressed here. This was not considered a problem since it is the most common repair
method. Slurry seals are a mixture of well-graded fine aggregate, mineral filler, emulsified
asphalt, and water applied to a pavement as a surface treatment.
Of the airports evaluated, none have received a subsequent treatment, therefore
maintenance technique LIFE investigations were not possible. Eleven runways with 22
PCI/AGE points were analyzed. Eight of the 11 runways were from Washington.
Weisenberger's [1] study addressed surface treatment LIFE evaluations for various
applications, however, the data make-up and groupings will not be restated here. Findings
from the analysis of the data will be summarized for reference in Chapter Four.
37
TABLE 3-4 Slurry seal surface maintenance applications with PCI results and corresponding AG]
(Age listed is time elapsed since initial surface treatment).

1. EPHRATA MUNICIPAL, WA (R1A) 60 17 55 21

2. EPHRATA MUNICIPAL (R2) 53 17 43 21
3. PRU FIELD, WA 83 2 77 6
4. QUINCY, WA (R1) 72 7 70 11
5. ROSALIA MUNICIPAL, WA 68 2 49 6
6. SAND CANYON (CHEWELAH), WA 88 12 70 15
7. SANDERSON FIELD, WA 77 9 72 12
8. WHITMAN COUNTY MEMORIAL, WA 57 5 40 8
9. LAKE COUNTY, OR 71 2 68 6
10. ROSEBURG MUNICIPAL, OR 77 1 57 5
11. SCAPPOOSE INDUSTRIAL, OR 65 1 64 5
Note: Where a runway designation is not listed there is only one runway presently at the airport.
38
3.5.5 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavements - Eight PCC pavements with
sixteen data points were analyzed, and as indicated by the data, only Condon State Airport
was constructed after WWII. The runway is also the only Oregon pavement represented in
the data. Three of the runways are in poor shape whereas two are in very good to excellent
shape. It is interesting to note that the runway at Condon State is the newest of the airports
yet it has experienced the most severe deterioration rate (4% PCI loss per year since the
first PCI survey). At this rate, significant rehabilitation will be required in another six or
seven years, which is almost unacceptable since the pavement life would be a mere 11
years. No record of any maintenance or repair for Bowerman Field R2 or Chehalis-
Centralia RI was found. Table 3-5 lists the pertinent information for this category.
TABLE 3-5 Portland cement concrete pavement PCI results and corresponding AGE.

1. BOWERMAN FIELD, WA (R2) 86 43 84 46

2. BOWERMAN FIELD (R3) 33 43 26 46
3. CHEHALIS-CENTRALIA, WA (RI) 84 45 81 49
4. CHEHALIS-CENTRALIA (R2) 78 45 67 49
5. EPHRATA, WA (R1) 40 44 33 48
6. EPHRATA (R2A) 47 44 26 48
7. QUILLAYUTE, WA 72 44* 69 47*
8. CONDON STATE, OR 94 1 78 5
* An original construction date for Quillayute could not be determined, but based on various record
information the assumed date of construction was set at 1942.
Note: Where a runway designation is not listed there is only one runway presently at the
airport.
39
CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
4.1 ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION
The primary analysis in this paper is based on regression modeling. Physical hand
calculations were not required with the exception of simple average computations for the
average deterioration of various pavements and AGE or LIFE calculations. Reference

material and subsequently the use of software packages were the means to the development
of these models/equations. The WSDOT study entitled "Regression Analysis for WSDOT
Material Applications" [21, and "Prediction Models and Performance Curves" [101, from a
Federal Highway Administration short-course were the two primary reference items used
during the accomplishment of this analysis and report.
4.2 REGRESSION MODELING
The regression modeling techniques used in this analysis are not recommended to be strict
applications for predicting pavement performance. Rather, they are intended to be used as
guidelines in assessing individual pavement performance against a select grouping or

groupings of pavement. The equations developed and graphic plots depicted are intended
to be additional tools in helping an airport manager more effectively use information and
assets on hand to better plan and budget the pavement management system respective to the
40
airport needs. The limited data for analysis restricts the use of the models in any other
manner.
4.2.1 Regression Models - Simple linear and non-linear regression analysis were
the two methods of analysis applied to the available data. Simple linear regression
provides a straight "best-fit" representation and non-linear provides a curvilinear depiction
through the use of exponential, polynomial, or logarithmic functions. In the case of this
study, both exponential and polynomial applications were used, however, in all cases the
polynomial application provided what appeared to be the best curve fit. The two variables
which are used throughout the analysis are PCI rating and AGE, with the former being the
dependent variable and the latter, the independent variable. The modeling is considered
"simple" since only one independent variable exists, with the exception of polynomials,
and in the case of the simple linear regression where the equation used is normally PCI =
B0- BI (AGE), the equation is linear since both parameters (B0, B 1 ) and the independent
variable (AGE) are not power functions. A non-linear model is one where the regression
parameters appear as exponents or where the independent variable(s) appear as second

order or higher powers [101.
The regression parameters (B0 , B 1 ) are commonly referred to as regression coefficients,
and, as stated in Chapter Two, B0 represents the intercept of the regression line and B 1 the
slope of the regression line in a linear equation. Polynomial equations depict more than one
independent variable, however, each subsequent variable is a power function of the original
independent variable. The following equation indicates this relationship:
PCI = B 0 + B 1 (AGE) + B2 (AGE) 2 ...... +Bn(AGE)n
The use of polynomials is restricted in that an attempt should always be made to use the
lowest degree polynomial equation to obtain the "best fit" possible.
41
The preferred method of regression analysis by WSDOT is the exponential form of the
standard regression equations where the "power" is fixed, then the regression coefficients
are determined based on available data points [10]. WSDOT uses this application in their
Pavement Management System by selecting various powers until the best fit is obtained.
The equation reads as follows:
PCR = B0 +B 1 (AGE)n (where "n" is the selected power)
Normally the power ranges from 1.0 to 3.0, and results are analyzed in 0.25 increments.
The generation of regression equations is accompanied by factors which give an indication
of the reliability or confidence associated with the equation resulting from analysis of the
data. The following is a list of the factors and their relationship to the data:
a) R-Squared - R-squared is the coefficient of determination and

used to explain how much the total variation in the data is explained by the
regression line [2]. This value is expressed as a percent, therefore if all
points fall on the regression line the R-squared value is 100% whereas if the
point are a significant distance away from the regression line the value will
also decrease significantly. The higher the R-squared the more confidence
is provided regarding the data and the line chosen to best fit this data.
b) T-Ratio - The T-ratio is the result of a hypothesis test which

determines how well the independent variable predicts the dependent
variable. The T-ratio should generally be greater than 2.0 for each
independent variable to be a relatively strong predictor for the dependent
variable [11].
c) SEE - The SEE value is the standard error of the estimate [11].
This value is used to estimate the standard deviation of the dependent
variable about the regression line and is in the units of the dependent
variable. Smaller SEE values for an equation indicate better reliability.
42
The MINITAB software used in the analyses provides the values of R-squared, T-ratio,
and SEE in addition to the regression equation.
4.2.2 Regression Assumptions - The primary assumption used throughout the
analysis of the pavement categories is that the PCI rating at construction or surface
treatment is equal to 100%. This therefore facilitated the use of PCI = 100 at AGE = 0 for
each set of data points used to describe overall pavement condition. The assumption was
also used with the individual runway data when developing single regression equations.
The assumption was applied to new construction, reconstruction, AC overlays, and also to
slurry seals for this study. In the case of slurry seals, evaluations were conducted for both
cases, with the first category evaluated as stated above, and the second assuming PCI was
not equal to 100% at AGE = 0. From the analysis it was evident that the latter assumption
was more realistic.
4.2.3 Regression Equation Development - The above stated assumption is

instrumental as it provided a third data point in the case of individual runway model or
equation development, and an initial data point for each pavement category. In the case of
the initial study conducted by Weisenberger [1], an evaluation of the data without the initial
data point of PCI = 100 and AGE = 0 in various models, revealed essentially the same
equation results with slight differences in the R-squared, T-ratio and PCI (y) intercept.
This assumption, however, could be criticized as it implies perfection at the outset or upon
corrective applications. This is especially inconsistent in the case of seal coat applications
because of the range of quality applications and materials in the field. The data to some
extent illustrates this point with some runways already in "fair" and "good" shape after only
a year, whereas a few are in "very good" and "excellent" shape after seven and up to twelve
years.
43
The critical decision in conducting the analysis was the choice between the use of the
polynomial regression and exponential regression relationships outlined in section 4.2.1.
The same process of selection of powers for the best curve fit was applied in the use of
polynomial equations with the Microsoft Cricket Graph software. This procedure provided
a somewhat comparable curve to the normal expected representation of a pavement's
performance.
The data was compared from both standpoints in that exponential regression modeling was
accomplished using the MINITAB software and polynomial regression modeling was done
with Cricket Graph. Comparisons and an assessment of each set of findings will be
discussed in each category. The Cricket Graph software did not however provide T-ratio
and SEE values for comparison with the MINITAB analyses. In addition, during the
course of analysis certain data point "sets", two PCI survey readings for a runway, were
intentionally omitted when presenting the final plot of the best fit curve. This was done in
cases where the set provided a significant influence on the outcome of the regression
model. In these cases unreported maintenance on the runway surface, construction quality,
or poor materials used could have influenced the PCI results for the corresponding AGE of
the pavement. The data is shown on the graph but when the "best" representative curve
was selected, the high influence data or sets of points which did not appear to be indicative
of normal pavement behavior, did not determine the model outcome. It will be very evident
from the illustrations which data points were omitted in the development of the final model.
4.3 REGRESSION ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The following sections provide the results and accompanying pertinent assumptions or
modifications relative to the category being analyzed The regression equation listed is per
the procedure listed in the preceding section. Where data points have been intentionally
44
omitted, special graph points will be shown to distinguish them from the points used for
the final equation. The category sequence is as pres-nted in Chapter Three and is restated
here for quick reference.
Flexible pavements ranging from AC surface course original construction to bituminous
surface treatments were evaluated for this report. Slurry seals were the only surface
maintenance applications analyzed and for rigid pavements, portland cement concrete was
the only runway of choice. Below is the category arrangement for the pavement sections:
a) Flexible Pavements 4.3.1
b) AC Overlays 4.3.2
c) Bituminous Surface Treatments 4.3.3
d) Slurry Seal Surface Treatments 4.3.4
e) Portland Cement Concrete 4.3.5
4.3.1 Flexible Pavements - The data for flexible pavements was separated into
four categories for performance evaluation using regression analysis. Three of the four
were based on thickness, and the fourth was restricted to World War Two (WWII)
pavement analysis. Two categories were used in evaluating flexible pavement LIFE,
WWII constructed runways and post WWII runways.
4.3.1.1 Regression Models - Tables 4-la through 4-ld list the regression analysis
results obtained for the flexible pavement categories evaluated in this section.
45
TABLE 4-la Regression equations for flexible pavement structural sections consisting
of 2 - 3 inches AC on 6 - 8 inches of base.
i (1)
(With "high influence points")
WASHINGTON OREGON
PCI = 99.1 - 2.14(AGE) PCI = 91.5 - 0.361 (AGE)
t-ratio = 2.78 t-ratio = 2.73
R-sq = 34.0% R-sq = 51.6%
SEE= 19.2 SEE = 5.89
N= 17 N=9
COMBINED CRICKET GRAPH RESULTS

PCI = 82.0 - 0.486(AGE) PCI = 99.11 - 2.14(AGE) WA
t-ratio = 1.13 R-sq = 34.0% N = 17
R-sq = 5.3%
SEE = 20.01 PCI = 91.48 - 0.361(AGE) OR
N = 25 R-sq =51.6% N=9
PCI = 83.07 - 0.583(AGE) Comb.

R-sq = 8.5%
Note: "N" is the number of data points used.
(2)
(Without "high influence points")
WASHINGTON OREGON
2
PCI = 91.7 - .072(AGE) Same
t-ratio = 3.84
R-sq = 53.1%
SEE= 11.2
N = 15
PCI = 99.2 - 1.99(AGE) PCI = 99.83 - 1.78(AGE) WA
t-ratio = 2.57 R-sq = 54.9%
R-sq = 28%
SEE = 19.65 PCI = 97.9 - 2.07(AGE) Combined
N = 21 R-sq = 40.8%
High Influence Point - HIP
46
2-3"AC on 6-8"Base
(WA Pavements)
100
so y = 99.827 - 1.7842x
R^2 w0.549
For Simple St Line w/o HIP
60
PCI (%)
40
20 V Y = 101.39 - 3.7992x + 0.24413x"2 - 7.2720e-3x^3

RA2 = 0.574
w/o HIP
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
AGE (years)
Figure 4-1a WA PCI vs AGE For 9 Runways
Showing Plots Without High Influence Pts
2-3"AC on 6-8"Base
(OR Pavements)
10
y = 91.486 - 0.36065x
R^2 = 0.516
60 For Simple St Line Fit
PCI (%)
40
20
- I . p
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
AGE (years)
Figure 4-lb OR PCI vs AGE For 4 Runways
2-3"AC on 6-8"Base
All Pavements
1001,
80 U
U m
y = 97.897 - 2.0742x
RA2 = 0.408
PCI (%)
40
20
0.
0 10 20 30 40 50
AGE (years)
Figure 4-1c Combined PCI vs AGE
TABLE 4-lb Regression equations for flexible pavement structural sections consisting of
2 - 3 inches AC on greater than 8 inches of base/subbase.
(1)
(With HIP's)
WASHINGTON OREGON
PCI = 96.4 - 0.853(AGE) PCI = 98.1 - 1.47(AGE)
R-sq = 20.3% R-sq - 85.2%
SEE= 11.87 SEE= 1.71
N =15 N=5
PCI = 96.1 - 0.838(AGE) PCI = 96.4 - 0.853(AGE) WA
t-ratio = 2.45 R-sq = 20.3%
R-sq = 26.1%
SEE = 10.39 PCI = 98.1 - 1.47(AGE) OR
N = 19 R-sq = 85.2%
PCI = 96.1 - 0.838(AGE) Combined

R-sq = 26.1%
Note: "N" is number of data points used.
(2)
(Without HIP's)
WASHINGTON OREGON
2
PCI = 91.1 - .036(AGE) Same
t-ratio = 1.9
R-sq = 24.7
SEE= 11.81
N = 13
1.5
PCI = 93.6 - 0.19(AGE) See Polynomial Fit Fig. 4-2a of WA
t-ratio = 2.78 For Equation R-sq = 28.2%
R-sq = 34%
SEE = 10.04 See Fig 4-2c For Combined Fit
N = 17 & Equation R-sq = 36%
49
2-3" AC on >8" Base
(WA Pavements)
y =96.411 -0.85259x
60 y 97.519 - 2.1395x + 0.14005XA2 - 4.17O3e-3XA3

RA2 = 0.282
PCI(%
M ~ H
40
20 y = 97.223
- 2.5175x + 0.24338XA2 - 8.1044e-3xA3
RA2 =0.254
0
0 10 20 30 40
AGE (years)
Shown With & Without High Influence Pts
2-3"AC on >8"Base
Pavements)
1001'(OR
80
60
C
40 ~y = 98.138 - 1.474 1x
RA2=O0.852
For Simple St Line Fit
20
0 5 t0 15 20 25
AGE (years)
Figure 4-2b OR PCI vs AGE For 2 Runways
2-3"AC on >8" Base
All Pavements
• For Simple St. Line Fit

0 y = 96.140 - 0.83842x
80 -RA2 = 0.261
60
PCI (%)
40
y = 97.498 - 1.9939x + 0.12299xA2 - 3.6903e-3xA3

20 RA2 = 0.360
w/o HIP
0
0 10 20 30 40
AGE (years)
Figure 4-2e Combined PCI vs AGE
TABLE 4-1c Regression equations for flexible pavement structural sections consisting of
greater than 3 inches AC on any base/subbase.
(1)
(With HIP's)
WASHINGTON OREGON
1.5
PCI = 99.8 - 0.3 1(AGE) 92.7 - 0.05(AGE)
R-sq = 92.1% R-sq - 2.1%
SEE = 3.05 SEE =5.88
N=7 N=5

PCI = 89.9 - 0.3 1(AGE) See Polynomial Fit Fig 4-3a of WA
t-ratio = 1.10 For Equation R-sq = 92.3%
R-sq = 11.9%
SEE = 8.92
N= 11
(2)
(Without HIP's)
COMBINED OREGON
2
PCI = 94.0 - .054(AGE) PCI = 97.7 - 2.14(AGE)
R-sq = 85.4% R-sq = 82.4%
SEE = 3.813 SEE = 4.276
N=9 N=3
CRICKET GRAPH RESULTS

2 -2 3
(AGE)
PCI = 98.8 - 4.2(AGE) + 0.4(AGE) - 1.3e
R-sq = 93.1%
N-9
52
Greater Than 3"AC On Any Base/Subbase
(WA Pavements)
10010
80
y = 99.824 -.0.62928x - 3.7755e-2xA2

RA2 =0.923
60
PCI (%)
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
AGE (years)

(OR Pavements)
1001!
80 - y = 92.676 - 5.1234e-2x
RA2 = 0.021
For St Line Inci HIP
60
y = 97.714 - 2.1429x
PCI (%) RA2 = 0.824
For Simple St Line Fit w/o HIP
40
20
0 10 20 30 40
AGE (years)
Figure 4-3b OR PCI vs AGE For 2 Runways
All Pavements
1000
C10
y 98.824 - 4.1619x + 0.39705x - L2812e-2xA3

12
RA2 -0.931
10 20 30 40
AGE (years)
Figure 4-3c Combined PCI vs AGE w/o HIP
TABLE 4-id Regression equations for flexible pavements less than 3 inches AC on 6 - 8
inches of base/subbase built during World War Two
WASHINGTON CRICKET GRAPH RESULTS

2
PCI = 100 - 0.0234(AGE) See Polynomial Fit Fig 4-4
t-ratio = 4.82 For Equation
R-sq = 72.1% R-sq = 72.1%
SEE = 9.875 N = 11
N= 11
4.3.1.2 Survival Statistics - Pavement LIFE was estimated by taking the
difference between the pavement's original construction date and the date the pavement
received the first maintenance application. This assumes the pavement received a surface
application due to necessity and not due to other non-structural requirements. The
estimated reduction in PCI, rate per year loss, was based on assuming that resurfacing
occurred at approximately 55% PCI. The loss is therefore considered to 45% PCI divided
by the average LIFE of the pavement section. This assumption also indicates that PCI at
construction was 100%. The runway information was divided into the two AC thickness
categories shown as compared to three categories previously studied under the first PCI
analysis report.
Table 4-le shows the characteristics for pavement LIFE for those runways constructed
after WWII. Refer to Table 3-le for the individual pavement information and the
corresponding corrective measure applied. Table 4-1 g depicts those pavements constructed
during WWII and the related findings. Refer to Table 3-if for corresponding individual
runway information.
55
WWII Runways <3"AC on 6-8"Base
y = 100.83 - 1.0820x
RA2 = 0.709
For Simple St Line Fit
80
60 -
PCI (%)
40
20 y = 100.02 - 2.9959e-2x - 2.2748e-2XA2

RA2 = 0.721
Polynomial Fit
0 I1 i 1 - I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
AGE (years)
Figure 4-4 WA PCI vs AGE For 5 Runways
TABLE 4-le Pavement LIFE characteristics for AC pavements constructed after WWHI
with categories for greater than and less than 3 inches AC.
Less than 3 inches

Average LIFE = 14.3 years
Shortest LIFE = 4.0 years
Longest LIFE = 37 years
Avg. PCI LOSS 3.0% per year
Standard Deviation = 9.5
N = 23
3 inches or greater

Longest LIFE = 37.0 years
Avg PCI LOSS = 3.0% per year
N = 8
Note: "N" represents the number of runway pavements in Tables 4-le, 4-1f, and 4-1g.
57
TABLE 4-if Pavement LIFE characteristics for AC pavements constructed after WWII
with varying AC thicknesses. Weisenberger [1] results of 1988
1/2 inch to 1 1/2 inches

Longest LIFE = 19 years
Avg. PCI LOSS = 3.8% per year
N = 7
2 inches to 2 1/2 inches
Average LIFE 13.0 years

Shortest LIFE 4.0 years
N = 13
3 inches or more

N = 5
58
TABLE 4-lg Pavement LIFE characteristics for AC pavements constructed during WWII
with categories for greater than and less than 3 inches AC.
(Washington and Oregon only)
Less than 3 inches

Standard Deviation 5.5
N = 33
3 inches or greater
Average LIFE - 30.2 years

Shortest LIFE 9.0 years
Longest LIFE - 41.0 years
Avg PCI LOSS - 1.5% per year
N - 9
Weisenberger Il results of 1988 for WA, OR, and ID.
Average LIFE - 27.4 years

Longest LIFE 43.0 years
N - 42
59
4.3.2 AC Overlays - This category of pavements was evaluated as one group
instead of dividing the group in different sections. The primary reason for this choice is
that most of the overlay sections consisted of 2-inch surface courses. The FAA AC
150/5380-6 [41 also indicates that varying AC pavement thicknesses, unless significant, do
not normally have a sizable impact on PCI ratings if the overlay is not a thin layer.
4.3.2.1 Regression Models - It was not readily apparent from the models listed
and depicted on ^he following pages how well these findings compared to the first PCI
analysis report completed by Weisenberger [ 1], as the latter evaluated results using straight
line plots only. The straight line plots for Washington and Oregon in this analysis did not
compare favorably with those of the first report. There are significant differences in R-
squared and SEE values, (confidence and estimate error values, respectively) with the
findings of this report being less favorable, i.e. lower values computed than previously.
The exponential and polynomial applications to the data, without high influence points,
produced better results in terms of expected theoretical representations.
4.3.2.2 Survival Statistics - LIFE computations were the same as those found in
Weisenberger's [ I I study as none of the pavements have received treatment since then.
TABLE 4-2a Pavement LIFE characteristics for AC overlays with 2 to 4 inches AC -

Weisenberger [ I].

N = 7
60
TABLE 4-2b Regression equations for flexible pavement structural sections consisting of
AC overlays ranging from 3/4 to 3 inches on any base/subbase.
(1)
(With HIP's)
WASHINGTON OREGON
PCI = 93.2 - 1.23(AGE) PCI = 92.4 - 1.17(AGE)
R-sq = 29.5% R-sq = 35.1%
SEE = 10.01 SEE = 6.99
N =25 N= 13

PCI = 90.8 - 1.03(AGE) PCI = 93.25 - 1.23(AGE) WA
t-ratio = 3.17 R-sq = 29.5% N = 25
R-sq = 23.3%
SEE = 9.32 PCI - 92.4 - 1.17(AGE) OR
N = 37 R-sq = 35.1% N = 13
(2)
(Without HIP's)
WASHINGTON OREGON
1.5 1.5
PCI = 92.2 - 0.453(AGE) PCI = 92.5 - 0.5(AGE)
R-sq = 66.4% R-sq = 51.3%
SEE = 7.3 SEE = 6.65
N =19 N =11

1.5
PCI = 91.3 - 0.44(AGE) PCI = 91.75 - 1.11(AGE)
T-ratio = 6.84
R-sq = 63.4% See Fig 4-5c For Polynomial Fit
SEE =6.78 R-sq = 48.3% (3 HIP's omitted)
N= 31 N = 34
61
AC Overlays
(WA Pavements)
1001
S• • y = 93.248 - 1 2309x
- •• ..... • -• •R^2 = 0.295
80 • 'R ,,,••.• • For Simple St Line Fit
60
PCI (%)
40 y = 5.919 - 1.9556x
R^2 = 0.714
W/o HIP
20
0 5 10 15 20 25
AGE (years)
AC Overlays
(OR Pavements)
y = 92.409 - 1.1664x
RA2 = 0.351
60
PCI(%
40
y = 94.603 - 1.7176x - 6.4668e-3xA2
11^2 = 0.535
20 W/o FUP
0 I
0 10 20 30
AGE (years)
Figure 4-Sb OR PCI vs AGE For 6 Runways
AC Overlays
All Pavements
For Simple St. Line Fit

y = 91. 74 8 - 1.1120x
mom 0• on• RA2 0.258
80 - M
60
PCI (%)
40
y = 95.621 - 2.3458x + 8.984g8c2XA2 - 2.6619e-3xA3

20 RA2 = 0.483
0
0 10 20 30 40
AGE (years)
I
!
S
I
j
4.3.3 Bituminous Surface Treatments - The data compiled for bituminous
pavements provided what was interpreted as two possible trends of pavement performance.
As a result of this observation, it was decided to examine the two separate trend categories
and compare the findings. As stated in Chapter Three, an attempt was not made to evaluate
BST's based on the number of treatments or the make-up of the BST surface course.
The results listed and depicted could not be compared with the first PCI analysis report as
the models/equations developed in this category were accomplished with non-linear
applications. The separation into upper and lower divisions of data provided excellent
results particularly in the case of the upper division data points. The lower points points
yielded less favorable results, but were not totally unacceptable. Segregation of the data
points would pose a problem from an individual runway standpoint however, as a
determination would have to be made as to which of the two models would apply to the
individual situation. The combined model provides low confidence results, therefore it
would seem prudent to select one of the two "partition" models to compare with the
individual pavement.
64
TABLE 4-3a Regression equations for flexible pavement structural sections consisting of
bituminous surface treatments on any base/subbase. Data is categorized in
"upper" and "lower" portions based on interpreted trends in the data with
respect to various runways.
(1)
WASHINGTON(upper) OREGON
2.5
PCI = 97.0 - .07(AGE) PCI = 99.0 - 2.0(AGE)
R-sq = 99.1% R-sq = 95.5%
SEE = 2.61 SEE = 3.74
N=7 N=3
WASHINGTON(lower) COMBINED
1.5
PCI = 86.2 - 6.91 (AGE) PCI = 78.8 - 0.49(AGE)
t-ratio = 1.93
R-sq = 71.8% R-sq = 18.0%
SEE = 18.59
N = 11 N =19
(2)
COMBINED(upper) CRICKET GRAPH RESULTS

3
PCI = 95.5 - 0.175(AGE) See Fig 4-6a For Polynomial Fit WA
T-ratio = 9.71 R-sq = 98.8%
R-sq = 93.1%
SEE = 5.97 See Fig 4-6b for St. Line Fit For OR
N= 9 R-sq = 95.5%
COMBINED(lower)
Same as "Washington (lower)" Same as 'Washington (lower)"
See Fig 4-6c For Combined Plots
65
Bituminous Surface Treatments
(WA Pavements)
"y= 97.545 + 0.54267x - 0.31218xA2

80-- -RA2 = 0.988
For Upper Data Portion
60 -
PCI (%)
40
y =87.756 -6.9004x
R^2 = 0.706
20 For Lower Data Portion
0
0 5 10 15 20
AGE (years)
Data is "Partitioned" In Two Categories
Bituminous Surface Treatment

(OR Pavements)
1000
80
60
PCI M% y =99.000 - 2.0000x

40 R^2 = 0.955
20
0 5 0o 15 20 25
AGE (years)
Figure 4-6b OR PCI vs AGE For I Runway
Bituminous Surface Treatments
All Pavements
1003 11.
y = 82.269 - 2.3143x
RA2 = 0.230
• Overall St Line
80
y = 102.44 - 9.9079x + 1.5231xA2 - 7.7662e-2xA3
* RA2 = 0.776
60 U
PCI (%) 6
40
20 y = 86.153 - 6.9127x
RA2 = 0.718
0
0 5 10 15 20
AGE (years)
Figure 4-6c Combined PCI vs AGE With
Data "Partitioned" in Two Categories
i m n. mi ln l
TABLE 4-3b Pavement LIFE characteristics for pavements with bituminous surface
treatments.
Average LIFE 14.4 years

Standard Deviation 2.19
N = 5
The few number of runways used for the LIFE investigation portion of bituminous surface
treatments may lessen the applicability of the findings shown above, however the findings
are presented for reference and future analysis. The five runways evaluated were the only
ones in this study of runways with two sets of PCI surveys where a subsequent surface
treatment had been applied to the previous bituminous surface course.
68
TABLE 4-3c Pavement LIFE characteristics for pavements with bituminous surface
treatments with BST and DBST categories - Weisenberger [1].
All data points

Shortest LIFE = 1.0 year
N = 22
BST applications

N = 5
DBST applications

N = 9
69
4.3.4 Surface Maintenance Applications and Techniques - Chapter Three
indicated the evaluation of only slurry seals in this report since this technique was the only
one common to runways with two sets of PCI surveys. As in the case of BST's, two
categories were observed in Washington pavements. The two were evaluated and are
presented in Table 4-4b and Figures 4-7a through 4-7c. The graphic plot in Figure 4-7c of
the combined data points is a polynomial equation but as eviacrnced by the plot of the
equation, the curve shows a slight upward trend between approximately five and twelve
years. This portion of the curve is therefore not a good depiction of real life pavement
performance especially in the case of slurry seals. The combined regression models, with
and without high influence points, do not provide reliable models for application to
individual pavements. These findings are attributable to data that one would normally
expect to gather on slurry seal surfaces. Construction methods and materials are critical to
the finished product. In addition, the assumption of using PCI = 100% at AGE = 0 is
probably not a good one, as slurry seal surface treatments apparently do not result in a PCI
rating of 100% at AGE = 0. Pavement LIFE results from the Weisenberger [1] report are
listed below.
TABLE 4-4a Pavement LIFE characteristics for slurry seal pavements.

Weisenberger [ 1

Avg PCI LOSS - 8.0% per year
Standard Deviation - 2.99
N - 6
70
TABLE 4-4b Regression equations for flexible pavement structural sections with slurry
seal surface maintenance applications. Washington pavements were again
segregated into two sections, with the upper portion addressed in this table.
1.5
WASHINGTON* 1.5 OREGON
PCI = 87.3 - 0.42(AGE) PCI = 79.9 - 1.37(AGE)
R-sq = 85.5% R-sq = 36.4%
SEE = 6.35 SEE = 12.17
N = I I(upper) N=7
COMBINED(w/HIP) CRICKET GRAPH RESULTS

1.5
PCI = 72.6 - O.2(AGE)1. See Fig 4-7a For Curve Fits WA
t-ratio = 2.15 R-sq = 87% For Polynomial Fit
R-sq = 18%
SEE = 13.11 See Fig 4-7b For St. Line Fit OR
N = 23 R-sq = 46.5%
COMBINED(w/o HIP)
PCI = 71.9 - 0.23(AGE)1.5
t-ratio = 2.59
R-sq = 26.1%
SEE = 12.33
N = 20
* Note: The analysis did not include PCI = 100 at AGE = 0. See Appendix D for
MINITAB printouts of both cases.
71
Slurry Seal Surface Treatments
(WA Pavements)
y=7.7 .30
80
60
PCI M%
40
20 y =78.280 - 4.7200x y = 81.823 - 0.24657x - 6.3220e-2XA2

RA2 = 0.983 RA2 = 0.870
Lower Data Points Upper Data Points w/o HIP
01
0 10 20 30
AGE (years)
w/Data "Partitioned" in Two Categories

(OR Pavements)
1001M
y = 82.967 - 3.9385x
RA2 =0.465
80 -For Simple St Line Fit
60
PCI M% L
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
AGE (years)
Figure 4.7b OR PCI vs AGE For 3 Runways
All Pavements
1001
"Real Efe" trend
80
U y = 71.445 - 0.92012x
PCI (%)0 Unrealistic portion
40
20 y= 77.807 - 4.8938x + 0.52301xA2 - 1.7105e-2xA3

RA2 = 0.321
w/o HIP
0 10 20 30 40
AGE (years)

4.3.5 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavements - Eight rigid PCC pavements
with sixteen data points as individually listed in section 3.5.5 were analyzed. The lone
pavement that was not constructed during WWII is Condon State airport in Oregon. This
runway is apparently deteriorating at an overall rapid rate of 4.5% PCI per year, more than
four times that of the Washington pavements, as evidenced by the slope of the straight
lines. The small R-squared and high SEE values for the Washington and Combined
categories preclude these models from being used in a reliable fashion. In the first PCI
analysis report, virtually the same model equation was obtained, however, the model did
not include PCI = 100 at AGE = 0. When this point was included, the model yielded a
second equation with an R-squared (adj) value of 71.3% and a SEE value of 12.97,
compared to the values listed in Table 4-6 below.
There were two significant groups of runway PCI results for Washington, with four of the
seven runways in one group and three in another. No reasonable explanation for the two
groupings could be determined from individual files on the respective pavements. All
upper points were above PCI = 67%, and all lower points were below PCI = 47%.
74
TABLE 4-5 Regression equations for portland cement concrete pavements.
WASHINGTON OREGON
PCI = 99.5 - 0.88(AGE) PCI = 99.2 - 4.29(AGE)
R-sq = 18.0% R-sq = 99.4%
SEE =23.51 SEE= 1.234
N = 15 N=3

PCI = 92.4 - 0.73(AGE) See Fig 4-8a through 4-8c For Plots
t-ratio = 2.29 All St. Line Plots Same as MINITAB
R-sq - 25.9%
SEE = 22.15
N = 17
75
Portland Cement Concrete
(WA Pavements)
80
PCI()
40
20 Lower Portion
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
AGE (years)

(OR Pavements)
y = 99.238 - 4.29q57x
RA2 = 0.994
80 - For Simple St Line Fit
60
PCI M%
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
AGE (years)
Figure 4-3b OR PCI vs AGE For I Runway
All Pavements
80U -
60
PCI (%)y =912.403 - 0.73084x

PCI(%)RA2 =0.259
40
20
012030 40 50 60
AGE (years)
Figure 4-8c Combined PCI vs AGE All Points
4.4 DISCUSSION
4.4.1 Deterioration Rate Comparisons - No distinct trend of better performance
was observed throughout the analysis with the exception of PCC pavements in section
4.3.5. The inclusion or exclusion of high influence points made a significant difference in
several cases in terms of the model fit of the data. The lack, or inconsistency, of data is a
possible reason, but there could also be no one factor attributable to a trend or lack thereof.
In some cases Washington pavements performed better than Oregon's, and in other cases
worse. The amount of data heavily favored the evaluation of Washington pavements,
however this fact works both in favor and against when attempting to assess trends. As
mentioned previously, factors to consider in evaluating disparity in the data include
construction method and materials, however, other factors to be considered are:

environment, aircraft loading, survey inspector, and survey consistency. Deterioration
rates were more noticeable between surface applications with the most significant decreases
in bituminous surface treatments and slurry seals. In addition, pavement LIFE
comparisons for flexible pavements did not reveal any significant differences with respect
to surface course thickness.
4.4.2 Surface Maintenance Techniques - A survey of the PCI and AGE data of
surface maintenance applications reveals that these applications are being primarily used to
extend the individual pavement life. The PCI surveys conducted after maintenance
treatment of the surface courses reveal only slight increases in pavement ratings. The
corrective measures are not sufficient to overcome whatever deficiencies are present in the
underlying pavement or restore the respective pavements to near original condition. In
addition, the LIFE calculations determined by Weisenberger [1] for AC overlays, BST's,
and slurry seals indicate shorter average life spans than those obtained from the analysis
conducted in this report.
78
4.4.3 Exponential vs Poynomial Modeling - This comparison was addressed to
some extent earlier in this chapter. The polynomial models developed for several of the
categories would seem to encourage the use of exponential models due to the lesser
complexity. Several "reliable" models, based on the available data, were developed using
the exponential approach of MINITAB, while for the most part polynomial fits were used
in the case of graphic depictions. The data also "suggests" that straight line fits were
adequate in certain cases. In all cases, however, the R-squared element for polynomials
was near or the same value as that developed for the exponential. The exponential method,
n
PCI = B0 + BI(AGE) , is the preferred method for simplicity and usage by pavement
managers.
4.4.4 PCI Acceptable Limits - The use of 55% PCI as the minimum acceptable
PCI rating for pavement repair or rehabilitation is questionable due to the possible
implications on survivability of individual pavements. The FAA actually recommends the
use of 70% for considering a pavement unusable and in need of maintenance. If this
figure is used, the LIFE of many pavements can be reduced by as much as a half, which
would seem to be more realistic.
79
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS, & RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 SUMMARY
The intent of this paper was to develop models or equations that would be useful to an
airport manager or planner in the application of their respective pavement management
systems. The regression equations and graphic depictions were developed using select
data. The applicability of this data and the corresponding models to a vast number of
airfield pavements is obviously restrictive due to the number of data points available. This
report, however, is another step towards better models developed from more data, which
will be obtained from more PCI surveys. The models included in this report can be used as
a guideline for interpreting individual pavements or as a comparison tool if the trend of an
individual pavement does not "match" the performance of that particular pavement. In
essence, as the database increases due to reports such as this so will the available models
that will become available to planners and managers. These models will in turn assist
airport professionals in maintenance and budget planning.
As more information is gathered the need for even more to strengthen the results obtained,
and conclusions drawn, is evident. Comparisons, where possible, between this report and
the first PCI analysis indicate that the models yielded some of the same results. However,
due to this report's emphasis on curvilinear representations of a pavement's performance,
full comparisons of results could not be adequately accomplished. The representation of a

pavement's performance as a straight line is not an overall correct depiction. Individual
80
portions of a performance curve may be shown as straight lines, but the full performance
plot ne'ds to be shown as a curve. This therefore further amplifies the need for additional
information to reinforce the exponential and polynomial mode!s presented in this report.
The FAA continues to conduct PCI surveys but the process is slow due to the number of
general aviation airports in the regicn, and the time associated with accomplishing each.
This report only addressed 202 of the 240 runways discussed in the first analysis, of which
over 100 have second sets of PCI surveys. However, only 78 runways showed PCI"'
lower than previously, indicating maintenance or corrective applications and/or inconsistent
surveys. The state of Idaho has yet to commence it's second set of PCI surveys to
compare the results obtained from those accomplished in 1986
5.2 CONCLUSIONS
As just stated, the regression models and pavement life results obtaincd from the data
analyzed provide approximate depictions of various pavements' performance. With an
understanding of the limitations of the developed models, an individual can use the results
of these equations and graphs as a tool to assist in the pavement management arena.
As is normally the case, budgets dictate the route of pavement maintenance and repair.
Discussions with some airport managers and WSDOT indicates that the PCI information is
a valuable asset to an airport planner, but cost considerations in replacement and corrective
action is always the final determinant. This is readily evident from the significant number
of runways with PCI ratings in the "poor" to "very poor" range. PCI surveys and their
long terms effects on managing for the future of pavements need to be a continued
management high priority item.
81
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
The next step in collecting PCI data should be the use of the automated data collection.
Although this would be a significant initial investment the cost would be recovered in time
due to the reduced time and manpower expended in conducting these surveys. The mobile
data collection vehicle which takes photographs of a pavement as it travels over the surface
could be used in the tri-state area or perhaps two units could be dedicated to the Northwest
Region of the FAA and the units shared throughout the seven states covered. This shared
coverage would reduce the overall cost of the vehicles and a general schedule could be
developed to ease the collection of PCI data for each state. The saved time in surveys
would translate to quicker development of models which in turn would be available in a
shorter time frame to the airport managers.
The PCI scale requires a more rigid definition especially at the level of acceptability rating.
A pavement rated as "fair", PCI = 40 -> 55%, does not give the impression of urgency
with respect to pavement upgrade or replacement, and as such may not be given the needed
attention from a management or planning standpoint. If the same pavement were deemed
unacceptable, then it is anticipated that more pressure would be applied to effect an upgrade
of the pavement.
The development of consistent terminology in reports from the surveys is another
significant hurdle which needs to be remedied to ease the interpretation of future surveys.
Finally, the completeness of individual surveys needs to be improved upon with priority
given to the reasons for maintenance or corrective actions.
82
PCI surveys are critical to an effective pavement management system, whether at a major
metropolitan airport or a general aviation airport. It is essential that surveys continue to be
conducted and monitored to better plan the pavements of the future and maintain the ones in
operation today. Furthermore, it is important for the models developed to be used to
whatever extent possible and the confidence level increased by supplementing the existng
database with more data from follow-on surveys.
83
REFERENCES
1. Weisenberger, K. D., "Statistical Evaluation of Airport Pavement Condition Survey

Data for Washington, Oregon, and Idaho", 1988.
2. Mahoney, J. P., "Regression Analysis for WSDOT Material Applications", Research Report
WA-RD 143.2, Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington,
February 1988.
3. Ryan, B. F., Joiner, B. L., and Ryan, T. A., Minitab Handbook, 2nd Edition, PWS
Publishers, Boston, MA, 1985.
4. "Guidelines and Procedures for Maintenance of Airport Pavements", Advisory Circular
150/5380-6. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
December 1982.
5. "Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation and Techniques Using Asphalt", Institute of
Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1984.
6. Merritt, F. S., "Standard Handbook for Civil Engineers", 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill,
1983.
7. Ashford N. and Wright P. H., "Airport Engineering", Wiley & Sons, NY, 1979.
8. Nelson T. L. and LeClerc R. V., "Development and Implementation of Washington State's

Pavement Management System", Report WA-RD 50.3, WSDOT, February 1983.
9. Key, C. A., "Evaluation of the Northwest Mountain Region Airport System Planning
Program 1982-88", FAA Northwest Region, USDOT, FAA, March 1990.
10. Mahoney, J. P.and Jackson N. C., "Prediction Models and Performance Curves", Federal
Highway Administration Short Course Notes, November 1991.
APPENDIX A
WASHINGTON STATE
GENERAL AVIATION
PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY DATA
INCLUDING:
1) AIRPORT LOCATION/DESCRIPTION/SECTION DATA

2) PAVEMENT IDENTIFICATION & CHARACTERISTICS
3) AVERAGE PCI VALUES FOR PAVEMENT FEATURES
4) PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY DATES
5) AVERAGE PCI LOSS WITH AGE
6) REPAIR AND REHABILITATION INFORMATION
7) OTHELLO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT COMPLETE PCI SURVEY
APPENDIX LEGEND
ID Runway/Feature Identification Number

OCD Original Construction Date
PCI Pavement Condition Index
AVG Average
YR Year
RRD Ruway Rehabilitation Date
ORIG Original
STRUC. Structural
SEC. Section
SURVEY PCI Inceased Value Attributed To Survey Conducted
PCI DATA (WA) W/AVG LOSS
No. AIRPORT & LOCATION I) OCD PCI AVG & YR PCI AVG & YR AVG LOSS/YR
1 ANACORTESAP R 1968 96 - 1986 91 - 1989 1.67

R2 1968 95 - 1986 90 - 1989 1.67
R3 1968 100 - 1986 92- 1989 2.67
2 ARUNGTON MUNICIPAL AP RI 1942 77 - 1986 78 - 1989 SURVEY
R2 1942 89 - 1986 84 - 1989 2.67
3 AUBURN MUNICIPALAP Ri 1968 81 - 1987 84 - 1991 OVERLAY
R2 1983 90 - 1987 87 - 1991 0.75
4 BLAINE MUNICIPALAP RI 1972 72 - 1988 N/A
5 BOWERMAN FIELD, HOQUIAM Ri 1943 77 - 1986 59 - 1989 6
R2 1943 86 - 1986 84 - 1989 0.67
___R3 1943 33 - 1986 26 - 1989 2.33
BOWERSFRELD, ELLENSBURG Ri 1976 67 - 1986 64 - 1989 1
_RIA 1942 46- 1986 60 - 1989 SLURRYSL
R2 1942 67 - 1986 INOP
__R3 1942 57- 1986 64 - 1989 SURVEY
R4 1942 54 - 1986 52 - 1989 0.67
7 BREMERTON NATIONAL RI 1942 86 - 1987 86 - 1991 0
R2 1942 83- 1987 75 - 1991 2
_ R3 1942 86 - 1987 80 - 1991 1.5
___R4 1942 88 - 1987 83 - 1991 1.25
__ R5 1942 82 - 1987 80 - 1991 0.5
- CASHMERE-DRYDENAP R 1951 72 - 1988 N/A
9 CHEHAUS- CENTRAUA AP Ri 1942 84 - 1987 81 - 1991 0.75
R2 1942 78 - 1987 67 - 1991 2.75
10 CLE ELUM MUNICIPALAP Ri 1987 56 - 1988 N/A
11 COLVILLEMUNICIPALAR Ri 1949 33 -1986 62 - 1989 TBSTADDED
12 CONCRETE MUNICIPAL RI 1974 61 - 1986 34 - 1989 9
13 CONNELLCITYAP Ri 1970 69 - 1987 79 - 1991 AC OVLY
14 CRESTAP, KENT Ri 1967 97 - 1987 90 - 1991 1.75
15 DAVENPORTAP Ri 1984 82 - 1986 60 - 1989 7.33
16 DEERPARKAP RI 1943 45 - 1986 76 - 1989 ???
__ R2 1976 72 - 1986 74 - 1989 SURVEY
R3 1943 47 - 1986 39 - 1989 2.67
17 ELMAMUNICIPALAP Ri 1976 88 - 1988 83 - 1991 1.67
18 EPHRATAMUNICIPAL Ri 1943 40 - 1987 33 - 1991 1.75
_ RIA 1943 60 - 1987 55 - 1991 1.25
R2 1943 53 - 1987 43 - 1991 2.5
-- R2A 1943 47- 1987 26- 1991 5.25
R2B 1983 89 - 1987 84 - 1991 1.25
19 EVERGREEN RELD, VANCOUVER Ri 1967 55 - 1987 51 - 1991 1

R2 1971 86 - 1987 77 - 1991 2.25
2 0 FERRYCOUNTY(REPUBUC)AP RI 1974 65 - 1986 70 - 1991 CHPSLA
21 GRANDCOULYDAMAP Ri 1972 86 - 1986 N/A 2"AC OVLY
I(ELECTRIC CT FR2 1980 84 - 1986 N/A SURVEY
No. AIRPORT & LOCATION I D

OCO PCI AVG & YR PCI AVG &YR AVG LOSS/YR
22 HARVEY FIELD (SNOHOMISH) Ri 1970 64 - 1986 N/A

23 IONEMUNICIPAL RI 1973 76 - 1986 76 - 1989 0
R2 N/A N/A 80 - 1989
24 KELSO-LONGVIEW Ri 1983 90 - 1987 82 - 1991 2
25 KENNEWICK-VISTA FIELD Ri 1942 69 - 1987 N/A
R2 1942 68 - 1987 N/A
26 LAKE CHELAN R1 LINK 93 - 1988 N/A
27 UNDAP R1 1971 51 - 1987 51 - 1991 0
28 MANSFIELD RI 1973 35 - 1988 N/A
29 MOSES LAKE MUNICIPAL AP Ri 1961 89 - 1987 81 - 1991 2
R2 1973 29 - 1987 18 - 1991 2.75
30 NEW WARDEN AP R1 1977 77 - 1987 79 - 1991 SURVEY
31 OAK HARBOR AIR PARK Ri 1969 73 - 1988 N/A
32 OCEAN SHORES RI 1985 98 - 1986 95 - 1989 1
33 ODESSA MUNICIPAL Ri 1970 79 - 1987 46 - 1991 8.25
R1A 1970 58 - 1987 50- 1991 2
34 OKANAGANLEGIONAP Ri 1955 76 - 1987 N/A
35 OLYMPIAAP Ri 1942 55 - 1988 45 - 1991 3.33
R2 1980 89 - 1988 85 - 1991 1.33
1R3 1942 86 - 1988 84 - 1991 0.67
36 OMAKAP Ri 1943 68 - 1986 65 - 1989 1
3 7!OTHELLO MUNICIPAL R1 IINK 79- 1987 74 - 1991 1.25
R2 N/A N/A 90- 1991
38 PACKWOODAP Ri 1975 94 - 1988 90 - 1991 1.33
3 9 PANGBORN FIELD (WENATCHEE) Ri 1947 63 - 1988 N/A
R2 1947 66 - 1988 N/A
R4 1947 55 - 1988 N/A
R5 1978 90 - 1988 N/A
40 PEARSON AIRPARK (VANCOUVER) RI 1966 58 -1987 58 - 1991 0
_ R2 1966 84 - 1987 N/A
4 11 PIERCE COUNTY (PUYALLLUP) Ri 1958 64 -1986 98 -1989 AC OVLY, BS
42 PORT OF ILWACO RI 1971 71 - 1986 49 - 1989 7.33
43 PORT OF WILLIPA HARBOR Ri 1948 72 - 1986 58- 1989 4.67
__(RAYMOND) R2 1948 68 - 1986 59 - 1989 3
44 PROSS Ri 1977 88 - 1987 N/A
45 PRU FIELD (RITZVILLE) Ri 1978 83 - 1987 77 - 1991 1.5
46 PULLMAN-MOSCOWREGIONALAP R1 1948 75 - 1986 70 - 1989 1.67
R2 1968 70 - 1986 48 - 1989 7.33
1:R3 1968 81 - 1986 68 - 1989 4.33
4 7 QUILLAYUTE R1 LNK 72 - 1986 69 - 1989 1
4_8 UINCY MUNICIPAL
_ RI 1977 72 - 1987 70 - 1991 0.5
R_2 1977 31 - 1987 N/A
____ ________________ ___ - • -. ., ____,_, __., _ mm__

____- m a___ __
No. AIRPORT & LOCATION I) OCM PCI AVG & YR PCI AVG &YR AVG LOSS/YR
49 RICHLAND Ri 1943 86 - 1987 N/A

R2 1943 84 - 1987 N/A
R3 1979 86 - 1987 N/A
50 ROSAUAMUNICIPAL Ri 1985 68 - 1987 49 - 1991 4.5
51 SAND CANYON (CHEWELAH) Ri 1974 88 -'1986 70 - 1989 6
52 SANDERSON FIELD (SHELTON) Ri 1942 77 - 1988 72 - 1991 1.67
53 SEKIUAP RI 1972 68 - 1988 N/A
R2 1979 88 - 1988 N/A
54 SEQUIM VALLEY Ri 1985 52 - 1988 42 - 1991 3.33
55 SKAGIT REGIONAL Ri 1942 69 - 1986 N/A
R2 1942 64 - 1986 N/A
56 STORM FIELD (MORTON) Ri 1970 73 - 1988 68 - 1991 1.67
57 SUNNYSIDE Ri 1975 85 - 1987 N/A
58 TACOMA NARROWS R1 UNK 84 - 1987 83 - 1991 0.25
_ R2 UNK 82 - 1987 81 - 1991 0.25
5 9 WALLA WALLA CITY/COUNTY AP Ri 1942 81 - 1987 N/A
R2 1942 58 - 1987 N/A
R4 1942 60 - 1987 N/A
60 WATERVILLE Ri 1976 65 - 1988 N/A
61 WHITMAN COUNTYMEM (COLFAX) Ri 1970 57 - 1986 40 - 1989 5.67
6 2_WILBUR Ri 1971 92 - 1986 83 - 1989 3
631WILUAM R. FAIRCHILD INTL Ri 1942 79 - 1988 N/A
R2 1942 86 - 1988 N/A
R4 1942 94 - 1988 N/A
64 WILLARD-TEKOA FIELD Ri 1975 90 - 1986 90 - 1989 0
65 WINLOCK (TOLEDO) Ri 1943 49 - 1986 42 - 1989 2.33
66 WOODLAND'STATE Ri 1984 91 - 1987 88 - 1991 0.75
6 71FRIDAY HARBOR RI UNK 90- 1988 N/A

68 GOLDENDALE Ri UNK 87 - 1989 N/A
69 OROVILLE R1 UNK 79 - 1987 N/A
7 0 WENTHROP RI UNK 73 - 1988 N/A
Uý ;o
co
+ co o CD
>
f~.coc 1)U c o
) co~aa
CV to io ;a)D a-a
d oC4 Mt SOdp cm Cl
VI) S (0 .co~
< ~ :C :c 0 0 t;..
-ý N -o -- - _- r- N r- co I Go~
0im
Zy 0)
cc.
-i 2mf in ca
co I in~ PS 0 0 coi o nc n S -W
-------------------------------------------------
UI-
00 0
0 l cc.
0co M 0 U) i0 10
000m
coJ CDm c j 6d0) 6
C CD - co ~ l I -oc
co m o.o -
0
10
(5~ dD 00 Loo
<D C) AU6c60C.
(5: )0C, ) (5c o0)0) N0) C)<C
0 0 : 0
< < < 6 o to
- j l 04 019
o))))))))))))))) C)0 0)
0)00)0) )0) 0) m 0))m0)0
r-.' co c-
&C- - - -. - - -- 1 - - -
2 - ~ -- -
I =0 II 0
- - IIc zt! nil
- "I:>-
fo9 -1 w U))
0
o
a >C/3 C) () -o
0 cisC' o0 6c c w
~~Oic OO o tP to
co U) .) oaCcU)U
;)0O
(5ULfl<J hI0l 0
cocccc'I ltf
x <6 ~ .I O d o U~) inO ~ O LO)CO)CV
0
w)
U) 4 3 c c wU) 6iL)-C
9 3 xIn U) <
-1 coc-o ac -0 )C dCMiUa
0 < o C. -1 1-:
OI/s( <. O& w £ M~ f C l)
a__ ýiý3 ~ N M O NMO0(0w N VCZDU ))&& o /
CIm10C/C))a
w -J
0c iP-
CD < f co U
Un)
COO
CIDCIDCO
N CI
cCo
CIC ID~
Cl LO:C:C:CC
C13ct c O O O~
CO,
Co
0<0
a.Z.))U)U cn
Cl ( I ;o o fDfO 1) C
z z j D ID C
Cl cn 5 do o ;oC'
0- L0 C L 0DCD.>C_)C.)C.
< 0 L)j~gt
coCD + 1
CDI
C/) <Wo
ZD 011) 11) V) o0 0(c 00 t

OTHELLO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT,
WASHINGTON
PAVEMENT FEATURES
&
PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY
MAY 20, 1991

PCI = 91
3" AC
6" base
PCI =90
3" AC
6" base PCI = 74
2" AC
3" base
SGray area represents

new pavement areas.
(• PCI = 69
2" AC
3" base
PCI 65
32" AC
6" base
S~PCI = 55
52"S~3" AC
base
3's A C
6" base
PCI =100
3" AC
6" base
25
Othello Municipal Airport

Pavement features and PCI numbers
May 20, 1991.
L E~J3 samples
50'X1O0'
1 samples
40'X425'
5 samples
40'X125'
5 samples
3 20'X250'
S• • 1 samnples
"• • 1 samples
27'X106'
•2 samples
SO'X100'
5 samples
10'X250'
25

Location of sample areas within each feature
May 20, 1991
Feature Summaries
Othello Port District
Date of Survey: May 20, 1991

By: Frederick N. Mills Jr. and Robert 0. Brown
Airport Facility: Runway R-l

Total No. of Sample Units: 5
Sample Sample
Unit No. Unit Area PCI
1 5000 73
2 5000 75
3 5000 55
4 5000 92
5 5000 74
Average PCI: 74
Condition Rating: Very Good
Airport Facility: Runway R-2

Sample Sample
Unit No. -it Area PCI
1 5000 90
Average PCI: 90
Condition Rating: Excellent
Airport Facility: Taxiway T-1

Sample Sample
1 5000 33
2 5000 78
3 5000 69
4 5000 80
5 5000 87
Average PCI: 69
Condition Rating: Good
Airport Facility: Turnaround Taxiway T-2
Sample Sample
1 5000 90
2 5000 93
3 5000 91
Average PCI: 91
Airport Facility: Taxiway T-3

Sample Sample
1 2500 100
2 2500 100
3 2500 100
4 2500 100
5 2500 100
Average PCI: 100
Airport Facility: Apron A-1

Sample Sample
1 5000 65
Average PCI: 65
Condition Rating: Good

Sample Sample
Unit No. Unit Area C
1 2862 55
Average PCI: 55
Condition Rating: Fair
. . S.. * i i i w i *••
m • m ( • m =• i i m m mm
Sample Sample
1 5000 86
2 5000 92
Average PCI: 89
Principal Distresses
Runway: Longitudinal and transverse cracking; ravelling

and depressions.
Taxiway: Alligator; block; longitudinal and transverse

cracking; depressions and ravelling.
Apron: A-2 (former fuel pump taxiway) Block; longitudinal

and trasverse cracking; depressions and ravelling.
Pavement Development and Maintenance
In 1975 a paved runway existed to some degree consisting of

a 3" gravel base with an oil penetration surface (probably
means a BST surface). In 1976 the runway was overlaid with
a 2" AC surface and was extended. A parallel taxiway and
very small apron were constructed. In 1987 it was reported
that all pavements appeared to be a 2" AC surface on a 3"
crushed aggregate base.
In 1989 several improvements were made: The parallel

taxiway was widened from 20' to 30' (3" AC on 7" crushed
aggregate base); A runway 7 turnaround was constructed that
also resulted in approximately 125' of new runway (3" AC on
a 7" crushed aggregate base); two new aprons were
constructed (2" AC on 4" base); and approximately 15,000
linear feet of crack sealing was accomplished.
The airport remains a very active agricultural applicator

airport with two ag operators on the field. There is
reportedly a fair amount of light twin and single engine GA
traffic, also. While the runway is at present in good
condition, the center 20' appears to be a different mix than
the 10' outer lanes on each side. The outer lanes show some
ravelling while the center 20' does not. Crackfilling is
needed and a fog seal, particularly on the outer lanes, this
would help the ravelling condition. Eventually it would be
desirable to widen the runway to 60' and overlay the
existing 40' width. The old portion of parallel taxiway
needs crackfilling and an overlay, and the existing runway
exit taxiways should be widened to a minimum of 30' and the
older portion overlaid. An Additional apron adjoining the
apron work accomplished in 1989 would be desirable in
addition to overlaying the older section (former taxiway)
running south from the existing fuel pumps and adjoining the
east/west taxiway.
Planning Considerations
In 1989 a dirt bank running approximately 800' west of the

west edge of the west runway exit taxiway was partially
removed and the remaining part graded to a 5:1 slope,
creating a 75' from runway centerline (C/L) safety area.
While this is a significant improvement it is recommended
that widening continue to a minimum of 100' (125' desirable)
from runway C/L.
PAVEMENT CONDITION TREND
AIRPORT: c-vt-\i - NOTES: PCI NUMBER indicates

DATE OF LAST SURVEY: PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX
Horizontal scale covers 30 yrs.
Year 0 is year of original
construction, major reconstruct
or overlay
AIRPORT FACILITY: AIRPORT FACILITY: f-rZ7
100 )1. 5 10 1f 2? 215 30 1 10 1 2) 2p 3
90 - - - 1_
80 -_"
70
S60-
E 50 _
___
Z 40 _
' 30 _-
U
04 20 ~ _
10 _ _ _1_ ___I_ _
0 - -. . --.- 1 L •
YEAR YEAR
AIRPORT FACILITY: AIRPORT FACILITY:T7-5

100 1? 15 20 2 3010 l1 20 2 3
9O
80
70-
m60 • ....
150 55
Z0 --
•20o
70 AIRPORT FACILITY:•-
-Q__ I AIRPORT FACILITY: A-I
100 01. 5 I0 15 20 25 30 ( 5 10 15 20 3
90
80 --
I70
V I
i 60 C
so
Z40 1 I I 1 1 1I
S3o0...ki I - -
i •~20 !I 1
10 [•
10 6 l
AIRPORT:' L (uiuwt'3A, Atg6z-T- NOTES: PCI NUMBER indicates

DATE OF LAST SURVEY: .5-20-11 PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX
Horizontal scale covers 30 yrs.
construction, major reconstruct.
or overlay
AIRPORT FACILITY: A-2- AIRPORT FACILITY:
100 5 10 1 2 25 30 1 1 2 2 3
90
80
70
S60
x 50
z 40
S30
m20
i0
•-YEAR YEAR
AIRPORT FACILITY: AIRPORT FACILITY:

100 ,ý i
15 20 2 1I 20 2 30
90 k
80
70
60,.
50
40 __
•30
m20
I0 o-
S50 _ _ _ __ _
AIRPORT FACILITY: AIRPORT FACILITY:

100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
90
80 _
70
60oo-
Z 40
i 30
S•20
0l
p g
-0
41
L-- -;
a
a IL. - - * - - -
aV
U -
b. s. II
i>
* z
!0 ha- 5,-
i 2--- -- - -
U 8'
31 I
vi.
V. c-
5z
rv~
me 0
- ;So - - _ _ _ _
00
6gal
g g
-----
go
\M Q
Sac ~ -I
2 -7 U
I-
z 0 A;
r3
-
-
II -
-
4 6 --
0 *% I. - -
wa a
I. - - Un
3 -
S.
* n
U
-
=0
h.
S t 5 a - - - - - - -
( ___________
:
*.
-c
V.
t
l%.
0 A
U
£
12
5
o WI
a
? d..
5
Z
- -- - --------
o
85 - -
'0
_ - -
I -
l.A
o N -
- - I-i
F
- *
S IWe
> hJ
a.
j - * 4.. U, -a 0 -
- 52--------------
-
C-
o
N El
S- - -
-
1 1-
.4
---------
wdde.d*
4 _ _____________ AJIVIARS *
APPENDIX B
OREGON STATE
GENERAL AVIATION
DATA
INCLUDING:
1) AIRPORT LOCATION/DESCRIPTION/SECTION
DATA
3) AVERAGE PCI VALUES FOR PAVEMENT
FEATURES
5) AVERAGE PCI LOSS WITH AGE
7) TILLAMOOK AIRPORT COMPLETE PCI
SURVEY
ii
APPENDIX LEGEND
ID Runway/Feature Identification Number

OCD Original Construction Date
PCI Pavement Condition Index
AVG Average
YR Year
RRD Ruway Rehabilitation Date
ORIG Original
STRUC. Structural
SEC. Section
SURVEY PCI Inceased Value Attributeu To Survey Conducted
PCI LOSS DATA (OR)
No. AIRPORT & LOCATION IV OCD PCI AVG &YR PCI AVG &YR AVG LOSS/YR
29 MADRAS CITY-COUNTYAP Ri 1943 84 - 1986 95 - 1991 CHECK

R_2 1943 16 -1986 98 - 1991 "
R3 1943 46 - 1986 N/A
R4 1943 39 - 1986 N/A
30 MCDERMrI-TSTATEAP RI 1985 96 - 1986 N/A
31 MCMINNVILLE MUNICIPALAP Ri 1943 56 - 1988 N/A
R2 1943 61 - 1988 N/A
32 NEWHALAM BAYSTATEAP RI 1965 80 - 1987 77 - 1991 0.75
33 NORTH BEND MUNICIPAL Ri 1943 90 - 1988 N/A
R2 1943 88 -1988 N/A
R2A 1943 90 - 1988 N/A
R3 1943 75 - 1988 N/A
34 OAKRIDGE STATE AiRPORT R1 N/A N/A 70 - 1991
35 ONTARIO MUNICIPAL Ri 1978 84 - 1986 N/A
36 OREGON CfITY AIRPARK Ri 1972 45 - 1988 N/A
37 PACIFICCITY-STATEAP RI 1950 79 - 1987 75 - 1991 1
38 PINEHURSTSTATEAP Ri 1956 83 - 1987 76 - 1991 1.75
39 PENDLETONMUNICIPAL Ri 1942 98 - 1988 N/A
R2 1942 97 - 1988 N/A
I R3 1942 82 - 1988 N/A
R4 1942 66 - 1988 N/A
R5 1942 87 - 1988 N/A
_R6 1942 61 - 1988 N/A
401PRINEVILLEAP RI ULM 87 - 1986 N/A
R2 UNK 86 - 1986 N/A
R3 UNK 39 - 1986 N/A
41 PORT OF ASTORIA AP Ri 1944 87 - 1987 79 - 1991 2
R1A 1944 77 - 1987 68 - 1991 2.25
R2 1944 73 - 1987 99 - 1991 CHECK
4 21 ROBERTS FRELD/REDMOND AP Ri 1975 88 - 1986 N/A
Ri* 1975 91 - 1986 N/A
R2 LINK 92 - 1986 N/A
43 PROSPECT STATE AP Ri 1962 54 - 1987 68 - 1991 CHECK
44 ROSEURGMJNCPAL R1 1951 77 - 1987 57 - 1991 5
45 SCAPPOOSEUINDUSTRLALAP Ri 1943 65 - 1987 64 - 1991 0.25
46 SEASIDE STATE AP Ri 1964 88 - 1987 83 - 1991 1.25
47 SILETZ'BAYSTATEAP Ri 1971 80 - 1988 N/A
48 SPORTSMANAJRPARK-NEWBERG RI 1965 57 - 1986 N/A
49 NEWPORT MUNICIPAL AP Ri 1944 91 - 1988 N/A
R2 1944 69 - 1988 N/A
R3 1944 74 - 1988 N/A
50 SUNRIVERAP RI 1970 92 - 1986 N/A
51 SUTHERLIN MUNICIPAL Ri 1971 90 - 1987 N/A
PCI LOSS DATA (OR)
No. AIRPORT & LOCATION I) OCD PCI AVG &YR PCI AVG & YR AVG LOSS'YR
52 THE DALLESMUNICIPALAP RI 1943 79 - 1988 N/A

R_2 1943 79 - 1988 N/A
R3 1943 79 - 1988 N/A
53 TILLAMOOKAP RI 1943 92 - 1987 89 - 1991 0.75
R2 1943 77 -. 1987 100 - 1991 CHECK
54 TRI-CITYSTATEAP RI 1970 88 - 1987 77 - 1991 2.75
55 WASCOSTATEAP Ri 1987 87 - 1987 N/A
I
CLA.C) C D)I CD
00 0. &O~
w
C', 6 to FcS 0 C.S Vfol
<0 !03 9D *3o
00 0&&&4U) I( .o
u - c6003
- - . CDj
(00 0 C4:cC
(0.0 W
0Co.( d0(Co.) ( r-C6
6 00 (0(0
OC.) q ) c c K O0 C.) 0O
CY
04 C1 C mciv-Cl-()0 -Y -m --
wCi ~' ll C) cy (0 V
00 CD
N (D O(0t-
(c G P.( co PCO 0 o
cw) C)0 0)L
w co V) CV) v0 ( cm
v00 C!'(((0( COS*(CID CI v~ L,) C)
o .~ 0 000 ~ 0~ 4s 00IM
0000 ~ (C o~04 44o4O)
CD CC N N NCj) CD CD ~
Im o a- Imc Dc3C
;0.;_CiC 4t?
1(1 5i:_<du
0.4(W56
o
S2000
C5
<<f.C Zo
U.)Zqin
0C
<
-5.
<
-!
<
C)c
ý) -. <
4
U)
CN! . y-)
L q ki p..
d 5
inq
d
co C oo
co 4 o
020 ca -
a0 -WC
Coc U co022
(0 CD 0 I v b Pýcoo ~SC6 0l~
co OD in m oo t(ca acd I
0 ~ 0 0!10 ý O-JOJOC
0 00
NC)04Co I- ~ . la ~ 0;~C, C,4~

co Cl
r-0 GoU 0 -c 3r
o) 0) 0)
(0 m(0D 0)
-)c f - - ný d V co
co a.O
CDML
C5 0' CZ), IV -
IV'd0 Vw ze4 F d q.)
- ~c - _
cm I - - co.
cmcm) COf NO-2 w Cm-0 oe nc nC'M)mm

CNinC' W'C'
NO
COC'CO W C4JN Ný ')C-'c)r-
o co o
2~ ;-) c,,0 0
co cGo0 o COI,1 CD o C
C0 0O C - 6 CO 6C -MC
<0j(CD,- oo
xa 6-
_Y
Dq (o
0 c'Ico,
0F -1 0 - 006
co
w6 6 ICCD (
0 0 0S 00 0
0 C' (
n 0)4 FO
C5 (50 (5 e);ý 0 LOL
NO
o0)
V
)
_ _~
oO
)CY D
o( _e
) ) 0
oc
)lY 0 7)0
In
OCJCI)
-- c-- - CO - - - - -
Q2 22 2)
COCOCD co
C- CD .C a0 1.IIgS
00
CO,
qcnaio,
H~~U COJJ..y
CD
C0
a.10
IL~
~
;~ ~ qc
w~ag
TILLAMOOK AIRPORT, OREGON
PAVEMENT FEATURES
&
SEPTEMBER 9, 1991
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Airport Layout w/PCI Numbers Page 1

2. Sample Area Locations " 2
3. Feature Summary " 3,4
4. Pavement Development & Maintenance " 5,6
5. Pavement Condition Trend " 7,8
i
PCI = 55 N
-Of AC
6 " BASE
10" SB PCI =62
S2" AC
"6" BASEB
"10" SB
PC -PI=1670T-
2 " AC
6" BASE
10" SB
1"L Over ay*

Chip Seal
2" AC 2" AC
6"1 BASE 6" BASE
10" SB A3i0" SB
PCI R1// PCI = 89
PCc
= 89
1½" OVERLAY
PCI = 85 A2" AC
2" AC •6" BASE
?"BASE• 10" SB
*Not done at inspect

PCI =66 date. Overlay
scheduled for Fall
* 22" AC 1991. Should resul
""6" BASE in PCI of 100
10" SB
TILLAMOOK AIRPORT
PAVEMENT FEATURES AND PCI NUMBERS
SEPTEMBER 9, 1991
T4~ SAflIES
S12 5"27'x 7
TILLAMOOK AIRPORT
LOCATION OF SAMPLE AREAS WITHIN EACH FEATURE
SEPTEMBER 9, 1991
FEATURE SUMMARY
AIRPORT: Tillamook Airport

DATE OF SURVEY: September 9, 1991
AIRPORT FACILITY:Runway R-1, 13-31 AIRPORT FACILITY:Taxiway T-

TOTAL NO. OF SAMPLE UNITS: 6 TOTAL NO. OF SAMPLE UNITS:
SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE
UNIT NO. UNIT AREA PCI UNIT NO. UNIT AREA
1 5000 88
1 5000
2 5000 90 2 5000
3 5000 91 3 5000
4 5000 87 4 5000
5 5000 90
6 4000 85
Average PCI: 89 _ - Average PCI: 66

Condition Rating: Excellent. Condition Rating:_Qon __
AIROPRT FACILITY: Runway- <-2, 1-19 AIRPORT FACILITYTaxiway T-
TOTAL NO. OF SAMPLE 1,.iITS: TOTAL NO. OF SAMPLE UNITS:

SAMPLE SAMPLr. SAMPLE SAMPLE
UNIT NO. UNIT AREA PCI UNIT NO. UNIT AREA
1 5000
Not done as overlay shceduled 2 5000
for October 1991. Should 3 5000
relult in PCI of 100 this 4 5000
Fall.
Average PCI: Average PCI: 55

Condition Rating: Condition Rating: Good
AIP•'ORT FACILITY: Taxiway T-1 AIRPORT FACILITY:Taxiway T.

TOTAL NO. OF SAMPLE UNITS: 4 TOTAL NO. OF SAMPLE UNITS:
SAMIPIJE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE
J,,.IT NO. UNIT AREA PCI UNIT NO. UNIT AREA
1 5000 67 1 5000
2 5000 74 2 5000
3 5000 71 3 5000
4 5000 56
62 Good
Average PCI:
"Condition 67
Rating: Good ConditionPCI:
Average Rating:
FEATURE SUMMARY
AIRPORT: Tillamook Airport

DATE OF SURVEY: September 9, 1991
AIRPORT FACILITY: Taxiway T-4 PRINCIPAL DISTRESSES:
TOTAL NO. OF SAMPLE UNITS: 3
SAMPLE SAMPLE RUNWAY R-1 Raveling/weathering
UNIT NO. UNIT AREA PCI
RUNWAY R-2 Raveling, depressions and
1 5000 85 - cracking
2 5000 91
3 5000 91 TAXIWAY T-I:- Block, longitudinal &
transverse cracking ,
depressions & raveling
Average PCI: 89 TAXIWAY T-lA Raveling, depressions

Condition Rating: Excellent and cracking
AIROPRT FACILITY:.. -TAXIWAY T-2 Block cracking, depressi
TOTAL NO. OF SAMPLtUNr .3 and raveling/weathering
SAMPLE
UNIT NOTARLEA SAMPLE
UNIT NO. UNIT AREA PCI TAXIWAY T-3 Longitudinal & transvers4
cracking, depressions &
raveling/weathering
2 5000 84 TAXIWAY T-4 Raveling/weathering
3 5000 82
APRON A-2 Raveling/weathering and
oil spillage
APRON A-3 Joint seal damage
Average PCI: 85
Condition Rating: - 11P . .
AIRPORT FACILITY: pron A-3
TOTAL NO. OF SAMPLE UNITS: A
SAMPLE SAMPLE
UNIT Nb. UNIT AREA PCI
1 20 slabs 74
2 " 84
3 " "82
4 " 77
Average PCI: 79
Condition Rating: Very God"
Im -- i mmm mm 1I I
TILLAMOOK AIRPORT
PAVEMENT DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE
SEPTEMBER 9, 1991
The original construction of 1942-43 was a combination of DLAND-USED

and Navy. Except for a small concrete apron of unknown thickness,
on the west side, all pavements %ere flexible construction consisting
of 2" AC, 6" Base and 10" Subbase. On taxiways and aprons the surface
thickness was 2½". It appears nothing was done to the pavement,
except for a possible slurry seal on a few sections, until 1983. At
that time a Federally funded project assisted in overlay of Runway
13-31, and chip seal on 1-19 and the southern portion of the taxi-
way parallel to 13-31. Also, at that time the short taxiway from
the concrete apron to runway 13-31 was overlaid. The island between
the concrete apron and parallel taxiway was surfaced about the same
time.
Traffic at this airport has consisted mainly of light single and twin
engine aircraft but occasionally a large aircraft will visit the
airport.
Currently, runway 13-31 continues to be in excellent condition. But,

it does show a significant tendency to ravel with many fine particles
coming loose. A fog seal might help this. Runway 1-19 has a lot of
loose stone and is scheduled for a 1½" minimum overlay in Fall of
this year. That should result in an excellent condition and a PCI
rating of 100.
The aprons are in very good condition but the concrete apron could
use new joint seal as it has had nothing done to it in 48 years.
The bituminous portion of apron shows a significant tendency to ravel
and a fog seal might help here also. All of the other pavements are
original, although the north portion of the parallel taxiway looks
like it had a slurry seal once, and are in good condition. Typically
they have some depressions, fine cracking and raveling/weathering.
-Some have a lot of vegetation in the cracks.
The ideal solution on these pavements would be an overlay as was acc-
omplished on runway 13-31. The active taxiways could be overlaid
35' wide or maybe 40'. This treatment would correct all problems
including depressions. But, if funds are insufficient, removing
vegetation and slurry sealing these pavements would be a big im-
provement. Even though the southern portion of the parallel taxi-
way received a chip seal, an overlay of the entire taxiway at 35'
or 40' would be desirable. A short portion of taxiway T-2 from run-
way end 13 to the T hangar area is scheduled for a slurry seal in
Fall of 1991. The remaining longer section of T-2 would seem to be
an ideal cnadidate for a slurry seal.
SUGGESTED PAVEMENT PROGRAM IS AS FOLLOWS:

Overlay parallel taxiway to runway 13-31 approx. 5500' x 35'
21,389 S. Y. @ $7.00 = $150,000
Fog seal runway 13-31
55,555 S. Y. @ $0.20 = $ 11,000
Remove vegetation and slurry seal taxiways between runways to 40'
width
15,000 S. Y. @ $2.00 = $ 30,000
Replace joint seal in concrete apron = $ 9,000
AIRPORT: /--- ,YC NOTES: PCI NUMBER indicates

PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX
DATE OF LAST SURVEY: 919i Horizontal scale covers 30 yrs.
or overlay
AIRPORT FACILITY: RuIl 19- 3AIRPORT FACILITY: T-k" ,"7-I1A
100 5 10 1 25 30 1) 1 2F 2 3
90
80 _" _ ..
70 - I _,,
S60
x50
z40
H30
20
10
- YEAR 1`ý L-3 YE.AR

AIRPORT FACILITY: FUn •o7 R2W l-1?/ AIRPORT FACILITY: - w • -/2
100 0 1) 15 20 2 3 10 1r 2F 2 3(
90
z70 80 _- _ _- _ __
30
6 __
50 "'"_"
Z0 40
o
30 J-
m2-
900 [ _u ' ___ ___ __ __ _ •___ _____,, _

lOr
IL 60__ __ ___ __ _ __ __ _
AIRPORT FACILITY: TAW l R2It/ AIRPORT FACILITY: "T'- l ,/ T_ -

100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 3
90
80
70 -
S50
Z 40
UH30
70
• 20 ' ----
10
".0
0r- 1913 a
AIRPORT: T'" P, vok NOTES: PCI NUMBER indicates

PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX
DTOFLY
ep. 1 Horizontal scale covers 30 yrs.
or overlay
AIRPORT FACILITY: T-&Kl"V T-' AIRPORT FACILITY:
100 5 10 1 2? 25 30 1D 1 2F 2r 3
90
80 ..
•70
6O0
5
50 _
Z40
H30
YEAR YEAR
AIRPORT FACILITY: Aran A 2- AIRPORT FACILITY:

100 15 20 2 30 q 10 1 32
90 !
80 __-
•70_
60O
S50
Z40
30
S20
0
0-
AIRPORT FACILITY: Apt-9 r AIRPORT FACILITY:

100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 32
90 -
80 ---- -7-
•70
60
X 50
Z 40 ,,
i • 20
10
"0
APPENDIX C
GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES

FOR
MAINTENANCE OF AIRPORT PAVEMENTS
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
ADVISORY CIRCULAR
AC: 150/5380-6
DATE: 12/3/82
'6• 0 Guidelines and
Oflup Procedures for
Maintenance of
Airport Pavements
AC 150/506 Advisory Circular
Date: 12/3/82
For sle by the Superlntendegt of Lociuments, U.S. Govornment Prutling •e'•, Wahiagton. D.C. 20402
0 Advisory
U-S Department
f
fTftnWH Avkfo
Circular
FAeraftAvation
Subject: GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR Date: 12/3/82 AC No: 150/5380-6

MAINTENANCE OF AIRPORT PAVEMENTS Initiated by: AAS-200 Change:
1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides guidelines and procedures for
maintenance of rigid and flexible airport pavements.
2. FOCUS.
a. Poor maintenance of airport pavements is the result of a variety of causes,

among which are lack of funds, untrained personnel, and lack of adequate infor-
mation. This AC provides specific guidelines and procedures for maintaining air-
port pavements and establishing an effective maintenance program. Specific types
of distress, their probable causes, inspection guidelines, and recommended methods
of repair are discussed.
b. This information has been developed to assist airport managers, engineers,

and maintenance personnel responsible for pavement design, performance, maintenance,
and repair. It is intended primarily for use at small- and medium-size airports
that may lack the technical support of an adequate well-trained engineering/main-
tenance staff or the financial resources to retain a pavement consultant.
3. RELATED READING MATERIAL. The publications listed in Appendix C, Bibliography,

provide further guidance and technical information.
LeNRDE.MUDD
Director, Office of Airport Standards
APPENDIX A: CONDITION SURVEY PROCEDURE
GENERAL
This appendix gives the detailed procedure for performing a pavement

condition survey at civil airports. The procedure is presently limited
to flexible pavements (all pavements with conventional bituminous con-
crete surfaces) and jointed rigid pavements (jointed nonreinforced ccn-
crete pavements with joint spacing not exceeding 25 ft). Specific
objectives for the condition survey are:
a. To determine present condition of the pavement in terms of
apparent structural integrity and operational surface
condition.
b. To provide FAA with a common index for comparing the condition
and performance of pavements at all airports and also provide
a rational basis for justification of pavement rehabilitation
projects.
c. To provide feedback on pavement performance for validation
and improvement of current pavement design, evaluation, and
maintenance procedures.
The airport pavement condition survey and the determination of the
PCI are the primary means of obtaining and recording vital airport pave-
ment performance data. The condition survey for both rigid and flexible
pavement facilities consists principally of a visual inspection of the
pavement surfaces for signs of pavement distress resulting from the in-
fluence of aircraft traffic and environment.
BASIC AIRPORT INFORMATION
A considerable amount of basic airport data is incorporated into

the condition survey report. Most of this information is contained in
construction and maintenance records and in previous condition survey
reports. To facilitate report preparation, the basic data should be
accumulated and maintained by the airport engineer. The following items
should be compiled for subsequent use during the condition survey:
a. lX3ign/construction/maintenance history. The history of
maintenance, repair, and reconstruction from original construc-
tion of the airport pavement system to the present should be
maintained. These data should reflect airport paving projects
and airport change projects accomplished either in-house or
by a contractor.
b. Traffic history. Air carrier, commuter, cargo, and military
aircraft traffic records, including aircraft type, typical
gross loads, and frequency of operation.
c. Climatological data. Annual temperature ranges and precipi-
tation data should be obtained from the weather office nearest
the airport.
d. Airport layout. Plans and cross sections of all major airport

components, including subsurface drainage systems. These
should be updated to reflect new construction upon completion
of the project.
e. Frost action. If applicable, records of pavement behavior
during freezing periods and subsequent thaws should be recorded.
f. Photographs. Photographs depicting both general and specific
airport conditions should be taken.
&. Pavement condition survey reports. All previous pavement con-
dition survey reports should be maintained to be referenced
in the current report.
A series of data summary sheets has been devised and is presented
in Figures A-! through A-4. These summary sheets should le helpful to (
the personnel involved in obtaining and maintaining the necessary infor-
mation. Narrative information pertaining to unusual problems, solutions,
or attempted solutions to these problems should be included. This in-
formation would be beneficial in determining research needs as well as
in providing a means of distributing information.
OUTLINE OF BASIC CONDITION

RATING PPOCEDURE
The steps for performing the condition survey and determining the
PCI are described below and in Figure A-5:
a. Station or mark off the airport pavements in 100-ft increments.
This is done semipermanently to assure ease of proper position-
ing for the condition survey. The overall airport pavements
must first be divided into features based on the pavements
design, construction history, and traffic area. A designated
pavement feature, therefore, has consistent structural thick-
ness and materials, was constructed at the same time, and is
located in one airport facility, i.e., runway, taxiway, etc.
After initially designating the features on the airport, make
a preliminary survey. This survey shall entail a brief but
complete visual survey of all the airport pavements. By
observing distress in an individual feature, it may be
determined whether there are varying degrees of distress in
different areas. In such cases, the feature should be sub-
divided into two or more features.
b. The pavement feature is divided into sample units. A sample
unit for jointed rigid pavement is approximately 20 slabs; a
sample unit for flexible pavement is an area of approximately
5000 sq ft.
c. The sample units are inspected, and distress types and their
severity levels and densities are recorded. Appendix B pro-
vides a comprehensive guide for identification of the different
distress types and their severity levels. The criteria in
Appendix B must be used in identifying and recording the dis-
tress types and severity levels in order to obtain an accurate
PCI.
d. For each distress type, density, and severity level within a
sample unit, a deduct value is determined from the appropriate
curve.
e. The total deduct value (TDV) for each sample unit is determined
by adding all deduct values for each distress condition
observed.
f. A corrected deduct value (CDV) is determined using procedures
in the appropriate section for jointed rigid or flexible
pavements.
K" The PCI for each sample unit inspected is calculated as
follows:
PCI = 100 - CDV
If the CDV for a sample unit is less than the highest individ-
ual distress deduct value, the highest value should be used in
lieu of the CDV in the above equation.
h. The PCI of the entire feature is the average of the PCI's from
all sample units inspected.
i. The feature's pavement condition rating is determined from a
figure that presentb verbal descriptions of a pavement condi-
tion as a function of PCI value.
SAMPLING TECIUIQTj-E
Inspection of an entire feature may require considerable effort,

especially if the feature is very large. This may be particularly true
for flexible pavements containing much distress. Because of the time
and effort involved, frequent surveys of the entire feature may be
beyond available manpower, funds, and time. A sampling plan has,
therefore, been developed so that an adequate estimate of the PCI can
be determined by inspecting a portion of the sample units within a
feature. Use of the statistical sampling plan described here will con-
siderably reduce the time required to inspect a feature without signif-
icant loss of accuracy. However, this statistical sampling plan is
optional, and inspection of the entire feature may be desirable. The
airport engineer should specify whether statistical sampling may be
used. The condition survey proceeds as follows:
a. Determination of pavement feature. The first step in the
condition survey is the designation of pavement features.
Each facility such as a runway, taxiway, etc., is divided
into segments or features that are definable in terms of
(1) the same design, (2) the same construction history,
(3) the same traffic area, and (4) generally the same overall
condition. General features can be determined from pavement
design and construction records and can be further subdivided
as deemed necessary based on a preliminary survey. It is
important that all pavement in a given feature be such that
it can be considered uniform. As an example, the center part
of some runways in the traffic lanes should be separate fea-
tures from the shoulder portion outside the traffic lanes.
b. Selection of sample units to be inspected. The minimum number
of sample units that must be surveyed to obtain an adequate
estimate of the PCI of a feature is selected from Figure A-6.
Once the number of sample units n has been determined from
Figure A-6, the spacing interval of the units is computed from
where
i = spacing interval of units to be sampled

1;= total number of sample units in the feature
n = number of sample units to be inspected
All the sample numbers within a feature are numbered and those
that are multiples of the interval i are selected for inspec-
tion. The first sample unit to be inspected should be selected
at random between 1 and i . Sample unit size should be
5000 sq ft (generally 50 by 100 ft) for flexible pavement
and 20 adjacent slabs for rigid pavement. Figures A-7 and
A-8 illustrate the division of a jointed rigid pavement and
flexible pavement feature, respectively, into sample units.
Each sample unit is numbered so it can be relocated for future
inspections, maintenance needs, or statistical sample purposes.
Each of the selected sample units must be inspected and its
PCI determined. The mean PCI of a pavement feature is deter-
mined by averaging the PCI of each sample unit inspected with-
in the feature. When it is desirable to inspect a sample unit
that is in addition to those selected by the above procedure,
then one or more additional sample units may be inspected and
the mean PCI of the feature computed from:
= (N -A) l + A
N 1CI, N 2
where
PCIf = mean PCI of feature

N = total number of sample units in feature
A = number of additional sample units
PCI1 = mean of PCI for n number of statistically
selected units
PCI2 mean PCI for all additional sample units
It is necessary that each sample unit be identified adequately

so that it can be relocated for additional inspections to veri-
fy distress data or for comparison with future inspections.
Based on significant variation of sample unit PCI along a
feature and/or significant variation in distress types among
sample units, one feature should be divided into two or more
features for future inspections and maintenance purposes.
DETAIL SURVEY PROCEDURE

FOR RIGID PAVEMENT
Each sample unit, or those selected by the statistical sampling

procedure, in the feature is inspected. The actual inspection is per-
formed by walking over each slab of the sample unit being surveyed and
recording distress existing in the slab on the jointed rigid pavement
survey data sheet (Figure A-9). One data sheet is used for each sample
unit. A sketch is made of the sample uni.t, using the dots as joint
intersections. The appropriate number code for each distress found in
the slab is placed in the square representing the slab. The letters
L (low), M (medium), or H (high) are included along with the distress
number code to indicate the severity level of the distress. For example,
15L indicates that low severity corner spalling exists in the slab.
Refer to Appendix B for aid in identification of distresses and their
severity levels. Follow these guidelines very closely.
Space is provided on the jointed rigid pavement survey data sheet
for summarizing the distresses and computing the PCI for the sample
unit. Summarize the distress type numbers and their severity levels and
the number of slabs in the sample unit containing each type and level.
Calculate the percentage of the total number of slabs in the sample unit
containing each distress type and severity level. Using Figures A-10
through A-24, determine the deduct value for each distress type and
severity level. Sum the deduct values to obtain the deduct total.
N;oting how many individual deduct values are greater than 5, con-
suit Figure A-25 to obtain the CDV. The PCI is then calculated and the
rating (from Figure A-26)is entered on the jointed rigid pavement survey
data sheet (Figure A-9). If the CDV for a sample unit is less than the
highest individual distress deduct value, the highest value should be
used in determining the PCI.
The 7CI's for all sample units are compiled into a feature suimmary,
as shown in Figure A-27. The overall condition rating of the feature is
determined by using the mean PCI and Figure A-26.
DEUAILz PFCEDURE
. FOR
Each sample unit, or those selected by the sampling procedure, in

the feature is inspected. The distress inspection is conducted by walk-
ing over the sample unit, measuring the distress type and severity
accordinr to Appendix B, and recording the data on the flexible pavement
sarvey data sheet l-'igure A-2E). One data sheet is used for each sample
.n-t. A :.arnd odometer is very helpful for measuring distress. A 10-ft
strai:hteage and a 12-in. scale must be available for measuring the
depths of ruts or depressions. Each column on the data sheet is used
to represent a distress type, and the amount and severity of each dis-
tress located are listed in the column. For example, distress No. 5
(denressionr is recorded as 6 x LL, which indicates that the depression
is 6 by ýift and of low severity. Distress type No. 8 (longitudinal and
transverse cracking) is measured in linear feet, thus 10L indicates
10 ft of light cracking. This format is very convenient for recording
data in the field.
Each distress type and severity level are summed either in square
feet or linear feet, depending on the type of distress. The total units,
either in square feet or linear feet, for each distress type and severity
1-,cl are divided by the area of the sample unit to obtain the perzent
density. Using Figures A-29 through A-44, determine the deduct value
for each distress type and severity level. Sum the deduct values to
obtain the deduct total.
Noting how many individual deduct values are greater than 5, use
Figure A-h5 to obtain the CDV. The PCI is then calculated, and the
rating (from Figure A-26) is entered on the flexible pavement survey
data sheet. If the CDV for a sample unit is less than the highest indi-
vidual distress deduct value, the highest value should be used in deter-
mining the PCI.
The PCI's for each sample unit are compiled into a feature summary,
as shown in Figure A-46. The mean PCI for the feature is determined by
averaging the PCI's from each sample unit. The overall condition rating
of the feature is determined by use of the mean PCI and Figure A-26.
REPORTING CONDITION SURVEY RESULTS
The format for reporting the findings of the airport condition

survey may be info.,mal, designed to preclude the necessity of extensive
drafting and typing. The pavement distress data and PCI computations can
be presented as directly obtained from the survey data sheets and compu-
tations. The basic airport data collected will primarily reflect changes
in airport pavement systems that have occurred since the last condition
survey report. Reports should be prepared by the airport engineer on a
recurring cycle at intervals designed to reflect gradual changes in pave-
ment surface conditions. Reports should include, but not be limited to,
the following:
a. Design pavement structure data. A form, such as Figure A-l,
to include the history of all airport pavements, from original
construction to the most recent changes and additions.
b. Pavement structural evaluation summary. If available, a
summary of the last structural evaluation data (see Figure A-2).
C. Pavement maintenance record. When, where, and what type of
maintenance has been performed (see Figure A-3).
d. Aircraft traffic data survey. Types of aircraft, typical gross
loads, and airport facilities most likely used by the aircraft;
also, the frequency of operations (see Figure A-4).
e. Plans and cross sections.

(1) Airport layout plan. The airport layout plan should
depict airport pavements existing at the time of the
condition survey. All airport facilities should be
delineated and identified.
f) Condition rating. An airport layout plan keyed to indi-
cate the narrative condition rating of each feature. The
feature PCI's should be indicated, possibly in tabular
form.
(3) Drainage. Existing problem areas should be identified.
"Surface and subsurface drainage should be shown in plan
and profile for all areas near to and intersecting with
airport pavements.
f. Narrative. A narrative consisting of a written account of the

visual condition of each feature. The purposes of the narrative
are:
(I) To briefly describe the general condition of the pavement
facilities.
(2) To describe operational conditions and problems.
(3) To describe the condition of other airport facilities
found near the load-bearing pavements such as runway
shoulders and overrun areas.
£. Photographs. Photographs showing typical or specific pavement

conditions. An aerial photograph, current within 3 years, is
desirable.
040
Z-J
cc
D
40w
U, >
LU
-4-
W 0 - C)
4C
_
w _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _
LA1
> W
:j
0.
u.,
0
i-
CL
W
4
.0
> Wz
-.
>
A- Oi
wwJ ~o >3
0 m
~u
STEP 1. DIVIDE PAVEMENTS INTO FEATURES.
STEP 2. DIVIDE PAVEMENT FEATURE INTO SAMPLE UNITS. STEP 9. DETERMINE PAVEMENT
CONDITION RATING
STEP 3. INSPECT SAMPLE UNITS; DETERMINE DISTRESS TYPES OF FEATURE.
AND SEVERITY LEVELS AND MEASURE DENSITY.
LIGHTL & T CRACKIN.G
MEIMALLIGA TOR
STEP 4. DETERMINE DEDUCT VALUES ,o

L & T CRACKING ALLIGATOR
100
0 ~00
01I DENSITY PERCENT IM0 DENSITY PERCENT 100 ,,•
(LOG SCALE) (LOG SCALE)
STEP 5. COMPUTE TOTAL DEDUCT VALUE ITDV) a + b
STEP 6. ADJUST TOTAL DEDUCT VALUE '
2 3
a 1
TOTAL DEDUCT VALUE
STEP 7. COMPUTE PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX

IPCII = 100 - CDV FOR EACH SAMPLE
UNIT INSPECTED+
STEP . COMPUTE PCTOF ENTIRE FEATURE (AVERAGE PCI'S OF SAMPLE UNITS).

S igure A-'. Steps for determining PCI of a pavement feature
L* 0
I I I
ii
-N C
i I
\u \D
~V~2
W D
~0 c\cn
W
I -' I Lu ~0
' ~ Efl
LC))
10,
0 0&
> *
a3A3AwnS 38 01k SliNn 31dWVS 10 hi391*dN

JOINTED RIGID PAVEMENT
CONDITION SURVEY DATA SHEET FOR SAMPLE UNIT
AIRPORT !DATE
WORLD INTERNATIONAL
E/26/79
FACILITY -FEATURE SAMPLE UNIT
RWY 9-27 R3 12
SURVEYED BY SLAB SIZE

JH/DE 12.5 X 15 FT
DISTRESS TYPES
10
I. BLOW-UP 10. SCALINGtMAP
0 0 0 0 2. CORNER BREAK CRACK/CRAZING
0
3. LONGITUDINAL/ 11. SETTLEMENT/
9 TRANSVERSE/ FAULT
DIAGONAL 12. SHATTERED
CRACK SLAB
* 0 0 0 0 4. "D'"CRACK 13. SHRINKAGE
6. JOINT SEAL CRACK
8 DAMAGE 14. SPALLING --
2
6, PATCHING, 'C FT JOINTS
0 0 6 0 0 7, PATCHING/ 15. SPALLING -
UTILITY CUT CORNER
B. POPOUTS
9. PUMPING
DIST. NO. DENSITY DEDUCT

DIRECTION OF SURVEY
TYPE SEV SLABS % VALUE
66 121 2 L 1 B A
3 L 3 is 11
5 3M 3 M 1 5 11
10 M 1 6 7
12 L 1 5 t0
4 3L 12L 18 L 2 10 3
3 2L 15L
3L
'ON 31.
DEDUCT TOTAL
CORRECTED DEDUCT VALUE ICOVI 32
I 5kL PCI - 100 - CDV -_Go

RATING - GOOD
1 2 3 4
Figure A-9. Jointed rigid pavements - condition survey data sheet
'I
az
LU E5
IN I-
(fZ0
LL U
0U (
in D
z > >
cr 0
U.j'
ow 'a
___________
o
("4
3A1VA ion3a 0030 3j~UU3

"ArDort: World international
Airport Facility: Taxiway 1
:ate of Survey: 15 March 1979
S ample Sample
Unit No. of Slab Unit No. of Slab
"0o. Slabs Size PCI No. Slabs Size PCI
1 20 12.5 x 15 68
20 12.5 x I1 6_1_
3 20 12.5 x 15 64
20 12.5 x 15 74
20 12.5 x 15 28
Average -CI for -eature: 62
fonii'icn Rating: Good
Feat-re szu.mary - jointed rigid pavement
I
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT
CONDITION SURVEY DATA SHEET FOR SAMPLE UNIT
AIRPORT DATE
WORLD INTERNATIONAL 5/26f/79
FACILITY FEATURE SAMPLE UNIT
TXY E T-11 4
SURVEYED RY AREA OF SAMPLE

JH/DE S0 SO FT
DISTRESS TYPES SKETCH.
' 1 ALLIGATOR CRACKING 10. PATCHING ~100"

2 BLEEDING 11. POLISHED AGGREGATE
3. BLOCK CRACKING 12. RAVELING/WEATHERING 7
4 CORRUGATION 13. RUTTING
S DEPRESSION 14. SHOVING FROM PCC
15. SLIPPAGE CRACKING 50
6 JET BLAST
7 JT. REFLECTION (PCC) 16. SWELL
8 LONG. & TRANS. CRACKING _ _ _ _
9 OIL SPILLAGE
EXISTING DISTRESS TYPES
51 8 12
4X4M 6X4L 10L 3XIOM
2X3L SL
15L
10 L
/ ~~~SM____ _
> L 6SOFT 24 SO FT 40FT
: M 16 SO FT 10FT 30 SO FT
PCI CALCULATION
DISTRESS DENSITY DEDUCT

TYPE SEVERITY VALUE
_ _ _ L 0.22 7
I M 032 19 PCI-100-CDV- 75
S L 0.48 2
ag L 0.80 5
B M 0.20 5
12 M 0.w ? RATING- VERY GOOD
DEDUCT TOTAL 45
CORRECTED DEDUCT VALUE ICDVI
Figure A-28. Flexible pavements - condition survey data sheet
I
!
Z- CD
Lu-
0 Uw
C4,
crwe-
LLI U)
___ > a)
WW>
lu
LU
4
JI >
U.~
0
0
- 0- 0
-T
3fllVA ~iom3G a3iD3U30D

APPENDIX D
MINITAB SOFTWARE CALCULATIONS

AND MODELS DERIVED
INCLUDES ALL PAVEMENT

CATEGORIES
I. APPLICABLE DATA POINTS

2. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF WASHINGTON DATA
3. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF OREGON DATA
4. COMBINED STATES DATA REGRESSION ANALYSIS
I
RSCH PLOT DATA Wed. Mar 4, 1992 2:48 PM
PCCAGE PCCPCI 2-3"ACI6-8" 2-3/6-8 PCI WWlIAGE WWlIIPCI 2-31>8 AGE 2-3/>8 PCI
1 43.000 86.000 0.000 100.000 0.000 100.000 13.000 95.000

2 46.000 84.000 13.000 64.000 44.000 54.000 16.000 90.000
3 43.000 33.000 10.000 67.000 43.000 47.000 13.000 100.000
4 46.000 26.000 13.000 82.000 46.000 39.000 16.000 92.000
5 45.000 84.000 17.000 80.000 46.000 55.000 19.000 90.000
6 49.000 81.000 20.000 55.000 49.000 45.000 23.000 87.000
7 45.000 78.000 24.000 51.000 47.000 52.000 4.000 89.000
8 49.000 67.000 16.000 86.000 43.000 49.000 8.000 84.000
9 44.000 40.000 20.000 77.000 46.000 42.000 4.000 90.000
10 48.000 33.000 14.000 29.000 43.000 77.000 8.000 82.000
11 44.000 47.000 18.000 18.000 46.000 59.000 8.000 89.000
12 48.000 26.000 3.000 94.000 11.000 85.000
13 44.000 72.000 6.000 90.000 18.000 70.000
14 47.000 69.000 15.000 71.000 21.000 48.000
15 1.000 94.000 18.000 49.000 1.000 96.000
16 5.000 78.000 12.000 88.000 5.000 92.000
17 0.000 100.000 15.000 83.000 1.000 95.000
18 2.000 92.000 5.000 90.000
19 6.000 88.000 0.000 100.000
20 37.000 79.000
21 41.000 75.000
22 23.000 88.000
23 27.000 83.000
24 4.000 88.000
25 8.000 77.000
26
27
28
29
30
317
32
33
34
35
36
37
!
IPLOT DATA (WA) Wed. Mar 4, 1992 2:44
PCCAGE PCC PCI 2-3"ACI6-8" 2-3/6-8 PCI WWIIAGE WWII PCI 2-3/>8 AGE 2-3h>8 PCI
1 43.000 86.000 0.000 100.000 0.000 100.000 13.000 95.00
2 46.000 84.000 13.000 64.000 44.000 77.000 16.000
I 3 43.000 33.000 10.000 67.000 47.000 78.000 13.000
90.00
100.00
4 46.000 26.000 13.000 82.000 44.000 54.000 16.000 92.00
5 45.000 84.000 17.000 80.000 43.000 47.000 19.000 90.00
6 49.000 81.000 20.000 55.000 46.000
I 7 45.000 78.000 24.000 51.000 46.000
39.000
55.000
23.000
4.000
87.00
89.00
8 49.000 67.000 16.000 86.000 49.000 45.000 8.000 84.00
9 44.000 40.000 20.000 77.000 47.000 52.000 4.000 90.00
10 48.000 33.000 14.000 29.000 43.000 49.000
I 11 44.000 47.000 18.0-0 18.000 46.000 42.000
8.000
8.000
82.00
89.00
12 48.000 26.000 3.000 94.000 43.000 77.000 11.000 85.00
13 44.000 72.000 6.000 90.000 46.000 59.000 18.000 70.00
14 47.000 69.000 15.000 71.000 21.000 48.00
15 0.000 100.000 18.000 49.000 0.000
16 100.00
12.000 88.000
17 15.000 83.000
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
*1
A RSCH PLOT DATA Wed. Mar 4, 1992 2:48 PI
>3/B AGE >3"IB PCI AC OL AGE AC OL PCI BSTAGE BST PCI SSAGE SS PCI
1 0.000 100.000 0.000 100.000 0.000 100.000 0.000 100.000
2 13.000 83.000 13.000 96.000 12.000 61.000 17.000 60.000
3 17.000 75.000 16.000 91.000 15.000 34.000 21.000 55.000
4 13.000 86.000 10.000 89.000 2.000 82.000 17.000 53.000
5 17.000 80.000 13.000 84.000 5.000 60.000 21.000 43.000
6 18.000 81.000 13.000 88.000 1.000 98.000 7.000 72.000
7 21.000 68.000 17.000 83.000 4.000 95.000 11.000 70.000
8 2.000 90.000 1.000 97.000 2.000 79.000 2.000 68.000
9 6.000 86.000 5.000 90.000 6.000 46.000 6.000 49.000
10 27.000 93.000 3.000 89.000 2.000 58.000 12.000 88.000
11 31.000 91.000 7.000 81.000 6.000 53.000 15.000 70.000
12 8.000 86.000 3.000 52.000 9.000 77.000
13 11.000 84.000 6.000 42.000 12.000 72.000
14 12.000 68.000 1.000 73.000 5.000 57.000
15 15.000 65.000 4.000 68.000 8.000 40.000
16 11.000 79.000 3.000 91.000 2.000 83.000
17 15.000 74.000 7.000 88.000 6.000 77.000
18 10.000 72.000 8.000 80.000 2.000 71.000
19 13.000 58.000 12.000 77.000 6.000 68.000
20 10.000 68.000 1.000 77.000
21 13.000 59.000 5.000 57.000
22 14.000 75.000 1.000 65.000
23 17.000 70.000 5.000 64.000
24 1.000 92.000
25 4.000 83.000
26 10.000 87.000
27 14.000 83.000
28 2.000 83.000
29 6.000 76.000
30 7.000 87.000
31 11.000 79.000
32 7.000 77.000
33 11.000 68.000
34 4.000 92.000
35 8.000 89.000
36 1.000 91.000
37 5.000 89.000
I
PLOT DATA (WA) Wed, Mar 4, 1992 2:44
>3"IB AGE >3"/B PCI AC OL AGE AC OL PCI BST AGE BST PCI SS AGE SS PCI
1 0.000 100.000 0.000 100.000 0.000 100.000 0.000 100.001
2 13.000 83.000 13.000 96.000 12.000 61.000 17.000 60.001
3 17.000 75.000 16.000 91.000 15.000 34.000 21.000 55.001
4 13.000 86.000 10.000 89.000 2.000 82.000 17.000 53.001
5 17.000 80.000 13.000 84.000 5.000 60.000 21.000 43.001
6 18.000 81.000 13.000 88.000 1.000 98.000 7.000 72.001
7 21.000 68.000 17.000 83.000 4.000 95.000 11.000 70.001
8 1.000 97.000 2.000 79.000 2.000 68.001
9 5.000 90.000 6.000 46.000 6.000 49.001
10 3.000 89.000 2.000 58.000 12.000 88.004
11 7.000 81.000 6.000 50.000 15.000 70.004
12 8.000 86.000 3.000 52.000 9.000 77.001
13 11.000 84.000 6.000 42.000 12.000 72.001
14 12.000 68.000 1.000 73.000 5.000 57.001
15 15.000 65.000 4.000 68.000 8.000 40.00(
16 11.000 79.000 3.000 91.000 2.000 83.00(
17 15.000 74.000 7.000 88.000 6.000 77.00(
18 10.000 72.000
19 13.000 58.000
20 10.000 68.000
21 13.000 59.000
22 14.000 75.000
23 17.000 70.000
24 1.000 92.000
25 4.000 83.000
i
PLOT DATA (OR) Wed, Mar 4, 1992 2:3
2-3"ACI6-88 2-3/6-8 PCI 2-3/>8 AGE 2-3/>8 PCI >3"/B AGE >3"/B PCI ACOLAGE ACOLPCI
1 37.000 79.000 0.000 100.000 0.000 100.000 0.000 100.0c
2 41.000 75.000 1.000 96.000 27.000 93.000 10.000 87.OC
3 23.000 88.000 5.000 92.000 31.000 91.000 14.000 83.0C
4 27.000 83.000 1.000 95.000 2.000 90.000 2.000 83.OC
5 4.000 88.000 5.000 90.000 6.000 86.000 6.000 76.0C
6 8.000 77.000 7.000 87.OC
7 2.000 92.000 11.000 79.OC
8 6.000 88.000 7.000 77.0C
9 11.000 68.OC
10 4.000 92.OC
11 8.000 89.0C
12 1.000 91.0c
13
5.000 89.0c
PLOT DATA (OR) Wed, Mar 4, 1992 2:39 PM
BST AGE BST PCI SS AGE SS PCI PCC AGE PCC PCI
1 0.000 100.000 0.000 100.000 0.000 100.000
2 8.000 80.00'0 2.000 71.000 1.000 94.000
3 12.000 77.000 6.000 68.000 5.000 78.000
4 1.000 77.000
5 5.000 57.000
6 1.000 65.000
7 5.000 64.000
8
9
10
11
12
13
I
WASHINGTON PAVEMENTS
2 - 3 INCHES OF AC
ON
6 - 8 INCHES OF BASE.
Includes: Regression Equations

R-squared (Confidence associated with the regression model)
t-ratio (Predictability of the dependent variable from the independent variable)
(Higher values better - typically > 4)
s or SEE (Estimate error factor - lower values are better)
Notes: c I represents the dependent variable PCI.

c2 repr-;ýents the independent variable AGE.
c3, c4, c5 are AGE raised to 1.5, 2, 2.5 powers, respectively.
LqAiaions with c6 and c7 are raised to the 3 and 3.5 powers.
WA Z~/-
reore CrCL'tI
E. 14
i c crCoef St dev t -- rat i vi.

:r"Start 399. 11 111 B. 5f7E
=19. 2 FR-~ 3
34. 07.R2%ad- - 29. 6%
-I ria1 vS S Of Yar) a r)C-E
IJURCE DF 5
epre~ss cr 1 245.7 E545. 7
rr'15 5528.2 68
a 1 l D 7 3. 9
~'Sa1Observ at icor,-
7,Ll. L it 9tdev.Pit Resid'.ta St. Res I d
i . ~.0 99.11 11.5t3 02.89 0.0 X
0 :4.0 '2 29.002l 69. 14 4.66 -40. 14 -!.16RP
der,':tes a: witn a lar-ge St. resld.

3NT N'JEn
relr-eDL -r ulcIJfj't 'r, IS

9*9. 6 -- 1.74 C,
odcto :-W S aCe v t -rat I c,

rnstarnt 9WW 8 7E 14.97
-1. 784-& O*.SR -3. 98
10.99 R-sc 319 P-oc(aCj -i 51.5%
alyi ,f .'arlarce
1 1915.5 1915.5
vrcor 12 1570.9 120.~8
14 3486.4
NMTE ) let c3=c2**1.5
-9 > recress cl 1 c3
The regression equaticr is

C 1 = 95. 0 - 0. 356 C3
Pred ict cr CcDef Stdev t-rat io

coronstaant 95. 033 5. 6*2 16. 90
C3 -0.35619 0.08980 -3.97
s = 11.02 R-sq = 54.8% R-sq (adJ) = 51. 3%
Anralvsis cf Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
Regression 1 1908.9 1908.9
Error 13 1577.5 121.3
Total 14 3486.4
MTE >
-9 > regress cl 1 c4
"Tle regressiorn eauat ior is

I1 = 91.7 - 0.0717 C4
Precictor Coef Stdev t-rat ic.

_.,½ristarnt 91. 669 5. 049 18. 16
-4 -0. 07166 0.01868 -3.84
S = II.:'I R-sQ = 53. 1% R-sq(adj) = 49.5%
-r,alysis cf Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
Reqressior, 1 1851. 4 1851.4
Errc r 13 1635. 0 125.a
cotal 14 3486.4
Jr usual Observat ic-rs

mhs. C4 C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
7 576 51i. 00 50.40 7. 2- 0.60 0.07 X
dernotes ar, obs. whcse X value gives it large inrfluernce.
I
'iTB > regress ci 1 c5
Tne recressicr, eotat ior, is

I£i = 89.1 - 0.0144 C5
ed ictor CCef Stadev t-rat iC

r- st ant 89. 150 4. 691 19. 01
C5 -0.014438 0.003933 -3. 67
s = 11.48 R-so = 50.9% R-sq(adi) = 47.1%
,:rajysis of Variar,ce
SOURCE DF SS MS
Roeressior I 1774.6 1774. 6
Error_13 1711.8 131.7
ct a 14 3486.4
•,rusual Observat i-ros

JEs. C5 C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
7 282a 51.00 48.41 8.03 2.59 0.32 X
. denrotes art obs. whose X va Lue gives it large influernce.
T >
•E Ž reoress c! 1 c6
2 recressiorn eaiat i, r)s

57. L - 0. 00291 C6
--'ecdi .ctzr :ef Stdev t-rat 1c

.r st art 8". 19% 4.449 19. 60
.E -0.0029071 0.0008305 -3.50
!1.75 R-so = 48.5% R-.a(adj) = 44.6%
-n-alvsis cf Variarce
Dp- 5URCE
SS MS
Oeproessi'r i 1691.6 !691.E.
,3 1734.8 138.1
"14 3486E.4
rsiai Coservat ICrs

C- CI cit S• ev.RFt Residual St.Resir
7 138E4 51.00 47.00 8.77 4.00 0.51 '
denotes ar ,ns. wmcse X value hives it large i nfluence.
>
I
I
OREGON PAVEMENTS
2 - 3 INCHES OF AC
ON
6 - 8 INCHES OF BASE


c2 represents the independent variable AGE.
Equations with c6 and c7 are raised to the 3 and 3.5 powers.
_I
I OF- L.-) •
E( ) regress cl 1 c•z:
ITne repressio-n ecuat iro is

S 391. 5 - 0. 361 C7.
jred i ct cr Co-ef Stdev t-rat iC

.. rnstart 91.486 2. 926 31. E7
C2 -0.3607 0. 1319 73
s 5.890 R-s 51.6"% R-sq(adL• = 44. 7%
nralysis c-,f Variance
LOURCE DF SS MS
'Reairess I _-• I 159. 3 ID-9.
E•r=r7 39
242. L-3 -34. G69
F:t
l8 50~2.-'='
-Jr'jusuai Observat iors

1:3s. 2 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St. Resid
7 8.0 77.0 68.60 .. 216 -1i. ,• -. 13R
ceri.ztes ar. -os. wi÷ h a iaroe st. resld.
T, retesress c. 1 c.
ne recress ci,-r, ecuat cr, is

- . 0 2 3 C
'red i ct,-,r 2 ef Stdev t-rat 1,:,

,-,rrstart 30. 216 ..767 3. 61
-0. 05,34 O.2751
= 6.146 R-so = 47.3% R-s (a a = 39. 8%
'rnalvsis c:f Variance
SOURCE Dr SS MS
•euressi~r, 1 237. 67 7. 67
r7 264. 56 -7. 7:
s-,a,I i
tS'rvat rs 5,
j0S. C3 CI Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St. Resid
7 77.00 89.01 2.. 47 -12.03 - 313
denctes ar, cbs. with a larae st. resid.
I
IUTL? ) rearess ci 1 c4
£Th~e regressionr eC31-taticr,1 is

31= 89.6 - 0.00829 C4
edictocr Ccoef Stdev t-rat 1:D

.ý2onst ant 89.635 2. 674335
j5=6.241 R-so 45.7% R-sq(adj) 38.0%

An~alysis. of Varian~ce
3OURCE DF 98 ms
RLeoressir,r 1 229. 56 229. 5(,'
"C'7 z7 -. 66 38.395
UnuLsual1 bse-rvat1-icr~s
fibs. C4 Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resio
7 64 77.00 89.10 3.54 -13.10 R.~
ciertc'-tes an cbs. with a larce st. resid.
MTE-
ý euress cl 1 cff
T1. L reg~ressionc ecuat ior is
--I= 8 9.3 - 0. 00 13,0 c5
ýjed 1 ct cr C-e Stdev t -rat iC

:crist ant 89.2385 .1 34. 17
Q-'.0013048 0.0005461 -2.39
= L6.6 R-so 44.9% R-sq(adj) =37.1%
oralysis --
f Variance
YJREDF SS MS
-ieo~-ess ior, 1 235 .6E1 3.61
--r-r'Cr 7 76.6E,1 9. 5 P
-jis-a Observati1 ctrIs

*~.C- cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
7 181 77.00 a89. 05 .:..55 -1I3. 05 -2. !OR
P eroctF-s an c--bs. with a larce st. resid.
I' b
COMBINED PAVEMENTS
2 - 3 INCHES OF AC
ON
6 - 8 INCHES OF BASF


I
I
.e regressiorn eouat ior, is
1 = 82. 0 - 0. 486 C.
;redictor Coef Stdev t-rat iC

c,,n st art 81. 968 7.961 10. 30
-2 -0.4855 0.4280 -1.13
20.01
2= ( -s T5.3% R-sc(adi)
iAnalysis of Variance
:OURCE DF SS MS
eqreession 1 515.3 515.3
E I-rCr,2,, 9208.0 400.3
FCta1 24 9723. 4
'jriusuial Observat iorns

CE Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
10 14.0 29.00 75.17 4.10 -46.17 -2. 36R
18.0 18.00 73. 2'3 4.09 -55.2_3 S1
-2.82R
20 37.0 79.00 64.00 9.81 15. 00 0.86 X
-1 41.0 75.00 62.06 11.39 1l2.94 0.79 X
CONTINUE'
S'eoQr'essac, n eouaticr, is
77.7 - 0.0468 C3
.... edict t,-cr Coef Stdev t-rat IC.

7orstant 77. 704 6. 307 12. 32
-0. 04879 0. 06639 -0. 73
=0. R-s2 = -. 3" R-scl(adj) = 0.0%
Irvs
is of Variarce-
SOURCE D7 SS MS
eL•esslor, a 2,3. I a =.-I. I
rr950.3 413.1
al
-. 24 9723. 4
1 Observat c-ris
C3 Cl SbS.Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
i 59.00 75.15 4.28 -46.15 -2.32R
i1 76 18.00 73.98 4.07 -55.98 -2.81R
o 2215 79.00 66.72 10.91 12.28 0.72 X
263
-1 75.00 64.90 13.25 10.10 0.66 X
-ONTINUE'
1 ,e reoression eauatior, is
C- = 75.8 - 0.0047 C4
1
i 'ed ictor Ccef Stdev t-rat ic
Co.st art 75. 775 5. 457 13.89
I rial sis of Varianrce
I SOURCE DF SS MS
eelressicrc, i 84.0 84.0
23 "-
9639.3 419.1
cal 24 9723.4
Unusual Observat ions

tDbs. C4 Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
10 196 29.00 74.86 4.38 -45.86 -2.29R
I1 324 18.00 74.26 4.10 -56.26 -2. 81 R
20 1369 79.00 69.38 11.42 9.62 0.57 X
1 1681 75.00 67.93 14.51 7.07 0.49 X
CONTINUE-
The reoressior ecuati,-,r, is

Cl = 74.9 - 0.00041 C5
"e ictor Coef Stdev t-rat ic.

Cc-,r, t ant 74. 864 4. 992 15. 00
-0.000407 0.001642 -0. -5-
S= 20. 53 R-sc = 0. 3% R-sq (adj) = 0.0%
•rallysis of Varc.arce
SOURCE DF SS MS
-ressic r, 25. 9 25.9
",_r 23 9697.5 421.6
"t
' i4,-- 997 23. 4
rusual Observat ionrs

bs.5 C Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
:0 733 29.00 74.57 4.42 -45.57 -2.27R
1375 18.00 74.30 4. 15 -56. 30 -2. 80R
83`7 79.00 71.48 11.58 7.52 0.44 X
.I1 10764 75.00 70.48 15.39 4.52 0.33 X
-ONT I NUE "
I
I
a recressicrn ecuation is
21 = 99.2 - 1.99 C2
Dred ict cr Coef Stdev t-rat ic,

co.nst ant 99. 17 11.55 8. 59
-1.9854 0.7712 -:.57
= 19. 65 R-sq = 28.0% R-sq(adj) = --. 8%
,rnalysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
ýeoressic,,n 1 2558. 9 2558. 9
Error 17 6564.3 386.1
otal 18 91 R3.2

''bs. C2 C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St. Resid
1 0.0 100.00 99.17 11.55 0.83 0.05 X
10 14.0 29.00 71.37 4.51 -42.37 -2.22R
11 18.0 18.00 63.43 5.56 -45.43 -2.41R
denotes ar, obs. with a large st. resid.

CONTINUE7,
me regressiro ecuatio'n is
i= 93.8 - 0.398 C3
-edi ct,-,r Ccef Stdev t-rat i c.

c.-nst art 93. 753 9. 7-21 9.64
;3 -0.73985 0. 1561 --2..55
19.70 R-sc = 27. 7% R-sq(adj) = 23. 4%
ýralysis of Variance
)OURCE DF SS MS
eqr'essicr, 1 252,7. 0 2527.0
Error 17 6596. 1 388.0
ctal 18 91-3.2
Unusual Observatior ns
)bs. C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
10 52 29.00 72.88 4.54 -43.88 -2.29R
L1 76 18. 00 63. 32 5.61 -45.32' _-. 40R
tes an obs. with a large st. resid. Sdero
I
'l e reoressicrI eQiuat iczr is
Cl = 89.7 - 0.0797 C4
-.dictor Coef Stdev t-ratIo

"-,stant 89. 669 8. 574 10. 46
L4 -0.07971 0.03236 -2`.46
s = 19.89 R-sq 26.3% R-sq(adj) = 22.0%
Arnalysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
iRegressicr 2399.6 2399.6
Erro-r 17 67R3. 5 395. 5
Total 18 9123. 2
Ur•usual Observat ions

Obs. C4 CI Fit Stdev.Fjt Residual St.Resid
7 576 51.00 43.76 12.26 7.24 0.46 X
10 196 29. 00 74. 05 4. 65 -45.05 -2.33R
11 324 18.00 63.84 5.59 -45.84 -2.40R
,R denotes an obs. with a large st. resid.

CONTINUE'
'e regression c eo'Aat ion is

I = 86. 5 - 0. 0159 C5
.. ed, ct c,- C,-ef Stdev t-rat Ic.

Z:rst art 86. 482 7.778 11. 12
-0.015860 0. 006756 -2.35
C20.13 R-sa = 24.5% R-sq(adj) = 20.0%
lr~alysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
iRerpressicr,n 1 223.6 23.
ror- 17 6889. 5 405. 3
"ctal 18 91-z3-.2
!JrusuaI Observat i ons

ibs. C5 CI Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
7 2822 51. 00 41.73 13.61 9.27 0. 63 X
0733 29.00 74.85 4.80 -45.85 -2.35R
i 1375 18.00 64.68 5.52 -46.68 -2.41R
aerotes an obs. wit' P large st. resid.

SCONTINUE!
i
I
!
i
I
I
2 - 3 INCHES OF AC
ON
GREATER THAN 8 INCHES OF BASE
I
WA 2-5
regress cl 1 vS'
The reoressio rrcotUat 1 or I

21 = 96,. 4 - 0. 85.3 CE'
-'ne~d I ct or uCef St dclv t -rat 10,

o r s t a nt 96. 4 11 6.457 14.93
* 0.8a5 216 0. 4684 -1.8E3
3 1.867 R-50 = 3.% P-so (aoy

1 14. L%
~5±VS1 c an'Iarllve
SU R E D89 S
reoessao 1E " '. 466.5
131630. 5 140.8H
fl'5¼5l
S 02b ser v at i c_-r s
iS. C3 61c i Fit Strjev.Fat Resi1d ualI St .Res id
31
i. 0 481.00 785 .6 -30.51 -. 6
deror-.es an, cas. witn a large s4-. resicl.
L-0.87712
DTStdev t -ratac
-St ant ~ 4.9 6. 148 15. 9
-0. 8775 0.45,47 -1.93
qnesnlcr 3 1.
3~j
-u'AI1UsenvAt iocrs
I3C Fit S-toev.Pit Resi1d ualI St .Res id
31.0 48.0 711 .~ -28. 17 -3. 70R
-~deno_-tes an, c-bs. witn) a lance st. v-esid.
2
ITE ) r'egress cl 1 c3
The repression eQLtat icri is

2l = 92.3 - 0.173 C3
?d ict or Coef Stdev t-rat Ic

C-rstarnt 92.310 5.218 17.69
-0.17349 0.09077 -1.91
s = 11.79 R-sq = 24.9% R-sq(adj) = 18.1%
(ralysis of Variarnce
SOURCE DF SS MS
Repression 1 507.9 507.9
Er--,- 11 1529. 4 139.0
rc tal 12 2037.2
LUinusual Observat ionrs

C3 C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
96 48.00 75.61 5.70 -27.61 -21.68R
:! derotes an obs. with a large st. resid.
MTE>
TD )regrress cl I c4
regpressicor eauat ior i1

= 91. 1 - 0. 0358 C4
-'redictcr cef Stdev t-rat Ic

:,'rst art 91. 00-3 4.754 19. 16
-0. 03579 0.01885 -1.90
11.81 R-sQ = 24.7% R-sQ(adi) = 17.8%
,4nalysis cf Variarnce
3OLURCE DF SS MS
Renressior 1 503.0 503.0
r--,_-, 11 1534. 2 139.5
-.t a 1 -037.2
Irniusuai Observat iorns

£4
Cts. Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
13 441 48.00 75. 30 5. 86 -27.30 -2. 66R
- derotes ar cbs. with a large st. resid.
ryT,
ýi'TB ) regrress el 1 c5
IThe r-ecessicri eouaticrn is

1
C = 90. 3 - 0. 00748 C5
edict or Coef S- Stdev t-rat io

CConrstarnt 90. 294 4.490 20.11
C5 -0.007483 0.003981 -1.88
= 11.84 R-sa = 24.!3% R-sq(adj) = 17.4%
Analysis of Variance
DF SSSIOURCE MS
Reoressirn 1 495.3 495.3
ri 154c. 0SrroCr 140. 2
i Tc,t a l 12 2037. L
Urnusual Obser' at ions

Vrbs. C5 Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
13 2021 48.00 75.17 5.97 -27.17 -2.66R
:• denotes ar, obs. with a large st. resid.
MTEBi
nhe reoressor, eouation is

= 89.7 - 0.00157 C6
'Ireaict or Coef Stdev t-rat ia

Ic rstart 89. 713 4. 326 20. 74
,- -0.0015660 0.0008474 -1 . 85
= 1. 89 R-sc = 23. 7% R-sq(adj) = 16.8%
Or,alysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
Regressior, 1 4 .. . 6 482.6
Erro, r 11 1554.6 141.3
-otal 12 2037. 2
Urusua 1 Observat 1ot,

-6s. CS Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
5 12167 87.00 70. 66 8. 20 16.34 1. 90 X
!3 9261 48.00 75. C1 6.03 -27. C1 -2. 66R
F- denotes an, obs. with a large st. resid.

, denotes ar, cbs. whose X va 1 ue gives it large i rif 1 uence.
MTP >
I
OREGON PAVEMENTS
2 - 3 INCHES OF AC
ON
I
",-"TA> 95 1
,A) 90 5
)ATA) end
5 ROWS READ
h!TB > regress cl 1 c2
r!e regression equatior is

Cl = 98.1 - 1.47 Cc
fred ict ':? Coef Stdev t--rat iC,

Lrst art 98. 138 1. 146 85. 66
"-1.4741 0.3553 -4.15
1=.711 R-s = 85. % R-sQ(ad ) 80. 2%
-nalysis ,-_:f Variance
n•OURCE DF SS MS
•enress or, 1 50.416 50. 416
_ ~rot 3 8. 784 a. 928
-ta I4 59. o00
•
iet c3=c#*1. 5
rTreoress cl 1 c3
e r-ec"essi:r, eCuat i,.r is

- 97.5 - 0.590 C3
'ed act cr C.ef Stdev t -rat IC

I:'rIstarlt 97. 4776 1. C67 76. 9a
-0. 5903 0. 1785 -3. 31
- .061 R-s = 76.5% R-sq(a -) = 71.3%
na• i vsa 1s *-,f Variaroce
D iURLE DF SS MS
-eoressir, 1 46. 458 46. 458
1i. 74a 4. 247
,-tal 4 59. 200
1
,LT~ > egr-eEs cl c4
* 2 IS TOO FEW SERROR

ARGUMENTS
. ) regress cl I c4
The regressiorn eauatiorn is

Cl = 97.2 - 0.251 C4
¾'ý-edictcor C-ef Stdev t--rat iz

Ccnstant 97. 206 1. 307 74. 39
4 -0. 25056 0. 06258 -3. 03
=
- L.200 R-sa = 75. 4% R-sq(aa) 67. 2%
4rla2ysiS ,f Variar,ce
SOURCE DF 5S M5
.egress i-r 1 44.650 44.650
arror 3 14.550 4.850
oral 4 59.200
recr'ess cl I c5
-e 'eqressi!r, eol-ariorr is
= 37 . I - 0. 0j9 C5
dct,- Cef KmStdev t-ratic

:rmsta nt 97. 091 1. 322 73. +44
"-0.10343 6). 03739 -2. 93
2. 26E R-s = 741v. R-sa(aj,) 65.4%
An~alvsis o:f Variance
,OURCE DF 35 f!1
-eo"-sslor 2 43. 846 43.846
"r-315.
354 5 L
Mal 4 59.200
oTP >
COMBINED PAVEMENTS
2 - 3 INCHES OF AC
ON
I
I
' >3 rerjre~,s c
Tne r-egressic:ro eoLtat ior 1is~

9.1
36I 0. 836 CZ
J-re~dictc'r Coef Stdev t -rat IC.

½rist a nt 96. 140 4. E3 1E 7
-0. 8_384 0. 3 4 -:3 -E. 45,
,_~r~ajsas Of V-At-larIU
DOLJRCE DzSS msI

' 1". 47.5S
6~5S1: 647. 5
r Dr17 183-;5. 1 107. 9
rj 0Oservaticris
CiFit Stdev.Fit Res idua 1 St.RL-sid
15 l.0 48.00 78ES. 53 4.40 -30.5 -3.24R
~Ierr:,te, arc-. with a larne st. r-esaId.
C,-e f Stdev t -rat aC.

tr~a rt 0 3t . 5 9 3 2 6. 20
-0.17450 0.07020 -2.49
.), LiR CE P7SS MS

, ,1 ,eS5c
, 1 66 1. 8 661. 8
E17 1820.8 107.1
Irýusial1 bservat icris

* 1. C: .c I Fit Stdev.Fat Residual St.Resid
1596 48.00 7 7.5t~1 4.69 -29.51 -3.20R
L.denotes a rcbs. with a large st. r'esid.
P
Fhe r-eqress i ors ei Luat i cr, is
:I = 93.3 - 0. 0373 C4
?d i ct,-r Coef Stdev t-rat iC

.,rstar,t 93. 279 3. 277 28. 46
-4 -0.03732 0.01484 -2.51
s = 10.32 R-sq = 27.1% R-sq(adj) = 22.8%
-4rialysis of Variance
3OURCE DF SS MS
reqý-ession 1 673. 1 673. 1
Er-r,'-r 17 1809.5 106.4
,c, t ai 18 2482. 6
Unusual Observat acris

Cibs. C4 Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
7 529 87.00 73.54 6.07 13.46 1.61 X
15 441 48.00 76.82 4.89 -28.82 -3.17R
der,nc,tes ar, cbs. with a large st. resid.

oerctes an obs. whose X vallie gives it large influence.
'vI B '
-he reqý-ess _,:

r, eauat i,-r is
= 92.6 - 0.00802 C5
-- ed ictc-r- Coef Stdev t-rat io

-r,5starnt 92.360 3.087 30.00
-0. 008024 0.003172753 -.
= 10. 30 R-so = 27.4% R-sq(adj) = 23. 1%
Vlnaiysls of Variance
.q"URCE DF SS MS
pegress i1-Cr, 1 679.0 679.0
17 1803.6 106.1
c tal 18 2482. 6
ur,otsual Observat iors

C5 Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
7 2537 87.00 72.25 6.51 14.75 1. 85 X
i5 2021 48.00 76.39 5.02 -28.39 -3.16R
denotes at, obs. with a larpe st. resid.

, denotes an cbs. whose X value gives it large influence.
r!T EB
I
-he regress i or, eq.uat ic r is
= 92.1 - 0.i00172 C6
.ddict, or Coef Stdev t-rat ico

.oristarit 92. 097 ". 9965 31.07
-0. 0017187 S]6 0. 0006805 -2'. 5-3
-10.30 R-sq 27.3% R-sq(adj) = 23.0%
Anralxlysis of Variarnce
SOURCE DF SS MS
iergressior 1 677.4 677.4
Er-rcr 17 1805. a- 106.2
-- ,t a 1 18 2482. 6
Urus.al Observaticnr~s
7,s. C6 Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
7 1E167 87.i00 71.19 6.91 15.81 ,. 77RX
15 9261 48.00 76.18 5. 09 -28.18 -3. 15R
derotes an cbs. with a large st. resid.

dernotes an, obs. whose X value gives it laroe irnfluence.
I
•-½ > regress cl 1 c,2
The reoressior, equation is

-1 = 95.9 - 0. 961 C2
3redictcor Coef Stdev t-rat iC

oinst ant 95. 912 4. 058 23. 64
(2 -0. 9606 0. 3362 -2. 86
F = 9. 947 R-sa = 35.2% R-sq(adj= 30. 9%
Analysis cf Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
Regressi-n 1 807. 95 807.95
rror 15 1484. 17 9tL. 94
,t a 116 2292. 12
'nusual Observat ions

3bs. C2 C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
13. --1.0 48.00 75.74 4.50 -27.74 -3.13R
denotes ar, oos. with a large st. resid.
,,TB )
-PS ) regress cl 1 c3
:-'le regressicr, eouat l-,n is

I = 93.6 - 0.193 C3
-',ed i ctr Coef Stdev t-rat io

,-r,st at 93.640 3. 515 26. 64
. -k. 19295 0. 06937 -2. 78
10.04 R-sq = 34.0% R-sq(adj) = 29.6%
r,iAsiviS cf Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
I;egressicr, 1 780. 0 780. 0
15 1512. 1 100.8
c tal 16 2292.1
iusual Observat ions

13 96 48.00 75.07 4.80 -27.07 -3.07R
derotes an obs. with a large st. resid.
S>
I
I
Fie regressionr equation is
C4
F 1 = 92. 4
9 - 0.0399
?d ict or Ccef Stdev t-rat ic

u -ristant 92. 402 3.267 28.28
V.'4 -0.03990 0.01476 -2.70
s = 10.14 R-sq = 32.7% R-sq(adj) = 28.3%
n::ralysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
Kegressior, 1 750.7 750. 7
Erro:,r 15 1541.5 102.8
T ,:-t a 16 2292. 1
Unusual Observatzcns
Obs. C4 C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
529 87.00 71.29 6.17 15.71 1.95 X
13 441 48.00 74.81 5.01 -26. 81 -3.-04R
derotes an obs. with a large st. resid.

d eno:tes arn obs. whcose X value gives it large influence.
MTB >
nle regtessiors equation is

-i = 91.6 - 0.00834 CS
i ct c- Ccef St dev t -rat i c

i-irst ant 91.622 3.136 29.22
....- 0. 008339 0.003176 -2.63
10.23
0 R-sq = 31.5% R-sq(adj) = 26.9%
4ýnalysls of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
,Kegressicr; 1 721. 8 721. 8
15 1570.-3 104.7
2c.t al 16 2292. 1
Urusual Observati ors

]bs. CS C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St. Resid
5 2537 87.00 70.47 6.62 16. 53 2. 12RX
13 2021 48.00 74.77 5.14 -26.77 -3.03R
R denotes art obs. with a large st. resid.

Y denotes an obs. whose X value gives it large influence.
!
I
-I mmm am~ii u i
GREATER THAN 3 INCHES OF AC

ON
ANY BASE
I
!
-TA> 81 18
FA> 68 21
)ATA> end
7 ROWS READ
MTB > regress cl 1 c2
Fhe regressio:'r equation is

Cl = 101 - 1.37 C2
i ýred ictczr Coe,

l Stdev t-rat iC.
Czrnstant 101. 287 3.'33 31.43
C2 -1. 3739 0.2080 -6.61
- = 3.486 R-sc = 89.7% R-sq (adj) = 87.7%
4nalysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
Aegression 1 530. 11 530. 11
:rr,-r 5 60.75 13. 15
'otal 6 590.86
M-B >
'TD > let c3=c-**1.5

rITE > regress c I1 o,
he regres i,-,rj ecuat ior is

1 = 99. 8 - 0. 309 C3
red ictor CoeM Stdev t -rat io:,

,,nstart 99.800 3.613 38.20
x --0. 30895 0. 04037 -7.65
S3.049 R-sc = 92. i% R-so(adj) = 90.6%
rnaiysas of Variance
5 OURCE DF SS MS
?eogressirn 1 544. 39 544.39
rror 5 46.4+7 9.29
otal 6 590.86
E
MTB
I
MTB > let c4=c2**2
S > rearess cl 1 c4
The regression equation is

C1 97.9 - 0.0668 C4
Predictor Coef Stdev t-rat ic

Const ant 97. 902 2. 629 37. 24
C4 -0.066815 0.009612 -6.95
s = 3.329 R-sq = 90.6% R-sq(adj) = 88.7%
SOURCE DF SS MS
Regression 1 535.45 535. 45
Error 5 55.41 '1.08
Total 6 590.86
MTB >
- ,£f > let c5=c2**2. 5

MTB ) reuress cli 1 c5
Fne regressior, eQuatior is

CI = 96.0 - 0.0142 C5
Predictor Coef Stdev t-rat io

Constant 96.042 2.1829 33.94
-5 -0.014191 0.002422 -5.86
5 = 3.876 R-so = 87. 3Y. R-sq (adi) 84.7%
nroalvsis cf Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
qeoression 1 515.76 515.76
Error• 5 75. 10 15. 02
Total 6 590.86
MTB >
•"'TA> 90 2
rA> 86 6
DATA) end
5 ROWS READ
MTEq > regress cl 1 c2
Fhe regressionr ecjuatior is

CI = 92.7 - 0.051 C2
ired ict or Coef Stdev t-rat io

Ecrnst ant 92. 676 3. 733 24. 83
-0. 05=12 0.2007 -- 0.26
- 5.881 R-sq 2.1% R-sq(adj) 0.0%
inalysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
Rearessiorn 1 2.125 . 25
-,rr:r 103. 75 34. 58
Fctal 4 106.00
MT8
eT- > let c3=c2**1.5

1Tb > rerress cl 1 c3
The rearessionr eauationr is

:1 = 92.3 - 0.0045 C3
Predictor Co.ef Stdev t-rat ic

,orost art 92. 299 3. 541 26.07
-0.Ot53
]3 0.03551 -0.13
= 5. 928 R-sa = 0. 5% R-sq(adj) = 0.0%
'-rma1vsis of Variance
,OURCE DF SS MS
ýecress ioro 1 0. 57 0. 57
Error 3 105. 43 35. 14
4 106.00 Sotal
1TP >
!TE
OREGON PAVEMENTS

ON
ANY BASE
p
I(QTA> 90 2
"A> 86 6
j DATA> end
3 ROWS READ
MTB ) regress cl 1 c2
SThe regress ion equationr is

:1 = 97.7 - 2.14 C2
Dredictor Coef Stdev t-ratio

:,orstant 97.714 3.614 27.04
-2. 1429 0.9897 -2.17
is = 4.276 R-sq = 82.4% R-sa(adj) = 64.8%
Inalysis of Variance
3OURCE DF SS MS
Regression 1 85.71 85.71
Errcr 1 18.29 18.29
FeC.
t a 1i 104.00
ilTB > let c3=c2**1.5
iTB > iet c3=c2**1.5

v7TB > regress cl 1 c3
The recressioro eauatrion is

I = 96.5 - 0.772 C3
Ird
ict or Coef Stdev t-rat io
* n.rst art 96. 507 4. 404 21. 91
-0. 7716 0. 5097 -1.51
= 5.621 R-sq = 69.6% R-sq(adj) = 39.2%
Pr,nalysis of Variance
-nOURCE DF SS MS
Te'ressi on 1 72.40 72.40
rror 1 31.60 31.60
SFotal 2 104.00
YITP
IT
-A!
•71
jTL' > regress cI 1 c4
The reeression equation is

iCI = 95.8 - 0.288 C4
I Pred ictor
Conrstant
Coef
95. 836
Stdev
4.714
t-rat
20.33
io
C4 -0. 2877 0.2254 -1.28
' = 6. 290 R-sa = 62.0% R-sq(adj) = 23.9%
,Analysis of Variance
'J OURCE DF SS MS
Renressi-n 1 64.44 64.44
Error 1 39.56 39. 56
otal 2 104.00
Unusual Observations
S)bs. C4 C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St. Resid
3 36.0 86.00 85.48 6.27 0.52 1.00 X
X denotes an obs. whose X value gives it large influence.
MTE >
"'El > regress cl I c5
,e regression equat ior is

'A = 95.5 - 0.111 C5
Pred ict or Coef Stdev t-rat io

£cnst ant 95. 469 4. 852 19.68
-0.11090 0.09510 -1.17
5 = 6.638 R-sQ = 57.6% R-sq(adj) = 15.3%
ýralysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
-epressior 1 59. 93 59.93
Error 1 44.07 44. 07
tcal1 2 104.00
i riusual Observations
C5 C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Resiuual St.Resid
3 88.2 86.00 85.69 6.63 0.31 1.00 X
X cienctes anr obs. who-se X value gives it large influence.
*4rTE4 >
I
COMBINED PAVEMENTS

ON
ANY BASE
I
I
ý!-TA> 93 27
--A)
91 31
)ATA) end
11 ROWS READ
tFhe regressicon equation is
Cl = 89.9 - 0.313 C2
i Dred i ct cor Coef Stdev t-rat io

const ant 89. 935 5. 088 17. 68
-0. 3131 0.2846 -1.10
8.916 R-sq = 11.9% R-sq (adj) 2. 1%
:inalysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
egressic, r, 1 96. 24 96. 24
9 715.40 79.49
"ota110 811.64
tlT B )
'ITEB > let c3=c2-*I.5

1TE ) regress cl 1 c3
The reciression eouatir, is

87.5 - 0.0340 C3
r-eCd I ct Co Coef Stdev t-rat i-

. :,cstant 87.516 4. 63S 18.88
-0. 03401 0. 05380 -0. 63
s = ..29a R-sa= 4.3% F-sc(acj)= '2.0%

*'lysi5 cf Variarce
OURCE 8)
SS
e aress,,5 1 .45i. 4 5I
9 777. i- 66.
•-B • jet c4=cz-R*-i
b e
re~:esSio c, ua r
* ~t -•e
F--Z7e 'mt2;
r- ec;~t
_i = 6. i - 0. •;2,-.z C4
Cr', C . ," ,-eT tt-rat I C
ant 86. 0 4. c-64 20. 18

.. •~~~ -. V7
-1x.
. 0099_15 -0. 27
S. - = 0. 8% R-sc(adl) = 0.0%
DF SS
SS
, 6. 7L 6.72
.9 804. 9a2 89.44
10 811.64
"7-:i re•lress c-1 C5
!he recressc,rn eeltat ion is

= bt. -+ 0. 00000 C5
Sictr Co,ef St dev t -rat ic,

85.177 3. 961 21.51
0.000003 0.001795 0.00
= 9.'96 R-sa = 0.0% R-sq(adj) = 0.0%
"Hralysls ,:-f Variance
.DUJRCE DF SS MS
~gress ,rn 1 0.00 0. 00L
9 811.64 90.18
1 'tal 10 811.64
_jnusual Observatio ns
t)s. C5 C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St. Resid
S11 5351 91.00 85.19 7.44 5.81 0.98 x
, denotes an obs. whose X value gives it large influence.
,TEB
I
'.TA> 91 1
rA> 89 5
)ATA> end
9 ROWS READ
MTB > regress cl 1 c,
rhe regression equation is

C1 = 96.5 - 1. 10 C2
-redictor C,-,ef Stdev t-rat io

Constant 96.519 2.498 38.64
-1.1017 0.1814 -6.07
- 3.982 R-sq 84.0% R-sq(adj) = 81.8%
nralysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
'egressic, n 1 584.98 584.98
:rr,-,r 7 11i.02 15.86
Fctal 8 696. 00
MTB >
''T B ) let c3=c2**1.5

I TB > regress cl 1 c3
the regressicori eouatizn is

,I = 95.0 - 0.244 C3
-'red ictr C,-ef Stdev t-rat ic.

?,-nst art 95. 02
2-2. 196 43. 28
- -0. 2t407 0. 03839 -6. 36
-. 831 R-sa = 85.2% R-sa(adj) = 83.1%
4ralysis of Variance
3OURCE DF SS MS
ýegressicn 1 593. 27 593.27
Err, r 7 102. 73 14.68
Eot a 8 696.00
B>
*1
MTB ) let c4=c2**-
".3
> regress cl 1 c4
-The regression equation is

C1I 94.0 - 0. 0544 C4
ictor Cred
Coef Stdev t-ratjc.
Const ant 93. 993 2.0 055 45. 74
C4 -0. 054443 0. 008515 -6. 39
s = 3.813 R-sq = 85.4% R-sq(adj) = 83.3%
(ýnalysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
Regression 1 594.24 594.24
Error 7 101.76 14.54
Tot al 8 696.00
MTB >
YITB > reoress cl I c5
ine repressior ecuat ior is

C1 = 93. 1 - 0. 0121 C5
:red i ct or Coef Stdev t -rat io

Ccristrant 93. 139 ,. 011 46. 31
:5 -0.01E085 0.001952 -6.19
s 3.918 R-sc = 84.6% R-sq(adj) = 82.4%
4riralvsis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
-Neoressior, 1 588.56 588.56
Error 7 107.44 15.35
Total 8 696.00
Urnusual Observat ions

1 0 100.00 93.14 2.01 6.86 2.04R
R denotes an cbs. with a large st. resid.
mTE4
I
WORLD WAR TWO
PAVEMENTS

Notes: c 1 represents the dependent variable PCI.

$
- r'c~rssor, e03tat I on is
11
= -1.08a CEO*
Pred ict or- Ccoef Stdev t -rat I c,
-1-08.E0 0..?3113 -4.68

-10.09 R-so. = 70.9% R-sq.(adj) =67.6,%
i--Inalysis o~f Var~irnce
SOURCE OF SS MS
_ýeoress~ico 1 .?. - 226..?
Ertrorr 9 915.9 101.8
- ta1 10 34-
Unuf~stual Obser~vat iors

'7b. ca Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
1 0.0 100.00 100.83 10.00 -0.83 -0.63 X
10 4-3.0 77.00 54.31 3.07 .?2.692.6
denotes ant (:bs. with a large St. r-esid.

dleno:tes ar, *Z.bs. whose X ,_A1ue gives it lar-ge I nf 1 uerce.
Pie rPeor-essic-rn eQ~tatI-,-,r IS

1= 101 - 0.160 C3'
te t., Coef Stdev t-yrat ic

C,:,nst anst 100. 601 9.73? 10l.34
-0. 1 598E? 0. 033_'39 -4. 79
=9. 9 23 R-so =71.8% R-sq(adj) 68.7%
-4rial-yes o:f Varianrce
,.SOURZE OF SB MS
*enre~,sior 1 E256.0.?6.
~ror 9886.2? 98.53
C3Cl rit Stdev..Fjt Residval St.Resid

10 io00.00 100.60 9.73 -0.60 -0.31 X
.8 2
E0 77.00AQ 55 . 54 3.00 1I.462.7
Jenc'tes art obs. with A lat-ge st. resid.
iden~otes art obs. whose X vAlue gives it large. i n f 1Lence.
T.e regressicro equat ior is.
Cl = 100 - 0.0234 C4
?d ict or Coef Stdev t-rat ic,

-,rstarst 99. 973 9.544 10. 47
C4 -0. 0L3384 0. 004852 -4. 82
s = 9.875 R-sq = 72. 1% R-sq (adj) 6r3.0%
SOURCE DF SS MS
:egressicr, 1 2264. 6 22E64. 6
Err,-,r 9 877.6 97.5
F,-,t a 1 10 3142.2
'bs. C4 Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St. Reaid
1 0 i00.00 99. 97 9.54 0.03 0. 01 X
10 1843 77.00 56. 74 a.98 20.26 2. 15R
derotes an cbs. with a large st. resid.

X dernctes an cbs. whcse X value gives it large influýr-ce.
MTB
reoressior, eQuataior is
= 99. 0 - 0. 00339 CS
,ed i ct :-r Co, ef Stdev t-r at ico

cnrstarit 98. 99c 9. 431 0. 50
-0. 0033914 0.0007099 -4.78
9.337
9= R-so = 71.7% R-sq(adj) =68. 6%
4ralvsis cf Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
1eoressicrt 53. 6 253. 6
rcr
r, 9 888.6 98.7
7otal 10 3142.2
Jrusuai Observat ionrs

]bs. C5 Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
1 0 100.00 99.00 9.43 i.00 0.32 X
10 12125 77.00 57.88 3.01 19.1 -. 02R
0
R denotes an cbs. with a large st. res: '.

x denotes ar obs. whcose X value gives it large irnf Luence.
"ITB >
WASHINGTON
AC OVERLAY
PAVEMENTS


-i
WA AQ44
r-TA) 92 1
SA)> 83 4
DATA> ernd
25 ROWS READ
MTB > reoress cl 1 c2
The regressiorn equationr is

Cl = 93.2 - 1.23 C2
Predictor Coef Stdev t-rat io

Ccrst ant 93. 248 4. 476 20. 83
C2 -1.2309 0.3971 -3.10
s = 10.01 R-s0 = 29.5% R-so(adi) = 26.4%
*-ralysis cf Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
,ýegressicn 1 963.4 963.4
Errc,r 23 2305.9 100.3
rot a 1 2B4 3269.4
MTB >
iJHTA> 921
DT A> 83 4
;;:•A> end
18 ROWS READ
MTB > regress c, 1 cJ.
-he regression eouaticon is

C;: = 94. 8 - 1. 86 CC
-'ed Ictto Coef Stdev t-rat ic

cotlst ant 94. 822 3. 544 26. 75
-1.8635 0. 3342 -5.58
S= 6. 837 R-so = 66.0% R-sa (adj) 63.9%
-•ralvsis of Variarce
SOURCE D! SS MS
Renressiorn 1 1453'. 1 1453. 1
E'rc,-r 16 748.0 46.7
7 ot al 17 2201.1
"I
i
SERROR * COMPLETION OF COMPUTATION IMPOSSIBLE
YfTB > let c3=c2**1.5

Y1TE' > regress cl 1 c3
* ,e regressionr equationr is
21 = 90.7 - 0.421 C3
predictor Ccoef Stdev t-rat io

... rstarnt 90. 728 3.138 28. 92
-0.42081 0.08214 -5.12
- 7.218 R-sa 62.1% R-sq(adj) = 59.8%
"4rialysis of Variarice
30URCE DF SS MS
Re-2ressijr 1 1367. 5 1367.5
Err,:,r 16 833.7 52.1
"ot al 17 2201.1
TTB >
"T7B > let c4c2•-Z

1TB > recress cl 1 c4
The regressior, ecuaticri is

=
-" 88. 0 - 0. 0980 C4
ý.-red i ct cor Coef Stdev t -rat ic

]c,rst arit 88. 245 3.011 29. 31
4 -0.09803 0. 02135 -4.59
= 7.705 R-so 56.8% R-sq(adj) 54.1%
*4rlalysis -:f Variance
3OURCE DF SS MS
?egressior, 1 1251. 3 1251.3
Error 16 949.9 59.4
otal 17 2201. 1
I
[:7EB > rearess cl 1 c5
The rearessiorn ecuat icor, is

= 86.5 - 0. 0230 C5
ýd ict or Coef Stdev t-rat ioC

Ccnrstarnt 86. 460 2. 969 29. 13
tC -0. 022978 0. 005608 -4. 10
s = 8.193 R-S= 51.2% R-sq(adj) 48.2%
C•r, alysis of Variarnce
!SOURCE DF SS MS
'Reoressicr 1 1127.0 1127.0
Error 16 1074.1 67.1
Fotal 17 2201.1
Unusual Observat iorns

,Dbs. C5 Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
16 1192 70.00 59.08 4.83 10.92 1.65 X
X dern.,tes an cbs. whose X value gives it large irnfluenrce.
rlTBE >
I
WA AwL W/c4
T-TA> 92 1
-A>83 4
oTpA> end
19 ROWS READ
Irhe regression equatior, is

C1 = 95.9 - 1.96 C2
':mred
i ct or Coef Stdev t-rat ic.
crstant 95. 919 3. 096 30. 99
-1. 9556 0. 2?999 -6.52
= 6.7'6 R-so = 71.4% R-sq(adj) = 69.8%
-r, alys,.s of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
•egressi-rrr 1 1923.5 1923. 5
Z. 17 769. 1 45.2
total 18 2692.6
MTB >
Y.B ) let c3=-c2**1.5

',1TB ) recress cl 1 c3
The r-egressior, eciuatior, Is

-'I = 92. : + 0. 453 C3
Dred i ct cr Coef St bev t -rat i c

S.,0rst arit 321. 202 '2. 910 31. 68
0.'07827
'.453 5.79
s 7.300 R-so = 66.4% R-so(adj) = 64. 4%
on•r.lyis of Variar,ce
SOURCE DF SS MS
ýeqressicr 1 1786.7 1786.7
Err,-r 17 906.0 53.3
Sota 118 2692. 6
rfTE
IM•
___
:v-b ) let c4=c2-**
4 > reoress ci 1 c4
he regressionr eauation is
CI = 89.8 - 0.107 C4
red ictc-r Coef Stdev t-rat io

C,-,nst ant 89. 802 2. 887 31. 11
,4 -0.10684 0. 02104 -5.08
S = 7.933 R-so = 60.3% R-so(adi) 57.9%
4raiysvs of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
ýeuression 1 16a2. 9 1622.9
rr:-,r 17 1069.7 6S.9
t al 18 69L. 6
-L- > reoress cl I c5
Srenressior, eQuat ior

1s
I = 88.0 - 0.-.-i5 C5
F LI Ct -r-t-C.L-e f Stdev t -rat iC

,-1 t art 86. 031 a. 905 30. 31
-0-.025232 0.005638 -4.48
8.527 P-so = 54.1% R-sq(adj) = 51.4%
)rAlvsis :f Variance
bOURCE DF SS MS
,eciressicr 1 1456.5 1456. 5
17 1i36. i 7 .7
18 269E.6
j rstual Observat ionris

CE Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
j7 i 192 70.00 57.97 4. 97 12.03 1.74 X
derctes ar, obs. whose X value gives it larce influence.
.TE >
I
OREGON
AC OVERLAY
PAVEMENTS


i
IX- ,4.t2.L-
JI lTA> 91 1
"A) 89 5
D PATA> en*d
13 ROWS READ
MTB ) reg~ress cl I cŽ
IThe regression equatiorn is

C1 = 92.4 - 1.17 C2
iPred i ct or Coef Stdev t-rat io

2Conrstrant 9a. 409 3. 712 24. 89
C2 -1.1664 0.4786 -Z.44
6.986 R-so = 35.1"/% R-sq,(a~d) 29.2%
rinalysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
Rearessic~n 1 289. 90 289.90
Erro.r 11 536.87 48. 81
Fctal 12 826.77
MTEB
!TEA > let c3c2-*I.5

.-TE ) recress c! 1 c3
Fhe reoression eouation is

= 90.2=, - 0.281 C3
Pred ict or Coef Stdev t-rat io

Icnarstart 90. 187 3. 289 27. 42*
-0.2808 0.1324 -2. 12
s 7.304 R-sq 29.0% R-sa(adi) =22. 6%
'4nalysis cf Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
•eoression 1 E39.88 239.88
Err.:,r 11 586.89 53. 35
Tot a 1 12 826.77
'!B > regress cl 1 c4
The regression eouation is

C1 = 88.9 - 0.0691 C4
edictcor Coef Stdev t-ratic.

Constant 88. 851 3. 054 29. 09
C4 -0.06914 0.03696 -1.87
s = 7.551 R-sq = 24.1% R-sq(adj) = 17.2%
.3OURCE DF SS MS
Rearessior, 1 199. 55 199. 55
Error 11 627. 22 57. 02
otal 12 826.77

30s. C4 CI Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
3 196 83.00 75.30 5.44 7.70 1.47 X
Sdenotes an obs. whose X value gives it large irnfluernce.
MTE4 )
•T3 > regress ci 1 c5
Sregression eouat icr is

= 88.0 - 0.0171 C5
Jred ictor Co.ef Stdev t-rat ic

oristrant 87.953 -. 908 30.24
-0.01712 0.01029 -1.66
= 7.749 R-sq = 20.1% R-sa(adj) = 12.8%
-ralysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
ý eoressicr, 1 166. 2:3 166..3
Srror 11 660. 54 60. 05
:otai 1C 826. 77
I u,r,.Isua 1Obs•rvat iors

C5 CI Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
733 83.00 75.40 5.99 7.60 1.55 X
dernotes ar, obs.

d whose X value gives it large influence.
rTE
i ,
TA) 91 1
fA) 89 5
)PDA) end
:11 ROWS READ
MTB > regress cl 1 c.2
.he regressionr equation is

C1 = 94.7 - 1.79 CE
-red Ictcor- Cc. ef Stdev t-rat iC

Const ant 94. 727 3. 701 25. 60
-i.790-3 0.5567 -3.22
s= 6.506 R-so 53.5% R-sq(adJ) = 48.3%
:Irialysis of Variance
SOURCE DP SS MS
eqresscr• 1 437.64 437.64
rr,-,r 9 380. 90 42. 32
Ftal 10 818.555
-TB >
.,7F ) let c3=c2-*I.5

BFS> reoress cl 1 c3
.ILe recresstcri eouati n is

= 92. 5 - 0. 507 C3
r
ctc, Coef Stdev t -rat iC
5orst ar, t 9. 482 3.243 28. 52
-0.5066 0.1645 -3.08
6. 655 R-s 551. 3% R-sa (adj) = 45. 9%
"ria'raiyss Of Vararance
bOURCE DF SS MS
1•o•ss 420.00 420. 0
Errcr 9 398. 55 44.28

"oral 10 818.55
T-
N•rE >
F
rTET- ) let c4=c2--2

3 > regress cl 1 c4
'he regressio:,n equatiir, is

CI = 91. 1 - 0. 146 C4
0red i ct or Coef St dev t -rat i o

Constant 91.084 2.996 30.40
ýý:4 -0. 14593 0. 04945 -2. 95
z = 6.799 R-sq 49.2% R-sq (adj) 43.5%
":rialysis c.f Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
-iegreSSi,2n 1 402.51 402. 51
Errc. r 9 416.04 46.23
r-,t a i 10 818.55
:MTB
'•-B > let c5=c2**2. 5

MTB > rearess cl I c5
-he remressic-r, eCuatir, is

Cl = 90.1 - 0.0423 C5
)Jre•! i ct or Ccef Stdev t-rat ic,

Constant 90. 115 2.850 31.62
"-0.04227 0.01494 -2.83
s = 6.937 R-sa = 47.1% R-sq(adj) 41.2%
-nral1ys s of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
Regressicn 1 385. 40 385.40
Error 9 433. 15 48. 13
•otal 10 818.55
MTB >
I
I
COMBINED
AC OVERLAY
PAVEMENTS


I
MAC L- Cc
_• regression eauation is
Cl = 90.8 - 1.03 C2
Predict cor Coef Stdev t-rat ic,

Const ant 90. 837 3. 427 26. 50
:-: -1.0284 0.3a47 -3.17
s = 9.332 R-sq = 23.3% R-sq(adj) = 21. 0%
QOURCE DF SS MS
Regression 1 873.69 873.69
Errc,-r 33 2873. 91 87. 09
34 Sotal
3747.60
Urnusual Observaticns
)bs. C2 Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
D 13.0 96.00 77.47 1.97 18.53 2.03R
19 13.0 58.00 77.47 1.97 -19.47 -2.13R
21 13.0 59.00 77.47 1.97 -18.47 _Z,.02R
R denotes an obs. with a large st. resid.

MTB )
-f~E_ renressicr, ecluat ior is

1 = 88. 4 - 0. 226 C3
3red ict or C,-,ef Stdev t-rat io

o:t,rst ant 88. 394 2. 941 30. 06
(C3 -0. 2-2597 0. 07739 --. 92
s 9.500 R-so = 20.5% R-so(adj) 18.1%
nr,aalysis cf Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
leoression 1 769. 43 769.43
Error 32978. 17 90. 25
Total 34 3747.60

Jbs. C3 Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
19 46.9 58.00 77.80 1.98 -19.80 -2.13R
21 X6. 9 59.00 77.80 1.98 -18.80 --. L2R

I
Fne regressicor eouatior is
86.9 - 0.0513 C4 S=
I redictor
Ccrst
Coef Stdev t-rat ic
art 86.917 2.684 32.38
24 -0.05131 0.01913 -2.68
L = 9.656 R-sq = 17.9% R-sq(adj) 15.4%
f rqalysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
-er jressicrn 1 670. 94 670. 94
SE~rror •3 3076.66 932
-ctal 34 3747.60
Jrusual Observat iors

Jos. C4 Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
19 169 58. 00 78.25 1.97 -20.25 -2.14R
2169 59.00 78. 25 1.97 -19.25 -2.04R
Ft derg,tes an cbs. with a large st. resid.
" •B >
rhe reoressicr, eouaticr is

- 85.9
8i - 0.0117 C5
9
'ed i ct r Ccef Stdev t-rat iac
oristarst 85. 873 2. 521 34. 06
-0.011740 0.004776 -2.46
- 9.797 R-sq = 15.5% R-sq(adj) = 12.9%
rInalysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
eressicr 1 579.97 579.97
S-ro3r 3167.63 95. 99
-t ai 34 3747.60
-rusual Observat iors

b. C Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
7 1192 83.00 71.88 4.14 11.12 1.25 X
19 609 58.00 78.72 1.94 -20.72 -2.16R
21 609 59.00 78.72 1.94 -19.72 -2.05R
3 1192 70.00 71.88 4.14 -1.88 -0.21 X
"ATINUE?
I
ACO L. coom~aE
1ýB> regress CI 1 c2
.iFhe regressionr eauat icor is

-- 194.9 - 1.86 C2
_3red ict or Ccoef Stdev t -rat ic.

-con~st ant 94. 921 2. 354 40~. 33
C2 -1.8609 0.2530 -7.36
L=6.470 R-sq 66.7% R-sq(adj, 65.5%
flria1ys is of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
RegressI or, 1 2264.7 2264.7
:rrcor 27 1130. 3 41.9
otal 28 33395.0
Jinusutal Observat ionrs

"bs5. C2 Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
13 13.0 58.00 70.73 1.74 -12.73 -2.04R
deno~tes an, cobs. with a large st. resid.
MTP)
"-,E? > regress ci 1 c3
7he reuressicrn equat ion is

Il = 9 1. 3 - 0. 438 C3
rned i ct or Ccoef Stdev t -rat ic.

C onst ant 91. 322 2=.076 43.99
-0. 43759 0. 06398 -6. 84
s =6.783 R-sq = 632.4% R-sq(adj) =62.1%
An~alysis of Variance
-SOURCE DF SS ms
ýegressior, 1 2152.6 215 2. 6
rrC, r 271242.3 46.0
t:,ae1 28 33195. 0
Inust-al Observat ions

,Ds. C3 C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
17 70.1 70.00 60.65 3.10 9.35 1.55 X
X denoctes an cobs. who~se X Value QiVeS it large influence.
>4
IITB > regress cl 1 c4
The regressionr eouaticnr, is

C1 89.1 - 0.105 C4
i -ci ct or Coef Stdev t-ratic.

Constant 89. 113 1.987 44.85
IC4 -0.10490 0.01696 -6.19
s = 7.212 R-sq = 58.6% R-sq(adj) = 57.1%
Aralysis of Variance
I SOURCE DF SS MS
Regressior 1 1990.7 1990.7
E.'ro" 27 1404.3 52.0
TFotal 28 3395.0
I Unusual
iebs.
!7
Observat
C4
289
ions
70.00
CI Fit
58.80
Stdev.Fit
3.66
Residual
11.20
St.Resid
1.81 X
X denotes an obs. whose X value oives it large irfluernce.
WTB >
SS > regress cl 1 c5
reoressl,-, eotat icr .s

"87.6 - 0.0252 CS
Dreddct,-r cef Stdev t-rati,-

onst art 87. 557 . 963 44. 6
Z -O. 025166 0. 0 0,4t 30. -5. 5L
cý = 7.656 R-sc = 53.4% R-sc (adi) 51. 7%
ýrna ,vsis of VariarCe
SLURCE i MS
Aegressin :-i.
- 3 >81z. 3
•, isuia " a0 ev,• ..t- ;: r'~-

". =• V.r-U -(esidual St.Resid
12.45
Se,,:, es ar, cn-s. v.-se A v __ e gives it 1 arie a rif i uence.
1Tb
I
I
WASHINGTON
BITUMINOUS SURFACE TREATMENT

PAVEMENTS


I
I
"TA> 98 1
rA> 95 4
DATA) end
7 ROWS READ
MTB ) regress cli c2
The regression equaticon is

Cl = 106 - 4.13 C2
Dred i ct or Coef St dev t-rat i

C,,nrist arit 105. 781 4.661 22. 70
-4. 1302 0. 5852 -7. 06
s = 8.109 R-sc = 90.9% R-sa(adj) = 89.1%
Tnalysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
½ýgressicr 1 375.3 3275.3
rro~r 5.328.7 65.7
Ctoa! 6 3604.0
* MTB >
YTP > let c3=c2-**1.5

'ITB ) reoress cl 1 c3
T-e regression equation is

-= 101 - 1.07 C3
Dred ictcor Ccef Stdev t-rat io

7onst ant 101. 262 2.507 40.39
-1.07143 0.08913 -12.02
s= 4.910 R-sa = 96.7% R-sq(adj) = 96.0%
,qnalysis of Variance
=SOURCE DF SS MS
• egressiorn 1 3483.5 3483.5
Errcor 5 120.5 24.1
T, .t a 1 6 3604.0
4!r
MTE'>
MTB > let c4=c2**2
"- > regress cl 1 c4
The regressior, equation is

C1 = 98.6 - 0.278 C4
Ored ictor Coef Stdev t-rat io

Const art 98. 647 1.488 66.32
4 -0. 272zE 0. 01446 -19. 24
T- = 3.099 R-so = 98.7% R-sq(adj) = 98.4%
Arialysis o",f Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
7'egvressior, 1 3556.0 3556.0
Error 5 48.0 9.6
a 6 3604.0
MTP >
S) regress cli c5

, 1 = 97.0 - 0.0723 C5
Dred ict or Coef St dev t -rat i C.

or, sstan t 96.984 1.210 80.16
f: -0. 072257 0. 003160 -22.87
s = 2.613 R-sq = 99.1% R-sq(adj) = 98.9%
,rialysis of Variance
1SOURCE DF SS MS
Segressoi,- 1 3569.9 3569.9
Error 5 34.1 6.8
- ot a 1
T 6 3604.0
nObs. C5 C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St. Resid
4 16 91.000 95.858 1.182 -4.858 -2.08R
R denotes arn obs. with a large st. resid.
MTE-1
'rTi
R denotes ar, obs. with a large st. resid.
LMTB ) let c6=c2**3

) regress cl I c6
IThe repression equation is

C1 = 95.8 - 0.0187 C6
f Pred ict or
Const ant
Coef Stdev t-rat io
95. 826 1. 445 66.33
C6 -0.018739 0.001004 -18.67
Is = 3.193 R-sq = 98.6% R-sq(adj) = 98. 3%
(rnalysis .:-,f Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
ress i or, 1 3553*. 0 355 .
Error 5 51.0 10.2
,'otal 6 3604.
MTB>
I
I
Nf~ile LP~rJ4
I TA> 73 1
P,> 68 4
DIA-,A> end
11 ROWS READ
S87. 8 - 6.90 C2
-3red ict c,r Ccef Stdev t-ratic,

* C.,r,
nst art 87. 756 5. 851 15. 00
-6.900 1.484 -4.65
10.12 R-sa = 70.6% R-so(adj) 67.3%
n-,alysas of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
S'eqess i c 1 C216. 3 2116. 3
r r9 922. 4 102. 15
Fotal 10 3138.7
TB>
,E7 ) let c3c-*I.5

llTP > regress ci I c3
the regressiorn eauatior, is

"1 = 81.9 - E.45 C3
-'redI ct f.r C,-,ef Stdev t-rat io

n:,st ar, t 81. 934 5.448 15.04
-:.24537 0.6060 -4.05
[ = 1. 12 R-sq 64.6% R-sa(adj) 60.6%
K'rilysis of Variar,ce
S;OURCE DF SS MS
L:grpsslon I 2026.4 2026.4
Erro.r 9 1112. 3 123.6
Sota l 10 3138.7
I
•*TE ) regress cl 1 c4
The regression eQuation is

C1 = 78.9 - 0. 921 C4
P red ict or Coef Stdev t-rat ic.

Ccr,st ant 78. 867 5. 227 15. 09
C4 -0. 9213 0. 2477 -3.72
s = 11.72R R-sa = 60.6% R-sq(adj) = 56.2%
(nrialysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
!,enressior, 1 1901.7 1901.7
Irrc, r 9 1237.0 137.4
rotal 10 3138.7

*Jbs. C4 CI Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
1 0.0 100.00 78.87 5.2,3 21.13 2..O1R
R denotes an c, bs. with a large st. resid.
regress cl 1 c5
The regressiorn eau-at ion is

= 7 7. - 0. 37 C5
-red ctor Coef Stdev t-rat io

Constant 77. 069 5. 100 15. 11
(75 -0.3569 0.1014 -3.52
- 12.!2 R-so = 57.9% R-sq(adj) = 53.2%
i)rilySiS of Variance
i OURCE U= SS MS
,ýPcressic, r, 1 1817.7 1817.7
S
Error 9 1321.0 146.8
-ota1 10 3138.7
Unriisual Observat ir-:ris

1 0.0 100.00 77.07 5.10 2:2..93 2.09R
denotes arn obs. with a large st. resid.
I
OREGON

PAVEMENTS


i
D)ATA> 80 8
DATA> 77 ja
DATA> end
3 ROWS READ
> regress cl I c
The regression eauation is

CI = 99.0 - 2.i00 C2
Pred ict or Coef Stdev t-rat ic

Const arit 99. 000 3. 606 27. 46
C2 -2. 0000 0. 4330 -4. 62
3. 742 R-sa 95.5% R-sq(adj) = 91.0%
rnalysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
erqressi,-,cr, 298. 67 298. 67
rrr 1 14. 00 14.00
"otal 312. 67
MTB >
,ITF3 > ioCt cl ca
-- *
98. 0+
Ci
91. 0+
84. 0÷
-- *
77.0+ *
---------- +------------ ------------ +------------------------- C2

0.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5
I
S~I
I
j COMBINED

PAVEMENTS

t-ratio (Predictability of the dependent variable from the inL..pendent variable)

I
I
YITB ) regress cl 1 c2
The regressior, equation is

.1 = 105 - 3.62 C2
Predictor Coef Stdev t-ratio

coristarnt 105. 396 5.544 19.01
C-2 -3.6220 0. 6513 -5.56
9.768 R-sq = 81.-5% R-sq(adj) = 78.9%
t'ralysis of Variance
IOURCE DF SS MS
Feieress i -ri 1 2950.3 3 2950. 3
Error 7 667.9 95.4
Total 8 3618.2aP
Unusual Observat ionrs

Tbs. C2 Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
7 15.0 34.00 51.07 6.21 -17.07 -2.26R
:r ierctes anr os. with a large st. resid.
TB>
ne regressiro eOUcIation is
.1: = 101 - 0. 956 C3
-Jred tct r Coef Stdev t-rat iC

nrst art 101. 324.921 25. 84
-0.9560 0.1334 -7.17
= 7.874 R-sq = 88.0% R-sq(adj) = 86.3%
-Iralysis cf Variance
E'OURCE DF SS MS
'ýenressionr 1 3184. 2 3184.2
;-'rcr 7 434.0 62. 0
8 3618. 2,
jrusual Observat icns

C3
£ns. C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
58.1 34.00 45.79 5.50 -11.79 -2.09R
41.F6 77.00 61. 59 3.72 15.41 2.22R
• dentoes an, obs. with a large st. resid.
. >
I
j•TP > regress cl 1 c4
The regressicor equation is

Vl = 98.7 - 0. 53 C4
?d ict or Coef Stdev t-rat iC

Locrostarnt 98.744 3.116 31.69
124 -0.25260 0.02972 -8.50
s = 6.757 R-sq = 91.2% R-sq(adj) 89.9%
-nraIysis of Variance
.OURCE DF SS MS
Regressin 1 3298. 6 3298.6
Errc.-r 7 319.6 45.7
:ota a 8 3618. 2
Jnrusual Observat icros

Obs. C4 Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
9 144 77.00 62. 37 3.10 14.F63 2.44R
Sdenotes an cbs. with a laroe st. resid.
ýTB ý
"CT > regress cl 1 c5
Sregressiorn eouatirrt is
96. 9 - 0. 0666 C5
bred ict cr Ci-,ef St dev t -rat ic

X,-rnst ant 96. 929 a. 705 35. 83
-0. 066577 0. 007095 -9. 38
= 6.170 R-sq = 92.6% R-sa(adj) = 91.6%
raiysis of Variance
SDURCE DF SS MS
ýReqressicn 1 3351.77 351.7
r 7 266.5 38.1
1ta. 8 3618. 2.
,rl sual Observat icrs

lbs. C5 Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
9 499 77.00 63. 72E. 72 13. 21 a. 40R
Sderc.ztes ar obs. with a large st. resid.
>
IT
ne reoressior, equation is
-1 = 95.5 - 0.0175 C6
?dictor Ccef Stdev t-rat ioC

-_,rist art 95. 550 2. 528 37. 80
,6 -0.017478 0.001800 -9.71
s = 5.977 R-sq = 93. 1% R-sq (adj) = 92. 1%
•ialysis of Variarnce
OULJRCE DF SS MS
ýegressicr,
r 3368. 1 3368. 1
Error 7 250. 1 35.7
orl8 3618. 2
Jrusua 1 Observat jcrs

ý'bs. CE CI Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
3375 34. 00 36. 56 4.94 -2. 56 -0. 76 X
"" 1728 77.00 65.35 2.53 1 1. 65 2. 15R
SdLer,,ctes ar, cbs. with a 1arge st. resid.

Sder.-,tes an c:,bs. whose X value gives it large influence.
- > re,:ess cl 1 c7
9 reuressir, e~quat icrl is

= 94.4 - 0.00457 C7
)ec ctor Coef Stdev t-rat ic

c st ar,t 94. 443
4. 497 37.82
-0.0045691 0.0004781 -9.56
= 6.066 R-sq 93.9% R-sQ(adj) = 91.9%
Pralysis of Variarnce
-OURCE DF 9S MS
essir, 1 3360.6 3360. 6
7 257. 6 36. 8
-,tal 8 3616.2
'.!r suai Observatic, rs

ibs. C7 CI Fit Stjev.Fit Residual St.Resid
3 :3071 34.00 34. 7 5.19 -0.72 -0. a3 X
dertes a, cs. whcse X value OivF .t large influence.
I
cfTco#ý,Jgx, "qo~-
rTA> 73 1
FA) 68 4
DATA> end
11 ROWS READ
MTB > regress cl 1 C2
i The regression equation is

CI = 87.8 - 6.90 C2
rred.i ctc,-r Coef Stdev t-rat ic.

Cornstarnt 87. 756 5. 851 15. 00
-6. 900 1.484 -4.65
is 10.12 R-sq = 70.6% R-so(adj) = 67.3%
4r•,alysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
enress ic, r• 1 16. 3 2216.3
-_trort 9 922.4 10'. 5
rTtal 10 3138.7
'TEP ) let c3=c2**1. 5

'-TB > regress cl 1 c3
the recressior, eouation is

CI = 81.9 - 2.?45 C3
3red i ct or Coef Stdev t-rat ic.

Corst ant 81. 934 5.448 15.04
-2. 4537 0. 6060 -4. 05
S = 1 1. 12•R-sa = 64.6% R-sq (adj ) = 60. 6%
I nraIysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
f'egression 1 2026. 4 2026.4
E7rr 9 1112..3 123.6
I,-t a 1 10 3138.7
I >
) let
I
IThe regr-essior, equation is
CI = 78.9 - 0. 921 C4
Dred ict or Coef Stdev t-rat io

istant 78.867 5. 227 15. 09
,-, -0. 9213 0. 2477 -3.72
s = 11.72 R-sq = 60.6% R-sq(adj) = 56.2%
[rialysis of Variance
SU-CE DF SS MS
Regressior, 1 1901.7 1901.7
i|-rot~
"rota1
9
10
1237.0
3138. 7
137.4
SJr, usual Observatiors

Jbs. C4 C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
1 0.0 100.00 78.87 5.23 21.13 2.01R
IR denotes art obs. with a large st. resid.
ITB >
7B > regress cl 1 c5
-. e regression equation is
CI = 77.1 - 0.357 C5
" red i ct or Coef Stdev t-rat io

Constrant 77. 069 5.100 15.11
•5-0. 3569 0. 1014 -3.52
S = 12. 12 R-sq = 57.9% R-sq(adj) = 53.2%
,ratlysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
.enressicr, 1 1817.7 1817.7
rrc, r 9 1321.i0 146.8
Total 10 3138.7
i iLnusual Observations
O)bs. CS C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
1 0.0 1L.00 77.07 5.10 22.93 2.09R
denotes art obs. with a large st. resid.
I
I
LTA> 80 8
,A>77 12
ATA> end
19 ROWS READ
MTEB > regress cl 1 c2
the regressicri equationl is

CI = 82. 2 - 2. 02 C2
tred ict or Coef Stdev t-rat iC

-onstant 82. 206 7.233 11.37
C2 .•0170 0.9877 -_. 04
S= 18.40 R-sc = 19.7% R-s3(adj) 15.0%
ralysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
earessir, 1 1411.5 1411.5
trrCr 17 5753.7 338.5
,ota 18 7165.2
I
MTE >
I
!*TEA ) rert-ess cl 1 c3
he regression eoLuat icn is

"3 = 78.8 - 0.494 C3
t red Ict or Ccef Stdev t-rat iC

c-ristrant 78. 761 6.147 12.81
-0.4937 0.2556 -1.93
1 18.59 R-sq = 18.0% R-sq(adj) = 13.2%

Iralysis of Variance
zOURCE DF SS MS
Reoression 1 1289.4 1289.4
1 -ror 17 5875.7 345.6
otal 18 7165.2
Inusual Observations
Cbs. C3 Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
3 58.1 34.00 50.08 11.26 -16.08 -1.09 X
fdenotes an obs. whose X value gives it large influence.
I :NNW
J > regress cl 1 c4
IThe eouation
ereression is
_1 = 77.1 - 0.128 C4
r edictcor Coef Stdev t-rat io

-z, nstaant 77. 089 5.615 13. 73
C(4 -0.12826 0.106775 -1.89
S = 18.66 R-sq = 17.4% R-sq(adj) = 12.6%
nrialysis of Variance
I SOURCE DF SS MS
!Regressior 1 1247. 5 1247. 5
17 5917.7 348.1
18 7165. 2.
UnruL~sual Observations
ibs. C4 C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
225 34.00 48.23 12.37 -14.23 -1.'2 X
denotes an obs. whose X value gives it large influence.
MTB >
.,rITB > regress cl 1 c5
-2 regression eOLuatiori is
C1 = 76.1 - 0.0342 C5
)redictor Coef Stdev t-rat ic,

Corst ant 76. 137 5. 301 14.36
-0.03418 0.01804 -1.89
s = 18.65 R-sq = 17.4% R-sq(adj) = 12.6%
-•ralysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
Segression 1 1249. 1 1249. 1
S:rror 17 5916.1 348.0
,-r*,tal 18 7165.2
jnusual Observations
S s. C5 C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
871 34.00 46. 35 13. 30 -12.35 -0. 94 X
-K denotes ar obs. whose X value gives it large influence.
ITEB >
I
I
WASHINGTON
SLURRY SEAL
PAVEMENTS


I
I
S> •regress cl 1 c.2
he regression equation is
•1 = 79. 1 - 1. -23 C2ý
-redjctor Coef Stdev t-rat io

-onistart 79.078 6.631 11.92
-S11. 2300 0.5589 -".20
S 14.50 R-s = 24.4% R-sq(adj) = 19.4%
LOURCE DF SS MS
Regressiorn 1 1018. 1 1018. 1
-rr,or 153153.5 210.2
ora1 16 4171.5
Irusual Observatiorns
ICbs. C l Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
15 8.0 40.00 69.a4 3.70 -29.24 -2.09R
denotes an, obs. with a larce st. resid.
MTB >
ATrA> 833 2
,PTA) 77 6
.'TA) end
11ROWS READ
TB > rearess cl 1 c:
he regressionr enautaltor, is
I = 92'.6 - a.08 C2
"Frd ictor' C,:ef Stdev t-rat io

C,c,rtst art 9E. 568 3. 076 30. 09
c - 2. 0833 0.27,44 -8.89
= 5. 343 R-so = 89.8% R-sq(adj) 88.6%
,ralysls of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
1 255. 2 55.2
-egressicnr,
rrcor 9 256.9
Tctal 10
QA2512.2
I
4)
I
I i
WY;B > regress cl 1 c3
IThe regression equatiorn is

87.3 - 0.418 C3
i
redictor Coef Stdev t-rat ic
2ronst ant 87. 275 3. 124 27. 94
(-3 -0.41799 0.05729 -7.30
Is = 6.354 R-sq = 85.5% R-sq(adj) = 83.9%
(r, alysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
Regressiorn 1 2148.9 2148.9
Urror 9 363.3 40.4
rot a 1 10 2512."
JnusuLal Observat ionrs

tbs. C3 C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
1 0.0 100.00 87.27 3.12 12.73 2.30R
:R denotes an o.bs. with a large st. resid.
MTB8
I
iTF' regress cl I c4
I regression eQuat iorn is

(:l = 84.1 - 0.0861 C4
fr red i ct.:.r Coef Stdev t-rat ic

Corst ant 84. 102 3.232 26.03
174 -0.08608 0.01382 -6.23
s = 7.249 R-sq = 81.2% R-sq(adj) = 79.1%
J rnalysis cf Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
Reqressiors 1 2039.3 2039. 3
Error 9 472. 9 52.5
rTotal 10 2512.2
I inusual Observatlons
lbs. C4 C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
1 0 100.00 84. 10 3.23 15.90 2.45R
"ýR denotes ar, obs. with a large st. resid.
1 MTE-)
I
I
r-egr'ess ci 1 c5
The r-egression eouationr is

= t2. - 0.0LA1860 C5
_•d i ct or Coef St iev t -rat ic.

onstant 82. 029 3.333 24. 61
.ý5 -0. 018009 0. 003259 -5. 53
= 7.97- R-sc 77. 2% R-sq(adj) 74.7%
I3OURCE DF SS MS
Reoress icor 1 1940..2 1940.2
Errr 9 572. 0 63.6
c'tal 10 2512.2
Urnusual Observations
2bs. C5 Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St. Resid
1 0 100.00 82.03 3.33 17.97 2.48R
R dernotes an obs. with a large st. resid.
iTP
OREGON
SLURRY SEAL
PAVEMENTS


I
I
TA)>
5 1
645 rA>
DATA> end
7 ROWS READ
MTB > rress ci 1 c2
jhe rearession eLuationr is

CI = 83.0 - 3.94 C2
j red i ct or Coef Stdev t -rat ic

ýonrst ar,t 82. 967 6. 853 12. 11
(22 -3. 939 1.890 -2.08
s = 11.16 R-sq 46.5% R-so (ads) 35.8%
1 walysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS M.
qe~ressior 1 540. 7 540. 7
-rcr 5 622.7 124.5
rot a 6 1163.4
MTB' >
IV'TB let c3=c2*-i.5

'1TB ) reoress cl i C.
The regressi-r ecouatlr, is

-1 = 79.9 - 1.37 C3
P~red ict cr C,-,e f Stdev t-rat ic

-. cr'stant 79. 413 6.684 11.96
-I 3'714L
.-. 0.68105 -1.69
= 12.17 R-so = 36.4% R-so(adi) 23.6%
1'ralysis -f Variance
,SOURCE DF SS MS
eqeressI _r, 1 423. 1 423. 1
Err,-rr 5 740.3 148.1
Total 6 1163.4
I
i'jITB > let c4=c2-**2
i > reoress cl 1 c4
1
The regressior ecuationr is
CI = 78.5 - 0.516 C4
PJredictor 78 f Stdev t-ratic

Ccrst ar, t 78. 492 6. 590 11I. 9i1
C4 -0.5157 0.3443 -1.50
js = i=. 67 R-sq = 31. 0% R-sQ(a•i) 17.2%
Arialysis cf Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
Regressicr 1 360. 3 360.3
Err, 5 803.1
Tc ta1 6 1163.4
MTB
i1TB let c5=c--.**E5

r'1,TE regress cl I c5
Fr-e regressir, eOuatior is

S= 77. 7 - 0. 201 C5
DredIctor Coef Stdev t-rat 1o

Corst ant 77. 672 6. 554 1 1. 85
C5 -0.2008 0.1462 -1.37
1.00
3= R-so = 27. 4% R-sQ (ad)1 12. 9%
.Analysis cf VarLarce
SOURCE DF SS MS
Re'aressior, 1 318.7318.7
Error 5 844.7 168.9
•otta1 6 1163.4
MTE4
I
i
IDATA) 65 1
DATA> 64 5
DATA> end
6 ROWS READ
reoress ci 1 c2
UFhe rearesslon equatiorn is

I = 72.7 - 1.70 C2
IPredictor Coef Stdev t-rat ioC

const ant 72. 658 4.874 14.91
C2 -1.697 1.245 -1.36
Is 6.265 R-so 31.7% R-sa (adj) 14.7%
Analysis of Variarce
ISOURCE DF SS MS
Rearession 1 72.99 72.99
Error 4 157.01 39. 2,5
Tc. ta 1 53 . 00
3
= ) let c =c2**1. 5
Y!TBE regress cl i c3
,e regression eciuationr is
1C = 7 1. 2 -0. 606 C3-
,)red i ct cr C,-ef St dev

Co, t an~t t -rat io
71.C-33 4. 190 I"7.00
-0.6064 0.4704 -I.29
S=-6.37 R-S ,9.'4% R-so(adj) 11.7%
Sriayvsis o-f Variance
RCE D SS MS
-e r s, 'Dr,
-,ISS E7. 51 F
67. 5
4 16. 9 4L.
_. 230. 00
I
,4, • , , ,i i ,
A4i s 7 t
-ýeicwr o=-,St cev t -rat 1:C

-stat 70Z.5- 1.z058~ 17. Sca
-0. WD cu -0~8
DCLJRC.E Dr-S
A'eoress1: r, uC. 89 60'. W)
4 U1.141 4a
r-)ecte c c.2l .
')-, 2 ecce s ,--n en atc1 -
-=7v. - - 0.0 8 Cýý
-~ed icto :'- ef Stdeiv t -rati1c.

crnstant 70.0s,';. 3.876 18.0~E
C5 ~~-0. 0E8430.86
.- rin1ysis of Varianrce
ISDURCE DF WS
R~egressiorn I 53.76 53.7E.
-Rrio- 4 176.2~44. E
5a.
-3 .
?T
COMBINED
SLURRY SEAL
PAVEMENTS

Notes: c 1 represents the dependent variable PCI.

!
r-egressionr, equation is
k1 = 74.9 - 0.978 C2
Predictcor Coef Stdev t-ratico

|ronst ant 74.908 4.502 16.64
, 2-et. 9784 0. 4331 _2.•_2F
S=:12.99 R-sq 19.5% R-sq(adj) 15.7%
FPriaIysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
Errcor 21 3541.4 168.6
2
otal 22 4401.9
Urusual Observat iors

]bs. C2 CI Fit Stcdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
1 0.0 100.00 74.91 4.50 25.09 2.06R
5 s8.0 40.00 67.08 2.71 -27.08 -2.13R
cdenotes an obs. with a large st. resid.
MTBS >
-ne regressior, eQuatior, is

C1 = 72. 6 - 0. 200 C3
Sred ict c.r Coef Stdev t-rat io

orstart 72.585 3.641 18.90
-0. 20018 0.09310 -2.15
= 13.11 R-sq = 18.0% R-sq(adj) = 14.1%
rnalysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
iegresscor, 1 794.3 794.3
Srrr 21 3607.6 171.8
',:,t a 1 22 4401.9
3rusual Observationrs
?ts. C3 C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
1 0.0 100.00 72.58 3.84 27.42 2.19R
3 96.2 55.00 53.32 6.83 1.68 0. 15 X
5 96.2 43.00 53.32 6.83 -10.32 -0.92 X
22.6 40.00 68.06 2.80 -28.06 -2.19R
_oNTINUE'
jCl = 71.5 - 0.0436 C4
-?dictor Coef Stdev t-ratio

"I'stant 71.498 3.514 20.35
C-4 -0. LA4364 0. 02041 -2. 14
s = 13.12 R-sq = 17.9%. R-sqtadj) = 14.0%
Irialysis of Variance
,.SOURCE DF SS MS
Error 21 3615.0 172.1
Total 22 4401.9

1 0 100.00 71.50 3.51 28.50 2.25R
3 441 55.00 52.25 7.33 2.75 0.25 X
5 441 43.00 52. 7.32 -9.25 -0.85 X
15 64 40.00 68.70 2.83 -28.70 -2.24R
CONTINUE?
recQressior, ecuatlion is
CI = 70.9 - 0.00973 C5
Ored ict or Coef Stdev t-rat io

Corst art 70. 886 3.324 21. 32
E5 -0. 009729 0. 004497 -a. 16
S = 13.09 R-sq = 18.2% R-sq(adj) = 14.3%
-Thalysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
Rýegressior 1 80a.3 802.3
Error :1 3599.6 171.4
Fotal 2E 4401.9
ýDns. C5 ci Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
1 0 100.00 70.89 3.32 29.11 2.30R
2021 55.00 5 1. ='2 7.69 3.78 0.36 X
5 2021 43.00 51. 22" 7.69 -8.22 -0.78 X
15 181 40.00 69.12 2.94 -29.12 -2.28R
CONTINUEn
I
I _•regression equatiorn is
Cl 74.9 - 1. 19 CL'

Cnst ant 74. 890 4.168 17.97
C2 -1.1871 0.4152 -2.86
S = 12.00 R-sq = 30.1% R-sq(adj) = 26.4%
f SOURCE DF SS MS
Error 19 2735.9 144.0
20 3913.0
I Fotal
b 0.0 100.00 74.89 4.17 25.11 2.23R
13 8.0 40.00 65.39 2.62 -25.39 -2.17R
MTP >

Cl = 71.9 - 0.234 C3

Ccnstant 71. 928 3.628 19.83
-0. 23366 0.09011 -2.59
s = 12.33 R-sp = 26.1% R-sq(adj) = 22.3%
Anialysis of Variance
i-SOURCE DF SS MS
Regression 1 102-2. 8 1022. 8
Error 19 2890.2 152. 1
,otal 20 3913. 0
(]Js. C3 Cl Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
1 0.0 100.00 71.93 3.63 28.07 2.38R
55.00 49.44 6.79 5.56 0.54S96.EX
5 96.2 43. 00 49.44 6.79 -6.44 -0.63 X
3 221.6 40.00 66.64 2.72 -26.64 -2.21R
I 4TINUE?
I
:1 =70.5 - 0.0487 C4
?d i ct or Coeif Stdev t-ratico

Iorstant 70. 529 3. 383 20.85
124 -0.04873 0.01984 -2.46
= 12.50 R-sq = 24.1% R-sq(adj) = 20.1%
3OURCE DF SS MS
Error 19 2970. 1 156.3
(otal 20 3913.0
°3bs. C4 C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
1 0 100.00 70.53 3.38 29.47 2.45R
3 441 55.00 49.04 7.28 5.96 0.59 X
5 441 43.00 49.04 7.28 -6.04 -0.59 X
13 64 40.00 67.41 2.82 -27.41 -2. 25R
CONTINUE?
a- regression equation is
C1 = 69.8 - 0.0104 C5
3red actc-r Coef Stdev t-rat io

Const ant 69. 759 3.252 21. 45
25 -0.010437 0.004383 --. 38
s = 12.59 R-sq = 23.0% R-sq(adj) 18.9%
-malysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
Regression 1 899. 3 899. 3
rrror 19 3013.7 158.6
Total 20 3913.0
Jrusual Observations
1 0 100.00 69.76 3. 25 30.24 2.49R
3 2021 55.00 48.67 7.63 6.33 0.63 X
5 2021 43.00 48.67 7.63 -5.67 -0.57 X
13 181 40.00 67.87 2.91 -27.87 -2. 27R
CONTINUE'
I
I
WASHINGTON PCC PAVEMENTS

Notes: cI represents the dependent variable PCI.

I
I
,I
I
> regress cl 1 c2
* The regressiorn eauatior, is

'CI = 99.5 - 0.884 C2
i Predict or Coef Stdev t-rat io

Constant 99.51 23.19 4.29
C2 -0.8839 0.5238 -1.69
= 23.51 R-sq = 18.0% R-sq(adj) 11.7%
SOURCE DF SS MS
Regression 1 1574.3 1574.3
Error 13 7186.6 552.8
iTotal 14 8760.9
Unusual Observat ionr~s

ibs. C: CI Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
1 0.0 100.00 99.51 23.19 0.49 0.13 X
x denotes anr obs. whose X value gives -it large irnfluernce.
MTE )
MTEB4 > regress cli c3
'he rearessi,-,n ea'.Aat ion is

Cl = 98.5 - 0.1E7 C3
Lred ictor Coef Stdev t-rat iC

COorstant 98. 47 "2. 86 4. 31
-0. 12696 0.07614 -1.67
= -3. 56 R-sq = 17.6% R-sq(adj) 11.3%
-Aralysis cf Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
S•eqressicr 1 1543.6 1543. 6
"Frr.r 13 7217.- 555.2
-tal 14 8760.9

1 0 100.00 98.47 2a.86 1.53 0.27 X
x denotes an obs. whose X value gives it large inrfluerce.
i
MTB > regre:s cl 1 c4
iThe regressior, equation is

= 97.0 - 0, 0180 C4
Predict Coef Stdev t-ratio

Constant 97.02 22.43 4. 33
C4 -0.01800 0.01101 -1.64
Is = 23.64 R-sq = 17.1% R-sq(adj) = 10-7%
,nalysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
Regression 1 1494.3 1494.3
13 7266.7 559.0
To~tal 14 8760.9
I Jnusual Observat ions
Jbs. C4 C1 Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid

1 0 100.00 97.02 22.433 2.98 0.40 X
X denotes an obs. whose X value gives it large influerce.
MTB>
'ITB > regress cl 1 c5
.e regressior, equat ion is

C 1 = 95. 3 - 0. 00252 C5
Pred ict,:,r Coef Stdev t-rat io

Const ant 95. 25 21.92 4.35
17 -0. 002522 0.001584 -1.59
= :3. 75 R-sq 16.3% R-sq(adj) = 9.9%
iAnalysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS
iRegressior' 1 1430.5 1430.5
Error 13 7330.4 563.9
Total 14 8760.9
Jnusual Observations
1 0 100.00 95.25 21.92 4.75 0.52 X
X denot es an obs. whose X value gives it large influence.
MTE4
I
-i!
OREGON PCC PAVEMENTS


I
A' A> 94 i
DATA> 78 5
.A-TA > end
3 ROWS READ
regress cl 1 cI
1 Fn- regressiorn etPuatior, is

:1i = 99.2• 4. 29 C2'
-red ict or Coef Stdev t-rat iC.

Soristant 99. 2381 0..971.? 102. 18
21 -4. 2857 0. 3299 - 12:. 9 9
11. 234 R-sa 99.4% R-so.(adj) = 98.8%
qr,•lysis of Variance
I 3OURCE DF SS MS
'egressicr 1 257. 14 =,57. 14
'E•'r r 11. 52 1. 52
ota 1 2558. 67
b'L- ? ,, cl cL
98. QA+
84. 0+
77. 0-
---- +---------
----------------- +---------------+---------
C
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
I mTB>
I
I
1
I
I
I
COMBINED PCC PAVEMENTS
I
I
f
I
I
,IB)regress cl 1I2"'.•C•F
The rearessior ecuatior, is

C1 = 92.4 - 0.731 C2
IPredictor Coef Stdev t-rat i o

C,,nstant 92. 40 13.29 6. 95
(:2 -0.7308 0.3194 -2.29
2.15
2= R-sq = 25.9% R-sq(adj) = 20.9%
iSOURCE DF SS MS
Regression 1 2568.6 2568.6
E
Error 15 7359.5 490.6
ct a 1 16 9928.1

ibs. C2 CI Fit Stdev.Fit Residual St.Resid
1 0.0 100.00 92.40 13.29 7.60 0.43 X
dern otes an, obs. whose X value gives it large inrfluernce.
1,1TB )
.TE, > read c3=c2--2

ERROR * ARGUMENT IS A CONSTANT OR MATRIX. BUT A COLUMN WAS EXPECTED
- ) let c3=c2--2
A ) reoress c' 1 c3
"7ne reioressicn eL-uat in is

'09. - 0.0147 C3
-ec I ctr C,:,ef Stdev t -rat io

,rstant 90.10 12.70 7.09
- -0.014737 0.006638 -R. a2
R-sQ = 24.7% R-sq(ad1) 19.7%
Ar,tlysis of Variance
SOURCE DR SS MS
:Legressi or 1 2455.3 2 2455.3
rr,:,r 15 7472.8 498.2
-t a 16 9928. 1
YTEB
S> let c4=c2**2.5

mrB > regress cl 1 c4
The regressior, eauaticr, is

-1 = 89.5 - 0.00212 C4
•C-ed Ict Coef St dev t-rat io

IF
"22.39
Is R-sQ = 24.3% R-sq(adj) =19.2y
I SOURCE DF SS MS
iression 1 2409.0 2409.0
Ekrrcor 15 7519.1 501.3
TFotal 16 9928. 1
MTB let c5=c2**
MTEB )let c5=c--**3

MTB > regress c! 1 c5
Fhe regression equat ic, is

C1 = 88.8 -0. 000305 C5
,•ed Lct-:.r Coef Stdev t-rat iC.

ristart 88. 82 12. 47 7. 12
-0.0003047 0.0001410 -2.16
s = 2.47 R-so = 23.7% R-so(adj) 18.6%
-ýnralysis of Variance
-JRCE DF S MS
•ressioy 1 2356.,0 2R356. 0
Er-or 15 7572.2.. 504.8
16 9928. 1
I
I
I APPENDIX E
I
I
IDAHO STATE
GENERAL AVIATION
PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY DATA
INCLUDING:
1) AIRPORT LOCATION/DESCRIPTION/SECTION DATA

3) AVERAGE PCI VALUES FOR PAVEMENT FEATURES
c0
0.
LI mLL mzcoC) tl (ni m T -m

Cl' CD~ Cm
m m ~
s00 a ~ OmCM
ON &UCOJ
C- O MC D(
U) o
O 0 O ;
0o "t P~aii
-j~. J co zo 22
<
a,0((01
m 'D222 C-)
CY~~~
m m m ~~
L cn
-ý - -4 c
cz
(5 CdU oc DC d( C 0.LIL
0r 65 a 6 C 6(
0 l )C mC C)C
z 0 o co m m m &O MU ) 0 Cý 0 . nZI 0 .
uimc wU )wc 3CDW
9
W (D Co.) 00CM t
o CM CMC
co ~ 03o~ca
CIIZ
0-
ca~
oo L -
CiCD
-I 0d F
zo cao
0.. <
8
CD ýC
NC¶ CV)
< - -

A 250625

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A 250625

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

A 250625

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ert %V"

THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST

A report submitted in partial fulfillment

Master of Science in Civil Engineering

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER TWO METHODOLOGY AND PCI APPLICATIONS

CHAPTER THREE DATA REVIEW AND ANALYSIS

CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Committee Chairman: Professor J. P. Mahoney

i . m.• • • • • • i , m mmmm m mlm

TABLE TITLE PAGE

3-la Flexible pavements with associated PCI survey results and 25

3-ie Flexible pavement life for pavements constructed after WWUI. 29

3-5 Portland cement concrete pavement PCI results and corresponding 40

TABLE TITLE PAGE

4- la Regression equations for flexible pavement structural sections 46

4-lb Regression equations for flexible pavement structural sections 49

4-id Regression equations for flexible pavements less than 3 inches 55

4-Ig Pavement LIFE characteristics for pavements constructed during 59

4-3a Regression equations for flexible pavement structural sections with 65

TABLE TITLE PAGE

4-3c Pavement LIFE characteristics for bituminous surface treatments 69

FIGURE TME PAGE

1-1 Pavement Life Cycle typical performance curve compared to 6

2-1 Example model of PCI vs AGE for ,riy pavement showing 14

2-3 Airport Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and Rating Scale 17

4-la Washington PCI vs AGE for 2 - 3 inches AC on 6 - 8 inches base 47

4- lb Oregon PCI vs AGE for 2 - 3 inches AC on 6 - 8 inches base. 47

4-Ic Combined PCI vs AGE all pavements 2 - 3 inches AC on 6 - 8 48

4-2a Washington PCI vs AGE for 2 - 3 inches AC on greater than 8 50

4-2b Oregon PCI vs AGE for 2 - 3 inches AC on greater than 8 inches 50

4-2c Combined PCI vs AGE all pavements 2 - 3 inches AC on greater 51

4-3a Washington PCI vs AGE for greater than 3 inches AC on any 53

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

4-5a AC overlays PCI vs AGE for Washington pavements. 62

A Washington State General Aviation Pavement Condition Survey

Includes PCI survey data for Tillamook Airport.

guidance, enthusiasm, and never-ending encouragement were critical to the completion of

invaluable at various stages throughout this project.

evaluating the data acquired.

PRG - PIT RUN GRAVEL

PRB - PIT RUN BASE

SANDS - SAND SEAL

(1) Determine present condition of the pavement in terms of the apparent

(3) Provide feedback on pavement performance for validation and

Pavement condition surveys can evaluate normal distresses in a pavement structure

1.2 THE PROBLEM

After compiling a database, Weisenberger [1] developed pavement performance models,

the modeling methodology used.

rehabilitation. These equations could also be of use in the following areas:

a) pavement life estimates

accomplishment of additional PCI surveys conducted by the Washington Department of

accomplished by Weisenberger [1], only runway pavement conditions will be evaluated.

as five-fold. It is the intent of this paper to (1) provide guideline reference

1.4 REPORT OVERVIEW

appendices follow the closing chapter.

PAVEMENT LIFE CYCLE

FAIR - RENOVATION HERE