ODOT’S PERSPECTIVE ON AASHTOWARE PAVEMENT ME DESIGN OTEC, OCTOBER 3, 2018
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ODOT’S PERSPECTIVE ON AASHTOWARE PAVEMENT ME DESIGNOTEC, OCTOBER 3, 2018
2 |
OVERVIEWo Pavement design historyo Overview of select researcho Climate optionso Initial material libraryo Local validation/calibration
databaseo Challengeso Next steps
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
3 |
CURRENT PAVEMENT DESIGN
o 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures
o Empirical method based on 1958 to 1960 AASHO road test in Ottawa, IL
o 1,114,000 axle load applications during the road test ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
4 |
CRITIQUES OF AASHTO ‘93
o Limited soil type o Different truck
configuration, tires, loading
o Single climateo Material improvemento ESAL traffic characterization
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
5 |
AASHTO ‘93 AND ODOT
o Forensic calculations verified appropriate for lower design ESALs
o Higher volume designs may be overly conservative
o AASHTO ‘93 considered adequate for local agencies in OhioODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
6 |
IMPROVEMENTS TO AASHTO ‘93
o “Calibrated” to ODOTo Ohio specific inputs such as
asphalt material coefficientso Chemical stabilization given
credit in new pavement designo Research completed for long
life and perpetual pavements
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
7 |
TERMINOLOGYo MEPDG
o Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide
o AASHTOWare Pavement ME Designo Software that implements the MEPDG
o Local Calibrationo Calibrating the software for ODOT
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
8 |
AASHTO DOCUMENTS
o 2015 Manual of Practice 2nd
editiono 2010 Local Calibration Guide
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
9 |
WHY IS ME DESIGN NEEDED?
o Extrapolation past loading during the road test (<10 million ESALs)
o More accurately characterize mechanistic response
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
10 |
ANTICIPATED IMPROVEMENTS
o Predict performance of some distresses and smoothness
o Select appropriate pavement thickness and design variables
o More cost effective and reliable pavement designs
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
11 |
WHERE IS THE ANTICIPATED USE?
o Pavement type selection o *New Rigid*o *New Flexible*o Rubblize and rollo Unbonded concrete overlayo Fractured slab: Crack and Seato Whitetopping
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
12 |
HIGHLIGHTS OF ODOT RESEARCH
o 2004 - MEPDG input material properties
o 2009 – Ohio’s validation/local calibration and sensitivity analysis
o 2012 - Axle load spectra traffic characterization
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
13 |
MATERIAL PROPERTIES RESEARCH
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
14 |
MATERIAL PROPERTIES RESEARCH
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
o 28 research projects in Ohio during 20 years evaluated
o Literature review details material related results
o Recommended values or test methods for each hierarchy level and material
15 |
MATERIAL RESEARCH SUMMARY
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
16 |
GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING NCHRP 1-37A M-E DESIGN PROCEDURES IN OHIO
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
Utilized MEPDG version 1.0 software
17 |
DISTRESS SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
o Asphalto Climateo Binder contento Base typeo Thicknesso Traffic composition
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
18 |
DISTRESS SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
o Concreteo Coefficient of thermal expansiono Truck traffic compositiono Climateo Thicknesso Joint spacingo Slab widtho Edge supporto Dowel diameter
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
19 |
LTPP DATA USED
o 14 of 23 concrete sections usedo 12 sections had 9 years of performanceo 2 sections had over 20 years
o 13 of 19 asphalt sections usedo All 13 sections had 9 years of performance
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
20 |
CONCRETE SLABS CRACKED
o % slabs cracked (transverse)
o Recommended validating with more distressed sites
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
21 |
CONCRETE FAULTING
o Transverse joint faulting
o Recommended validating with more distress
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
22 |
CONCRETE SMOOTHNESS
o International Roughness Index
o Recalibration required due to bias in models
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
23 |
CONCRETE FINDINGS
o Transverse slab cracking –recommended validation with higher levels of slab cracking
o Transverse joint faulting –recommended validation with higher levels of joint faulting
o Smoothness – Local calibration required to remove biasODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
24 |
ASPHALT FATIGUE CRACKING
o Wheel track fatigue cracking (% lane area)
o Lack of adequate data for analysis
o Recommended validating with more distress
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
25 |
ASPHALT TRANSVERSE CRACKING
o Thermal cracking
o Recommended validating with more distressODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
26 |
ASPHALT RUTTING
o Rutting
o Recalibration required due to over predictionODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
27 |
ASPHALT SMOOTHNESS
o International roughness index
o Recalibration required due to poor predictionODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
28 |
ASPHALT FINDINGSo Fatigue cracking recommended
validationo Transverse cracking
recommended validating with higher levels of cracking
o Rutting requires local calibration
o IRI requires local calibrationODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
29 |
AXLE LOAD SPECTRA RESEARCH
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
Utilized MEPDG version 1.1 software
30 |
ODOT TRAFFIC MONITORING
o 50 permanent weigh in motion o 93 automated vehicle classifier
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
31 |
TRAFFIC LOAD SPECTRA DEFAULT
o Utilizing research softwareo 6 years (2006 to 2011) data
o Update of default values in future
o Generated defaults by functional class for Ohioo Urban and rural interstate (11 & 1)o Urban and rural principal arterial (14 & 2)o Urban freeway & expressway (12)
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
32 |
TRAFFIC LOAD SPECTRA DEFAULT
o Input files generatedo Hourly traffic percentageo Axles per trucko Monthly adjustment factoro Vehicle class distribution
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
33 |
DESIGN USE TRAFFIC GROWTHo Minimum 20 year for long term
trendso 2008 decreaseo % growth averaged
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
34 |
VALIDATION & LOCAL CALIBRATION
1. Validate the national calibration
2. Local calibration as needed3. Re-validate local calibration
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
35 |
OPTIONS FOR ODOT
o 1 – create 500’ test sections to collect data to validate and recalibrate models
o 2 – utilize already collected pavement management data for validation and recalibration
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
36 |
VALIDATION COMPONENTS
o Distress equaling at least half desired prediction threshold
o At least 3 condition surveys for each section representing a minimum of 10 years
o Represent current design and construction practices
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
37 |
DESIGN USING VALIDATED MODELS
o Asphalto Transverse cracking 40 ft./mi.
o MOP: 500-700 ft./mi.
o Concreteo Joint faulting 0.08”
o MOP: 0.15-0.2”o % slabs cracked 4%
o MOP: 10-15%
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
38 |
MAJOR MODEL CHANGES
o JCP – CTE test procedure change requires model verification
o Asphalt – Rutting change requires recalibration
o Research utilized different software versions/models
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
39 |
AVAILABLE CLIMATE DATA
o Ground Based Weather Stations (NOAA/NWS) 1996 to 2006o 6 to 10 years available
o NARR 1979 to 2015o Use for concrete pavement models.
o MERRA 2 1985 to 2017o Current national calibration used this
data for flexible pavement model recalibration.
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
40 |
ODOT MATERIAL LIBRARY
o Based off values fromo Construction testing recordso ODOT Specification o Pavement Design Manualo Geotechnical investigation - GB1o 2004 materials reporto MEPDG recommendations
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
41 |
ASPHALT MATERIAL LIBRARYo Surface, intermediate, & baseo Statewide average inputs
o Unit weighto Effective binder contento Air voidso Gradationo PG Grade
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
42 |
CONCRETE MATERIAL LIBRARYo Statewide average inputs
o Unit weighto Cement typeo Cementitious material contento Water to cement ratioo Aggregate typeo Curing methodo 28 day modulus of ruptureo Elastic modulus
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
43 |
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL LIBRARY
o Statewide average 304 inputo Resilient modulus
o Statewide average chemically stabilized subgrade input
o Statewide average natural subgrade inputo CBR value
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
44 |
MATERIAL LIBRARY CHALLENGES
o Unknown materials prior to bido Requires average bid material
properties for design analysis
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
45 |
VALIDATION PROJECT DATABASE
o 74 New Flexibleo 37 New Rigid
o 15 UBCOo 11 Rubblize and Roll
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
46 |
PCR DISTRESS DATA
o Gather available PCR datao History available for 1985 to 2017o Annual collectiono PCR categorizes distress into ranges
o PCR is a step progression
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
47 |
3D VEHICLE DISTRESS DATA
o 3D automated distress datao Raw 3D data available 2014 to 2017o System collected every 2 yearso No algorithm in place to define distresses
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
48 |
RIGID DISTRESS DATA
o Faulting (Joints only 0.08-0.1”)o PCR utilizes joints and crackso 8 locations where 0.25” exceeded
o % slabs cracked (5-8%)o PCR utilizes transverse crackingo 8 locations where 10% exceededo Not a direct measure in LTPP distress
measurements or PCR.
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
49 |
FLEXIBLE DISTRESS DATA
o Rutting (0.2 -0.25”)o PCR utilizes rutting but based on extento 10 locations exceed 0.375” without
averaging in 0” locations
o Fatigue Cracking (5-10%)o PCR utilizes wheel track cracking lengtho 28 locations exceed 10% lane area
estimate from PCRo 4 locations exceed a single crack
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
50 |
FLEXIBLE DISTRESS DATA (CONT.)
o Transverse Cracking (250-350’)o PCR utilizes thermal crackingo Block cracking also captures some of the
transverse cracking visibleo 2 Locations where 317’ exceeded
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
51 |
MAINTENANCE CHALLENGES
o Surface treatments and resurfacing practices do not allow distress progression needed for validation
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
52 |
PAVEMENT DISTRESS DATA
o PCR distress progression is necessary in estimating distress development
o Validation sections lack needed distress progression
o Distress levels need to be greater than the standard error in modelsODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
53 |
SMOOTHNESS DATA
o Data available for 1997 to 2017o Data extracted in 0.1 Mile
increments o Collection cycle varies by routeo Mean IRI for segment extracted
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
54 |
CHALLENGES FOR VALIDATION
o Translating PCR distresses into PMED definitions
o Lack of adequate distress for 20 year design life predictions
o Traffic growth %o Analysis sensitivity to material
properties unknown prior to bid
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
55 |
ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES
o Validation and calibration of the models changed with each release
o Quality of results are based on accuracy of input information
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
56 |
VALIDATION NEXT STEPS
o 3D distress third data point collected in 2019
o 3D data anticipated to be processed consistent with ME distress definitions
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
57 |
VALIDATION NEXT STEPS (CONT.)o Anticipated local calibration tool
completion for July 2019 software update release
o Set-up and perform local calibration using newly released tool when available
o PCR or 3D data may be usedo Evaluate the results
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
58 |
VALIDATION NEXT STEPS (CONT.)
o Approx. 17 rigid and 21 flexible projects with 10+ years
o Determine beneficial useso Design analysis toolo Forensic evaluation toolo How does this add value?
o May require additional material testing dataODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
59 |
IMPLEMENTATION IMPACT
o Enhance design features and pavement thickness
o Potential to increase or decrease pavement thickness
o May not increase confidence in pavement designs
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
60 |
KEY POINTS TO TAKE AWAY
o ODOT is progressing on possible implementation efforts
o ODOT is looking for responsible & value added implementation
o ODOT is expecting to validate and calibrate after 2019 in order to determine appropriate implementation/useODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
61 |
?QUESTIONS
Last updated 10/12/2018
ODOT's Perspective on AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design
Related Documents
